Trump says 'only one thing will work' with North Korea

[Thaidream]

It is not impossible to evacuate a large city but in this case it would cause more harm then good. NKorea has theatre conventional missiles which can reach all of South Korea. They have a lot more than artillery but even so modern artillery can go much farther than 25 miles.  In addition, Seoul has a city beneath it  that has vast areas to accommodate the population and is equipped with  food; and other survival accouterments.  Moving the city simply increase the danger not to mention crippling South Korea's economy. Sorry, in this case not a feasible plan. 

[sirineou]

10 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

It is not impossible to evacuate a large city but in this case it would cause more harm then good. NKorea has theatre conventional missiles which can reach all of South Korea. They have a lot more than artillery but even so modern artillery can go much farther than 25 miles.  In addition, Seoul has a city beneath it  that has vast areas to accommodate the population and is equipped with  food; and other survival accouterments.  Moving the city simply increase the danger not to mention crippling South Korea's economy. Sorry, in this case not a feasible plan. 

Not only SK's economy , 

NK might be stupid enough not to notice 51 million people being evacuated, and a 1,4 trilion USD  GDP grinding to a halt. But I am sure Wall Street will notice.  

[flipflop99]

8 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Do you know how many nations are against NK's actions?  100s

 

The UN was started to END such conflicts but you defend a rogue nation that now steps outside the Treaty?  I must say I am STUNNED 

The poster baiting you just doesn't like the USA or its allies. He will defend any nation that embarrasses the USA and western countries. To some extent he has a point, the Military Industrial Complex of the USA and the Politicians who have an interest in it (e.g. Dick Cheney) have a lot to answer for. Its totally undermined the case for the current NK situation - which is indefensible. The poster also  ignores to obvious intention of NK to seek a military reunification of SK (which the N-bomb shield allows NK to still pursue at its pleasure) . I guess he has no problem with SK being denuded of USA support (and the consequences of same)  if that allows the USA to be humiliated for their past indiscretions. I have decided not to respond this posters obvious troll posts. He has a lot of empathy for a sickening tyrant, none for the population of either of the Korea`s or Japan. Not a nice person. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by flipflop99
spelling - as always :(

[ljd1308]

5 hours ago, nontabury said:

Diplomatic solutions have achieved what,over the last 30yrs? If previous US Presidents had come up to the mark, then we would not be in the situation now, were NK is now at the point of being able to nuclear attack the USA.

Peace.....

[ljd1308]

5 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

You are seriously suggesting USA secretly fires missiles over other countries (presumably while they are sleeping?).  Nonsense post with NO supporting evidence but I shall resist suggesting you are STUPID as I have a bit more posting class. Please keep it CIVIL.

It's not much of a secret, where do you think  they tested their nuclear weapons?

Some were done in America, some were done in Canada and alot were done in the Pacific.

 

America has tested over 1300 nuclear weapons.... NK has tested one(maybe 2?). I know who I am more concerned about.

 

But how do you think that missiles fired from ships get to their targets? Any chance they fly over other countries...... And that is not testing.

[ljd1308]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

A common slogan which doesn't say a whole lot.

 

Would depend how one defines winning a war. As in destroying a conventional army? As in "nation building"? As in successfully dealing with insurgency? Fighting an asymmetrical force?

 

Give me an answer for any of them, I suspect it they will all be a fair way in the past......

 

When did America last destroy a conventional army?

When did they build a nation?

When did the successfully deal with insurgency?

When did the defeat and asymmetrical force?

 

War is pointless in all respects except for people to profit off it, every single engagement going back to Carthage(only one I can think of) was settled with negotiation..... Why not negotiate before the money and lives are lost?

 

 

 

 

 

[Golgota]

24 minutes ago, flipflop99 said:

The poster baiting you just doesn't like the USA or its allies. He will defend any nation that embarrasses the USA and western countries. To some extent he has a point, the Military Industrial Complex of the USA and the Politicians who have an interest in it (e.g. Dick Cheney) have a lot to answer for. Its totally undermined the case for the current NK situation - which is indefensible. The poster also  ignores to obvious intention of NK to seek a military reunification of SK (which the N-bomb shield allows NK to still pursue at its pleasure) . I guess he has no problem with SK being denuded of USA support (and the consequences of same)  if that allows the USA to be humiliated for their past indiscretions. I have decided not to respond this posters obvious troll posts. He has a lot of empathy for a sickening tyrant, none for the population of either of the Korea`s or Japan. Not a nice person. 

The only reason NK wants nuke is to be sure its regime won't be toppled. The Kim know perfectly they are no match against the US.any move to invade south korea, with or without nuke would sign the end of the regime. 

Do you really think the USA governement need anyone to make them feel stupid and running like a headless chicken after each tweet from the orange guy? 

Trump way of dealing with NK (or Iran, or pretty anything he tries to achieve) is unfortunately for everybody NOT real estate business. It puts lives at stake, and miscalculation is what everybody fear. It will not push kim to the negociation table, just comfort him in his propaganda and the speech Trump made at the UN is a wonderful gift, a US president saying he will annihilate the NK..what  a glorious piece of propaganda for him.

He continues by showing that even if the NK comes to the negociation table it is is useless because he break deals with countries like Iran...

Then he just ruin what Tillerson try to do behind the curtains...

If this is the art of the deal he should just stay to real estate and let the real politicians play together.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Golgota

[flipflop99]

Sorry I did not  make myself clear. By "Poster" I was not referring to Trump but to one of our fellow posters on this topic who seems overly fond of the Current Leader of North Korea and their often stated aims of enforcing their communism by force on South Korea. 

Trump is a scary quantity and I still cannot fathom what convinced the redneck voters  that he had any real empathy for their situation, petty prejudices and lack of prospects in a nation seeing an ever widening income gap? 

 I too fear miscalculation. I also fear that the current situation will be exploited in a way that will leave the South Korean`s denuded of their militarily support by a  settlement that purports to leave the Korean peninsular de-militarised in ways that the NK will refuse to be verified and can then abuse to its hearts content with tacit support from others that will remain unnamed. Draw your own dots :) 

[flipflop99]

13 minutes ago, Golgota said:

The only reason NK wants nuke is to be sure its regime won't be toppled. The Kim know perfectly they are no match against the US.any move to invade south korea, with or without nuke would sign the end of the regime. 

Do you really think the USA governement need anyone to make them feel stupid and running like a headless chicken after each tweet from the orange guy? 

Trump way of dealing with NK (or Iran, or pretty anything he tries to achieve) is unfortunately for everybody NOT real estate business. It puts lives at stake, and miscalculation is what everybody fear. It will not push kim to the negociation table, just comfort him in his propaganda and the speech Trump made at the UN is a wonderful gift, a US president saying he will annihilate the NK..what  a glorious piece of propaganda for him.

He continues by showing that even if tge NK comes to the negociation table it is is useless because he break deals with countries like Iran...

Then he just ruin what Tillerson try to do behind the curtains...

If this is the art of the deal he should just stay to real estate and let the real politicians plag together.

Sorry I did not  make myself clear. By "Poster" I was not referring to Trump but to one of our fellow posters on this topic who seems overly fond of the Current Leader of North Korea and their often stated aims of enforcing their communism by force on South Korea. 

Trump is a scary quantity and I still cannot fathom what convinced the redneck voters  that he had any real empathy for their situation, petty prejudices and lack of prospects in a nation seeing an ever widening income gap? 

 I too fear miscalculation. I also fear that the current situation will be exploited in a way that will leave the South Korean`s denuded of their militarily support by a  settlement that purports to leave the Korean peninsular de-militarised in ways that the NK will refuse to be verified and can then abuse to its hearts content with tacit support from others that will remain unnamed. Draw your own dots :)

[flipflop99]

28 minutes ago, ljd1308 said:

Give me an answer for any of them, I suspect it they will all be a fair way in the past......

 

When did America last destroy a conventional army?

When did they build a nation?

When did the successfully deal with insurgency?

When did the defeat and asymmetrical force?

 

War is pointless in all respects except for people to profit off it, every single engagement going back to Carthage(only one I can think of) was settled with negotiation..... Why not negotiate before the money and lives are lost?

 

 

When did America last destroy a conventional army? - The First Gulf War

The rest  .... way back in the past, if ever? 

 

 

 

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, flipflop99 said:

 

Sorry I did not  make myself clear. By "Poster" I was not referring to Trump but to one of our fellow posters on this topic who seems overly fond of the Current Leader of North Korea and their often stated aims of enforcing their communism by force on South Korea.

 

I can't talk for that poster and have no love lost for neither The NK or the current US leader, but don]t we agree that what's good for the goose must be good for the gander?

If NK it is the aim of NK to enforce communism on SK , Isn't the stated aim of the west to enforce capitalism on NK?

How about no one enforces anything on nobody? Let systems stand or fall on their own merits.

[Thaidream]

The solution to the puzzle is as follows:

 

1. China or Russia take control of NKorea's nuclear armaments and his missiles.  America gets the right to inspect. In addition China and or Russia guaantee the survival of the Kim regime.

2.  The US withdraws from SKorea and repositions it's division in another country -Japan/Vietnam/Thailand/Singapore.

3.  NKorea and the UN Command sign a peace treaty ending the Korean War.

4.   SKorea agrees to invest in NKorea.

5.   The World Bank and other International organizations are allowed to loan/grant funds to NKorea without Us objection.

6.    All UN sanctions are lifted.

 

To me, this sounds much better than going to war .

 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Find a precedent for evacuating millions of civilians and deserting a capital city under a non-totalitarian regime, and doing so prior to hostilities commencing. Then perhaps you'll have a point.

 

There is no way to affect such a mass evacuation without long drawn preparations, providing alternate shelters and facilities. New locations could not be kept secret, and would not be out of NK's range.

 

A frightened Kim may not be a good idea. Could panic and start his bombardment well before civilians are out of harm's way, for example. 

I don't think Kim wants war. He would lose everything

 

Now, move the civilians and key industries a hundred miles and Kim has a problem.

 

Its been done. Hindus & Seikhs? Germans out of Poland. French fleeing south? Russians fleeing East...

 

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Grouse

[Kieran00001]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

I don't think moving half the population to the south of the peninsula is un-do-able . However judging from Puerto Rico maybe beyond the Americans. It would of course be temporary.

 

Anyway, just thinking outside the box.

 

I think with Kim dynasty gone and their nuclear capability gone it might allow America to go home with some pride for a change and enable Korean reunification ( just like Germany)

 

Just like Germany apart from the major differences like East Germany not having just been defeated by an outside force and them repeatedly asking for reunification?  It is those differences that make the unification of North and South Korea improbable to go like Germany.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Was there a general updates pole? Were all of them of the exact same opinion?

 

I doubt it but it does rubbish your claim that no one asks them, as if we are completely in the dark, when in reality we have a steady stream of people telling us how things are, and people from all ranks.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

You think N Koreans wouldn't prefer the same solution? Of course they would. South Korea is not much different culturally but much wealthier! We're not asking them to link up with China, Japan or Russia! What's not too like?

 

If they were aware of what life was like in the South and had not been indoctrinated into believing that many of the things that are commonplace there are bad, then probably, as it stands no way do the majority in the North want to surrender to the South, and that is what you are talking about, reunification may sound equal but you are expecting the North to give up everything they stand for and adopt the morals of the South, that is surrender not unification.

[connda]

Oh goodie.  Trump is about to usher in nuclear Armageddon.  Guess it's time to break out the Dr. Strangelove DVD for laughs.  

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If they were aware of what life was like in the South and had not been indoctrinated into believing that many of the things that are commonplace there are bad, then probably, as it stands no way do the majority in the North want to surrender to the South, and that is what you are talking about, reunification may sound equal but you are expecting the North to give up everything they stand for and adopt the morals of the South, that is surrender not unification.

Dunno! Better call Baboon, he'll know

[ljd1308]

1 hour ago, flipflop99 said:

 

If that was the case, there would have been no need for a second gulf war...... that is still ongoing

[midas]

Could it be that this is the reason why Trump is only hinting about the possibility of an imminent attack but is not saying anything about who exactly will carry it out?

 

Lawrence Solomon: Why Israel might take out North Korea's nukes

North Korea, in league with Iran, poses an existential threat to Israel — with its tiny land mass, Israel could not withstand a successful nuclear attack  

 

Quote

North Korea’s rhetoric, like its promise earlier this year to unleash a “merciless, thousand-fold punishment” on its enemy, is familiar to us. But the target of the invective may surprise some. That particular threat was levied against Israel, and understandably so. Kim Jong-Un has reason to fear and loathe Israel.

 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-why-israel-might-take-out-north-koreas-nukes

[ljd1308]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

The solution to the puzzle is as follows:

 

1. China or Russia take control of NKorea's nuclear armaments and his missiles.  America gets the right to inspect. In addition China and or Russia guaantee the survival of the Kim regime.

2.  The US withdraws from SKorea and repositions it's division in another country -Japan/Vietnam/Thailand/Singapore.

3.  NKorea and the UN Command sign a peace treaty ending the Korean War.

4.   SKorea agrees to invest in NKorea.

5.   The World Bank and other International organizations are allowed to loan/grant funds to NKorea without Us objection.

6.    All UN sanctions are lifted.

 

To me, this sounds much better than going to war .

 

Who gets to inspect the nuclear weapons of the US...or Russia, China etc?

 

Shouldn't they all have the same rights and conditions?

[bartender100]

1 hour ago, ljd1308 said:

Who gets to inspect the nuclear weapons of the US...or Russia, China etc?

 

Shouldn't they all have the same rights and conditions?

I am glad you are not in charge of anything

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

The solution to the puzzle is as follows:

 

1. China or Russia take control of NKorea's nuclear armaments and his missiles.  America gets the right to inspect. In addition China and or Russia guaantee the survival of the Kim regime.

2.  The US withdraws from SKorea and repositions it's division in another country -Japan/Vietnam/Thailand/Singapore.

3.  NKorea and the UN Command sign a peace treaty ending the Korean War.

4.   SKorea agrees to invest in NKorea.

5.   The World Bank and other International organizations are allowed to loan/grant funds to NKorea without Us objection.

6.    All UN sanctions are lifted.

 

To me, this sounds much better than going to war .

 

 

Me too.

 

Common sense like this is sadly lacking among world leaders though.

[Kieran00001]

2 hours ago, midas said:

Could it be that this is the reason why Trump is only hinting about the possibility of an imminent attack but is not saying anything about who exactly will carry it out?

 

Lawrence Solomon: Why Israel might take out North Korea's nukes

North Korea, in league with Iran, poses an existential threat to Israel — with its tiny land mass, Israel could not withstand a successful nuclear attack  

 

 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-why-israel-might-take-out-north-koreas-nukes

 

If that were the case it would not really make any sense what he said regarding the fact that he was stood surrounded by the military leaders of the US not Israel.

[boomerangutang]

11 hours ago, Golgota said:

Tell that to the Iraki and Lybian people, I am sure they disagree

Even with pockets of misery that blight Iraq and Libya, I venture that, without recent regime changes, most people there would be more miserable than they are today.  It's worth remembering, at the best of times in Dune Countries, things are ok.  In normal times, things are bad. It's a depressed and troubled part of the world.

 

10 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

You are seriously suggesting USA secretly fires missiles over other countries (presumably while they are sleeping?).  Nonsense post with NO supporting evidence but I shall resist suggesting you are STUPID as I have a bit more posting class. Please keep it CIVIL.

Since the 1950's, the US has been flying spy planes over USSR/Russia and several other countries without their permission. Spy planes can readily carry offensive weapons. 

10 hours ago, nontabury said:

Diplomatic solutions have achieved what,over the last 30yrs? If previous US Presidents had come up to the mark, then we would not be in the situation now, were NK is now at the point of being able to nuclear attack the USA.

Diplomatic maneuverings, over the past 30 years, have kept the 2 Koreas from erupting into war.

 

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

If they were aware of what life was like in the South and had not been indoctrinated into believing that many of the things that are commonplace there are bad, then probably, as it stands no way do the majority in the North want to surrender to the South, and that is what you are talking about, reunification may sound equal but you are expecting the North to give up everything they stand for and adopt the morals of the South, that is surrender not unification.

No one really knows what N.Koreans think. They know what they're required to think, and some of the brighter folks there know they've been fed just one side of the story.  

 

One of the biggest threats to Kim's control is info.  N.Koreans (outside of those at the top of the pyramid), are kept in the dark as much as possible.  Getting good info to N.Koreans would be half the battle - toward them overthrowing their stupid leader and/or toward unification.

[flipflop99]

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

I can't talk for that poster and have no love lost for neither The NK or the current US leader, but don]t we agree that what's good for the goose must be good for the gander?

If NK it is the aim of NK to enforce communism on SK , Isn't the stated aim of the west to enforce capitalism on NK?

How about no one enforces anything on nobody? Let systems stand or fall on their own merits.

In principle I agree with you re "that what's good for the goose must be good for the gander".

However,  its not the Policy of the UK Government (the only one I can comment on being British) to enforce Capitalist-ism  on NK. The Policy of the UK is to try and secure an end to the Korean War which is legally still in effect. Only a truce was agreed. Nobody can explain to me why  NK did not come to the negotiation table given that Russia and China would both have guaranteed its security AND Independence back in the 50`s and through to the early "naughties" (spelling),  if it were not for NK`s desire to illegally absorb South Korea (given its recognised as a separate state by the UN, including all the non-aligned nations) . Of course the UK would like to see a free and fair plebiscite in NK but its not stated Policy to "enforce" one and a review of history will reveal the UK Government was willing to deal with the most unpleasant of regimes with no thought of regime change, until the 1990`s - with the exception of Rhodesia and South Africa. Both the later  were states we bore some responsibility for. 

[flipflop99]

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Even with pockets of misery that blight Iraq and Libya, I venture that, without recent regime changes, most people there would be more miserable than they are today.  It's worth remembering, at the best of times in Dune Countries, things are ok.  In normal times, things are bad. It's a depressed and troubled part of the world.

 

Since the 1950's, the US has been flying spy planes over USSR/Russia and several other countries without their permission. Spy planes can readily carry offensive weapons. 

Diplomatic maneuverings, over the past 30 years, have kept the 2 Koreas from erupting into war.

5 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Even with pockets of misery that blight Iraq and Libya, I venture that, without recent regime changes, most people there would be more miserable than they are today.  It's worth remembering, at the best of times in Dune Countries, things are ok.  In normal times, things are bad. It's a depressed and troubled part of the world.

 

Since the 1950's, the US has been flying spy planes over USSR/Russia and several other countries without their permission. Spy planes can readily carry offensive weapons. 

Diplomatic maneuverings, over the past 30 years, have kept the 2 Koreas from erupting into war.

 

 

1. Agreed

2. U2 was completely incapable of carrying any ordinance, in fact in early days of its operations it was touch and go it would even get off the ground with a full fuel load if air density was not perfect. SR71 had no offensive armament either and did not carry the avionics to control them. It didn't even have chaff or flares dispensers. Its main defence was to open the throttle up and apparently ECM suites to break lock - though there are reports this was for post mission analysis of threats not for counter measures. At the speeds the SR71 flew at, deploying any weapon (offensive or defensive) would have be catastrophic for the launching aircraft. So Spy planes overflying NK with WEAPONS (even defensive) no. Combat Reconnaissance aircraft  - possibly, but if it was frequent wouldn't  one would have been shot down by now by North Korea`s ageing  Soviet era Air Defence systems (SA-17 being the most deadly)?    So I doubt it, but its not impossible.

3. Maybe. I suspect its more a case of M.A.D  and the fact if NK lost another  war, following an incursion into SK, the mystic of the Kim regime might have worn off enough to prompt an internal coup. 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Scott
Post taken out of quoted text

[flipflop99]

8 hours ago, ljd1308 said:

If that was the case, there would have been no need for a second gulf war...... that is still ongoing

Disagree. By any military definition the Iraqi Army was destroyed in detail in the First Gulf War. The second Gulf War saw little in the way of actual tactical formation on formation conflict. Within hours hours the Iraqi regime shifted to asymmetric warfare as they did not have the conventional capacity. 

In the 1st Gulf War,  you  just have to look at the impact on Iragi forces during their attempted escape of Kuwait at Mutla Ridge. 

In the same conflict the British 1st Armoured DIV most serious losses were to friendly fire (US Air force) despite destroying over 100 enemy Armoured vehicles and countless "soft" vehicles.

If those two  examples are not a definition of destroying your enemy I don`t know what is? 

Edited October 8, 2017 by flipflop99

[Morch]

15 hours ago, ljd1308 said:

Give me an answer for any of them, I suspect it they will all be a fair way in the past......

 

When did America last destroy a conventional army?

When did they build a nation?

When did the successfully deal with insurgency?

When did the defeat and asymmetrical force?

 

War is pointless in all respects except for people to profit off it, every single engagement going back to Carthage(only one I can think of) was settled with negotiation..... Why not negotiate before the money and lives are lost?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Iraqi armed forced were dispatched into oblivion rather quickly, and without much resistance.

 

Nation building, dealing with insurgency or having a clear success with regard to asymmetrical fighting are issues all conventional armed forces (regardless of nationality) struggle with.

 

It wasn't claimed that the USA excels in all, but that judging outcomes is tied with how goals are defined.

 

And indeed, most wars, especially in this age, end in some sort of negotiation, rather the total annihilation or subjugation of the enemy. That's one of the things making clear cut victories of old a rarity.