North Korea ready to teach U.S. 'severe lesson', says U.N. abused its authority

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

At the risk of repeating myself (yet again) Kim has consistently said that he will defend himself from any attack and hasn't said that he would strike anyone first.  So his threat is to defend himself with striking back if attacked.  Not many countries that haven't said that. 

They've said they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons.  Yet they have.  Like Trump, there is zero credibility there.

[PeCeDe]

12 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

At the risk of repeating myself (yet again) Kim has consistently said that he will defend himself from any attack and hasn't said that he would strike anyone first.  So his threat is to defend himself with striking back if attacked.  Not many countries that haven't said that. 

Ok, so let's all get out of the kitchen because we can't stand the heat, and go play golf because the Buck doesn't stop here. Is that a fair assessment?

[dunroaming]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

They've said they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons.  Yet they have.  Like Trump, there is zero credibility there.

Yes I have conceded that Kim is extremely dangerous and cannot be trusted on anything.  The way he despatches his own relatives is proof of that and if he can be removed it would be a great result.  By the same token he has threatened and blustered many times before but has been careful to not say he will strike the US first.

 

So if the US were to strike first they will be seen as the aggressor and we would never know if Kim would have done the same.  Now if the US did strike, how would they do it? If it is a precision strike on Kim then that wouldn't necessarily  stop the launch of his missiles.  If they went for Kim and the missile sites and military installations then you are talking about thousands of innocent people being killed and you still wouldn't know if Kim would have attacked first. 

 

This whole situation is seriously difficult and like everyone with an opinion, that is all it is and mine is no more valid than anyone else's.

 

 

[craigt3365]

Just now, dunroaming said:

Yes I have conceded that Kim is extremely dangerous and cannot be trusted on anything.  The way he despatches his own relatives is proof of that and if he can be removed it would be a great result.  By the same token he has threatened and blustered many times before but has been careful to not say he will strike the US first.

 

So if the US were to strike first they will be seen as the aggressor and we would never know if Kim would have done the same.  Now if the US did strike, how would they do it? If it is a precision strike on Kim then that wouldn't necessarily  stop the launch of his missiles.  If they went for Kim and the missile sites and military installations then you are talking about thousands of innocent people being killed and you still wouldn't know if Kim would have attacked first. 

 

This whole situation is seriously difficult and like everyone with an opinion, that is all it is and mine is no more valid than anyone else's.

No easy answers.

[dunroaming]

4 minutes ago, PeCeDe said:

Agreed, to steal CraigT's quote. The sin of doing nothing is the deadliest of all the seven sins. It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing.

Charles F. Aked 1916

Yes but (there is always a but with me!) the latest action is the most severe sanctions yet thanks to the backing of China and Russia with China absorbing to biggest cost.  Everyone apart from Trump seems to agree that military action is not the solution and that other methods need to be exhausted first.  China leads the way when it comes to North Korea and that is how it should be. 

[partington]

Um, the truth is North Korea has missiles, which may or may not be able to reach the US, but it does not yet have the capability to make nuclear warheads small enough to fit on them.

 

No-one knows when they will, but a year or two at least is estimated. Not quite time to worry yet.

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Yes but (there is always a but with me!) the latest action is the most severe sanctions yet thanks to the backing of China and Russia with China absorbing to biggest cost.  Everyone apart from Trump seems to agree that military action is not the solution and that other methods need to be exhausted first.  China leads the way when it comes to North Korea and that is how it should be. 

Sadly, with China's leadership, we are where we are today.  Still talking to NK about nuclear weapons.  Some 30 years later....

[lovelomsak]

I think Kim will just wake up one morning and feel the talking is over and push the button. No warning just tired of the bluster and every one questioning him and saying what he can or cannot do.He does not give a rats ass about diplomacy or talk. The war is not over and he will esculate it at his choosing.

[PeCeDe]

I think most of us in the "free world" agree with the US stance that giving way to blackmail is not in the cards, not because we don't want to save the hostages, but because if others see that we give way when push comes to shove, whose next, Iran, Russia, China, and how many more hostages will be paraded before us because we did nothing. China is already doing it in the South China sea, Russia in the Ukraine,  Crimea, and to top it all we paid Iran billions in US currency to keep them quiet. I know it's an intractable problem and the wisdom of Solomon is required, but where is Solomon when you need him?

[dunroaming]

20 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Sadly, with China's leadership, we are where we are today.  Still talking to NK about nuclear weapons.  Some 30 years later....

Yes but (here he goes again!) we are 30 years on and Kim's nuclear capabilities steadily grow but apart from his preening, shouting at the moon and showing off his new weapons as he does every year, there has been no conflict outside of his own tragic domain.  Purely on humanitarian grounds he should be removed but not at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.  They have a hard enough time as it is!

[craigt3365]

Just now, dunroaming said:

Yes but (here he goes again!) we are 30 years on and Kim's nuclear capabilities steadily grow but apart from his preening, shouting at the moon and showing off his new weapons as he does every year, there has been no conflict outside of his own tragic domain.  Purely on humanitarian grounds he should be removed but not at the cost of thousands of innocent lives.  They have a hard enough time as it is!

China has blocked actions in the past.  Luckily, not now.

 

Potentially, Kim has nuclear capabilities.  That's a whole different situation from 10 years ago.  30 years ago.

 

But yes, there are not good solutions.  All due to a maniacal dictator oppressing his people.

[dunroaming]

8 minutes ago, PeCeDe said:

I think most of us in the "free world" agree with the US stance that giving way to blackmail is not in the cards, not because we don't want to save the hostages, but because if others see that we give way when push comes to shove, whose next, Iran, Russia, China, and how many more hostages will be paraded before us because we did nothing. China is already doing it in the South China sea, Russia in the Ukraine,  Crimea, and to top it all we paid Iran billions in US currency to keep them quiet. I know it's an intractable problem and the wisdom of Solomon is required, but where is Solomon when you need him?

Good points.  But (AAAARGH!   I know, sorry) I don't think that it can be called the US stance these days.  Solomon left the building some time ago and the world is certainly in a sorry state.  There is a shift in power houses and a re-alignment is happening.  Moral integrity seems to have gone out of the window and we are all worse off because of it. 

[baboon]

2 hours ago, PeCeDe said:

A well rounded and sensible answer,

but,  eventually all the high minded attempts to negotiate peace fall flat on its collective face, because of ego's and money. Try as we might to "appease" the animal who's flag you fly,  will come to an end, just as it did for Chamberlain in WW2. We can all ask why Japan attacked Honolulu, or Hitler Poland, but eventually after all the arguments to and fro, the fact is it happened and they used every armament they could, in trying to attempt to force the result in their favor. KJI will be no different, and we shouldn't delude ourselves like Chamberlain tried to... the error of his ways became clear after 40 million or more people died.

 

Which brings me back to LA, do we really want the person who's flag you fly to destroy LA and everyone within 500 miles? No, and I know you agree. 

Thanks for at least hearing me out and not responding with the usual philippics I am weary of from others on this thread.

 

You cite Imperial Japan and Hitler's Germany in your reply. One very major difference is that both were expansionist powers, which the DPRK definitely isn't. They have never attacked or invaded a foreign country. 

 

I don't believe for a second that they would attack the US except in retaliation. Of course you are going to quite reasonably answer with 'But can we afford to take that chance?' Well I say yes - They are not an expansionist power, they are a military and economic minnow compared to the US, and know that just one bomb on the US would seal their doom.

 

You took and continue to continue to take that chance with Pakistan, too. Ask yourself honestly when the last time you gave them any thought. This, a country run by religious zealots who have no love lost for the United States. Who shelters Taliban and even bin Laden when he was alive. Why no retaliation against them? Because they are quiet at the moment?

[PeCeDe]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

You took and continue to continue to take that chance with Pakistan, too. Ask yourself honestly when the last time you gave them any thought. This, a country run by religious zealots who have no love lost for the United States. Who shelters Taliban and even bin Laden when he was alive. Why no retaliation against them? Because they are quiet at the moment?

I'm no apologist for Trump or his infuriating behavior, however he may have had a point when he suggested the US put it's head under it's shell and take it's ball home, thus becoming isolationist and leaving the rest of the world to play the game as they may. The US can be confident in the knowledge it can defend itself and all it's territories. When I went to school Britain proudly pointed to all the red on the world map stating with pride the Sun never set on the British empire, and in my opinion they quit that nonsense just in time.  So what would happen if the US just decides to say sorry fella's, this is too hot for us, my family in Wherever Wisconsin is more important to me than anything else. You know what would happen, there'd be a chorus of international voices saying aargh, we're sorry please go point for us again. As always it's much easier sit and criticize when you don't actually have to do the job or pay the price.

Edited August 8, 2017 by PeCeDe
spelling

[baboon]

19 minutes ago, PeCeDe said:

I'm no apologist for Trump or his infuriating behavior, however he may have had a point when he suggested the US put it's head under it's shell and take it's ball home, thus becoming isolationist and leaving the rest of the world to play the game as they may. The US can be confident in the knowledge it can defend itself and all it's territories. When I went to school Britain proudly pointed to all the red on the world map stating with pride the Sun never set on the British empire, and in my opinion they quit that nonsense just in time.  So what would happen if the US just decides to say sorry fella's, this is too hot for us, my family in Wherever Wisconsin is more important to me than anything else. You know what would happen, there'd be a chorus of international voices saying aargh, we're sorry please go point for us again. As always it's much easier sit and criticize when you don't actually have to do the job or pay the price.

Well perhaps they should put it to the test and see what happens. You may well be right and other countries might beg for them to come back and protect them, who knows?

[thaihome]

I find it rather sad that some here seems to think that some sort of unilateral attack on N. Korea with the purpose to keep them from using his nuclear weapons is a viable strategy. Any attack would result in likely some 1 million S. Koreans and potentially several hundred thousand Japanese civilian deaths, without Kim using a single nuclear weapon. That situation has existed for many years. 

 

The only viable strategy is deterrence, and engaging in what Kim knows are idle threats is not a deterrent strategy.  It's stupid strategy. 

TH  

 

[Thechook]

Where does North Korea get their uranium from?  Australia is one of the largest producers of uranium with untapped reserves and it's largest customers are all allies of North Korea, India, China and Russia.

[dunroaming]

9 minutes ago, Thechook said:

Where does North Korea get their uranium from?  Australia is one of the largest producers of uranium with untapped reserves and it's largest customers are all allies of North Korea, India, China and Russia.

Are Russia and India allies of NK?  Russia just signed off on the sanctions as did China.

[baboon]

13 minutes ago, Thechook said:

Where does North Korea get their uranium from?  Australia is one of the largest producers of uranium with untapped reserves and it's largest customers are all allies of North Korea, India, China and Russia.

They have their own deposits in the mountains, I believe. 

[ballpoint]

"North Korea has been stepping up its capacity to mine and mill uranium, new satellite imagery shows, raising fears that Kim Jong-un's regime is trying to expand its stockpile of nuclear weapons".

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-korea-expands-ability-to-mill-uranium-near-border-20150813-giyxim.html

[halloween]

28 minutes ago, Thechook said:

Where does North Korea get their uranium from?  Australia is one of the largest producers of uranium with untapped reserves and it's largest customers are all allies of North Korea, India, China and Russia.

Our politicians are an amazing lot. They won't burn coal because of the greenhouse gasses, but we are the largest exporter in the world. We have more uranium than anyone else, but don't even think about a nuclear power station. No, we are clean and green, and the price of electricity keeps going up and up.

 

If there was an almighty bang at on of DPRKs nuclear plants, will they be able to tell the source of the Uranium? Because it must be mighty tempting to slip in a sneaky shot and claim it was an inevitable accident.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, dunroaming said:

At the risk of repeating myself (yet again) Kim has consistently said that he will defend himself from any attack and hasn't said that he would strike anyone first.  So his threat is to defend himself with striking back if attacked.  Not many countries that haven't said that. 

 

I have this odd feeling that if he IS attacked first then he will have nothing to lose anyway and he will let loose whatever he has left and won't care which way it will go. Assuming of course that he has anything to fire back with.

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, halloween said:

Our politicians are an amazing lot. They won't burn coal because of the greenhouse gasses, but we are the largest exporter in the world. We have more uranium than anyone else, but don't even think about a nuclear power station. No, we are clean and green, and the price of electricity keeps going up and up.

 

If there was an almighty bang at on of DPRKs nuclear plants, will they be able to tell the source of the Uranium? Because it must be mighty tempting to slip in a sneaky shot and claim it was an inevitable accident.

If your country is Australia then yes, it is the largest exporter of coal in the world.

[sweatalot]

Kim   "... hasn't said that he would strike anyone first.  "

And are you sure you can trust him?

While it would not make much sense for him to start an attack on the US - (btw what about South Korea?) - does he appear to be a trustworthy character? One where the world can rest in peace when he has the nukes?

 

 

[Jonmarleesco]

Kim weirdo hairdo, just more at the back.

[dunroaming]

42 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

Kim   "... hasn't said that he would strike anyone first.  "

And are you sure you can trust him?

While it would not make much sense for him to start an attack on the US - (btw what about South Korea?) - does he appear to be a trustworthy character? One where the world can rest in peace when he has the nukes?

 

 

No but I don't rest in peace knowing that Trump has the nukes and knows the codes!  Or Putin, or even Pakistan.

[sweatalot]

3 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

No but I don't rest in peace knowing that Trump has the nukes and knows the codes!  Or Putin, or even Pakistan.

So you think it doesn't matter if there is one potential arsonist more?

[dunroaming]

26 minutes ago, sweatalot said:

So you think it doesn't matter if there is one potential arsonist more?

Yes of course but it's also a matter of scale.  Think of how many nukes Trump has and how much damage his lunacy could cause and then compare Kim who has the missiles but not yet the nuke warheads to put on them.  Both nutjobs but one with bigger nuts!

[balo]

If they try to fire any rockets against the US , they will be wiped out .  A part of me is hoping they will , but nuclear war is no fun . 

 

[Thechook]

The words of Donald Trump.   North Korea "will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen" if it continues to threaten the United States.  Sounds like Trump wants to completely obliterate Nth Korea