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

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, thaihome said:

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  

 

100% agreed.  But that requires the US to spend money just to defend itself from an aggressive country.  Why should we have to pay for that?  Or Japan, South Korea, etc, for that matter.  All seem to be talking about ramping up military spending to counter this threat.

 

No easy answers....

[sweatalot]

8 hours ago, dunroaming said:

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!

I don't think the US would need or use their whole arsenal. Wouldn't it be possible to just destroy the strategic targets at one sudden strike - so Kim has no chance to hit back? With only little collateral damage?

[Scott]

I think that Kim would immediately attack S. Korea with conventional weapons and soldiers.   That could be a huge blood bath.  

 

The problem with situations such as this is that it is almost impossible to anticipate the outcome.   Even if you win, the unintended consequences can be catastrophic.  

 

[baboon]

14 minutes ago, Scott said:

I that Kim would immediately attack S. Korea with conventional weapons and soldiers.   That could be a huge blood bath.  

 

The problem with situations such as this is that it is almost impossible to anticipate the outcome.   Even if you win, the unintended consequences can be catastrophic.  

 

No worries. Then you blame everybody else, pull out, wash your hands of the whole thing and repeat in another country where it will be different this time. 

[craigt3365]

7 minutes ago, baboon said:

No worries. Then you blame everybody else, pull out, wash your hands of the whole thing and repeat in another country where it will be different this time. 

You try to place all the blame on the US.  The West.  When in reality, it's NK that's causing the problems.  You are very one sided. 

[jak2002003]

I hope it does teach America a lesson.  They are too big for their boots these days... not to mention they have caused most of the wars in the modern world.  This is what happens when they constantly try to impose their will and beliefs onto other countries that they have no business to get involved in.  In this case constantly antagonising and bullying North Korea over many years.... even going so low as to make a comedy film about the country.  Imagine if the UK was doing the same to America.. .and demanding America had no nuclear weapons?  

 

 

 

[maewang99]

last night Ian Bremmer agrees... 60 seconds Aug 8....

North Korea is the biggest win for Trump in his first 200 days.

15-0

1. it might just work and bring the DPRK to the table again... and win there too 

2. they did it without hardly anyone even making a squeek about naming names in a UN resolution 

 

no summons, no court date and no judge or jury. baddabingbadaboom.

and for the regime... no different than a cell at Quantanamo Cuba.


 

Edited August 9, 2017 by maewang99

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

I hope it does teach America a lesson.  They are too big for their boots these days... not to mention they have caused most of the wars in the modern world.  This is what happens when they constantly try to impose their will and beliefs onto other countries that they have no business to get involved in.  In this case constantly antagonising and bullying North Korea over many years.... even going so low as to make a comedy film about the country.  Imagine if the UK was doing the same to America.. .and demanding America had no nuclear weapons? 

Ummm....I do believe NK has done the antagonizing here.  It was NK who invaded SK, killing millions.  Not to mention the illegal activities they commit around the world.  And seems the entire world wants a nuclear free Korean peninsula.  What's wrong with that?

[gummy]

20 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Didi you forget about China invading both N and S Korea during the Korean war? How about Tibet in the 1950s. The attempted invasion of parts of India. Or for something a little newer there is also taking over most of the islands and attols in the South China Sea.

Not at all but please check your facts.  They were "invited" by the Northern nationalists.  As for India the Kashmir region has been disputed for decades.   So how can you invade your own land !!!   As for the South China Sea do you actually now the meaning of an "invasion" ?  clearly not so allow me to elucidate

 

"an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country".    So when exactly did China need to use force to invade uninhabited atolls and Islands ?   They may be subject to territorial dispute yes,  but under no stretch of the imagination were they "invaded" by China as you suggest.

 

But you attempt to divert away from the subject matter of this thread with un-factual diatribe.  Please keep on topic

Edited August 9, 2017 by gummy

[Skywalker69]

Trump uses Twitter to promote leaked intelligence on North Korea

 

 

If you’ve spent time on Twitter, you’ve probably seen the phrase “retweets do not equal endorsements.” It’s largely self-explanatory: sometimes folks retweet something they find notable, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they like the content.

 

But in the Trump era, we’re confronted with a very different kind of question: do presidential retweets equal confirmations?

 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-uses-twitter-promote-leaked-intelligence-north-korea?cid=sm_fb_maddow

Edited August 10, 2017 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy: 14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[boomerangutang]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

No worries. Then you blame everybody else, pull out, wash your hands of the whole thing and repeat in another country where it will be different this time. 

                                 The US could not 'wash its hands of the whole thing' while the smoke is clearing.  The US has always felt compelled to go in, after battles, and be the rebuilder/care-giver for decades.

 

                                    Here are some commentaries from today's MSNBC news show.  They're people who have in-depth experience/knowledge about NE Asia and the decades of military tensions there.  All 3 commentators agree that the prez is completely wrong with saber-rattling.   I agree.  Trump is acting like a tin foil hat dictator from a banana republic.  If Trump weren't prez, we could laugh it off, like we laughed off his 5-year campaign calling Obama a Kenyan Muslim.  However, this Korean problem is no laughing matter.  

 

 

 

[baboon]

7 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                                 The US could not 'wash its hands of the whole thing' while the smoke is clearing.  The US has always felt compelled to go in, after battles, and be the rebuilder/care-giver for decades.

 

                                    Here are some commentaries from today's MSNBC news show.  They're people who have in-depth experience/knowledge about NE Asia and the decades of military tensions there.  All 3 commentators agree that the prez is completely wrong with saber-rattling.   I agree.  Trump is acting like a tin foil hat dictator from a banana republic.  If Trump weren't prez, we could laugh it off, like we laughed off his 5-year campaign calling Obama a Kenyan Muslim.  However, this Korean problem is no laughing matter.  

 

 

 

Well of course your Haliburtons of the world will want their fair share of the loot, first. But remember this?

 

 "We will stay as long as it takes to turn full responsibility for governing Iraq over to a capable and democratically elected Iraqi administration. Only a government elected under a democratic constitution can take full responsibility and enjoy full legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world."

 

I am just off for a shower then I shall settle down to watch your link...
 

[honu]

Some of these responses seem to point towards something really vague that some country should do, with no possibility of actual specifics.  

 

The US should remove nuclear weapons from NK--how?

 

China and Russia should force NK to cease development of nuclear weapons--how?  Shifting from turning them from one of the poorest nations on the planet through sanctions to truly starving them instead might cause them to retaliate.

 

Others blame the US for interfering, but so far they've only set up defensive military infrastructure in South Korea.  That's not really an invasive, problematic, or unreasonable response, given that North Korea did try to take over South Korea awhile back.  

 

Trump saying crazy things probably isn't helpful but that's kind of what he does, about every topic, every time his mouth opens.  He's trying to use this for spin to make it seem like he's doing something positive but it's not as if screwing up everything else he touches is based on careful planning; it's all from the hip.

 

Blaming "the US" for someone making a Hollywood movie is as absurd as it gets.  Should the US eliminate free speech and have the government screen every form of entertainment and media release to support foreign country PR? 

[Skywalker69]

[Dave67]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

Well of course your Haliburtons of the world will want their fair share of the loot, first. But remember this?

 

 "We will stay as long as it takes to turn full responsibility for governing Iraq over to a capable and democratically elected Iraqi administration. Only a government elected under a democratic constitution can take full responsibility and enjoy full legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world."

 

I am just off for a shower then I shall settle down to watch your link...
 

Playing the old WMD tune again

[tonray]

4 hours ago, sweatalot said:

I don't think the US would need or use their whole arsenal. Wouldn't it be possible to just destroy the strategic targets at one sudden strike - so Kim has no chance to hit back? With only little collateral damage?

I think that could work if you enter NK first with a handheld laser and direct the bombs. We'll make sure we extract you when we are finished.

[zydeco]

On 8/8/2017 at 8:57 AM, phantomfiddler said:

Don,t expect any help from China, they are loving this !

Oh, the Chinese are ready to help.  Just as soon as everybody agrees with them that China is sovereign over the South China Sea, Bhutan, and parts of India.

[balo]

When you read the tweets from Donald you wonder who is the most craziest of them . 

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, baboon said:

Well of course your Haliburtons of the world will want their fair share of the loot, first. But remember this?

 

 "We will stay as long as it takes to turn full responsibility for governing Iraq over to a capable and democratically elected Iraqi administration. Only a government elected under a democratic constitution can take full responsibility and enjoy full legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world."

 

I am just off for a shower then I shall settle down to watch your link...
 

Wow.  Haliburton?  Really?  You really stray off topic.

[PeCeDe]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

Wow.  Haliburton?  Really?  You really stray off topic.

Not sure Haliburton is off topic, they would make money.

 

The following is a "what if" scenario only and hopefully cool heads will prevail. As has been said many times...  anything or nothing could happen, these comments are definitely from the darkside.

 

To go back to the severe lesson NK is going to teach the US. I think we all know that is a POS statement by someone struggling to maintain power within his own beleaguered country, designed as much for internal consumption as external.

 

Which next brings us to Trump and his latest "Fire and Fury" statement, it reminded me a little too much of the Biblical "fire and brimstone" for my liking and is obviously,  a POS statement by someone struggling to maintain power within his country, designed as much for internal consumption as external.

 

But if the unthinkable happens, what does either side have to gain from a first strike?  Well here's a few thoughts.

 

Gains of a first strike from the US standpoint? 

1) Get's the NK monkey off it's back.

2) approval ratings will soar with all the Historic achievement rhetoric, blah blah. 

3) Donald will go down in History (to his base) as the President who stood firm like no other before him in it's darkest hour. Maybe he sees the Trump memorial right next to Lincolns, you know the one, it's within walking distance of the Vietnam wall.

4) NK is Trumps favorite type of target because it's small fry and has no way of defending itself effectively against such an overwhelming and aggressive act, even though it claims otherwise.

5) Proves the US to once more be the fearful and formidable foe that will unhesitatingly respond to any provocation anywhere in the world with massive force.

 

Gains of a first strike from the NK standpoint?

1) Not much, a few thousand people die.

 

What do they both have to lose?

 

Losses of a first strike from the US standpoint?

1) If done carefully with precision, and the 38th parallel isn't crossed northwards with an occupying force, PERHAPS not many immediate threats. 

2) China, Russia and others will be very upset to put it mildly, and the US will have to keep it's wits about it for years to come... new Cold War perhaps?  

3) The rest of the free world will also be horrified.

4) US isolation with completely new power blocks forming to directly and militarily oppose the US,  this time unfortunately the Pacific and Atlantic won't be limiting factors.

5) Hundreds of thousands on the US side would die.

 

Losses from the Nk standpoint?

1) Everything!  

2) It would lose much of it's million man army.

3) Its Capital Pyongyang would disappear. 

4) Most or all of its much vaunted nuclear capability would be no more. 

5) If KJU somehow survives he will no longer have a country to terrorize, rape and plunder.

6) So much for his damnable luxury goods.

 

Therefore,  IF it comes down to it, who will strike first? Easy answer eh, the US of course, and I would look to the lessons we learned from Iraqs Saddam Hussein and the non existent WMD's. We ain't so innocent and the premise will somehow be made up to suit the occasion, perhaps emerging in the next few days, weeks or months. 

 

Am I making some kind of macabre sense? Because the thought scares the heck out of me, I see the world changing drastically, and not for the better. Call me a scaremonger if you will, In truth I sincerely hope I am.

 

Perhaps cool heads will prevail, let's all hope so... 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, PeCeDe said:

Not sure Haliburton is off topic, they would make money.

 

 

 

Halliburton is an oilfield services provider. How would it profit from such a conflict?

[Morch]

On 8/8/2017 at 9:01 AM, boomerangutang said:

                                   Every day, Kim and his medal-laden generals go through war games.  Have you ever had an argument with an Asian?   They don't warm to the issue, they explode.  Often, an Asian will pretend like all is fine, and/or they'll stare intensely without saying anything - but then they explode.  It's particularly scathing with Asian women.  They go from zero to sixty in 2 seconds.  Before you realize what happened, they will be screaming as if their arms are being pulled off by tractors.  

 

                        Kim and his generals will go 100% from the first minute if/when war breaks out.   That doesn't bode well for his supply chains and ammo (which may last between 1 and 3 weeks), but that's all secondary in their view.  Primary, for them, is to throw everything at the enemy, as quickly as possible.

 

 

You have no idea about what Kim and his generals are up to, and your generalizations about Asians are pathetic.

Unless you missed it Kim's been in place for quite a while now. The pattern of interaction is nothing like you describe.

[PeCeDe]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Halliburton is an oilfield services provider. How would it profit from such a conflict?

Could be you're correct but what typically happens to oil prices and associated industries during periods of uncertainty?

[Morch]

On 8/8/2017 at 9:22 AM, BuaBS said:

Are those long range missiles really a threat ? The few that NK has will be intercepted , and will they all work flawlessly all the way ?  Only chance NK has , is from launches from sub's close to the US, or already smuggled in nukes.

 

Intercepting ballistic missiles is tricky, even under optimal conditions. Dependent on warhead, even a "successful" interception might result in great damage. No idea why you quote "few", or what exactly is referred to. As far as I'm aware, NK does not have submarine launch capability for such weapons.

 

 

 

[Morch]

On 8/8/2017 at 9:36 AM, craigt3365 said:

It's not just about the missiles.  Though that is the #1 reason.  It's also about non-proliferation.  I.E. keeping NK from selling nuclear technology/materials to other countries.  Just like Pakistan did for NK.  Sold them technology discretely.

 

If the issue is technology and know-how transfer, then this isn't going to be solved by a military strike on NK, not even by a peaceful dismantling of its nuclear projects. Horse out of the stable with regard to NK spreading such knowledge around.

[Morch]

On 8/8/2017 at 4:33 PM, 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. 

 

That's placing quite a lot of trust in Kim's ability to differentiate correctly between real threats and imagined ones. Considering his US opponent, that's quite a gamble. But even given a more mundane POTUS, what happens if Kim's survival instincts (not to say paranoia) betray him?

 

Most countries issuing such threats do not do so often and choose a more cautious language.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

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.

 

Under any realistic scenario, he will retain the ability to inflict a tremendous amount of damage on South Korea, at the very least.

[Morch]

20 hours 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.

 

Sleepless nights then....

Trump is not a permanent fixture, Putin doesn't habitually spread nuclear threats, and Pakistan is mostly keeping mum on theirs (other when one of their periodic flares vs. India is up). Kim is here to stay, issues threats regularly, and the conflict with SK is kept on mostly by NK's actions.

[ilostmypassword]

44 minutes ago, PeCeDe said:

Could be you're correct but what typically happens to oil prices and associated industries during periods of uncertainty?

Typically, these conflicts have taken place in the Middle East. I don't think North Korea offers much in the way of petroleum or natural gas production.

[PeCeDe]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Typically, these conflicts have taken place in the Middle East. I don't think North Korea offers much in the way of petroleum or natural gas production.

Perhaps I'm talking with rose coloured glasses 'coz my little investment profits from oil industry up ticks.  However, as usual we'll see.