US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

flaneur

The problem is that if DPRK actually fires something at the US, it will retaliate and it's unclear exactly how severely. They've a red line (as do most nuclear powers) when it comes to anyone firing nukes at them.

I agree, Clinton very much appears to come from the US school of interventional foreign policy that traces back the whole way to Kissinger. Trump's got a *LOT* of flaws, but he is actually doing somethings differently. I remain to be convinced that he isn't going to slip into the standard US approach of trying to change regimes and implement their view of how a democratic society should run. However, if he can use Twitter, shouting and coaxing countries like China into dealing with North Korea, he'll have done a lot.

What I see with the US is a country that has a mixture of very naive idealists who view the world from a helicopter perspective and "good guys" vs "bad guys" kind of simplicity. A media that seems to see the world like a super-hero movie and it's backed up by a whole load of political analysis and research about democracy that sound great but are often unworkable and quite arrogant.

Then you combine that with a gung-ho military element and a business community the sees opportunity in chaos or just wants to grab control of resources and you basically end up with what starts to look more like a form of mercantile imperialism more than interventionism.

The modern US really needs to do a lot more self-analysis and realise that it's feeding itself yarns about justifications for invasions of places.

Yes, the world is full of all sorts of crackpot regimes but you also have to realise that people need to bring about democratic change their own way. By spreading the ideals of democracy and peace and stability, which is actually more in line with what the EU tends to do, you can actually effect far more serious change than by trying to topple regimes you don't like.

I think Trump's very likely to cause all sorts of chaos, but it does show that the American population is sick and tired of the same old political system that has brought them a situation where their lifestyles are disimproving and their country has been dragged into war after war after war.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have really offered anything different. I don't consider Trump to be anything but a populist, he's the parachute candidate and not a Republican at all really.
He's very right wing and he's pretty obnoxious, but it shows that the US is demanding change and hopefully it snaps the system out of the dogmatic, holier than thou, grey-suited, fake smile politics that it has been putting up with for years.
He's a symptom more than a remedy.

I'm just not convinced that the Democrats even see the problem, let alone know how to fill the gap and until they do, you're going to be stuck with populists like Trump.

Cheerful Spring

ilkhanid wrote: »

Do you think the South Koreans and their allies are not going to react to attempts at the mass murder of their government, terrorist infiltrations into their country, random bombardments, attempts to build invasion tunnels under their border and the fact that tens of thousands of artillery pieces are aimed at their capital city...and don't give me that guff about it not being Kim Jong Un that did these things, but his dad and grandad. The regime there is all of a piece and I see no evidence-and plenty to the contrary-that he is just as, or even more, psychotic than the rest of his family. With the exception of Kim Jong-Nam (and look how he ended).



The USSR fell because Gorbachev tried to reform what was unreformable and the resulting stresses and strains cracked the shell of the Soviet Empire. It tried to do a number of incompatible things:remain a military superpower, raise the standard of living, keep the population onside while admitting that it had lied to them for decades, controlling the flood of foreign influences while essentially keeping the Status Quo.



But china is not a Communist country. It is a country that mixes Capitalism with a measure of government control and supervision. A definition of Communism that claims both China 2017 and China 1961 as being Communist is so broad and flabby to be meainingless. Do you imagine that the Bolsheviks would recognise China today as a Communist or even "socialist" country? Even Marx would be flummoxed. Just because the party that rules China calls itself the "Communist Party" doesn't mean that it is so.
Yes, the Communism that we knew up to Deng Xiaoping was a very bad thing: economically inefficient, dogmatic, unresponsive to change and brutal.



True enough (except for the last point). If it was consistent in that approach it would be a unique country.

Can you provide a source for the statement below? I don’t recall any incident since the armistice, where the North Koreans attacked the South Korean government?
“Do you think the South Koreans and their allies are not going to react to attempts at the mass murder of their government”

Did I say North Korea was an innocent party?
North Korea is and always will be preparing for war against South Korea and the United States. Have I not said, both sides are as Bad as each other with the posturing?

Position I take on this is if North Korea was not isolated economically for the last few generations, the outlook for this country be different today?
I highlight Vietnam as the example. North Vietnam just like North Korea had a war with the neighbor to the south. Both countries were poor and agricultural based, government communist, and both countries were ruled by a strong man. The only difference between them North Vietnam achieved unification. Vietnam has decades later, now an open society,is richer compared to the days of the Vietnam war. Vietnam is communist but it is in noway threatening to fight foreign wars or is building and spending money on nuclear weapons. So we have this real example today were America got it wrong in Asia and if Vietnam was not allowed to win the war, they too could have ended uplike another North Korea potentially?

While there was pressures internally eating away at the Soviet Union. The August 1991 coup against Gorbachev, signalled the real end of the Soviet Union.
This battle between the communist Russian hardliners and Russians who wanted real democratic change was the game changer. The communists got defeated I remember watching this on TV years ago, and saying this is the end. A domino affect occurred right after former Soviet countries started declaring independence.


I disagree China is more Communist than it is Capitalist.
The political/government institutions are communist. There is no private Chinese banks. A group of people can’t just own a Chinese bank. This is unheard of in a Capitalist society. The media is state owned. The country is ruled by one party, the communist party. There is no opposing parties or opposition. China I will agree with you is not following the strict rules of communism. In a communist society there should be no wealth divide. Realistically this never could work. Person or Persons providing the work/job will always be better off than the person looking for work.

Manic Moran

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Can you provide a source for the statement below? I don’t recall any incident since the armistice, where the North Koreans attacked the South Korean government?
“Do you think the South Koreans and their allies are not going to react to attempts at the mass murder of their government”

The Blue House raid would qualify as an attack on the RoK's government, although the mass murder would have been the President's family. Total RoK casualties, 26 dead, 66 wounded, including 24 civilians.

Billy86

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

That's exactly what he has done, and likely prevented an actual WW3 (as opposed to whatever 20mins localised event that may happen over in NK).

Clinton during her debates, said was very keen to send boots into Syria, which would have stirred up a real hornets nest. That stance may well have lost her the election.

Uhm, you been tracking drone strikes in the ME since Trump took office? they've gone up drastically. Or that big, giant bomb they dropped in Afghanistan? How about the Syria bombing? All examples of 'non intervention' in just a few months I take it?

And since when exactly are nuclear bombings '20 minute localised events'?

ilkhanid

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Can you provide a source for the statement below? I don’t recall any incident since the armistice, where the North Koreans attacked the South Korean government?
“Do you think the South Koreans and their allies are not going to react to attempts at the mass murder of their government”

As pointed out below by Manic Moran, the Blue House raid. Also...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangoon_bombing

For some instances of aggression and terrorism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Flight_858

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Tunnel_of_Aggression

We might as as well throw in criminal acts directed against Japan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Japanese_citizens

Things like this are perfect examples of why nobody trusts the North Korean regime. It's hard to take anyone seriously who claims to speak on North Korea and isn't aware of these events. There are countries that would have pulverized North Korea into the ground for less excuse than those acts.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did I say North Korea was an innocent party?
North Korea is and always will be preparing for war against South Korea and the United States. Have I not said, both sides are as Bad as each other with the posturing?

Yes. However there is no evidence that North Korea is, or ever has been actively working towards aggression against it's neignbour.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Position I take on this is if North Korea was not isolated economically for the last few generations, the outlook for this country be different today?
I highlight Vietnam as the example. North Vietnam just like North Korea had a war with the neighbor to the south. Both countries were poor and agricultural based, government communist, and both countries were ruled by a strong man. The only difference between them North Vietnam achieved unification. Vietnam has decades later, now an open society,is richer compared to the days of the Vietnam war. Vietnam is communist but it is in noway threatening to fight foreign wars or is building and spending money on nuclear weapons. So we have this real example today were America got it wrong in Asia and if Vietnam was not allowed to win the war, they too could have ended uplike another North Korea potentially?

If North Korea behaved like a civilized state (see examples above) it would not be isolated.It carved the stick for it's own back.
I see no reason-I've made this point before-that one country should or could behave like another. In Europe we don't say "Well, Serbia, why not Germany" or 'Why can't Hungary have an outcome like Spain?'. Both wars were different, took place a decade apart and grew out of different historical events. Vietnam was close to the the USSR and tended to take Soviet advice and had experience of a relatively (I emphasize "relatively", the Vietnamese were ruthless enough) less rigorous form of Marxist ideology. It's subsequent experience of the horrifying nature of the Khmer Rouge regime was probably one of the factors that probably taught it the the virtues of relative moderation and the dreadful outcome of demented, murderous ideology. Kim Il-Sung took power during the period of High Stalinism and High Maoism. He learned at the feet of genocidal maniacs and his regime took it's model from them. Well before Iraq or Libya, these touted examples, Kim had seen Hungary '56, the Prague Spring in '68 and Glasnost and doubtless thought "There will be none of that here, let's turn the screws tighter".

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

While there was pressures internally eating away at the Soviet Union. The August 1991 coup against Gorbachev, signalled the real end of the Soviet Union.
This battle between the communist Russian hardliners and Russians who wanted real democratic change was the game changer. The communists got defeated I remember watching this on TV years ago, and saying this is the end. A domino affect occurred right after former Soviet countries started declaring independence.

The coup didn't come out of nowhere. The hardliners looked at Eastern Europe, they saw that this was going in only one direction, the loss of power of the Party and the discrediting of Marxism-Leninism. They were actually right.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

I disagree China is more Communist than it is Capitalist.
The political/government institutions are communist. There is no private Chinese banks. A group of people can’t just own a Chinese bank. This is unheard of in a Capitalist society. The media is state owned. The country is ruled by one party, the communist party. There is no opposing parties or opposition. China I will agree with you is not following the strict rules of communism. In a communist society there should be no wealth divide. Realistically this never could work. Person or Persons providing the work/job will always be better off than the person looking for work.

The political institutions are in the hands of the Communist Party. they can call themselves anything they like, but that doesn't make the state Communist. The economy is a mixed economy and the people don't own the means of production, nor does the Party have direct control or ownership of most economic activity.. Those things you mentioned are compatible with other forms of government, including fascism. It's more properly described as "Dengism". As he said himself "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice." .

Cheerful Spring

ilkhanid wrote: »

Yes. However there is no evidence that North Korea is, or ever has been actively working towards aggression against it's neignbour

The South Koreans planting a North Korean flag on hills and bombing it, is this not aggression. What do they have 3 military exercises every year? I already accept the North Korean regime is bad. I do not accept it all their fault though.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The South Koreans planting a North Korean flag on hills and bombing it, is this not aggression.

Deterrent

North Korea does the exact same

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Deterrent

North Korea does the exact same

Even the South Koreans are not happy with the Thaad deployment.
https://www.rt.com/on-air/402236-south-korea-against-taad/

4068ac1elhodqr

Billy86 wrote: »

Uhm, you been tracking drone strikes in the ME since Trump took office? they've gone up drastically. Or that big, giant bomb they dropped in Afghanistan? How about the Syria bombing? All examples of 'non intervention' in just a few months I take it?

And since when exactly are nuclear bombings '20 minute localised events'?

None of that involved any boots on the ground. If Hilary had won, you'd be looking at a real serious sh1te storm in Syria and beyond on the back of her ideals.

20mins within about 200sqm is all it would take to neutralise NK's threats. Hopefully it wouldn't come to that, but depends really on China getting their finger out.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Even the South Koreans are not happy with the Thaad deployment.

Chinese friends

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Chinese friends

They are residents of the town where the system is deployed at, but i would not disagree there probably is Chinese sympathizers in the crowd.

paska

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

North Korea has warned that a "big event" is near, and U.S. officials say signs point to a nuclear test that could come as early as this weekend.
The intelligence officials told NBC News that the U.S. has positioned two destroyers capable of shooting Tomahawk cruise missiles in the region, one just 300 miles from the North Korean nuclear test site.

American heavy bombers are also positioned in Guam to attack North Korea should it be necessary, and earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group was being diverted to the area.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366

Will North Korea keep calm on Saturday or will they test the resolve of Trump?

And still since nothing. What does that mean? Barry's tea!! Yep all talk. Just bull**** after bull **** to deflect from the real issues on the ground.

Gatling

Looks like next sanctions will freeze kims personal assets ,a complete oil embargo , banning NK textile exports and blocking hiring and paying NK over seas workers,

ilkhanid

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The South Koreans planting a North Korean flag on hills and bombing it, is this not aggression.

No, it's not! It's an insult, a jeer. And compared to the actual murderous acts of the Kim regime, it's trivial. You're exercised over a state that responds to the actual murders of it's citizens by destroying a flag. Jaysus, talk about lack of proportion....It's the same kind of BS we're used to from extremist Moslems that put ripping up a Koran on the same level as actually murdering people.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

What do they have 3 military exercises every year? I already accept the North Korean regime is bad. I do not accept it all their fault though.

Knowing what they know of the nature of the Kim regime, I'm surprised they don't have ten exercises a year. Would you be complacent if a regime that who know is plotting your destuction was 50 miles away, that it had tens of thousands of missiles, tanks and cannons pointed at you? This is nonsensical.

gitzy16v wrote: »

Hussain,Gadaffi and Assad did not threaten the US with nuclear annihilation...They were all economic wars..oil or gold or dollars.....NK has nothing that the US wants,that why action is so slow.

So we keep hearing. But in the end it turned out that the USA got little economic return for it's adventure in Iraq.It didn't take any oil away (Remember the Donald complaining about that?) and little in the way of preferential deals.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

Looks like next sanctions will freeze kims personal assets ,a complete oil embargo , banning NK textile exports and blocking hiring and paying NK over seas workers,

I be shocked if Russia and China sign off on this. Sanctions like this would kick things into overdrive and make war more likely.

BillyBobBS

Gatling wrote: »

Looks like next sanctions will freeze kims personal assets ,a complete oil embargo , banning NK textile exports and blocking hiring and paying NK over seas workers,

Useless stuff. The days of sanctions are over.

Dohnjoe

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Useless stuff. The days of sanctions are over.

Whereas pre-emptive war is so much more effective, just like the Iraq war

BillyBobBS

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Whereas pre-emptive war is so much more effective, just like the Iraq war

Do you see Saddam threatening the world with WMD's?

Billy86

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

None of that involved any boots on the ground. If Hilary had won, you'd be looking at a real serious sh1te storm in Syria and beyond on the back of her ideals.

20mins within about 200sqm is all it would take to neutralise NK's threats. Hopefully it wouldn't come to that, but depends really on China getting their finger out.

Drone strikes are interventionism, this is a fact. Drone strikes have gone up dramatically under Trump, this is a fact. Many Trump supporters claimed it was because he was against interventionism, this is fact. So your claim that Trump has done "exactly that" and not intervened despite intervening is definitively incorrect.

Also, can you show the quotes about Clinton putting more troops on the ground? Because a quick google search from 2016 for 'Clinton boots on the ground' is only sending me back bits from September like this - Clinton vows not to commit troops to the ground in Iraq or Syria.

As for North Korea, if they have capable nukes then your claim is completely incorrect again and they'd level Seoul and possibly a bunch of other places around the immediately leading to tens of millions dead, maimed, displaced etc and the world economy entering a large recession. If they don't have nukes then the premise of going to war with them because of the supposedly imminent nuclear threat and possible ability to reach US shores with them is false. It can't be both.

Billy86

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Do you see Saddam threatening the world with WMD's?

Remind us how the middle east is doing over the last 15 years, and your opinions on the refugee crisis.

stevedublin

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Useless stuff. The days of sanctions are over.

For once I agree with you.
NK supposedly has enough oil for a year, the personal sanctions against KJU wont affect him unless he leaves NK to live in a western country (unlikely) and the sanctions against workers will just mean countries that use NK workers (Russia and China) will vote against these sanctions.

4068ac1elhodqr

Billy86 wrote: »

Drone strikes are interventionism, this is a fact. Drone strikes have gone up dramatically under Trump, this is a fact. Many Trump supporters claimed it was because he was against interventionism, this is fact. So your claim that Trump has done "exactly that" and not intervened despite intervening is definitively incorrect.

Also, can you show the quotes about Clinton putting more troops on the ground? Because a quick google search from 2016 for 'Clinton boots on the ground' is only sending me back bits from September like this..

Clinton was all for establishing 'no-fly zones' in Syria, and 'creating leverage against Rus', as clearly stated in her debates. Now you can't do all that with a remote playstation type operator. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/19/donald_trump_and_hillary_clinton_debate_mosul_syria_isis.html

Billy86 wrote: »

As for North Korea, if they have capable nukes then your claim is completely incorrect again and they'd level Seoul and possibly a bunch of other places around the immediately leading to tens of millions dead, maimed, displaced etc and the world economy entering a large recession. If they don't have nukes then the premise of going to war with them because of the supposedly imminent nuclear threat and possible ability to reach US shores with them is false. It can't be both.

Due to preparations, it's likely only thousands, not millions would be impacted in Seoul, it would not certainly not have any significant effect whatever on the world economy if NK vanished. The success rate of THAAD in recent tests is 100%. If you wait another year until they have a few dozen more developed, then it's harder to stop with so many.

BillyBobBS

Billy86 wrote: »

Remind us how the middle east is doing over the last 15 years, and your opinions on the refugee crisis.

So he's not threatening the world with WMD. Glad to hear it.

BillyBobBS

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Clinton was all for establishing 'no-fly zones' in Syria, and 'creating leverage against Rus', as clearly stated in her debates. Now you can't do all that with a remote playstation type operator. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/19/donald_trump_and_hillary_clinton_debate_mosul_syria_isis.html



Due to preparations, it's likely only thousands, not millions would be impacted in Seoul, it would not certainly not have any significant effect whatever on the world economy if NK vanished. The success rate of THAAD in recent tests is 100%. If you wait another year until they have a few dozen more developed, then it's harder to stop with so many.

There will be no more waiting. Kim has made a massive miscalculation.

flutered

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Do you see Saddam threatening the world with WMD's?

but we got isis and all its baggage instead

4068ac1elhodqr

Good news: Dennis Rodman Offers to 'Straighten Things Out' With Kim Jong Un.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/09/07/is-dennis-rodman-key-to-reining-in-kim-jong-un-n2378235

BillyBobBS

flutered wrote: »

but we got isis and all its baggage instead

And thats a shame but does Saddam have WMD, no he doesn't.

ohnonotgmail

BillyBobBS wrote: »

And thats a shame but does Saddam have WMD, no he doesn't.

did he have any at the time he was invaded?

Billy86

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Clinton was all for establishing 'no-fly zones' in Syria, and 'creating leverage against Rus', as clearly stated in her debates. Now you can't do all that with a remote playstation type operator. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/19/donald_trump_and_hillary_clinton_debate_mosul_syria_isis.html

No fly zones don't require troops on the ground within Syria, and creating leverage absolutely doesn't and can mean absolutely anything. So it appears you can't back that she "said she was very keen to send boots into Syria".

Due to preparations, it's likely only thousands, not millions would be impacted in Seoul, it would not certainly not have any significant effect whatever on the world economy if NK vanished. The success rate of THAAD in recent tests is 100%. If you wait another year until they have a few dozen more developed, then it's harder to stop with so many.

What preparations could evacuate 25mn people in the time it takes for a nuke to travel the very, very short distance from North Korea to Seoul (about 10-20km from the North Korean border) or stop a nuclear bomb landing on a city from having much of any short or long term effect?