US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Timberrrrrrrr

Gatling wrote: »

So wait until he doesn't get what he wants and to prove he's serious he goes nuclear against another state,backed up by nuclear china and nuclear russia.

Sounds like a recipe for peace doesn't it

No evidence that would ever happen but you're saying to keep peace war should be waged against NK?

josip

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It's 10 o clock at night Saturday in North Korea, no sign of a missile test yet.

Did anyone else read this to the tune of "Piano Man" ?

Discodog

It's more likely that, if we continue to allow him to develop nukes, he will launch conventional missiles against Japan or threaten the south.

dr.fuzzenstein

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Any country eh?


France, Italy, West Germany, Holland?

Their track record after that isn't so great.
Vietnam and Korea didn't benefit and Iraq, Pakistan and Libya certainly are hell holes.
In fact the present situation came about because of meddling by the US.
Anyone still advocating US military intervention in any country to bring them freedom, hamburgers and apple pie is an utter moron and a troll and should be prevented from breeding.

MickDoyle1979

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No he must not. Look at any country that was "liberated" by the US and the end result.
You may get a hard on at the thought of millions dead, 2 countries devastated and a region plunged into chaos for decades (while you're safe wherever you are), but there is a cost that is too high.
And that is without things going nuclear.

Without it going nuclear

Destroy his nuke forces should be the priority.

If this means a conventional war erupts that ends in Korea once again wrecked from end to end and millions die that is acceptable if it avoids a nuclear conflict in which hundreds of millions could die.

As I see it war is a matter of when not if.
The door to peace has rammed shut long ago.

The_Valeyard

Billy86 wrote: »

None of those were liberated by the US, France and Holland were liberated by the Allied Forces - which included France and Holland. When were Italy or West Germany liberated? They were on the opposite side and surrendered unless I'm missing something?

Hahahaha

Such mental gymnastics. Your missing a lot alright.

dr.fuzzenstein

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Without it going nuclear

Destroy his nuke forces should be the priority.

If this means a conventional war erupts that ends in Korea once again wrecked from end to end and millions die that is acceptable if it avoids a nuclear conflict in which hundreds of millions could die.

As I see it war is a matter of when not if.
The door to peace has rammed shut long ago.

Idiotic post.

Timberrrrrrrr

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Without it going nuclear

Destroy his nuke forces should be the priority.

If this means a conventional war erupts that ends in Korea once again wrecked from end to end and millions die that is acceptable if it avoids a nuclear conflict in which hundreds of millions could die.

As I see it war is a matter of when not if.
The door to peace has rammed shut long ago.

Will you be joining up to fight? Will you encourage family and friends to go fight?

4068ac1elhodqr

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Without it going nuclear

Destroy his nuke forces should be the priority.

If this means a conventional war erupts that ends in Korea once again wrecked from end to end and millions die that is acceptable if it avoids a nuclear conflict in which hundreds of millions could die.

As I see it war is a matter of when not if.
The door to peace has rammed shut long ago.

Not a bad post but contains various errors, 'conventional' is indeed the way to go, but this would not mean millions are injured, just thousands and the county would still be re-operational afterwards.

MOAB and other large amounts of 'steel rain' all within a very short span at all threatening locations (not population centers). Shortly afterwards a unilateral liberation force to secure and bring food and aid to the NK's who have suffered the most in this charade.

Yes he/the situation needs to go (as every sensible world leader would agree). But ideally in the most 'elegant method' possible. There are various methods, one of the last methods available, and most dramatic, need not be the first choice.

Someone mentioned 'the air here being severely affected', in the 'last case scenario', very, very doubtful that would be the case.

BillyBobBS

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Without it going nuclear

Destroy his nuke forces should be the priority.

If this means a conventional war erupts that ends in Korea once again wrecked from end to end and millions die that is acceptable if it avoids a nuclear conflict in which hundreds of millions could die.

As I see it war is a matter of when not if.
The door to peace has rammed shut long ago.

The decision will have been taken already. As soon as we seen the general on TV last week it was game over for Kim. Yes millions may die in Korea but when you weigh it up against the possible destruction of the planet it's a no brainer.

MickDoyle1979

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Idiotic post.

What's idiotic about it?

Nettle Soup

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Their track record after that isn't so great.
Vietnam and Korea didn't benefit and Iraq, Pakistan and Libya certainly are hell holes.
In fact the present situation came about because of meddling by the US.
Anyone still advocating US military intervention in any country to bring them freedom, hamburgers and apple pie is an utter moron and a troll and should be prevented from breeding.

Absolutely spot on. Too many Irish people see the USA with rose tinted glasses (even now with a lunatic at the helm!)

Nettle Soup

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

What's idiotic about it?

All of it but especially the bit where millions dying is acceptable just so you can start worrying about something else.

MickDoyle1979

Nettle Soup wrote: »

All of it but especially the bit where millions dying is acceptable just so you can start worrying about something else.

Clearly if war is unavoidable a conventional war is preferable to a nuclear war. Destroying Kim's nuclear capability is the priority. Remove that and the conflict is contained in the Korean peninsula. Less people will die than necessary.

Simply saying this is idiotic changes nothing.

If Kim cannot be stopped peacefully war is going to happen and must happen.

MickDoyle1979

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Clearly if war is unavoidable a conventional war is preferable to a nuclear war. Destroying Kim's nuclear capability is the priority. Remove that and the conflict is contained in the Korean peninsula. Less people will die than necessary.

Simply saying this is idiotic changes nothing.

If Kim cannot be stopped peacefully war is going to happen and must happen.

But it is.

Get used to NK being a nuclear power and try to understand that conventional methods are out the window.

I guarantee that the president of Korea, Japan, and the US, have been briefed on the absolutely uncertainty of these bombs already being on their territories.


Based on that alone, war is totally avoidable. Kim's not an idiot.. Important people know that but a lot of us don't.

MickDoyle1979

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Clearly if war is unavoidable a conventional war is preferable to a nuclear war. Destroying Kim's nuclear capability is the priority. Remove that and the conflict is contained in the Korean peninsula. Less people will die than necessary.

Simply saying this is idiotic changes nothing.

If Kim cannot be stopped peacefully war is going to happen and must happen.

The general consensus amongst the professionals (real generals) is that Kim is prepared to take as many with him as possible in the event of a US strike. Unless Kim has a suicidal wish or believes the US is about to strike, he will not launch an attack.

This does not mean he won't continue to do provocative tests.

How do you propose to remove his nuclear capabilities? China has spent decades helping N.Korea develop missile bunkers in both mountainous and civilian areas.

And even if you manage to identify their stocks of nuclear material, how are you going to remove the knowledge of creating the weapons themselves, preventing future development/production? The genie is well out of the bottle...

Nettle Soup

Why do the Americans stage massive military exercises so close to Korea? It really doesn't help matters antagonising Kim. Kim needs to show strength in response.

The Pacific is a massive ocean, can America find somewhere else to play their war games? Idiots.

BillyBobBS

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Why do the Americans stage massive military exercises so close to Korea? It really doesn't help matters antagonising Kim. Kim needs to show strength in response.

The Pacific is a massive ocean, can America find somewhere else to play their war games? Idiots.

You find it hard to hide your bias

Nettle Soup

BillyBobBS wrote: »

You find it hard to hide your bias

I have a bias towards common sense... what's your excuse?

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Why do the Americans stage massive military exercises so close to Korea? It really doesn't help matters antagonising Kim. Kim needs to show strength in response.

The massive military exercises are mostly made up of Korean forces. The US last less than 30K troops in S.Korea. But, yes, I'd agree that military exercises close to that border is a foolish exercise in taunting both N.Korea and China.

The Pacific is a massive ocean, can America find somewhere else to play their war games? Idiots.

Um... Sorry.. but the Pacific exercises are not related to Korea, but rather China.. and are definitely needed as a way of holding Chinese expansion in the region in check.

Without the presence of the US in the region, China would be taking big chunks of the South China Sea and other areas, rather than the slower smaller bites its being doing over the last 20 years. The only thing preventing China from major expansion is the US naval presence which China can't compete with. Yet.

BillyBobBS

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I have a bias towards common sense... what's your excuse?

You hate America it's painfully obvious

Nettle Soup

BillyBobBS wrote: »

You hate America it's painfully obvious

I really liked Obama and how he dealt with Kim but now we have 2 spoilt children ruling each country.

And this is what you think...

BillyBobBS wrote: »

That's because we have a credible American President who isn't going to except a madman with nukes. Funny how Obama did nothing except sit on late night talk shows for 8 years attempting to look cool whilst NK went about their business.

BillyBobBS

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I really liked Obama and how he dealt with Kim but now we have 2 spoilt children ruling each country.

And this is what you think...

Absolutely. I'm not surprised you liked Obama tbh and i can imagine why, comrade.

Cheerful Spring

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Why do the Americans stage massive military exercises so close to Korea? It really doesn't help matters antagonising Kim. Kim needs to show strength in response.

The Pacific is a massive ocean, can America find somewhere else to play their war games? Idiots.

I know. They staged another drill yesterday. There is rumors Trump and Abe are ready to attack North Korea, right now, but the South Korea president Moon-Jae is opposed to a preemptive strike and war..

If there is a nuclear war, i feel the bomb would feel something like this when it hits. Scary this video and it not even a nuclear bomb, going off.

BillyBobBS

I wonder if Kim in stupid enough to launch a missile on September the 11th. I think he would have liked to do it today but the hurricane coverage is taking a lot of the Americans attention.

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I really liked Obama and how he dealt with Kim but now we have 2 spoilt children ruling each country.

Obama was a moron and created the overall issues we have to face with today. While I don't agree with Trumps posturing (and it is posturing since any real military answer is impractical), Obama created a serious threat to the world by pandering to China and encouraging Chinese economic growth while reducing US military/Diplomatic capabilities.

And the UN doesn't help since everything it does just reinforces how little it can actually influence N.Korea to do anything.

Fact is.. until N.Korea does something to piss China off... they're not going to be touched.. and it will be China that does the invading. Nobody else. If anyone else tries... you'll see China stepping in. And that won't be pleasant for anyone.. Thanks Obama for helping China to become truly strong in the region...

Gringo180

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Without it going nuclear

Destroy his nuke forces should be the priority.

If this means a conventional war erupts that ends in Korea once again wrecked from end to end and millions die that is acceptable if it avoids a nuclear conflict in which hundreds of millions could die.

As I see it war is a matter of when not if.
The door to peace has rammed shut long ago.

Your a ****ing worse lunatic than Fat Chops Kim.

Nettle Soup

Deleted User wrote: »

Obama created a serious threat to the world by pandering to China and encouraging Chinese economic growth while reducing US military/Diplomatic capabilities.

How in the hell could Obama have stopped China's meteoric growth? They managed it themselves through serious economic reform and bloody hard work and they had ever right to their success.

Nettle Soup

Nettle Soup wrote: »

How in the hell could Obama have stopped China's meteoric growth? They managed it themselves through serious economic reform and bloody hard work and they had ever right to their success.

You don't consider the massive trade deficit of the US versus China being a factor? Or that the US allowed China to break trademark, copyright, and WTO rules regularly? Or allowing the theft of products & businesses that were brought into being in China by foreign companies? I could go on with many more examples.

Obama pandered to the PRC as long the PRC loaned him money to pay for his idiotic agenda. He avoided any chance of annoying them and on more than one occasion, withdrew support from US allies allowing the PRC to expand regardless of international laws.

And China's economic growth is a series of mistruths. I lived in China for the last seven years... and while you can definitely see the growth in the primary Tier 1 cities, and even some of the Tier 2 cities, China is severely diminished in other areas.

It's economic growth is more of a propaganda drive and puts money into the hands of the rich/corrupt rather than seriously improving the state of the nation. It's having major issues producing enough food with its existing land, population controls have been removed (a 2nd child baby boom is underway), pollution is a major issue across virtually every city tier 1-3 and it's facing social unrest due to the differences in wealth for the poor/uneducated vs those in the cities. It's recent scandals about insider trading where the government encouraged the poor to invest in the stock exchange.. and then, encouraged insider trading scams to occur, so that the poor lost everything and the rich got richer. Yay! Go team China. And where is all of this money going? Yup. To buy football teams in Europe, amusement parks in the US, and real estate in other Asian countries. Oh, and the major investment in upgrading their military... purely for defensive purposes.. and the major rise in TV shows/movies replaying Japanese aggression in China, and replaying news reports of the US/UN interfering with their foreign policy...