US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

bear1

The hornyness of the media though when it comes to thoughts of war with nk is just as frightening.
Trump would want to chill the **** out for a minute cause he would be wise to keep China on his good side.

Gatling

seiphil wrote: »

I say military intervention.

Mattis is itching for a war. Very disturbed individual.

Seems pretty much sane compared to lil kim and Donald ,
Very highly respected and regarded man

aloyisious

Thing is: does China agree with accepted US admin beliefs that Dons tweets are official presidential statements and therefore official US policy AND is it a fact that China is willing to go along with nuclear fission material etc blowing the wind in its theatre of interest on the say-so of a tweeter?

seiphil

Gatling wrote: »

Seems pretty much sane compared to lil kim and Donald ,
Very highly respected and regarded man

Of course you would think that.

The man has described war as fun.

"It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-mattis-mad-dog-defense-secretary-donald-trump-afghanistan-iraq-war-marine-a7428671.html

He's also convinced Trump that waterboarding is a necessary tool.

He's a dangerous man and has been dying for a war to break out. That is why you see the US instigating on a few fronts.

Gatling

seiphil wrote: »

Of course you would think that.

The man has described war as fun.

"It’s fun to shoot some people.

He's also convinced Trump that waterboarding is a necessary tool.

Totally agree with him especially when you use the full quoted part


'You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them'.

seiphil

Gatling wrote: »

Totally agree with him especially when you use the full quoted part


'You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them'.

It should never be "fun" to shoot anybody.

Unless you're a deranged psychopath.

Hank Scorpio

https://twitter.com/FoxBusiness/status/877605807323365377

Samaris

US and China can agree to it all they like, but how are they going to get North Korea to agree to it?

The comments under that tweet are eyerollworthy though.

ohnonotgmail

Samaris wrote: »

US and China can agree to it all they like, but how are they going to get North Korea to agree to it?

The comments under that tweet are eyerollworthy though.

an economic blockade on NK by the chinese would bring NK to its knees.

Akrasia

And then what happens?

Gatling

Akrasia wrote: »

And then what happens?

This is one of the great unknowns , china is afraid of the regeime collapse and what effect it would have on them and their also afraid of a unified Korea which they apparently won't allow to happen,

But sooner of later we will get the the point of no return with the whole situation

s3rtvdbwfj81ch

Akrasia wrote: »

And then what happens?

Insurgance against the Kims, and a puppet of China installed.

aloyisious

Akrasia wrote: »

And then what happens?

UN "peacekeeping" military force north of the 38th parallel by agreement in a UN Security Council meeting to oversee and ensure proper elections are held in the NK territory by its citizens over a 10 year [acclimatization to democracy] period plan alongside UNWRA & UNICEF for NK "in the field" operations and a UN non-proliferation de-militarisation mine-clearing operation? Thought pattern to defuse the situation slowly and provide new homes for the NK rulers [China].

AnGaelach

bear1 wrote: »

The hornyness of the media though when it comes to thoughts of war with nk is just as frightening.
Trump would want to chill the **** out for a minute cause he would be wise to keep China on his good side.

Why exactly? You think America should pander to China's reluctance to reign in a nuclear armed State that has threatened to nuke Japan and America, regularly fires missiles at Japan or shells across the border into South Korea?

What exactly has staying on China's "good side" achieved? The regime shows no signs of slowing down or moderating itself, the Chinese show no real desire to remove the nuclear weapons from the peninsula. What has China's good side brought Asia except constant tension around the South/East China seas? What exactly is to be gained from staying on China's good side? Cheap (and shítty) electronics or flags for consumption in America?

China has been given years to "reign in" the North Koreans, and they simply haven't. The US, South Korea and Japan are all well-within their international rights to carry out military strikes against North Korea in an act of self-defence.

AnGaelach

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an economic blockade on NK by the chinese would bring NK to its knees.

Why are you presuming that the regime is going to respond rationally? It has nuclear weapons. It has already starved millions of its own people instead of giving up its arsenal or its power.

AnGaelach

AnGaelach wrote: »

The regime shows no signs of slowing down or moderating itself

Quite the contrary, recent border events are relatively minor, compared to the major incidents of the 1970s and 1980s, when belligerent incidents were happening on a daily basis.

I mean, in 1983 the North Koreans managed to kill most of the South Korean Government, about a decade previously they assassinated the First Lady of South Korea.

Although nuclear weapons development is a fairly worrying development, it does contrast against a strong curtailment of the scale and incidence of North Korean military action against the South.

China has been given years to "reign in" the North Koreans, and they simply haven't. The US, South Korea and Japan are all well-within their international rights to carry out military strikes against North Korea in an act of self-defence.

What about the North Korean right to self defence?

bear1

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why exactly? You think America should pander to China's reluctance to reign in a nuclear armed State that has threatened to nuke Japan and America, regularly fires missiles at Japan or shells across the border into South Korea?

What exactly has staying on China's "good side" achieved? The regime shows no signs of slowing down or moderating itself, the Chinese show no real desire to remove the nuclear weapons from the peninsula. What has China's good side brought Asia except constant tension around the South/East China seas? What exactly is to be gained from staying on China's good side? Cheap (and shítty) electronics or flags for consumption in America?

China has been given years to "reign in" the North Koreans, and they simply haven't. The US, South Korea and Japan are all well-within their international rights to carry out military strikes against North Korea in an act of self-defence.

You also need to realise that Russia is staying relatively quiet with this.
Most of North Koreas weapons are ex Soviet items and I'd wager Russia wouldn't want to lose North Korea to the Americans.
America going it alone without the Chinese could cause more problems than solve especially if the Russians side with the Chinese.
The north is a basket case state but I believe the best approach doesn't involve military action at least until the north makes the first move.
There would be no winners in such a war.
As of recent the Chinese have been voicing their disapproval and approving sanctions against the north, something which years ago they wouldn't have.
A nice coup would do the job nicely.

Bobeagleburger

seiphil wrote: »

It should never be "fun" to shoot anybody.

Unless you're a deranged psychopath.

Internet shooting is fun.

Pew pew

Hank Scorpio

Launched another missile tonight with Japan saying it appeared to have landed in the Japanese exclusive economic zone (EEZ), Reuters reported.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/882042962254974977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fblog-briefing-room%2Fnews%2F340586-south-korea-north-korea-launches-another-ballistic-missile

BillyBobBS

Iv'e a friend who works and lives in South Korea for the last 7 years and he told me a few weeks ago on a return trip here that the South Korean's no longer view North Korea as a joke when it comes to a possible attack. He also said people are fairly pissed off with the lack of inaction from their leaders and many see it as inevitable a war is coming.

It seems crazy it's come to this.

LordSutch

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Iv'e a friend who works and lives in South Korea for the last 7 years and he told me a few weeks ago on a return trip here that the South Korean's no longer view North Korea as a joke when it comes to a possible attack. He also said people are fairly pissed off with the lack of inaction from their leaders and many see it as inevitable a war is coming.

It seems crazy it's come to this.

But what would war achieve for the North?

Like what's the benefit of all this sabre rattling & missile testing by Kim Jong Un, To what end?

Zebra3

AnGaelach wrote: »

Why exactly? You think America should pander to China's reluctance to reign in a nuclear armed State that has threatened to nuke Japan and America, regularly fires missiles at Japan or shells across the border into South Korea?

What exactly has staying on China's "good side" achieved? The regime shows no signs of slowing down or moderating itself, the Chinese show no real desire to remove the nuclear weapons from the peninsula. What has China's good side brought Asia except constant tension around the South/East China seas? What exactly is to be gained from staying on China's good side? Cheap (and shy) electronics or flags for consumption in America?

China has been given years to "reign in" the North Koreans, and they simply haven't. The US, South Korea and Japan are all well-within their international rights to carry out military strikes against North Korea in an act of self-defence.

Maybe the US should stay the hell out of stuff that is none of its business. You don't see North Korea or China poking their noses around the borders of the US.

We've all seen the ill effects of US war crimes (still no prosecutions) in the Middle East and their support for dictators over democracy in Latin America, but some are brainwashed into thinking the US has the right to go around the globe looking for war after war.

BillyBobBS

LordSutch wrote: »

But what would war achieve for the North?

Like what's the benefit of all this sabre rattling & missile testing by Kim Jong Un, To what end?

No idea. Just communicating what he told me.

This is a line crossed now. NK have tested a ICBM and i very much doubt America will stand ideally by.

Akrasia

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Launched another missile tonight with Japan saying it appeared to have landed in the Japanese exclusive economic zone (EEZ), Reuters reported.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/882042962254974977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fblog-briefing-room%2Fnews%2F340586-south-korea-north-korea-launches-another-ballistic-missile

This is a huge development.

If they have ICBM technology they can directly strike cities in America, China, Europe, Japan

We don't have anything that can shoot them down reliably so unless we can sabotage their launch, any armed conflict with NK will likely result in civilian casualties in the USA, something they haven't experienced since WW2

Akrasia

Playing out the different scenarios, lets say NK uses a conventional (non nuclear) warhead in a strike against America, does anyone trust Trump to not retaliate with nukes?

Would NK figure that they'd likely be nuked even with conventional warheads. so they'll just do a first strike?

Whatever way you look at it, the likelyhood of a nuclear conflict has just gotten much higher.

If we had a sane person in the whitehouse, we might have some hope, but does anyone trust Trump to respond to this rationally?

archer22

What North Korea is doing is a defence tactic..and its working.

Not a single American soldier on their soil,not a single American terrorist on their soil and not a single American aircraft violating their airspace and killing their people (compare that with Syria) .

And as for those who think China will attack NK for the United States...take a break from whatever wacky baccy you are on

Zebra3

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a huge development.

If they have ICBM technology they can directly strike cities in America, China, Europe, Japan

We don't have anything that can shoot them down reliably so unless we can sabotage their launch, any armed conflict with NK will likely result in civilian casualties in the USA, something they haven't experienced since WW2

What about us reigning in those countries that have strong military capabilities and use them to slaughter innocent civilians?

BillyBobBS

Akrasia wrote: »

Playing out the different scenarios, lets say NK uses a conventional (non nuclear) warhead in a strike against America, does anyone trust Trump to not retaliate with nukes?

Would NK figure that they'd likely be nuked even with conventional warheads. so they'll just do a first strike?

Whatever way you look at it, the likelyhood of a nuclear conflict has just gotten much higher.

If we had a sane person in the whitehouse, we might have some hope, but does anyone trust Trump to respond to this rationally?

I'd trust him more than i'd have trusted Clinton. Let us not forget 8 years of pathetic weak governance from Obama letting NK further develop their nukes during his tenure whilst he made regular appearances on late night chat shows has lead us to this dangerous situation.

Trump is an ass that much is clear but Obama dealt him a sh1tty hand with regards NK and the middle east.

Billy86

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I'd trust him more than i'd have trusted Clinton. Let us not forget 8 years of pathetic weak governance from Obama letting NK further develop their nukes during his tenure whilst he made regular appearances on late night chat shows has lead us to this dangerous situation.

Trump is an ass that much is clear but Obama dealt him a sh1tty hand with regards NK and the middle east.

Funny isn't it that Trump ran on isolationism as his fans screamed 'warmonger' at Obama & Clinton, and now the line has changed to this (not calling you at Trump fan by the way, just referring to the overall narrative they're trying to push).

Akrasia

What would you have done if you were Obama?

North Korea is already under sanctions and the regime doesn't seem to care if the population starves. Any military strike on NK could see them launch attacks against Seoul with the potential for a devastating conflict involving china and Russia that didn't go so well the last time it was tried...

American military strength is excellent at destroying military targets, but terrible at defeating geurilla style militias. North Korea could potentially deploy 6 million infantry to defend it's territory, or attack it's neighbours not to mention thousands of short range missiles aimed at South Korea, nuclear weapons and now the possibility of ICBM technology capable of deploying nukes to anywhere in the world.

If America attacked North Korea, it is a war they can not win and no good can come from it.

The only way the Kims will be deposed is through some kind of internal coup or uprising, but we've seen plenty of times before that often the leaders of these coups are worse than those they replaced.