US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

One of the more stupid arguments (Not saying it's not actually the Chinese position, but it's daft). What are they afraid of? It's not as if the US can't launch attacks on China by use of cruise missiles and aircraft sitting at the 12-mile limit.

Well I guess China would at some point in the future like that American carriers, warships and submarines aren't sitting there. And an occupied territory is harder to get rid of.

You only have to imagine what you said with the countries swapped to imagine how the US would be responding to a Chinese build-up in Tijuana. The Cuban Missile Crisis was that exact thing with Russia.


If i were China though, I'd want NK to be a US state and have as many Americans as possible there. It would add a further deterrent to war and let me get on with investing in and pillaging resources out of Africa in peace.

Timberrrrrrrr

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.

Whilst Trump just spends millions if the tax payers money on moving hinself and half his staff to his hotel every weekend to play golf

The same Trump who whinged about Obama playing golf a couple of times a year :rolleyes:

Obama did nothing about NK Bush (1&2) did nothing about NK and the orange one (for all of his mouthing off) will do nothing about NK.

Billy86

BillyBobBS wrote: »

That's because we have a credible American President

Ha... no.

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.

You mustn't have been paying attention then, much like you've been trying to avoid thinking about the US dollar tanking in recent months. In terms of what has actually been done so far, the US under Trump is basically just continuing what was done under Obama which was to increase sanctions and carry on as was, only with a beligerent 70 year old fat child shouting angry nonsense in every direction. Because that's the thing with Trump - he had no credibility and utterly useless.

Poor ickle Donald just wants an approval ratings bump to feel good about himself, we'll see if he can goad someone into giving him an excuse. And if that happens, we'll see what your and other Trump supporters opinions on taking in millions of Korean refugees in a few years time is.

Good thing you lads have stopped screeching about "deep state!!" though to try and excuse Donald conning the lot of you over isolationism/not getting in wars/etc, that one was particularly cringe worthy.

Chrongen

Mr.H wrote: »

Are you kidding me????

North Korea has been saying for years that they were preparing for an attack from the US.

Recently (yes when Obama was in charge) their verbal mouthpiece (when he wasnt killing his family in a very spyish way - very cool by the way if it wasnt real life) was threatening to take the fight to America.

First of all there was no fight. Secondly he is bringing a non existent fight to the States.

When he first said this stuff, Obama ignored him. They implemented sanctions eventually.

Now fast forward to present day where Kim says he has a "present for America"........................

He might be in his own house but he is about to leave his house with a nuke and he means harm.

North Korea should have been dealt with back in the 50's

And apparently Iraq were also upon the cusp of wiping out America.
Apparently Iran were and still are clamouring to "wipe Israel from the face of the Earth".

Back in 1962 Vietnam were about to launch a marauding army of slaughterers upon Guatemala only for them to burn their way north.

Why is it only America who thinks that all these countries are about to simply kill 300 million people for no reason and then just look at each other and say "huh, job done. Now what?"


I cannot see the logic behind the argument that north Korea is threatening the planet. If someone could explain, then I would be most appreciative.

Why would North Korea, or perhaps better verbalised, the government of North Korea attack any country and kill thousands if not millions? Why? For fun?

Governments who run countries and economies with the backing of military strength do not attack other countries or realms just for the hell of it. They do so with a purpose in mind. So what purpose would North Korea have in unleashing violence and war on another country?

Chrongen

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

History is non-stop, most of the crimes you ascribe to America were products of the nineteenth century when they weren't by any means unique. Overthrowing democracies/supporting dictators is usually mentioned in reference to it's actions during the Cold War, which quite frankly we're probably less damaging to those countries than having them become new North Koreas. As for Saudi Arabia, you're pushing an open door with me there.

The long and the short of it is the places the US intervenes in tended to be rather damaged before they intervened and will continue to be long after its departure. Given the choice of a flawed democracy as the planets premier power or some of the alternatives we presently have on offer, I'll settle for the imperfect US any day of the week.

You say that you will settle for being (I can't think of a better word but..) dominated by the government of another country because you assume not being thus tied would mean havoc and horror and death to you. But have you possibly contemplated the multiple alternatives of actually not being dominated by any entity?

BoJack Horseman

Chrongen wrote: »

But have you possibly contemplated the multiple alternatives of actually not being dominated by any entity?

If you are looking for a world without hegenomic dominance, you've come to the wrong world.

4068ac1elhodqr

Billy86 wrote: »

Not even remotely, even here on boards you just have to go back through the threads from last year to look up the posters terrified about the oncoming nuclear war if Trump did not win.

Funny how that stance has done a 180, but expected considering the candidate and those in support of him.

Your simply confusing the fact that Clinton was keen to go arse over head into places like Syria (where other opposing powers were invited and very well established). That would have been one very nasty soup.

Whereas DT was rightly more cautious, the only action he took was a warning shot when deemed appropriate. He was never promoted as a 'peacemaker' just a more cautious deal-maker.

In the case of NK, he's 'dammed if he does, and dammed if he don't'.

Ipso

Evie Big Troop wrote: »

Your simply confusing the fact that Clinton was keen to go arse over head into places like Syria (where other opposing powers were invited and very well established). That would have been one very nasty soup.

Whereas DT was rightly more cautious, the only action he took was a warning shot when deemed appropriate. He was never promoted as a 'peacemaker' just a more cautious deal-maker.

In the case of NK, he's 'dammed if he does, and dammed if he don't'.

He inherited the problem, he could stay of twatter though.

WinnyThePoo

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.

I agree with the first part. Trump is a madman with nukes.

Obama Sat on tv talk shows for eight years?

Can you back this up with proof. I mean a whole eight years. There must thousands of hours of footage.

Shurimgreat

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I agree with the first part. Trump is a madman with nukes.

Obama Sat on tv talk shows for eight years?

Can you back this up with proof. I mean a whole eight years. There must thousands of hours of footage.

Obama didn't sit on talk shows for eight years.

But he did very little about North Korea.

What's worse though is the US intelligence community who have been routintely behind the curve on NK. Time and again NK have caught them by surprise. The intelligence said their missile technology wasn't up to scratch which proved wrong. They said they were years away from ICBMs. They said miniaturisation of nukes was a long way off. They said submarine launches were beyond them. Each time NK proved them wrong.

US presidents depend on their intelligence community to provide accurate information to help decision making. This is why successive US presidents have failed on NK. They thought they had years to come up with a solution and that sanctions would eventually work. But the information they were being given was hopelessly inaccurate.

Mr.H

Chrongen wrote:

Why would North Korea, or perhaps better verbalised, the government of North Korea attack any country and kill thousands if not millions? Why? For fun?

They have already launched missiles off the coast of Japan.

Are you live no in a bubble?

What is your solution to all of this. What would you do?

BillyBobBS

North Korea threaten to "blow up the US mainland" in latest escalation in the crisis. It's all Trump's fault though.

Arsemageddon

BillyBobBS wrote: »

North Korea threaten to "blow up the US mainland" in latest escalation in the crisis. It's all Trump's fault though.

Just curious to know, are you fapping vigorously about imminent death and destruction every time you post in this thread?

Irish Praetorian

Chrongen wrote: »

You say that you will settle for being (I can't think of a better word but..) dominated by the government of another country because you assume not being thus tied would mean havoc and horror and death to you. But have you possibly contemplated the multiple alternatives of actually not being dominated by any entity?

I believe Libertarians and Communists make a similar argument - I can only advise you to look long and hard for an example of such a successful society, I dare say you will find none.

BillyBobBS

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Just curious to know, are you fapping vigorously about imminent death and destruction every time you post in this thread?

Well for a start i refuse to reply to anyone who uses the term fapping.

Ash.J.Williams

BillyBobBS wrote: »

North Korea threaten to "blow up the US mainland" in latest escalation in the crisis. It's all Trump's fault though.

North Korea couldn't blow a knacker off his missus. I gaurentee if in a parallel universe we ignored NK... Nothing would happen

Arsemageddon

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Well for a start i refuse to reply to anyone who uses the term fapping.

Eh, you just have replied.

I'll take that as a yes so.

Gringo180

BillyBobBS wrote: »

North Korea threaten to "blow up the US mainland" in latest escalation in the crisis. It's all Trump's fault though.

Any links?

Cheerful Spring

ilkhanid wrote: »

50 000. A trivial amount. You know how many troops Germany, France under Napoleon and Japan deployed to invade Russia and China? No Russian or Chinese general loses a munutes sleep over 50 000 soldiers. You wouldn't invade Norway with 50 000 soldiers.



The USSR fell for a number of reasons. One of the most significant was it's total failure to comprehend the consequences of even limited political reform. A command economy is only compatible with a despotism and a command economy that refuses to make any use of market mechanisms and that depends on every decision on choice and allocations being taken by bureaucrats is a dreadfully inefficient system, slow and ponderous. Even Yugoslavia, that tried limited market reforms didn't work very well.



If they had shut up and kept quiet, dialled down on the threats, artillery barrages and tunnel building, listened to the Chinese and instituted even limited reforms they'd have slipped under the world's--and more importantly-American notice, but they've set about making enemies left, right and centre. It wasn't the US that turned Japan, Burma -or more recently-Malaysia against North Korea.



Nuclear, eh? Any jobs going in Public libraries, writing, newspapers, television, retail, bartending, book publishing, magazine publishing, public art, any art, music performance, cartooning, fashion design, comedy, Dj-ing, agriculture, judiciary, the legal profession......

Put 25,000 and 50,000 not so friendly troops near the American border and you see how quickly things will escalate! Do you think the North Koreans are not going to react to economic sanctions, broken promises and missiles and troop exercises on their border?

The reality is United States likes leading the world and any country who threatens the status quo is the enemy. The Soviet Union fell trying to match a power was stronger economically.

China is the leading manufacturer of the world, if communism was bad, this would be apparent economically.

If America was consistent in it's disdain for bad regimes i be happy, but the very same mouthpiece supports a Palestinian blockade by the Israel government. Support Saudi Arabia who does not believe in human rights and women rights and is an active supporter of Sunni terrorist attacks globally. I could go on but you got my point?

Cheerful Spring

Billy86 wrote: »

Not even remotely, even here on boards you just have to go back through the threads from last year to look up the posters terrified about the oncoming nuclear war if Trump did not win.

Funny how that stance has done a 180, but expected considering the candidate and those in support of him.

Did people on here believe he was against the Iraq War and was a pacifist? His demeanour towards others was a dead giveaway his a bully and would act out.

Cheerful Spring

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Yet again you seem to have missed the point entirely. I never said Kim was admirable.

Anyhoo, can you name any country led by a dictator that has been brought to its knees by sanctions? I can't think of any. That's because dictators generally don't give two hoots what happen to their people as long as they get to hold on to power.

This not true Saddam Hussein opened his country for the UN inspectors. The sanctions were crippling Iraq. UN inspectors said before even the war started the found no evidence of nuclear programme, chemical, or biological programme in Iraq. Bush did not care he went ahead anyhow and invaded a sovereign country on lies. How many people died since 2003? I bet you more innocent people are killed after Saddam, than before it

Arsemageddon

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

This not true Saddam Hussein opened his country for the UN inspectors. The sanctions were crippling Iraq. UN inspectors said before even the war started the found no evidence of nuclear programme, chemical, or biological programme in Iraq. Bush did not care he went ahead anyhow and invaded a sovereign country on lies. How many people died since 2003? I bet you more innocent people are killed after Saddam, than before it

Saddam got rid of his WMD after the airstrikes in 1998. From 1991 to 1998 he was able to ignore the sanctions regime despite Iraqs crippled infrastructure and the massive death toll caused by sanctions.

gitzy16v

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.

I guarantee if NK was to attack the Saudis,America would be in like Flynn

gitzy16v

this is the only global situation that i want America to act...but nooooo...they are dragging their heels because there is nothing to gain for them...US only gets involved if its economically beneficial.

gitzy16v

gitzy16v wrote: »

this is the only global situation that i want America to act...but nooooo...they are dragging their heels because there is nothing to gain for them...US only gets involved if its economically beneficial.

Guaranteed mass casualties and infrastructure damage and maybe even a thermo nuclear bomb because some Irish guy got a hard on.

So be honest.. Would you say that if you were a South Korean living in Seoul, 35 miles from NK?

suicide_circus

^^^^ our man AbG, feeling the heat in Saigon

flaneur

It's very easy to war game from very far away,when you've absolutely no likelihood of being hit.

I know people living in neighbouring countries and they're extremely concerned about the risks.

Seoul is roughly as far from the North Korean border as London is from Heathrow and Chinese cities are being shaken by NK's underground tests. There were Chinese scientists expressing concerns that the mountain being used to contain the tests might even collapse, causing a major environmental release of all sorts of possible nasty chemicals and radioactive debris.

That region is pretty densely populated. North Korea itself has 25 million, South Korea has over 50 million.

The two Chinese provinces that border NK, Jilin and Liaoning have populations of 27 million and 44 million.

Then you've also got Japan in proximity.

This is an area with populations equivalent to Western Europe or North Eastern US.

As well as the human life risk, if you had a big economic shock in the region, you could also trigger a major global recession.

It's an incredibly delicate situation.

Billy86

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did people on here believe he was against the Iraq War and was a pacifist? His demeanour towards others was a dead giveaway his a bully and would act out.

His supporters on here and in general time and time and time again tried to deny and/or ignore it being pointed out that Trump was in favour both of getting rid of Gaddafi and Iraq because it didn't mix well with their "war monger" narrative they were so eagerly trying to paint the other candidate with. If I'm correct he just said something of the lines of "no I never said that" and -as per usual- they were more than happy to ignore the actual recorded audio of him saying exactly that. No matter how often it was pointed out, the largest concession I remember seeing from any Trump fan on the matter was "oh yeah well he didn't know the details back then so it doesn't count" - which is both a little amusing and very disturbing given how little research he does on just about anything related to the job now that he is in it.

Trump was the candidate that never would have gone to war with Iraq, Trump was the candidate who never would have intervened in the middle east over the last few years, Trump was the candidate who would avoid war with Russia, Trump was the candidate who would end the 'world police' tag of the USA, Trump was the guy who would return them to their more isolationist stance, and on and on and on. And once again, Trump had all of them conned.

ilkhanid

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Put 25,000 and 50,000 not so friendly troops near the American border and you see how quickly things will escalate! Do you think the North Koreans are not going to react to economic sanctions, broken promises and missiles and troop exercises on their border?

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).

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The reality is United States likes leading the world and any country who threatens the status quo is the enemy. The Soviet Union fell trying to match a power was stronger economically.

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.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

China is the leading manufacturer of the world, if communism was bad, this would be apparent economically.

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 as to be meaningless. 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.

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

If America was consistent in it's disdain for bad regimes i be happy, but the very same mouthpiece supports a Palestinian blockade by the Israel government. Support Saudi Arabia who does not believe in human rights and women rights and is an active supporter of Sunni terrorist attacks globally. I could go on but you got my point?

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

4068ac1elhodqr

Billy86 wrote: »

...Trump was the candidate who never would have intervened in the middle east over the last few years, Trump was the candidate who would avoid war with Russia...

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.