seahawk wrote:

Why conventional if you can simply nuke out North Korea? There is nothing wrong with using the nuclear arsenal to its fullest to protect the safety of the US.

That would turn the US instantly into a pariah state.
Even US "only conventional" war is frowned upon world wide.

Reading this forum, one could get the idea that the liberal part of the world already thinks this.

Yeah, nothing wrong nuking a few million people.

seahawk wrote:

Reading this forum, one could get the idea that the liberal part of the world already thinks this.

Why do you want to kill a few hundred thousand, starting a war in Korea and potentially start WWIII? You are safe in Germany, so easy to make that decision. Although this will impact the world's economy in a big way.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Reading this forum, one could get the idea that the liberal part of the world already thinks this.

Why do you want to kill a few hundred thousand, starting a war in Korea and potentially start WWIII? You are safe in Germany, so easy to make that decision. Although this will impact the world's economy in a big way.

What I want does not matter at all in the conflict, nor does it matter what you want. America has elected a president and this president has made some pretty clear statements on how he will govern the country and this line is consistent since he has taken office. So imho the only way to look at it is by what can happen. And imho it is possible that Trump finds public support for a war with NK; it is possible that he would do this, it is possible that he will use nukes and it is also possible that he would not care one bit about collateral damage in Korea. Should you agree that this line of thought is correct, than it makes no sense talking about international treaties or if the US becomes a pariah state, because then we are way past this point.

What I wrote is totally reasonable if you consider Trump´s line of thought and his America first approach. Do I hope for this, no - Do I think my opinion about it changes the situation one bit - no? Do I think Trump would not be crazy enough to use the US nukes - hell no! I find it much more enlightening to look at problems from the position of the sides involved and not from my own standpoint, because mostly ma own standpoint does not matter all. When I say Trump will make it to the history books, it is no compliment.

seahawk wrote:

is also possible that he would not care one bit about collateral damage in Korea..

He has property there, so you can assume he does care.... insurance doesn´t pay if he gets his own property nuked.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

is also possible that he would not care one bit about collateral damage in Korea..

He has property there, so you can assume he does care.... insurance doesn´t pay if he gets his own property nuked.

best regards
Thomas

Well, Trump just wrote that the US military is locked and loaded and publicly said that Kim "will see" what will happen if he fires those missiles towards Guam. So it looks like you are wrong again.

787Driver wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

is also possible that he would not care one bit about collateral damage in Korea..

He has property there, so you can assume he does care.... insurance doesn´t pay if he gets his own property nuked.

best regards
Thomas

Well, Trump just wrote that the US military is locked and loaded and publicly said that Kim "will see" what will happen if he fires those missiles towards Guam. So it looks like you are wrong again.

Nope, as always Trump is wrong again. The nukes are always looked and loaded. Deterrence kinda fails if they are not. And since NK is quite a bit behind in numbers and ASW counterforce is out anyways, counter value is also out, so it is his usual "my hands are not small" rethorics for the gullible.
Kim Jong Un certainly knew that the USA can flatten his country before Trump pulled his pecker out, different from Trump, he knows what a nuke is and how they work after all.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

He has property there, so you can assume he does care.... insurance doesn´t pay if he gets his own property nuked.

best regards
Thomas

Well, Trump just wrote that the US military is locked and loaded and publicly said that Kim "will see" what will happen if he fires those missiles towards Guam. So it looks like you are wrong again.

Nope, as always Trump is wrong again. The nukes are always looked and loaded. Deterrence kinda fails if they are not. And since NK is quite a bit behind in numbers and ASW counterforce is out anyways, counter value is also out, so it is his usual "my hands are not small" rethorics for the gullible.
Kim Jong Un certainly knew that the USA can flatten his country before Trump pulled his pecker out, different from Trump, he knows what a nuke is and how they work after all.

Best regards
Thomas

No he just disagrees with you. That's not the same as being wrong. Sorry

You conveniently ignored commenting on the tweet I just referenced and his comment on tv.

787Driver wrote:

You conveniently ignored commenting on the tweet I just referenced and his comment on tv.

experience tells that whatever Trump says he going to do, he won´t be doing...

not play golf
not go on vacation
implementing a secret plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days
get Mexico to pay for the wall
......

best regards
Thomas

I am willing to bet that about 90% of the worlds population either don't care or think that this NK ordeal will just blow over which is likely the case here.

Kim will eventually give up and I can bet my money on this.

wardialer wrote:

I am willing to bet that about 90% of the worlds population either don't care or think that this NK ordeal will just blow over which is likely the case here.

about 70% of the worlds population lives in potential fallout zones, so probably a few more care than just 10%

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

You conveniently ignored commenting on the tweet I just referenced and his comment on tv.

experience tells that whatever Trump says he going to do, he won´t be doing...

not play golf
not go on vacation
implementing a secret plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days
get Mexico to pay for the wall
......

best regards
Thomas

True, but in this instance if you had done a bit of research before your comment, you would realize he is doing what he said he would do regarding North Korea all the way back in 1999 if he was president

Its amazing how the media makes people so paranoid it's astonishing.

No war is going to break out, just relax. Those territories are well defended .

seahawk wrote:

Why conventional if you can simply nuke out North Korea?

Neither the United States, nor the USSR, has ever had the ability to 'nuke out' a country. We've had the ability to destroy major military installations, the key government operations and major logistics centers. We have known since the first studies that the biggest problem with a major nuclear attack is the after effects of radioactive fallout. It doesn't stop at the borders of the target nation. A major nuclear attack will spread fallout around the world.

The idea of turning a country into a sheet of glass has always been science fiction, not reality.

North Korea has a tremendous defense against widespread nuke damage, and conventional damage. The terrain of the mountainous areas limits the effective damage area of any weapons. It will require 'boots on the ground' to root out the military installations and government control facilities.

But the biggest reason against nukes.

Use of nukes in North Korea will put 100,000 US troops and about 40,000 US military dependent families in the immediate fallout zones. South Korea and Japan will get fallout within hours.

Using several nukes to 'nuke out' North Korea will put fallout in Alaska - cutting off the flow of oil from Alaska to the west coast of the US.

The crop producing areas of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California will receive fallout within a few days. Forget eating apples, potatoes, cheese, oranges, asparagus, strawberries, lettuce, cabbage, etc for the next 3 to 5 years in much of the US. We would see wide spread food shortages in the US.

Probably 40-50 million people would need to be relocated from the west coast to states east of the Mississippi River. A major nuke strike against North Korea will destroy the US economy and make the 1930's depression look like an era of prosperity.

A major full blown nuclear destruction of North Korea would cause near as much harm to the people of the United States as to those of South Korea and Japan - two nations which may well cease to exist after a North Korea strike.

wardialer wrote:

Its amazing how the media makes people so paranoid it's astonishing.

No war is going to break out, just relax. Those territories are well defended .

The media makes money by making the audience live in fear.

The politicians gain control by making the voters live in fear.

wardialer wrote:

Its amazing how the media makes people so paranoid it's astonishing.

No war is going to break out, just relax. Those territories are well defended .

Those territories have always been well defended. The military is always "locked and loaded". they always prepare for war.

The difference now is that we have a hot headed bully as President, that has no idea how to run a country.

Well, maybe he wants to perk up the US economy by engaging in conflict or war. I know it's a sad thought but that's how it is.

Do you think that all the top defense companies are now happy that we have ISIS defeated? The answer is NO.

To them, war is money. Don't forget.

Go figure...

Just give PlayStation and Xbox equipment/accounts/high-speed internet to both of them. They can settle score without involving rest of the world.

This will go on until Russia investigation is dropped and CNN stops complaining about Golf.

socalgeo wrote:

seb146 wrote:

.....We didn't need nukes against Stalin or Hitler. The only reason, "they" say nukes were used in Japan was to speed up the inevitable.

Your complete lack of understanding is truly a spectacle to behold.

This. Just say "you are wrong" and that makes you right, Socalgeo. Understanding what? The orange menace just said yesterday that nukes were not enough for DPRK and he should have threatened more. Why? It has been proven time and again nukes or more are not needed. Just ignore the little jerk in DPRK and save millions of lives.

CH47A wrote:

Let me please apologize, seb146, because I am kind of a dumbass that doesn't seem to be able to put two-and-two together very well.

I mean, I don't see where that quote you put up has me stating that we need to use nuclear weapons systems. And I do not remember where I actually wrote that we need to use nuclear weapons systems. Don't get me wrong, I am not stating you are posting anything wrong. I just can't remember, that's all. Could you help me out on that please? You know, a quote of my writing that nuclear weapons systems need to be used by UN Forces.

I'd appreciate your help. Thank you.

You write like I do and I know it is frustrating to others here.

This is what I read from your posts in this thread so far:

You are for a nuclear strike. You use subtle wording to spell out your reasoning why this is a good thing.

That is what I read.

seb146 wrote:

The only reason, "they" say nukes were used in Japan was to speed up the inevitable.

Well, if the US had not used nukes in Japan, you would not have to put up with my posts.

My father was on a troop ship enroute from Marseilles, France to Okinawa when the nukes were dropped and the war ended.

During my US Navy tours in Japan, I met many Japanese citizens who would not be alive if nukes had not been used.

My next door neighbor was 5 years old and being trained to run up to US soldiers to ask for candy. When she got close to them, she was to pull a cord attached to the backpack she would wear. She was told that paper flowers would spill out of the backpack.

Several of the Japanese men who were 8-12 years old were being trained to operate speed boats to crash into landing craft, to hide in buried trenches and detonate explosives.

IEDs and suicide bombers were not new when I faced them in Lebanon in 1983. They have been used since the invention of gunpowder.

Estimates of the total number of casualties from the two atomic attacks are between 200,000 and 300,000 deaths - with less than 10% of those being military.

Conservative estimates of the number of Japanese civilians who would have been killed in an invasion of Honshu, Japan are between 1.2 and 1.5 MILLION.

There was no 'peace movement' in Japan. There was not way those opposed to the military national suicide plan would have been able to stop those deaths.

The nuclear attacks were horrible. But in the context of the times, they were the most humane way to paralyze the military leadership and allow the end of the war to happen.

---------------------------

When I was young, John Hershey's book "Hiroshima" was required reading in most US high schools. For those who have not read the book, it is a very stark, no punches pulled, description of the impact of a nuclear weapon on the people in the blast zone. It shows the real consequences of an atomic bomb on innocent people.

I'm not discounting the impact of the widespread firebombing of civilian populations, or other impact of other weapons.

But I would strongly urge everyone to read "Hiroshima" before they start discussing nuclear war.

Another aspect is to read some of the civil defense information from the 50's and early 60's. On the real impact on US citizens from nuclear weapons detonations.

WIederling wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

IF, we could have nuked Hitler early on, would all of the minions left in Germany still have wanted to wage war with their Head of State gone???

So, project that thought, only more so,I think to the NK situation. If their Head of State was taken out, who would the NK minions left,be fighting for??

These were Dictator Heads of State, worshiped by many.

Removing the government ( dictator or not ) removes the path to a peace treaty ( or just a capitulation.)
One reason why the Iraq war never really came to an end. Nobody there to give up in an official manner.
( probably not graspable for the intellectually challenged war mongerers posting .. )

No. no, no,no,no.... Comparing the dictatorships to Hitler and Kim to the Saddam dictatorship is just not the same kettle of fish. Saddam wasn't worshiped like these other guys. AND, under these other guys, there were not conflicting parties to speak of.... but that was not, and is not the case in Iraq, which, since it's ugly creation after WWI by the Fucking British, has always been a tension between Sunni and Shiite allegiances.

So eliminating Saddam did not bring either stability or peace to Iraq.

I would venture to say that more Iraqis have died after Saddam's removal, than before his removal, excluding the Coalition wars against it...

IOW, as a whole, are the Iraqis worse off or better off since the removal of Saddam??

One aspect of nuclear war strategy is to ensure that enough of the enemy leadership has to be left alive to surrender. To stop the war.

There is absolutely no way to ensure that all a country's nuclear weapons, and other WMDs, are destroyed in an attack, so someone from that nation must be left alive with enough political and military leadership authority to take control of what is left of those weapons.

The greatest nightmare of a nuclear war would be to destroy the leadership and control of a nation, and leave the decision on when, where and targeting of the remaining WMDs to local level military commanders. Most would not want to continue a lost war, but every nation has those few who would unleash any weapon they had upon the world.

Nukes are frightening, chemical weapons are nightmarish, the biological weapons that most belligerent nations have are the true horror and threats to end the modern world.

dtw2hyd wrote:

This will go on until Russia investigation is ...

...concluded and Trump in prison.

787Driver wrote:

True, but in this instance if you had done a bit of research before your comment, you would realize he is doing what he said he would do regarding North Korea all the way back in 1999 if he was president

He consistently said he is a great dealmaker, which apparently he is not. He is consistently failing in anything he says he is doing.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

This will go on until Russia investigation is ...

...concluded and Trump in prison.

787Driver wrote:

True, but in this instance if you had done a bit of research before your comment, you would realize he is doing what he said he would do regarding North Korea all the way back in 1999 if he was president

He consistently said he is a great dealmaker, which apparently he is not. He is consistently failing in anything he says he is doing.

Best regards
Thomas

Difference is; he can now singlehandedly decide to launch a nuclear strike without the permission from anyone else. Doesn't take much for him to do what he says he will do if NK continues its threats

Guys, turn off the TV's for a second and go outside and breath some fresh air... Mark my words: NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!!!

Seriously, a preemptive strike of the US against NK would mean that China has to react and that would lead to WW3, nobody wants that!
NK has no reason to launch an attack, this is just talk by Kim Jong Un to show strength within his country...

This is just 2 crazy egomaniacs verbally going at each other, nothing else. The sad part is that the President of the US of A goes down to the level of crazy leader from a third world country...

May I quote an interesting tweet:
"The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders!" - Donald Trump, May 7th, 2014
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 84?lang=en

787Driver wrote:

Difference is; he can now singlehandedly decide to launch a nuclear strike without the permission from anyone else. Doesn't take much for him to do what he says he will do if NK continues its threats

There are some laws and procedural requirements for the release of nuclear weapons. A US president can not actually cause the launch nuclear weapons without a specific threat.

Most of our system is setup to respond to the launch of missiles from other nations, not to initiate a first strike.

rfields5421 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

Difference is; he can now singlehandedly decide to launch a nuclear strike without the permission from anyone else. Doesn't take much for him to do what he says he will do if NK continues its threats

There are some laws and procedural requirements for the release of nuclear weapons. A US president can not actually cause the launch nuclear weapons without a specific threat.

Most of our system is setup to respond to the launch of missiles from other nations, not to initiate a first strike.

Perhaps, but a threat could be a few missiles fired towards Guam depending on who you ask.

Noting at 70 (now 71) Trump is oldest POTUS elected since Reagan - well he beat Reagan as oldest ever POTUS by 7 months or so.

Today is 33rd anniversary of Reagan joking open-mic about bombing USSR....

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

Picture Trump in similar fashion outlawing North Korea with "Fire and Fury"....

bmacleod wrote:

Noting at 70 (now 71) Trump is oldest POTUS elected since Reagan - well he beat Reagan as oldest ever POTUS by 7 months or so.

Today is 33rd anniversary of Reagan joking open-mic about bombing USSR....

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

Picture Trump in similar fashion outlawing North Korea with "Fire and Fury"....

Wow.

Mr. Reagan had Alzheimer and this disease is doing its "job" long before the external signs are there. Let's hope this isn't another parallel with Mr. Trump.

Yes, Reagan was joking, but when it came out, the Russian military was put on alert for 1/2 an hour, but still. Mr. Trump has said this in public, quite a difference.

NoTime wrote:

"When you examine the nature of the American security commitment ... it is pointless for them to try to develop nuclear weapons," Mr. Clinton said today. "Because if they ever use them, it would be the end of their country." -- Bill Clinton, 1993 (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/12/world ... -zone.html)

When in doubt blame the Clintons.

kasimir wrote:

Guys, turn off the TV's for a second and go outside and breath some fresh air...

We can turn off the TV, but until the first lady learns to implement strict parental controls on all electronic devices, this saga will continue.

kasimir wrote:

Guys, turn off the TV's for a second and go outside and breath some fresh air... Mark my words: NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!!!

Exactly. The problem I see is that Trump will think his tough talk is what dissuaded Kim from doing anything. Ignoring the fact that previous presidents were always careful what they said about North Korea. Trump however probably interpreted this as weakness ignoring the part where his rhetoric is what got us to this point in the first place.

The danger in all this is that the next time things may turn out differently.

wardialer wrote:

I am willing to bet that about 90% of the worlds population either don't care or think that this NK ordeal will just blow over which is likely the case here.

Kim will eventually give up and I can bet my money on this.

When exactly did he ever give up, when he said he could go nuclear and the world negotiated with him, when he said would go ICBM and the world negotiated with him?
Neither he nor his opponents have ever given up talking while he does what he wants to do when he wants to do it, so my money is on him launching some missiles that will go into the sea near Guam, how close is irrelevant, as the world will not stomach Trump dropping some bombs off the coast in a tit for tat option much less him actually hitting some targets in the north.

Start at 25:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855Am6ovK7s

Watch the blowhard go off.

787Driver wrote:

Perhaps, but a threat could be a few missiles fired towards Guam depending on who you ask.

Guam IS part of the United States. Missiles fired toward Guam do require an appropriate response.

While NK has not demonstrated the ability to fire a nuclear warhead carrying missile and hit a target, waiting until a mushroom cloud rises over my old home in Dededo is too late to respond.

NK launching missiles will likely bring a first response with conventional warhead cruise missiles from Japan, followed by US ships/ subs launching conventional warhead cruise missiles.

I seriously doubt a nuclear warhead could be launched before the denotation of a nuke by NK. If the anti-missile systems work correctly, and nuclear material is found to have been in the missiles - that is a first strike by NK, even if the warheads did not explode.

As people on this forum know, I'm no fan of Trump. He has proven to be a horrible president.

But nowhere have I seen anything which indicates he plans a nuclear response if NK does not first use a nuclear weapon.

seahawk wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Reading this forum, one could get the idea that the liberal part of the world already thinks this.

Why do you want to kill a few hundred thousand, starting a war in Korea and potentially start WWIII? You are safe in Germany, so easy to make that decision. Although this will impact the world's economy in a big way.

What I want does not matter at all in the conflict, nor does it matter what you want. America has elected a president and this president has made some pretty clear statements on how he will govern the country and this line is consistent since he has taken office. So imho the only way to look at it is by what can happen. And imho it is possible that Trump finds public support for a war with NK; it is possible that he would do this, it is possible that he will use nukes and it is also possible that he would not care one bit about collateral damage in Korea. Should you agree that this line of thought is correct, than it makes no sense talking about international treaties or if the US becomes a pariah state, because then we are way past this point.

What I wrote is totally reasonable if you consider Trump´s line of thought and his America first approach. Do I hope for this, no - Do I think my opinion about it changes the situation one bit - no? Do I think Trump would not be crazy enough to use the US nukes - hell no! I find it much more enlightening to look at problems from the position of the sides involved and not from my own standpoint, because mostly ma own standpoint does not matter all. When I say Trump will make it to the history books, it is no compliment.

Well hell has frozen over, I agree with Seahawk.

All you have to do is look at recent history, Afghanistan and Iraq, if the US feel threatened (and lobbing for missiles in the general area of Guam would do it) then all the treaties aren't worth the paper they are printed on, the US will retaliate, Trump not retaliating would be the end of him politically. Now the scary thing is, the powers that be in the White House seem to think they can keep it to limited strikes (B-1's hitting military sites), I really don't see that happening, NK will level Seoul if the US hit's them then the Korean war V2.0 kicks off.

Again I will say, these two blowhards can get into a 3 year dick measuring contest if they like, I don't care, as long as no shots are fired.

So basically, if they just bitch at each other and Kim continues with his tests, does that say that Kim has already won since they're doing a lot of tests and Trump ain't doing shit?!

maortega15 wrote:

So basically, if they just bitch at each other and Kim continues with his tests, does that say that Kim has already won since they're doing a lot of tests and Trump ain't doing shit?!

That's one way to look at it.

maortega15 wrote:

So basically, if they just bitch at each other and Kim continues with his tests, does that say that Kim has already won since they're doing a lot of tests and Trump ain't doing shit?!

Well what did the previous presidents and the world do when Korea, India and Pakistan said they were going nuclear?

The cold war ended because the people of the USSR needed food, we can argue it was because the US forced them to spend money or that the elected leaders did not care, at the end of the day, there were no negotiations taking place to end the war, people needing food ended the war.
Fast forward to North Korea and even Pakistan, who fed their people while they used resources to build nuclear and missile programs?
No one wants to fire a shot, NK knows this, they also know that the more resources they allocate to their programs, the more food will be sent to feed the people, so.................

par13del wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

So basically, if they just bitch at each other and Kim continues with his tests, does that say that Kim has already won since they're doing a lot of tests and Trump ain't doing shit?!

Well what did the previous presidents and the world do when Korea, India and Pakistan said they were going nuclear?

Pretty much nothing to be honest.

But previous presidents weren't blowhards like what we have now who is poking a bear as said above.

maortega15 wrote:

Pretty much nothing to be honest.

But previous presidents weren't blowhards like what we have now who is poking a bear as said above.

So as with all things NK in the past few years since his father passed away, the whole world is making a mountain out of this, essentially fake news.
He launched missiles between Japan and Korea the world did nothing, he launched missiles over Japan, the world did nothing, so what is this poking the bear, is he going to do something else like attack South Korea? Well, everyone has been preparing for that for decades so......

NK is not the problem, western politicians and media who cater to him are the problem, why ask POTUS about someone who no one wants to do anything about, if they just asked him I would be ok, but they asked Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc etc etc NK leaders father and son to no avail so move on.

seahawk wrote:

NK has now threatened the US and that means protecting the USA is the only concern the US president should have.

Actually there are a lot of issues that the President needs to address right now. The first may be the security of the US, but right behind that is the security of SK and Japan.

The President also needs to be aware of just how expansive the death toll will be, and how that will forever brand Trump as a mass murderer. That will have a major impact on properties with the Trump name attached, but that is only a small side issue for most people in this world.

And then there is the economic impact of a war in Korea. The world is different than it was in the 50's and SK has an important place in this world. Look at the technology exports from SK and start with various chips for computers and mobile phones. If those assets are lost we will be in a farrly strong recession. Add in Japan and we will probably be in a Depression.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

IOW, as a whole, are the Iraqis worse off or better off since the removal of Saddam??

"before" Iraq was the second best place to live in the region after Turkey or Israel.
An equal opportunities MORE or less laecistic state with a public health system much better than he US
ever had.

Given some time Saddam would have been pushed out of power and a middle class dominated democracy
would have been possible.
Untenable under US view. Nothing beyond predator capitalism is acceptable to be successful.

WIederling wrote:

"before" Iraq was the second best place to live in the region after Turkey or Israel.
An equal opportunities MORE or less laecistic state with a public health system much better than he US
ever had.

Given some time Saddam would have been pushed out of power and a middle class dominated democracy
would have been possible.
Untenable under US view. Nothing beyond predator capitalism is acceptable to be successful.

My goodness! You've done a fantastic job of glossing over the repeated Iraqi aggression in the region (against Iran and Kuwait) and the approximately 250,000 Iraqis killed by Saddam's government. You allow your blind hatred for the United States to blinker your view. We get it; you don't like America, so you defend dictators and pretend like America is the aggressor. How insulting.

kasimir wrote:

Guys, turn off the TV's for a second and go outside and breath some fresh air... Mark my words: NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!!!

Trump couldn't possibly be elected. No one is that dumb to vote for him! /quote

For rfields5421, I think we are on the same page but using different words. The biggest difference between WWII and now is we do not have an ongoing conflict like there was in Japan. The argument that we are in a cease fire in Korea is thin at best.

What really gets me are the evangelical right wingers who love death and killing and war because "every life is sacred so we can't fund Planned Parenthood" are demanding "liberals" be sent to DPRK first. Why? Only the violence lovers are the ones who want this war. Even China is going "hey, guys.. back off..."

I can't find the post but someone above said words to the effect

Trump thinks his threats will force the NK government to back down

I disagree. In my opinion

Trump's statements are not aimed at influencing anyone in North Korea.

They are aimed at two audiences. One is the increasing number of Americans who see him as an ineffective leader who can't get any of his substantive campaign promises into action. By being 'strong' and standing up to the 'threat' he is trying to bring many supporters who have given up on him back under his influence.

The second target of his remarks is the leadership on China and any nations which might have influence on them. I'm pretty sure most of us agree that the Chinese leadership is the only one with the ability to directly influence North Korea.

If Trump can convince them he is crazy enough to actually respond the NK firing a missile into US territory, maybe they will take action against NK.

rfields5421 wrote:

If Trump can convince them he is crazy enough to actually respond the NK firing a missile into US territory, maybe they will take action against NK.

Just to be absolutely sure that I understand what you wrote, please allow me to emend that sentence:

"If Mr. Trump can convince them (China) that he [Mr. Trump] is crazy enough to respond to North Korea firing a missile into United States territory, maybe they (China) will take action against North Korea".

Did I get that right? If I did, would you please explain:

Why would the President of the United States by "crazy" for responding to a military attack against the United States?

BobPatterson wrote:

Why would the President of the United States by "crazy" for responding to a military attack against the United States?

Much of the world, especially China, would view a direct military response of bombing or launching cruise missiles against North Korea as 'crazy'.

In the current world, sane leaders don't respond with military action against attacks. They use diplomacy, economic pressure, etc.

Launching a missile into US territorial waters/ near a US territory/ near US military bases would be viewed by most of the world as a 'provocation' not an actual attack. They would not consider it an attack until after a warhead (nuke or conventional) actually exploded on US land. The world would expect a 'sane' leader to talk, not react without a lot of diplomacy.

The last leader to directly respond to an attack on an ally was President George H. W. Bush, and he had full UN backing. The coalition he built through diplomacy against Iraq was larger (more nations involved, higher percentage of nations in the world) than the Allies in WWII.

President George W. Bush's limited bombing against the Taliban after 9/11 doesn't count because it wasn't against a nation/state, and was against a group which was fighting for control of the nation attacked. (The 2003 war was not a direct response, not claimed as such by the US.)

The last leader of a major nation to respond with direct military action was Margaret Thatcher. And a lot of people called her 'crazy' for doing so.