Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Gushousekai195, Aug 8, 2017.
ahhh kimmy j.
Crazy he is but suicidal he is not..
Two option are on the table here..
Shun the peckers to total isolation (minus China) and let the regime collapse from within.Even if it doesn't happen it's not like they could afford to expand their power beyond there borders.
Or kinetic action that will leave 100's of thousands dead in hours,a crippled first world economy country,all with an international community that will place the blame squarely on us for that chaos..
That fat fuck needs to be put down, not us nor ''his'' people like him. The sooner the US put their military to good use for once the better
As someone who just returned from a deployment in that part of the world, I've got mixed feelings about this. Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un, much like his father before him, has made similar threats in the past to the point where it'd be expected that all he's doing is crying wolf in spite of all his sabre-rattling. It'd be dangerous not to take the threats seriously, but with such a track record of empty threats and overblown hype over the years it's rather difficult to think of it as being otherwise.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. North Korea's nuclear capabilities are still questionable. Their missile technology is still not fully-developed and is still unreliable as far as we know. It's believed that North Korea has only been developing nuclear weapons since the 1990s. Technologically, they lag behind America's nuclear capability by 57 years or so. They are also not likely to have a large number of warheads. Even in the very recent past, their nuclear weapons program has been beset by technical problems and failures. They likely still have a long way to go in terms of perfecting their missile technology, warheads, ensuring the accuracy of a missile or warhead, and ensuring reliable detonation of a warhead. It's also unknown if a North Korean warhead would even be able to survive re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.
Also, keep in mind that the Norks have always been blusterous, aggressive in their rhetoric, and already long known for their brinkmanship. It's just saber-rattling most likely, intended to scare us into giving them diplomatic concessions. You have to look at the motive behind North Korea's nuclear weapons program. That country is so poor, weak, and isolated that having nuclear weapons is the only serious bargaining chip that they have in dealing with other countries. It gives them the ability to put some weight behind their demands. It is the only thing that really enables them to negotiate from a position of strength. I believe that this is largely a bluff by Kim to test our nerve, in the hope that we will cave under pressure. He is also asserting North Korea's right to develop a nuclear arsenal, and it also reinforces his image among his own people as a strong and formidable leader who can stand up to the rest of the world, and the US in particular.
Kim's mental state may be questionable, but I'm sure he's not stupid or deluded enough to order an unprovoked nuclear strike on the US or any of our territories in the Pacific, knowing full well that if he ever actually did (which may or may not be successful given the dubious reliability of their technology) he would be giving us no choice but to retaliate. And he knows full well that the US has possessed a much larger, much more advanced and reliable nuclear capability, many times anything he's likely got, for over half a century. He knows that we could totally incinerate North Korea, wipe out the entire population and his regime along with it, and leave the country an empty, radioactive wasteland for hundreds of years. With this in mind, I don't think he'd be keen to overplay his hand.
Also, the US has an anti-nuclear defensive capability as well. Even though it's not a solid shield against a large scale attack by a technologically advanced enemy, it should be more than capable of defending the US from a North Korean missile. We have ground-based interceptor missiles in Alaska and in California at Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Navy also has a number of destroyers equipped with the Aegis ballistic missile defense system, which is capable of taking out an ICBM. The Japanese and Australian navies have this capability too. There is also the Army's THAAD system, which can intercept a North Korean ICBM in the upper atmosphere or above the atmosphere.
In short, I don't think this whole thing is as serious yet as the media is making it out to be (as usual).
I really doubt that Trump said anything of the sort. The key word here is "allegedly". You know how the internet is: full of rumors and bullshit. If Trump did say anything like that, it would constitute a huge blow to his credibility as POTUS, since it is his lawful, sworn duty to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and part of that includes protecting ALL of the states in the union and our territories. Willfully neglecting that duty would be a breach of his oath and treasonous.
And I think you and all your furiends will be just fine.[/QUOTE]
Reminded me of this:
www.brookings.edu: Why deterring and containing North Korea is our least bad option
The US needs more people like Mattis in its administration.
This thread is like
As much as the stereotype of the "ugly dumbass American" has some basis in reality, "smug sidewalk question" videos like this one are disingenuous at best, not least of all by painting the intellect of a population using cherrypicked ditzy responses from one prominently ditzy location.
This whole situation just makes me pretty pissed. As previously stated, North Korea's only bargaining chip is to scare people. They've been doing that for decades. What really worries me is how President Trump has been taking the bait. War is not a game!!!
These videos are primarily made for humor, though, not as an accurate sample of US intelligence. Trying to apply it as a proper analysis is where it gets disingenuous, and no one in this thread has done that so far.
Pffft, the title of that video is all wrong... It should read "How Many Californians Know Where North Korea Is?"
These days, California is about as American as Quebec...
I agree completely with your assessment. And Trump too is just saying stuff to look tough.
one of my friends sent me this on Discord. I couldn't resist. sorry
What is it with american government constantly bickering with everybody?
I hope that this doesn't derail the thread, but what makes California "Un-American"? I feel like that's a recurring insult that blue states get, like my home, Massachusetts.
Safe to say that it is a derail.
I wouldn't say that California is "Un-American" but rather that its brand of Americanism is... peculiar. It's not specifically related to the colour-coding that oversimplifies elections either, as Colin Woodard explains in American Nations.
Anyway, I'll steer us back on topic.
What I find most nerve-wracking about the entire situation with NK is how Trump is saying how we'll retaliate to THREATS, not ACTIONS. While I do highly doubt that Trump will do anything as stupid as launch a preemptive strike on North Korea, because that'll guarantee that China'll refuse to help or worse, come to NK's defense, I still think it's a horrible idea to bluff a bluff. That'd only A, throw gasoline on the fire, and B, make us look like the boy who cried wolf in a situation where we would need to make an ultimatum like that.
I wouldn't underestimate Trump, he has a track record of doing dumb things to prove he can. In general, we have a conflict between two of the most impulsive rulers on this planet, so yeah, we're all going to die soon, lol
They seem very similar, in ways, those two: and both strike me as something of over-grown babies, awash in their own egos and little worlds of elite luxury and playthings. But the impulsiveness is the scary thing, here, as you say; I'm guessing calmer minds will prevail, but geez, this has the potential to get ugly
but if we're all going to die soon, I just bought tickets to see Randy Newman, at a small venue, for more than I ever paid to see anyone, his sarcasm is needed now. Maybe he can be president!
Not only politically ignorant, but geographically ignorant, too.. Best combination.
Also: Quebec? Seriously? That's an insult to Quebecians, bro.
A bit more ontopic:
North Korea won't do shit. They've done this so many times before, it's honestly just a joke at this point. If North Korea actually went to war with us, they'd have their entire army and country in shambles before the year ends.
Sure thing, DPRK bluffed a ton of times before, but they're in an increasingly desperate position, and when their nation slowly gets to such crappy state that the only thing they'll eventually have behind them are some nukes, I don't think they would hesitate to use those nukes in one way or another. Keep in mind that they don't really have that much to lose at this point. Not to mention how much effort they actually put this time - previously, it was more or less along the lines of "boo, fear us, we're gonna bomb ya one day", but now it comes to legitimate tests and preparations, so there's something to worry about.
I would have to disagree with this somewhat. I really don't think Trump is quite as impulsive as you say he is, especially when dealing with a nuclear-armed country.
On the other hand, I don't think it's completely untrue either. I was enormously critical of his half-cocked, ill-considered Tomahawk missile strike on that Syrian air base back in April. I saw it as an incredibly stupid and illogical move. Not only did it likely have a bad impact Syria's ability to conduct airstrikes against ISIS (who we're supposedly fighting), it also took away from their air force's ability to provide air support to their troops defending a nearby Christian town. The strike also served to needlessly piss off and further isolate Russia, who could be a fantastic ally for us in dealing with ISIS if we would simply allow them to be that.
I still sort of want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt on this. I think his rash decision might have been influenced by neocon warhawks in his administration (aka "the swamp"), and intentionally misleading intelligence. But still, it only reaffirms and strengthens my belief that the US government as a whole really has no genuine interest in dealing with ISIS, or trying to help restore any semblance of stability in the Middle East. The government and media are lying to us, as usual.
So... If nukes were to be exchanged, what would most likely be hit?
Separate names with a comma.