Trump Threatens Nuclear War

[The Thriller]

Regime change has never been a viable option for the west, originally because of cold war politics and since the 80's the risk an invasion of Korea to Japan has been too great (again the conventional ballistic missile of which the North has heaps). The US/CIA should really be trying to encourage a military coup like they do to so many democratically elected governments in South America.

I'm not sure how the CIA goes about instigating a military coup. NK isn't Panama or Nicaragua. Besides, how does a military coup help the situation?

Lets think about the human and monetary costs. Is the US even capable right now of handling regime change? Do we have the troops right now to invade and to secure that country? Do we have the manpower to rebuild it without jeopardizing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and eastern Europe? Are we prepared to invest trillions into a country that makes Iraq and Afghanistan look 1st world? Are we ready to invest trillions in the infrastructure, education, and security of that country?

We're approaching $20 trillion on Uncle Sam's credit card. Are we willing to go another $5-10 trillion just for NK? Are Americans willing to open up borders to secure hundreds of thousands of refugees?

If this escalates into something ugly with additional world powers, bringing China or Russia into the fray, are we prepared for it?

 

[The Thriller]

Seoul would be devastated by an H-bomb.../facepalm

And the western half of the US since fallout spreads into the atmosphere.

Or do conservatives like Dutch believe prevailing winds is just a Chinese hoax?

 

[RandyForRubio]

So we've got a guy that has a dictatorship. If you disagree with him, or say anything "insulting", you're home to prison camp (slow death) or just executed. They kill children. They don't feed their country. They don't allow free thinking and censor everything. Were we to give them food, they would just say Kim grew it himself and that he's a god. It wouldn't improve our relations at all.

So, given all that, given that as they are set up they have no redeeming features, we should treat them as our peers? Let them have a voice on opinions? Why? They haven't done anything to deserve it, in fact, they've done nothing but the opposite.

I certainly don't want to nuke them, but decades of trying to ignore them and acting like they're not a serious threat has led to where we are now. Acting like if we just gave them good and a voice at the table is ignoring reality. You can't deal with people who aren't currently in reality, and the dear leader of NK is not sane.

 

[Rubashov]

I'm not sure how the CIA goes about instigating a military coup. NK isn't Panama or Nicaragua. Besides, how does a military coup help the situation?

Lets think about the human and monetary costs. Is the US even capable right now of handling regime change? Do we have the troops right now to invade and to secure that country? Do we have the manpower to rebuild it without jeopardizing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and eastern Europe? Are we prepared to invest trillions into a country that makes Iraq and Afghanistan look 1st world? Are we ready to invest trillions in the infrastructure, education, and security of that country?

We're approaching $20 trillion on Uncle Sam's credit card. Are we willing to go another $5-10 trillion just for NK? Are Americans willing to open up borders to secure hundreds of thousands of refugees?

If this escalates into something ugly with additional world powers, bringing China or Russia into the fray, are we prepared for it?

I reckon the Chinese could organise a coup, if the Americans offered to phase out their military presence in a unified Korea the Chinese might go for it. This won't happen cause the interests of Korean's and the interests of the US are divergent. The US wants bases as close as possible to China, South Korea is a handy bridge head for invasion.

Unification of Korea would not be impossible look at Germany, granted NK is significantly more backward economically than East Germany was but the scenario is more or less the same.

 

[Gameface]

\


so when it comes time for war. jsut silently drop a H-Bomb! and wipe your hands clean!

Drop an H-Bomb on Seoul?

Are you not getting that the above mentioned artillery is VERY close to Seoul and you cannot take it out with an H-Bomb without also taking out Seoul, at which point one would wonder why even take out the artillery because the purpose of it is to be able to decimate Seoul within less than an hour?

And the larger problem I was talking about was not even the radioactive fallout, it was the diplomatic repercussions of using nuclear weapons to solve problems. China, Russia, the UK, Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. We'd be giving them the green light to use them on smaller powers in order to solve disputes.

I assure you our NATO allies and the world community at large would not be happy with that new reality. No sane person would be.

And there are millions of people in NK that have committed no offense other than being born in NK. They are not our enemies. They do not deserve to die. I do not want my government killing them in the name of my safety.

A big part of the reason I joined the military was because I was willing to die in any effort my government made to "protect" the people of the U.S.. I was willing to take part in the killing of soldiers (sailors, marines and airmen, etc.) fighting for our enemies. I believe that soldiers are the ones who should die for their country, not civilians. The reason we put on the uniform is to put the target on ourselves and take it off the people we care about at home. That is the role of members of the military. It is disgraceful to think that the solution to a military problem is to kill millions of innocent people who are not serving in their nations military and are not fighting us.

 

[The Thriller]

I reckon the Chinese could organise a coup, if the Americans offered to phase out their military presence in a unified Korea the Chinese might go for it. This won't happen cause the interests of Korean's and the interests of the US are divergent. The US wants bases as close as possible to China, South Korea is a handy bridge head for invasion.

Unification of Korea would not be impossible look at Germany, granted NK is significantly more backward economically than East Germany was but the scenario is more or less the same.

Why would the Chinese organize a coup? They benefit economically by having a dirt poor country right next to them. North Koreans provide them with a steady stream of cheap labor and commodities such as coal.

Why would they want a pro-western democracy that would flood them with refugees in the short-term and hurt them economically in the long-term?

The comparison of east and west Germany is apples to oranges.

The difference culturally, economically, and educationally between NK/SK is exponentially greater than E/W Germany. Literally, trillions will need to be spent to rebuild NK and bring its people up to speed.

Who's going to pay for that?

 

[Rubashov]

Why would the Chinese organize a coup? They benefit economically by having a dirt poor country right next to them. North Koreans provide them with a steady stream of cheap labor and commodities such as coal.

Why would they want a pro-western democracy that would flood them with refugees in the short-term and hurt them economically in the long-term?

The comparison of east and west Germany is apples to oranges.

The difference culturally, economically, and educationally between NK/SK is exponentially greater than E/W Germany. Literally, trillions will need to be spent to rebuild NK and bring its people up to speed.

Who's going to pay for that?

The World Bank i would assume. The Chinese would benefit from an american withdrawal and economic stability, they'd also have access to a new market for products, industrialisation of North Korea provides economic opportunity. The only thing stopping them is that North Korea acts as a buffer zone between them and the US. Also the state department will never go for it, America has and interest in maintaining the regime in NK.

 

[The Thriller]

Drop an H-Bomb on Seoul?

Are you not getting that the above mentioned artillery is VERY close to Seoul and you cannot take it out with an H-Bomb without also taking out Seoul, at which point one would wonder why even take out the artillery because the purpose of it is to be able to decimate Seoul within less than an hour?

And the larger problem I was talking about was not even the radioactive fallout, it was the diplomatic repercussions of using nuclear weapons to solve problems. China, Russia, the UK, Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. We'd be giving them the green light to use them on smaller powers in order to solve disputes.

I assure you our NATO allies and the world community at large would not be happy with that new reality. No sane person would be.

And there are millions of people in NK that have committed no offense other than being born in NK. They are not our enemies. They do not deserve to die. I do not want my government killing them in the name of my safety.

A big part of the reason I joined the military was because I was willing to die in any effort my government made to "protect" the people of the U.S.. I was willing to take part in the killing of soldiers (sailors, marines and airmen, etc.) fighting for our enemies. I believe that soldiers are the ones who should die for their country, not civilians. The reason we put on the uniform is to put the target on ourselves and take it off the people we care about at home. That is the role of members of the military. It is disgraceful to think that the solution to a military problem is to kill millions of innocent people who are not serving in their nations military and are not fighting us.

In your estimation do we currently have the manpower to invade & rebuild NK, maintain a strong presence in the Middle East, and deal with the Russian threat in eastern Europe? Or will the draft need to be reinstated?

 

[The Thriller]

The World Bank i would assume. The Chinese would benefit from an american withdrawal and economic stability, they'd also have access to a new market for products, industrialisation of North Korea provides economic opportunity. The only thing stopping them is that North Korea acts as a buffer zone between them and the US. Also the state department will never go for it, America has and interest in maintaining the regime in NK.

The world bank won't pay for it. no way. If it could then it would've paid for Afghanistan and Iraq.

How does China benefit by adding another industrial power to compete with them? Right now NK serves as their "Mexico." Would the US benefit by flooding Mexico with cash and projects so their citizens stay in Mexico? Where would America receive its cheap labor from?

We understand that America benefits greatly from the cheap labor that Mexico provides us, right?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Drop an H-Bomb on Seoul?

Are you not getting that the above mentioned artillery is VERY close to Seoul and you cannot take it out with an H-Bomb without also taking out Seoul, at which point one would wonder why even take out the artillery because the purpose of it is to be able to decimate Seoul within less than an hour?

And the larger problem I was talking about was not even the radioactive fallout, it was the diplomatic repercussions of using nuclear weapons to solve problems. China, Russia, the UK, Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. We'd be giving them the green light to use them on smaller powers in order to solve disputes.

I assure you our NATO allies and the world community at large would not be happy with that new reality. No sane person would be.

And there are millions of people in NK that have committed no offense other than being born in NK. They are not our enemies. They do not deserve to die. I do not want my government killing them in the name of my safety.

A big part of the reason I joined the military was because I was willing to die in any effort my government made to "protect" the people of the U.S.. I was willing to take part in the killing of soldiers (sailors, marines and airmen, etc.) fighting for our enemies. I believe that soldiers are the ones who should die for their country, not civilians. The reason we put on the uniform is to put the target on ourselves and take it off the people we care about at home. That is the role of members of the military. It is disgraceful to think that the solution to a military problem is to kill millions of innocent people who are not serving in their nations military and are not fighting us.

drop an hbomb on north korea. not on seeo. unless their are 2 cities named seol 1 located in north korea and kim stays their.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ so you can see what bomb what size does what damage. initial damage and radiation damage!

 

[Rubashov]

The world bank won't pay for it. no way. If it could then it would've paid for Afghanistan and Iraq.

How does China benefit by adding another industrial power to compete with them? Right now NK serves as their "Mexico." Would the US benefit by flooding Mexico with cash and projects so their citizens stay in Mexico? Where would America receive its cheap labor from?

We understand that America benefits greatly from the cheap labor that Mexico provides us, right?

Sovereign risk in Korea would be significantly lower than a war zone. Also the Chinese want markets, they are approaching saturation for export which is why they are focusing on their internal economy. The Chinese are actively engaged in raising the living standards of their citizens, they are already priced out of the cheap labour market by Bangladesh and others.

You've just stated the lie that NAFTA is based on and its reality, has this worked out for working people in Mexico or the US? Its whats called the race to the bottom. Mexico is well on its way to being a failed state, without resolving crime and corruption Mexico will continue to flounder, I would argue the Mexican state is incapable of this, its a cautionary tale, Mexico was once one of the richest countries in the world.

 

[Stoked]

In your estimation do we currently have the manpower to invade & rebuild NK, maintain a strong presence in the Middle East, and deal with the Russian threat in eastern Europe? Or will the draft need to be reinstated?

This ignores the need for a strong presence in Japan and the east and south China seas. To do all of that the military would need a massive draft and the hardware to supply them adequately.

If Russia and/or China use that opportunity to strike somewhere... Like China on the Senkaku Islands or Russia in the Baltics...

 

[♪alt13]

I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. (Applause.) That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency. (Applause.)

Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.) And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.

-President Barack Obama March 04, 2012

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/04/remarks-president-aipac-policy-conference-0


It should be noted that even after the signing of the Iran deal President Obama said that military action was still on the table if Iran failed to meet its commitments under the treaty.

Further Obama's threats should not be seen as just a threat to Tehran but also to Russia and China. He was threatening them with expanded US influence and military control in a region important to them. That threat was critical to getting them on board with further sanctions.

Quick recap

Threaten, sanction, threaten, carrot, deal, threaten

It worked

 

[The Thriller]

This ignores the need for a strong presence in Japan and the east and south China seas. To do all of that the military would need a massive draft and the hardware to supply them adequately.

If Russia and/or China use that opportunity to strike somewhere... Like China on the Senkaku Islands or Russia in the Baltics...

Anyone here think china would be totally fine with a massive American presence building on their doorstep?

I agree, it would take a massive buildup. Something we haven't seen since Vietnam or Korea. Are we really in a position to do so? And what happens when Russia takes advantage of this and stirs the pot in Eastern Europe?

Taking ournattention away from Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. ISIS, Assad, and the Taliban should send Kim a thank you card.

 

[Gameface]

In your estimation do we currently have the manpower to invade & rebuild NK, maintain a strong presence in the Middle East, and deal with the Russian threat in eastern Europe? Or will the draft need to be reinstated?

We will never have a draft again.

The U.S. has more than enough manpower to invade NK. Rebuild? I guess it depends on what that means. I don't think there would be any sort of insurgency in NK and I think toppling NK would be done with the idea that you hand over administration of it to SK so that Korea can ultimately be reunified. SK is a wealthy developed nation. This would be very unlike any situation post WWII.

I think China would be VERY unhappy if something just like that played out so I think they would want some sort of DMZ at the north end of NK, if not control of a some territory on the NK side of the boarder. Worst case scenario would be that China would provide direct military support to NK. That could potentially be limited or the the beginning of a larger world wide conflict.

If you're asking if we have the manpower to invade NK and keep our presence in the Middle East you have damn near no clue how big and powerful the U.S. military is. There are limits to what offensive military power is capable of, specifically rebuilding and other non-military power functions, but as far as breaking things and killing people, the U.S. military has not only the manpower to take on any challengers, but we have absolutely unprecedented ability to get our military power where we want it when we want it and to use it in a very organized and coordinated way. Logistical capability is probably the U.S. military's single biggest advantage over the rest of the world. Our best NATO allies would only slow us down in an all out military offensive of enormous size because they wouldn't be able to fully integrate their forces into our logistical control technology systems.

 

[♪alt13]

Anyone here think china would be totally fine with a massive American presence building on their doorstep?

Nope. They definitely would not be fine with it.

What do you think they might do to prevent it? Are they more likely to choose war with the US or increasing pressure on NK to give up their nuclear program?

Edit: btw without American coal China would be ****ed. America is by far China's most important trading partner. If it comes down to it they won't choose Kim's bombs over their relationship with the US.

 

[The Thriller]

Nope.

What do you think they might do to prevent it. Are they more likely to choose war with the US or increasing pressure on NK to give up their nuclear program?

I foresee them playing both sides, what they've done for the past three decades. They benefit from having a buffer between themselves and western powers. Oh, and NK provides them with cheap labor and resources.

 

[The Thriller]

Sovereign risk in Korea would be significantly lower than a war zone. Also the Chinese want markets, they are approaching saturation for export which is why they are focusing on their internal economy. The Chinese are actively engaged in raising the living standards of their citizens, they are already priced out of the cheap labour market by Bangladesh and others.

You've just stated the lie that NAFTA is based on and its reality, has this worked out for working people in Mexico or the US? Its whats called the race to the bottom. Mexico is well on its way to being a failed state, without resolving crime and corruption Mexico will continue to flounder, I would argue the Mexican state is incapable of this, its a cautionary tale, Mexico was once one of the richest countries in the world.

A claim that has yet to be refuted.

I get that some from the right (and bernie's left) buy into trump's demonization of NAFTA. But some unemployed american with a high school diploma in West Virginia whining about NAFTA doesn't refute the empirical economic data and dozens of credible economists who prove that NAFTA has been a net positive for America. Not so much for Mexico... but definitely for America.

You think Americans are willing to work as much for as cheap as Mexican farmers?

 

[DutchJazzer]

-President Barack Obama March 04, 2012

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/04/remarks-president-aipac-policy-conference-0


It should be noted that even after the signing of the Iran deal President Obama said that military action was still on the table if Iran failed to meet its commitments under the treaty.

Further Obama's threats should not be seen as just a threat to Tehran but also to Russia and China. He was threatening them with expanded US influence and military control in a region important to them. That threat was critical to getting them on board with further sanctions.

Quick recap

Threaten, sanction, threaten, carrot, deal, threaten

It worked

it did not work.

during the clinton era it is exactly what clinton did! and here we are with a supposed nuclear north korea!


iran isstill on its way to nuclear power

 

[RandyForRubio]

A claim that has yet to be refuted.

I get that some from the right (and bernie's left) buy into trump's demonization of NAFTA. But some unemployed american with a high school diploma in West Virginia whining about NAFTA doesn't refute the empirical economic data and dozens of credible economists who prove that NAFTA has been a net positive for America. Not so much for Mexico... but definitely for America.

You think Americans are willing to work as much for as cheap as Mexican farmers?

This is rather entertaining from somebody with no idea what farming is like.

Go talk to your average farmer. Most aren't exactly thriving. In fact, I know quite a few that lost money on their crops this year. Farmers aren't working for the money, it's a lifestyle that they love.