Trump by name......

"It's just one archduke, don't we have like six of them? Should be fine, what are you worried about?"

 

Though, in fairness, no-one is that popular.

"How curious, for example, that the First World War is never taught in our schools as an invasion of Iraq."
- Robert Newman - History of Oil (it's on YouTube, and worth a watch).

 

I'll give the documentary a watch - I question your assertion that there are no politicians that are as popular as the Archduke...

 

I mean, did the Archduke have a hook like that?

 

A nuclear response from the US isnt needed or even likely on the table.

Here is the issue in a nutshell

North Korea is going to keep launching missiles, North Korea wont back down its the way the country is run, Paik Hak-soon an analyst has written a fair bit about that.

If Trump backs off the sanctions North Korea will see him as weak.
If he keeps escalating the North Koreans will keep escalating.

Kim actually directly responding to what Trump said is unprecedented though, that's never happened before.

 

and this trading insults thing isnt new either, to quote about Obama - "Divine retribution for the juvenile delinquent Obama", i wont repeat the racist parts.

 

I keep thinking of the Mitchell and Webb sketch "What if we're the baddies?"

 

Iran isnt North Korea.

 

Currently as a world we're trying to reduce the availability of nuclear weapons, trumps actions are going to mean everyone will try and get them to increase they're own security, and thus making the entire world more unstable as a side effect.

 

If North Korea nukes any land of the U.S or a ally there is sufficient justification for a retaliatory strike. (even if it is shot down) Doesnt mean the U.S has to deploy nuclear weapons, they just have justification to do so, scaling retaliatory strike to losses taken etc.

That is irrelevant of negotiations. You cant have somone basically stick a middle finger up at you and constantly threaten and keep shooting questionable missiles everywhere. Especially after a direct threat on your territory. Im pretty sure there ispublici intrest to reel them in and stop the nonsense before a war breaks out and if one breaks out because of it, to go to war to stop a possible and actual threat. How many people are going to go, "Shame X place got hit by a missile,but there was nothing we could do" If there is no reasonable peaceful way to deal with a threat, there is only a military response. (hell if China wants them to stop, they aint going to get no help) Time and place for appeasement and negiotiations, and a time and place for war.


Note for nuclear warfare, one must be willing to use them should they need to. There is nothing wrong to say you will be willing to use them should you need to, i would expect somone given the power over them to have that stance. There is also justification and acceptability in using nuclear weapons if your country is at stake in a conventional war. Just bear in midn there are isntnace sin the cold war where a nuclear war would ahve broken out irrleivent of MAD because tensions got so high. There was a NATO trainining operation that the U.S.S.R thought wa s acoverfor a invasion of itsself.


By the way i am far from a fan of the U.S.A but facts are no one can rival it militarily currently. ALso, i am not a big fan of Trump but i acknowledge he is not that bad and does suffer from a big anti him campaign in media. Plus who could hate that hairstyle, come on he is like Boris Johnson.

 

You dont have to cripple the country, you just cripple its airforce, then its military, see operation desert storm.

 

No one wants to be bullied by a nuclear power because they dont have any sufficient come back unless they have a good means of stopping them. You need to trust everyone will remove them at once (unlikely) or at least two opposing countries will keep a balance by having a constant threat of destruction on each other.

Trumps actions have little part in thsi past a presdident who has vocally said he would sue them if he has to. Which is a good thing. Also civilian nuclear reacors and tech can lead to military nuclear tech, the rpoblems in giving countries access to good power sources, they can use that for military means and then become another nuclear power which you need to watch.

I am pro disarmament and the numbers have goen down since the cold war and the likely hood of nuclear destruction has gone down. Its just common tactical sense if you cannto trust somoen to rmeove all of their weapons why would you remove the one thing stopping them from destroying you with them, your weapons.

 

You would need to cripple the country, or do a very good regime change in it. Its not like Iraq, its a diffrent culture and political situation and economic situation. Fanaticism is hard to deal with. Japan was only stopped by nuking them and the soviets coming to get them. XP And then it was to the convince the government to stop the war with the threat of total destruction with no ability to counter strike to equal level.

 

Im well aware of how Juche works.

To clarify the Japanese and North Koreans are similar in fanaticism, thats about it. Luckily unlike the Japanese the technology mismatch and lack of a fluid command structure means that any conventional military retaliation would be hamstrung by a lack of command and control.

 

I have, you cant compare them, there is no scenario in north Korean doctrine or ideology where North Korea loses or it is even implied that North Korea could even theoretically lose.

Iran has the sense to realise that a war with the US would be stupid.