Trump by name......

Decoding Kim's nuclear Pacific threat

This is a good breakdown of the current NK situation.

 

Still better chances than a North Korean defence. My point was more to it has a mostly untested nuclear defence and a effective nuclear offensive, more to say than other countries, it also has the money to persue and field it. I am in the band its largy hypothetical as there has not been a actual test done to each of the systems and the tactical capacity of North Korean ICBM's is largly unknown. (test as in a field test in actual use) Site doesnt work for me for some reason, i will trouble shoot it later.*

Unpopular polcieis tend to be removed, soem of the regulations are unpopular and have questions on legitimacy. Also, i did say the U.S would respond in kin and would end North Korea most likely. The end result is the same, if North Korea doesn't accept a peaceful resolution, then its war and war leads to their loss, the only thing that changes is what else gets damaged along with them. There is no third option, something has to be done. Too much hypothetical, the facts are just North Korea looses if they dont peacefully submit. The biggest game of poker though.

*got it to work while writing, i will skim through it after posting this.

In the context i got told/the arguments i ahd for that, was in resposne to some countries militaries being cut too far, its reasonable enough to say we wont help you as they might not or wont be able to help and you are reliant on their help to asssit if you get attacked by another power. No country should be reliant on anothers for defence, they are not obgligated too (especially if they have a bigger military) to help you. Im not going to go down the route of putting the equal budget the U.S does into Defence as most countries have different economic ideologies in terms of that and it also annoys me when people go down that route that defence should be top priority. I trust the govenrment body in chareg of defence will increase and cut its budget/resources as the world intelligence picture dictates.


(they probbly will still help, its just for him to say sort your military out sort of thing)

 

Actually NATO was specifically created so that each countries could aid each other if attacked, and the UN was created to aide countries working together, and stop conflicts spiralling out of control, as WW2 eventually did.

With the advent of fission and fission bombs, we can literally end our world many times over, this is a risk that needs to be managed if we are to survive.

 

I don't think the administration wants to.

But this dangerous rhetoric could end up with Trump talking himself into a corner. What if North Korea nuke Guam?

 

They don't even have to launch anything, or make a working warhead to wreck one of those cities. A dirty bomb would do it.

 

Ha!

Overall you seem to be seeing this as some kind of military strategy board game. Trade, treaties, diplomacy, strategic alliances all come into play as well, but it doesn't appear as if you are taking this into account.

It's as if in 1939 you'd be saying: "So what if Germany invades Poland? Poland is miles away from us, they could never hit us with artillery from there so why would the UK declare war on Germany?".

 

It was made to directly counter the U.S.S.R and Warsaw pact. Since the cold war has ended memerr states have cut their defence budgets, the U.S doesnt want to have to baby sit them after all. The U.N is toothless and is not relatable to NATO or a miltiary alliance at all. If anything he said "we dont want to be world police anymore" XD

The chances of that have ended since the U.S.S.R collapsed and the cold war ended. People keep thema round for the reasons is tated above, they dont trust everyone to remove them and dont want to be bullied by a nuclear power. There s no 24/7 nuclear tension point as Russia is not directly a enemy and enemy ideology of the U.S anymore.

That is modern warfare and warfare in general especially on the grand strategy level. North Korea is "allied" only to Chinea and serves no purpose to any western nation. and even then Chinea doesnt like its nukes.

I would have bombed them when they remilitarized the Rhineland. And thats a simplification of WW2 if i ever saw one.

Numbers on a board, fix bayonets and charge again. XD

(yes i purposely spelt China like that. )

 

Which is why hes threatening to wipe NK of the map for not doing what its told? Sounds like a world police to me.

Russia will always be the direct competitor to the states, which is why they're being investigated for interfering in the elections as we speak.

 

The closest we came to nuclear annihilation between Russia and the US, in terms of someone's finger being on the button, was in 1995. Relations between the US and Russia were better then than they are now.

Have you read anything about the missile defence systems the US has built around Russia since the end of the cold war? Is that the sign of a relaxed attitude to nuclear capability, or that enmities have ceased between the two nations?

 

Aides warned Trump not to attack North Korea's leader personally before his fiery U.N. address

The story behind the speech, trump was told by his advisors not the personally threatening Kim, trump ignored their expert advice.

 

I recall the Cuban missile crisis being close to doomsday, a Russian ICBM sub lost comms and nearly launched nuclear weapons and a NATO operation which the U.S.S.R thought was a invasion or cover of one.

Please cite me some things on that though.

It stops them from havign the ability or of being sure they can wipe out the U.S with nukes, so forces negitions from unsure ability and sucessfullness to wipe out the target. The U.S also threatened a anti nuclrear shild in the cold war and ti seems like this coming to frution in some capacity, another reason to be on good terms with it.

Tactically its sound to stop MAD as it stops one from destroying you but it messes up the reason why people dont nuke each other.

There is no way any war with North Korea will not result in anything less than it being wiped off the map, and i doubt anyone cares if it is wiped off, if it becomes a burden for Chian to keep its buffer state there is little point in keeping it. Doesnt need to be wiped off with nuclear weapons.

This has nothing to do with them being a direct competitor to the states, its about a anti trump narrative and blaming Russians for things again. From the granted rudimentary insight i have into this, its jsut a baseless accusation painted by a anti trump narrative. Im not a fan of Trump but i dont believe he is the monster the media portrays him as in the slightest.

Also when Hillary has actual evidence for breaking policy and the law and its not an evidenceless inquiry, it does mean its a anti trump narrative. (email scandal after all)

but agreed, you probbly shoudltn threaten world leaders who are clearly loons who have nukes at their finger tips. But they are lacking in conventional ability past to destroy south Korea and perhaps some of Japan. There is no good resolve to this, war IS needed sometimes.

(no i am not taking CNN's word for it, thank you very much)

Russia being 51st state when?

 

Timeline of Russia Investigation - FactCheck.org

Baseless accusation?

Considering there's an ongoing investigation, you shouldn't make up your mind yet.

 

Norwegian rocket incident - Wikipedia

How a nuclear near-miss in ’95 would be a disaster today - The Boston Globe

By the way, peer reviewed studies have shown wikipedia to be as reliable as the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, so it's not as good as going through all the sources yourself, but it is fairly reliable.

Thankfully, not everyone in the world thinks of it as a grand strategy war game. North Korea is already a humanitarian disaster, imagine what a war on that scale would result in.

 

Yep, Russia's attempt to interfere with the 2016 US election has been firmly established, even though we don't have any specificity towards quantifiable results of their actions.

It also keeps looking worse for Trump and his campaign with each new revelation that comes to light. If the republicans lose enough seats in the 2018 election, we could potentially see some real action by congress on all of this.

 

And then what?

 

US bombers fly close to North Korea airspace in show of military force

And the brinkmanship continues.....

 

Whether it's nukes or not, it will still be a disaster for the people living there.

He is grandstanding and sabre-rattling in order to play a domestic political game. He's not listening to the countries that neighbour North Korea. Why do you think South Korea just announced a huge humanitarian aid package for North Korea? Why do you think China is advocating a diplomatic resolution?

You don't think that might possibly be the thing to spark a ground war with South Korea?

 

Didn't we learn anything from Afghanistan and Iraq? I guess not, because we didn't learn the lessons from Korea and Vietnam.

Everybody is talking about how easily the West could win a war against North Korea. No-one has mentioned what winning that war would look like, or what happens to the country afterwards. Well, aikiMac did mention reunification, but these countries have been at war for a very long time so I'm not sure assimilation would be so easy.

EDIT: Oh, and is anyone surprised that Trump has only been president for 8 months and the world is already talking about the immanent threat of nuclear war in a way we haven't seen since the 1980's?