Donald Trump vs North Korea

[Corsair]

It appears things are escalating pretty quickly:

White House to Host Entire Senate for North Korea Briefing

Weeks of speculation that the US is about to attack North Korea are again accelerating, with the White House announcing that they intend to play host to the entire Senate on Wednesday for an official briefing on the situation, with virtually the entire cabinet.

Such a briefing for the full Senate is extremely unusual, especially in the White House, which means this must be a very important meeting, which is once again adding fuel to the idea that the US is going to do something big, potentially a military attack.

This comes amid a new round of speculation that North Korea might be planning to carry out another nuclear test, with a holiday coming up this week and a round of intramural volleyball at the test facility having concluded, meaning they’re no longer too busy to do the test.

The USS Carl Vinson and its carrier strike group are also expected to arrive at the Korean Peninsula in the next few days, which now not only comes amid speculation about a test, but also the Senate meeting. This could point to this week being the time that the Trump Administration intends to “solve” North Korea, as they’ve long threatened.

Doing so, of course, comes with a huge price, as while the US has downplayed North Korea’s ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons, they have a substantial conventional weapons program developed for decades specifically to respond to just such an incident. This would quickly do massive damage to South Korea, and inflict large numbers of casualties on US forces in the region.

[Zarniwoop]

Who won the volleyball game?


And if Korean broads were involved was Kress there to snap some pics?

[Ken Carson]

That intramural volleyball line was... unexpected.

[Corsair]

I'm on the record that any aggression against NK is a bad idea... and I fear that Trump may use unconventional means to attack.

The man has gotten a taste of the war approval bump/distraction. I wouldn't put it past him.

Anyone else want to go on the record before something happens?

[Zarniwoop]

If North Korea doesn't attack anyone, they shouldn't be attacked

[RedLeader]

Yeah, that did escalate quickly... there were horses, and a man on fire..


..and did somebody throw a trident?

[Zarniwoop]

The grenade was always my favorite

[deltbucs]

If North Korea doesn't attack anyone, they shouldn't be attacked

[DreadNaught]

If North Korea doesn't attack anyone, they shouldn't be attacked

This is a very agreeable stance.

But do we continue to let them develop there missile program? They already have nukes, just not a way to deploy them.

[deltbucs]

This is a very agreeable stance.

But do we continue to let them develop there missile program? They already have nukes, just not a way to deploy them.

Either way, we shouldn't be the world police....even if Trump wants us out of the UN and NATO. Not sure what his feelings are about it today.

[Buc2]

If North Korea doesn't attack anyone, they shouldn't be attacked

[Buc2]

But do we continue to let them develop there missile program? They already have nukes, just not a way to deploy them.

Why does that have to be OUR problem?

[Zarniwoop]

This is a very agreeable stance.

But do we continue to let them develop there missile program? They already have nukes, just not a way to deploy them.

I think we can continue sanctions on them....I think we can continue to put pressure on China to put sanctions on them and quit propping their economy up (something Trump seems to be doing well....I can't recall any other time in the last 20 years when China made as many negative statements about North Korea, or announced their intention to help us find a solution....maybe its just posturing on their part, but we haven't seen it before)...i think we can rally the international community to do the same.

I don't think we can preemptively attack a nation because they are developing weapons we don't like.

[mightyleemoon]

The sentiment that they shouldn't be attacked until they attack someone is nice. But...not sure just how practical that is.

If someone is pointing a gun at a loved one...do you wait to shoot them until they shoot your loved one?

NK is basically publicly trying to put together their gun. At some point...they're going to get it right and publicly point that thing somewhere and put a finger on the trigger. And, at some point, we, or someone else, might have to preemptively stop them. Or, we can wait for them to launch and kill millions before we do anything.

I dunno. It just doesn't seem like the long term answer to this problem is going to be as easy as "Wait and see and react."

[Mountaineer Buc]

The sentiment that they shouldn't be attacked until they attack someone is nice. But...not sure just how practical that is.

If someone is pointing a gun at a loved one...do you wait to shoot them until they shoot your loved one?

NK is basically publicly trying to put together their gun. At some point...they're going to get it right and publicly point that thing somewhere and put a finger on the trigger. And, at some point, we, or someone else, might have to preemptively stop them. Or, we can wait for them to launch and kill millions before we do anything.

I dunno. It just doesn't seem like the long term answer to this problem is going to be as easy as "Wait and see and react."

That is the exact same reasoning that gave us the Iraq war.

[bucfanclw]

Continuing and increasing sanctions should be the only option on the table right now. Hurting NK economically does a lot more damage to the Kim Jong-Un regime than launching missiles (or staring at them from across the DMZ). At some point the sanctions will begin to affect the military personnel that get most of the funding and they start to revolt. A civil war is our best outcome there, unfortunately. If that were to happen, maybe we quietly help out the "rebels" in hopes they can wrest control away from Jong-Un.

[mightyleemoon]

The sentiment that they shouldn't be attacked until they attack someone is nice. But...not sure just how practical that is.

If someone is pointing a gun at a loved one...do you wait to shoot them until they shoot your loved one?

NK is basically publicly trying to put together their gun. At some point...they're going to get it right and publicly point that thing somewhere and put a finger on the trigger. And, at some point, we, or someone else, might have to preemptively stop them. Or, we can wait for them to launch and kill millions before we do anything.

I dunno. It just doesn't seem like the long term answer to this problem is going to be as easy as "Wait and see and react."

That is the exact same reasoning that gave us the Iraq war.

Like I said, I have no idea what the solution is. But, you can't sit there with a straight face and say you're comfortable with NK having Nukes and pointing them at us.

Should we be allowed to just march in and take them from them? Doesn't seem like we should. But, for ****'s sake, man. You can't blame any world leader for being a bit nervous and considering preemptive actions against someone like little Kim.

[Mountaineer Buc]

That is the exact same reasoning that gave us the Iraq war.

Like I said, I have no idea what the solution is. But, you can't sit there with a straight face and say you're comfortable with NK having Nukes and pointing them at us.

Should we be allowed to just march in and take them from them? Doesn't seem like we should. But, for ****'s sake, man. You can't blame any world leader for being a bit nervous and considering preemptive actions against someone like little Kim.

We've been squared up with NK for 60 years. I suspect the Pentagon has a very detailed assessment of their military capability and how to address it.

Were I advising the President, I would suggest that IF combat action is warranted that the end goal should be to eliminate NK's military capability to threaten the region. Conventional warfare with victory defined as NK no longer having the ability or inclination to engage in warfare.

[DreadNaught]

Why does that have to be OUR problem?

I don't know that the 'leave them alone and they'll leave us alone' approach is wise or even safe. I think most people agree that NK without nuclear capability makes the world safer. So how do we along w/ the international community get to that point without the use of military force?

The sentiment that they shouldn't be attacked until they attack someone is nice. But...not sure just how practical that is.

If someone is pointing a gun at a loved one...do you wait to shoot them until they shoot your loved one?

NK is basically publicly trying to put together their gun. At some point...they're going to get it right and publicly point that thing somewhere and put a finger on the trigger. And, at some point, we, or someone else, might have to preemptively stop them. Or, we can wait for them to launch and kill millions before we do anything.

I dunno. It just doesn't seem like the long term answer to this problem is going to be as easy as "Wait and see and react."

That is the exact same reasoning that gave us the Iraq war.

It's similar, but certainly not exact. The difference being NK has nuclear weapons already. I agree w/ Moon's description.

I think we can continue sanctions on them....I think we can continue to put pressure on China to put sanctions on them and quit propping their economy up (something Trump seems to be doing well....I can't recall any other time in the last 20 years when China made as many negative statements about North Korea, or announced their intention to help us find a solution....maybe its just posturing on their part, but we haven't seen it before)...i think we can rally the international community to do the same.

I agree with this approach. But let's not kid ourselves that this would be 'leaving them alone'. NK has a history of willfully disobeying UN sanctions. So assuming we go with this approach what are we prepared to do if NK continues to ignore diplomatic measures?

I don't think we can preemptively attack a nation because they are developing weapons we don't like.

Imo that is very casual/reckless description of NK aggressive pursuing nuclear ICBM capability in violation of UN sanctions. I don't know that it would be preemptive to use military force against a country in repeated violation international law.

The fact is that NK is aggressively working towards the capability of deploying a nuclear ICBM. Diplomacy and International pressure has been used for over decade to the slow the process, but it clearly has not deterred them. I don't want war with NK when they haven't attacked us or our allies. But there has to be consequences for violating international sanctions. Perhaps harsher sanctions is the correct next step here. But how many times does NK have to cross the line created by the UN before we act militarily?

I just don't think it's as easy as 'stop being world police' or 'leave them alone since they haven't attacked us' b/c the international community has already sanctioned their weapons program.

[Mountaineer Buc]

The North Koreans and Iranians are developing their nuke capability to get the rest of the world to back off of them. The idea being that with ballistic missile capability, invasion is impossible.

We've been working on ballistic missile defense for decades. The Navy knocks down ballistic missiles in test scenarios pretty regularly. So there's that. Now all we have to do is make sure that **** works flawlessly and then politically decide that overthrowing governments and occupying nations is a bad idea.

[DreadNaught]

The biggest issue with military action against NK is the collateral damage to South Korea. In almost every scenario imaginable NK would launch on our ally if they are attacked. That is the #1 reason I don't support military action.

NK as a military target would be defeated easily. China to the north, South Korea to the South and oceans on both sides we could park carrier groups. Doing so without them launching on SK or Japan is the issue.

[DreadNaught]

The North Koreans and Iranians are developing their nuke capability to get the rest of the world to back off of them.

Oh... I disagree that those are the intentions of Iran and NK (especially Iran) when it comes to pursuing a nuke, much less a ICBM for delivery.

[Mountaineer Buc]

The North Koreans and Iranians are developing their nuke capability to get the rest of the world to back off of them.

Oh... I disagree that those are the intentions of Iran and NK (especially Iran) when it comes to pursuing a nuke, much less a ICBM for delivery.

Even megalomaniacs understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.

[beardmcdoug]

Why does that have to be OUR problem?

I don't know that the 'leave them alone and they'll leave us alone' approach is wise or even safe. I think most people agree that NK without nuclear capability makes the world safer. So how do we along w/ the international community get to that point without the use of military force?

That is the exact same reasoning that gave us the Iraq war.

It's similar, but certainly not exact. The difference being NK has nuclear weapons already. I agree w/ Moon's description.

I think we can continue sanctions on them....I think we can continue to put pressure on China to put sanctions on them and quit propping their economy up (something Trump seems to be doing well....I can't recall any other time in the last 20 years when China made as many negative statements about North Korea, or announced their intention to help us find a solution....maybe its just posturing on their part, but we haven't seen it before)...i think we can rally the international community to do the same.

I agree with this approach. But let's not kid ourselves that this would be 'leaving them alone'. NK has a history of willfully disobeying UN sanctions. So assuming we go with this approach what are we prepared to do if NK continues to ignore diplomatic measures?

I don't think we can preemptively attack a nation because they are developing weapons we don't like.

Imo that is very casual/reckless description of NK aggressive pursuing nuclear ICBM capability in violation of UN sanctions. I don't know that it would be preemptive to use military force against a country in repeated violation international law.

The fact is that NK is aggressively working towards the capability of deploying a nuclear ICBM. Diplomacy and International pressure has been used for over decade to the slow the process, but it clearly has not deterred them. I don't want war with NK when they haven't attacked us or our allies. But there has to be consequences for violating international sanctions. Perhaps harsher sanctions is the correct next step here. But how many times does NK have to cross the line created by the UN before we act militarily?

I just don't think it's as easy as 'stop being world police' or 'leave them alone since they haven't attacked us' b/c the international community has already sanctioned their weapons program.

The last part kind of got me thinking:

So if,
NK says, "once we finish this missile, we'll shoot it at you"
and they openly admit that that's their goal

then, if we are to invade NK and absolutely demolish them, without "proper" casus belli - who, among other countries, or among history, will judge us?

The UK? France? are we worried about their judgement? Hell they're right up there on NK's **** list too

China? Since NK is a Chinese pawn, I'm sure they wouldn't be too pleased; although, NK seems to be getting too big for their Chinese britches, so maybe the Chinese won't really care that much.


Anyways, end of the day, my thought is - If we did do the "warmongering" thing, and just preemptively strike NK, who would care?

I'm pretty sure there's a concensus world view that NK has been run by a family of phsycopaths, and they're openly threatening anyone from the outside world with nuclear weapons... And I'm pretty sure history won't lose sight of this and will show NK as the dangerous little **** aggressor that they are.... a) why would anyone care if we did? and b) why should we care if any one cares if we did?

I mean... isn't there some common sense approach here that might be welcome?

[Mountaineer Buc]

BEIJING — China’s president, Xi Jinping, has urged President Trump to show restraint toward North Korea despite signs that the North may be preparing a nuclear test. Mr. Xi made the appeal in a phone call with Mr. Trump on Monday that reflected growing alarm over North Korea’s plans, which could tip the region into crisis.

China does not want the US throwing down with NK or anyone else in the region. They have their own plans in the pacific.

China is calling for restraint as a US strike group moves toward Korean waters

Beijing appears to be sending fresh signals about its view on North Korea, in order to convince U.S. President Donald Trump to take less aggressive action against the rogue nuclear state, several political analysts say.
...

At least two-thirds of North Korea's trade is with China, giving Beijing tremendous leverage over the state. Recent reports indicate that Chinese authorities are beginning to test that power.

After a North Korean missile test in February, Chinese authorities suspended coal imports from the state for the rest of the year. Media reports citing Chinese academics and opinion pieces in the Beijing-backed Global Times have raised the prospect of cutting oil exports to North Korea. Such action would severely hurt the small, North Korean economy and indicate China's seriousness on curbing the pariah state, analysts said.

Kim doesn't listen

North Korea conducted a big live-fire exercise on Tuesday to mark the foundation of its military as a U.S. submarine docked in South Korea in a show of force amid growing concern over the North's nuclear and missile programs.

The port call by the USS Michigan came as a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group steamed toward Korean waters and as top envoys for North Korea policy from South Korea, Japan and the United States met in Tokyo.

Fears have risen in recent weeks that North Korea would conduct another nuclear test or long-range missile launch in defiance of U.N. sanctions, perhaps on the Tuesday anniversary of the founding of its military.

But instead of a nuclear test or big missile launch, North Korea deployed a large number of long-range artillery units in the region of Wonsan on its east coast for a live-fire drill, South Korea's military said. North Korea has an air base in Wonsan and missiles have also been tested there.

"North Korea is conducting a large-scale firing drill in Wonsan areas this afternoon," the South's Office of Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement.

[DreadNaught]

Oh... I disagree that those are the intentions of Iran and NK (especially Iran) when it comes to pursuing a nuke, much less a ICBM for delivery.

Even megalomaniacs understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.

And you're ok with that? Iran getting a nuke, NK getting ICBM capability?

[DreadNaught]

I don't know that the 'leave them alone and they'll leave us alone' approach is wise or even safe. I think most people agree that NK without nuclear capability makes the world safer. So how do we along w/ the international community get to that point without the use of military force?


It's similar, but certainly not exact. The difference being NK has nuclear weapons already. I agree w/ Moon's description.



I agree with this approach. But let's not kid ourselves that this would be 'leaving them alone'. NK has a history of willfully disobeying UN sanctions. So assuming we go with this approach what are we prepared to do if NK continues to ignore diplomatic measures?



Imo that is very casual/reckless description of NK aggressive pursuing nuclear ICBM capability in violation of UN sanctions. I don't know that it would be preemptive to use military force against a country in repeated violation international law.

The fact is that NK is aggressively working towards the capability of deploying a nuclear ICBM. Diplomacy and International pressure has been used for over decade to the slow the process, but it clearly has not deterred them. I don't want war with NK when they haven't attacked us or our allies. But there has to be consequences for violating international sanctions. Perhaps harsher sanctions is the correct next step here. But how many times does NK have to cross the line created by the UN before we act militarily?

I just don't think it's as easy as 'stop being world police' or 'leave them alone since they haven't attacked us' b/c the international community has already sanctioned their weapons program.

The last part kind of got me thinking:

So if,
NK says, "once we finish this missile, we'll shoot it at you"
and they openly admit that that's their goal

then, if we are to invade NK and absolutely demolish them, without "proper" casus belli - who, among other countries, or among history, will judge us?

The UK? France? are we worried about their judgement? Hell they're right up there on NK's **** list too

China? Since NK is a Chinese pawn, I'm sure they wouldn't be too pleased; although, NK seems to be getting too big for their Chinese britches, so maybe the Chinese won't really care that much.


Anyways, end of the day, my thought is - If we did do the "warmongering" thing, and just preemptively strike NK, who would care?

I'm pretty sure there's a concensus world view that NK has been run by a family of phsycopaths, and they're openly threatening anyone from the outside world with nuclear weapons... And I'm pretty sure history won't lose sight of this and will show NK as the dangerous little **** aggressor that they are.... a) why would anyone care if we did? and b) why should we care if any one cares if we did?

I mean... isn't there some common sense approach here that might be welcome?

The issue is preventing casualties on South Korea or Japan as a result of the US using military actions on NK. Both are so close in proximity that it would be very difficult to ensure their safety, which is our responsibility.

There is also the issue of NK civilians. We want want to disarm NK, not kill all their people. But the more surgical we are the greater chance they get their missiles off.

No easy answer...

[Mountaineer Buc]

Even megalomaniacs understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.

And you're ok with that? Iran getting a nuke, NK getting ICBM capability?

It's not really up to me, is it?

[mightyleemoon]

The last part kind of got me thinking:

So if,
NK says, "once we finish this missile, we'll shoot it at you"
and they openly admit that that's their goal

then, if we are to invade NK and absolutely demolish them, without "proper" casus belli - who, among other countries, or among history, will judge us?

The UK? France? are we worried about their judgement? Hell they're right up there on NK's **** list too

China? Since NK is a Chinese pawn, I'm sure they wouldn't be too pleased; although, NK seems to be getting too big for their Chinese britches, so maybe the Chinese won't really care that much.


Anyways, end of the day, my thought is - If we did do the "warmongering" thing, and just preemptively strike NK, who would care?

I'm pretty sure there's a concensus world view that NK has been run by a family of phsycopaths, and they're openly threatening anyone from the outside world with nuclear weapons... And I'm pretty sure history won't lose sight of this and will show NK as the dangerous little **** aggressor that they are.... a) why would anyone care if we did? and b) why should we care if any one cares if we did?

I mean... isn't there some common sense approach here that might be welcome?

The issue is preventing casualties on South Korea or Japan as a result of the US using military actions on NK. Both are so close in proximity that it would be very difficult to ensure their safety, which is our responsibility.

There is also the issue of NK civilians. We want want to disarm NK, not kill all their people. But the more surgical we are the greater chance they get their missiles off.

No easy answer...

I'd bet a buck that, in our lifetime, they're going to send some missiles towards somebody.

[Buc2]