North Korea

[Mugwump]

In simple terms, DTM, you are describing burning alive millions of children and other people because a small number of wicked men controlling the Nth Korean govt might do the same to others (but probably won't, because they know it they will be killed if they start it). So yes, they are very bad and dangerous ; but no, we can't just "wipe it off the map".

[David]

^ What I fear is that Trump is itching to do just that. The rhetoric and military activity is rapidly escalating on both sides, and I just don't see how this can end well.

To think some on the left were naive enough to think that Clinton would be a more dangerous president than Trump in terms of international affairs. If only we had such a safe pair of hands, along with an actual competent administration to back her up, right now.

I really wonder if people realise what is at stake here (DTM's glib posts above suggests that he, at least, doesn't). Despite the madness of World War 1 and the subsequent rise of the Nazis, the development of terrifying weapons and a decades-long stand-off between the US and the Soviet Union, the world managed to navigate through the 20th century and the early part of this one without a nuclear war. Now, we are perilously close to having one. The worst of the damage may be confined to the Korean peninsula, but the world will never be the same.

[Mugwump]

^ What I fear is that Trump is itching to do just that. The rhetoric and military activity is rapidly escalating on both sides, and I just don't see how this can end well.

To think some on the left were naive enough to think that Clinton would be a more dangerous president than Trump in terms of international affairs. If only we had such a safe pair of hands, along with an actual competent administration to back her up, right now.

I really wonder if people realise what is at stake here (DTM's glib posts above suggests that he, at least, doesn't). Despite the madness of World War 1 and the subsequent rise of the Nazis, the development of terrifying weapons and a decades-long stand-off between the US and the Soviet Union, the world managed to navigate through the 20th century and the early part of this one without a nuclear war. Now, we are perilously close to having one. The worst of the damage may be confined to the Korean peninsula, but the world will never be the same.

I think the risks of an actual nuclear war are hard to assess without all of the intelligence, but the point about Trump is that he's unpredictable. In some ways that is the worst of his disqualifications for office. The US is right to put maximum economic pressure on North Korea and on its patron, China. But war, that most disgusting of human activities, should always be avoided short of an actual attack on your country.

[HAL]

Not that I know of.

[Dave The Man]

In simple terms, DTM, you are describing burning alive millions of children and other people because a small number of wicked men controlling the Nth Korean govt might do the same to others (but probably won't, because they know it they will be killed if they start it). So yes, they are very bad and dangerous ; but no, we can't just "wipe it off the map".

Well North Korea would do the Exact Same Thing.

So what the West Do then?

[Mugwump]

^ are you sure of that, Dave ? Do they have a record of actually using nuclear weapons against people ? If they haven't, how do you know what they'll do ? And if you don't know what they'll do, then I am sure you'll agree that it is not right to burn millions of children alive because someone else might do something.

another way to think about it is like this : Just because someone buys a gun, it does not mean they will use it. They might be a bad person, but you cannot shoot them for having it.

The West should make North Korea know that if they use nuclear weapons they will be signing their death warrant. That should stop them using them. Meanwhile the West should put pressure on China, North Korea's backer, to stop them getting nukes.

[swoop42]

The simple reality is there is no military solution for North Korea now that wont cost the lives of potentially millions, that past actions point towards them not being prepared to abandon there nuclear weapons program for anyone (this suits China) and self preservation is the biggest reason why the sabre rattling from Kim Jong Un should remain just that unless the West does something really stupid and fires first.

Basically the game is lost already and the hawks within the US government and military just don't realise it.

[Dave The Man]

^ are you sure of that, Dave ? Do they have a record of actually using nuclear weapons against people ? If they haven't, how do you know what they'll do ? And if you don't know what they'll do, then I am sure you'll agree that it is not right to burn millions of children alive because someone else might do something.

another way to think about it is like this : Just because someone buys a gun, it does not mean they will use it. They might be a bad person, but you cannot shoot them for having it.

The West should make North Korea know that if they use nuclear weapons they will be signing their death warrant. That should stop them using them. Meanwhile the West should put pressure on China, North Korea's backer, to stop them getting nukes.

Well the Idiot who Runs North Korea seems Stupid Enough he would Declare War against the West.

Well China shows the True Colors looking after other Countries that are Commies.

China don't need Nuke's to take over the world with how many of them they are.

They invaded Iraq for lot less

[Tannin]

For more than 50 years, the US has had a simple, effective policy: (a) no first use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD - nukes, chemicals, or biologicals), and (b) instant retaliation with US WMD (they only have nukes) if anyone uses WMD against the US or a US ally.

But with the Orange Fruitcake in charge, who knows what they will do. Fire off weirdo tweets and then ring up the boss in Moscow to ask for new instructions, I suppose.

[stui magpie]

^ What I fear is that Trump is itching to do just that. The rhetoric and military activity is rapidly escalating on both sides, and I just don't see how this can end well.

To think some on the left were naive enough to think that Clinton would be a more dangerous president than Trump in terms of international affairs. If only we had such a safe pair of hands, along with an actual competent administration to back her up, right now.

I really wonder if people realise what is at stake here (DTM's glib posts above suggests that he, at least, doesn't). Despite the madness of World War 1 and the subsequent rise of the Nazis, the development of terrifying weapons and a decades-long stand-off between the US and the Soviet Union, the world managed to navigate through the 20th century and the early part of this one without a nuclear war. Now, we are perilously close to having one. The worst of the damage may be confined to the Korean peninsula, but the world will never be the same.

I think the risks of an actual nuclear war are hard to assess without all of the intelligence, but the point about Trump is that he's unpredictable. In some ways that is the worst of his disqualifications for office. The US is right to put maximum economic pressure on North Korea and on its patron, China. But war, that most disgusting of human activities, should always be avoided short of an actual attack on your country.

Counter argument. Trump's perceived unpredictability is actually a potential asset in this situation.

NK knew what they had to deal with in Obama, they just upped their arms program despite the threats etc cos they knew he wouldn't do anything.

They aren't so sure about Trump.

I have faith that the mechanisms in place would stop trump from having a 2am hissy fit and pushing the "nuke NK" button, but they don't know that. So they're pushing to find the boundaries.

they would know damn well that pushing too hard may get them all incinerated, even if they take down some of SK and Japan in a last gasp, but the leaders don't want to die (they're having too much fun while the peasants eat grass roots) so that's a last resort.

I'm not sure what their end game is, but I suspect things are going to get touchy in coming months.

[David]

Only problem with the 'mad dog' theory: if you know he won't, what prevents them from reaching the same conclusion? Conversely, if they don't know for sure that he won't do it, what makes you so confident?

With the constantly escalating rhetoric that that tactic entails, all we're left with is a game of chicken and the hope that one of the two pull out at the last moment. But what if they don't?

For more than 50 years, the US has had a simple, effective policy: (a) no first use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD - nukes, chemicals, or biologicals), and (b) instant retaliation with US WMD (they only have nukes) if anyone uses WMD against the US or a US ally.

But with the Orange Fruitcake in charge, who knows what they will do. Fire off weirdo tweets and then ring up the boss in Moscow to ask for new instructions, I suppose.

Trump taking advice from Putin wouldn't actually be such a bad idea right now. Hell, Trump taking advice from the crazy guy at the bus stop would probably be a slight improvement on the current situation.

[swoop42]

I don't think some people truly appreciate that this is the most serious game of brinkmanship since the Cuban missile crisis in my humble opinion.

[Dave The Man]

I don't think some people truly appreciate that this is the most serious game of brinkmanship since the Cuban missile crisis in my humble opinion.

The Russians had/have lot more Sense then North Korea have.

China is the main country who could stop this but they want to support fellow Commies

[HAL]

When is [quoteswoop42]he or she don't think some people appreciate that this not the most serious game of brinkmanship the Cuban missile crisis in his or her humble opinion?

[stui magpie]

Only problem with the 'mad dog' theory: if you know he won't, what prevents them from reaching the same conclusion? Conversely, if they don't know for sure that he won't do it, what makes you so confident?

With the constantly escalating rhetoric that that tactic entails, all we're left with is a game of chicken and the hope that one of the two pull out at the last moment. But what if they don't?

For more than 50 years, the US has had a simple, effective policy: (a) no first use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD - nukes, chemicals, or biologicals), and (b) instant retaliation with US WMD (they only have nukes) if anyone uses WMD against the US or a US ally.

But with the Orange Fruitcake in charge, who knows what they will do. Fire off weirdo tweets and then ring up the boss in Moscow to ask for new instructions, I suppose.

Trump taking advice from Putin wouldn't actually be such a bad idea right now. Hell, Trump taking advice from the crazy guy at the bus stop would probably be a slight improvement on the current situation.

I don't know he won't, I just know he won't do it alone. Checks and balances are in play, and leaving aside the lives lost for a second, dropping a nuke on NK would have serious issues with the relationship with China, Japan and SK.

The USA are pretty much out of the firing line, it's their allies that are neck deep in shit if it goes south, so the USA won't act preemptively without behind the scenes support.

behind the scenes won't play out publicly, NK can read the media as much as we can.