It's just part of a psyops game (I think). Kim is doing the same type of thing saying children will detonate nuclear bombs as suicide bombers. If we really attempted this it would be a regional disaster at minimum and potentially a worldwide catastrophe.
Taking him out has never been the hard part. We could take him out inside a week if we didn't mind Seoul looking like Hiroshima. The hard part would be taking him out without millions of South Korean civilians getting slaughtered in the process.
It's getting harder and harder to just ignore N. Korea. Their firing of an ICBM -- on the 4th of July no less -- is highly provocative. The missile reportedly could reach Alaska or maybe even Portland and it is capable of carrying nukes. Now, they just need to miniaturize the nukes to fit the missile. I heard estimates this morning that they're 18-36 months away from having an ICBM loaded with nukes that can reach the U.S. China, the only country with some influence over them, isn't helping. Trump accused them of increasing trade with NK by 40% in the first quarter. Embargos haven't worked and won't work as long as China gives them what they need. There seems to be 3 options; 1) what we've been doing (not much) and hoping it will all work out somehow, 2) all out strike (shock and awe) on NK of some kind, or 3) some sort of surgical, decapitation strike (which supposes that no. 2 in charge isn't as crazy as Kim). Options 2 and 3 will cause world economic chaos to some extent. Further, how we handle NK will send a message to Iran, who is following the same path. Tough times seem to be looming on the horizon. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...er-gift-package-following-missile-launch.html
It Time! When they are capable of hitting our land then something has to be done. We have to take out Kim and then let it be known that who ever inherits the throne will be hit too if they don't comply. It's a chance we now have to take.
Really? Deez made a good point that the consequences is worrying about South Korea. So SH, you'd rather wait until they strike Oregon first? Remember we are Americans first and that should be our biggest concern. Everything is political with you so I'm surprised you don't support protecting a blue state.
This isn't about protecting a blue state, IMHO. This is about preemptively triggering a world calamity out of fear. Whether the outcome would be 100's of thousands if not millions of deaths as NK poured into South Korea or a humanitarian crisis inside NK due to mass starvation and no industry, there is no good outcome for us. We've been down this road before, within the past 17 years. Iraq ring a bell? That hasn't worked out too well for us. Like Sadam, Kim is worried only about maintaining his own power base. I'll wager that Kim, who was educated in Switzerland, is not suicidal. In fact, if Trump is correct that China has actually increased their trade with NK, I'd argue that we are being played by China and Kim has the support of the Chinese leadership.
Lots of people are capable of hitting our land. Where does it stop? The only variable in this question is whether Kim is so certifiable and/or insulated from reality that he would launch a nuke at the U.S. for no other reason than "because he can." I don't believe he will. I think he needs the ego boost but also gets that having a puffed-up ego is worthless when you're being incinerated by a nuclear response. And if he thinks he's invulnerable, then I doubt his advisors share that view. I am hopeful that if Kim ordered an unprovoked nuclear strike, he'd be assassinated within 24 hours.
I think we need to send the full Obama - both Dennis Rodman and James Taylor. Rodman can trip Kim and rough him up on the BB court. James Taylor can sing "Fire and Rain" in the background - replacing Suzanne with Kim.
How many nuclear armed countries break the unwritten rule of never threaten with a nuclear strike? Nobody does it because it's a serious club with responsible members. Even if their interests are attacked with conventional weapons, these countries will always favor proportionate retaliation in a non-nuclear manner. NK cannot be trusted to behave with that level of restraint and responsibility if a similar confrontation occurred. If China comes out tomorrow and says they're going to vaporize the U.S. if we don't exit the South China Sea, we'd take it seriously and raise the alert level. A reckless nuclear player who'll try to coerce favorable behavior from other countries with threats of nuclear attack is not tolerable in the nuclear landscape. If the nuclear strike time is 30 min from NK to our coast, it's simply unacceptable to allow a loose cannon to constantly threaten it. Once he has the capability to execute a mainland attack, he won't curtail threats but only escalate and embolden them with more arrogance.
That was a side note to a bigger problem. When you say lots.... how many? I'm sure Russia and China. Who else that aren't considered our close allies? I don't think Iran is there yet. We are just now realizing that N Korea may be can now after this last test.
For those of you advocating a pre-emptive strike with the goal of taking out both the regime and the nuclear capabilities, have you considered the range of possible outcomes? The best case is that everything goes as planned. The launch pads are destroyed, Kim is taken out, and the regime is unable to retaliate against Seoul or anywhere else. And even if this is possible (I doubt it), what comes next? Does the US and/or South Korea send in an occupying force to gain control of the country? Do the Chinese storm in and gain control of North Korea? Do the Chinese respond asymmetrically and fire on US vessels in the South China Sea? Second possibility. Regional war ignites, tens of thousands are killed and US now involved in another quagmire. NK may even attempt to fire a missile at US from a cargo ship or something that doesn't require an ICBM to reach US, or perhaps try to smuggle a dirty bomb into the country. Third possibility. We bring in both the Russians and the Chinese into a full on economic war and possibly a hot war. The likelihood of a bad scenario resulting from a US military intervention far outweighs the possibility NK actually decides to hit the US just for the hell of it.
I think that we've been undermining their missle development via covert operations for some time. They seem to be working around it. China will have to step up and solve this one in the long term. A strike is way too dangerous. Question: If they strike Oregon will Gordon Riese be harmed?
No doubt every first strike outcome is bad. But trusting this nutjob not to strike us is absurd. Even a 10% chance in the nuclear world is unacceptable. We're talking about an isolated, massively paranoid dictator who threatens nuclear strikes on a weekly basis. The West has no direct line of communication to de-escalate if things get hot and murky. Anyone who studied the cold war knows how dicey things get with conflicting nuclear armed foes without communication lines. Misunderstandings almost ended us on several occasions. This the same guy who recently put a hit out on the former SK prez for supposedly trying to take him out. Who knows if SK orchestrated it or it came from within. We do know he's known for killing off top military advisors and family members he loses trust in. What if a future attempt happens from inside his own regime. His paranoia could easily conclude it was US backed operatives and provoke a strike? If the least stable leader out there is allowed to have nukes, who's to stop any new dangerous suitors? Not to mention, Iran and NK already share military assets and technology. Might as well speed Iran's desired nuclear status. Once we allow the extension of nuclear capabilities to members that don't abide by the responsibility ethics that such power demands, it's only a matter of time until someone pulls the trigger.
The three posters who promote anti-American narratives just shared a group hug over claiming their own president is as unstable as NK's. How cute.
Not really. It's a recognition that the Kim isn't an unstable as the warmongers think and Trump his displayed his poor temperament over and over. He also has apparently has trouble spotting the Presidential limousine right in front of him.
It's also a perfect example of why we went to war in Iraq setting off a series of events that created the scenarios that DJT decries today. A mess in the ME, a worn down and depleted military, and a terrorist and humanitaritan situation that was exacerbated. So, while you and you're ilk find the next excuse to exercise our military might while sitting behind a keyboard in the comfort of your own home I'll continue to point out the fallacy of the reasoning when appropriate. If that means an election is lost, so be it. I'll consider that an educational challenge.
No you and OU actually stated that a person who routinely kills his family members was more stable than Trump. That kind of idiocy is why the dems lost the election, not because you bury your head in the sand when ruthless dictators fire test missles towards your allies with stated hopes to reach the US with nuclear weapons.
No one really thinks we're serious, right? Them's jokes people. Trump's not necessarily what any of us would call a stable leader but he's no Kim Jong... and I'm his biggest critic.
On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being psychotic, 5 being sane but impulsive, and 10 being stable and deliberate, Trump is at best 5. Kim is somewhere below 5, I'm not sure where. 5 is not where you want the leader of the country to be. The alternative in November was someone I believe to be a traitorous sociopath. I went with the impulsive egotist. What are you going to do?
The problem is you were simply parroting CNN, MSNBC, Huffington anc other liberal outlets. That is essentially what Mika was fighting with Trump about. It is the liberal narrative.
