flyboy56

North Korea Has Miniaturized A Nuclear Warhead

334 posts in this topic

6 minutes ago, veritas said:

No, just fortunate to have been born and raised in a free, wealthy, western nation.  The left takes their blessings for granted or fails to realize them because they don't understand that most of the good things in the world either came from the West or from nations which have adopted western political and economic systems.  

And the right likes to ignore the price other parts of the world paid for things like western economic systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, flyboy56 said:

And you are absolutely confidant in their guidance systems you wouldn't shoot them down if you had a missile defense system?

You're just itching for a war, aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, flyboy56 said:

While the NK regime only had conventional weapons there never was a serious mention of a first strike. Only after they proven they have the capability. You fail to see the reasons why a first strike by the US is possible? Any country not authorized to possess nuclear capabilities will be considered for a first strike if necessary. This idea that any country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons is foolish and a child's belief that playing fair in a dangerous world is ludicrous. 

Just irresponsible and idiotic bluster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ivanbalt said:

And the right likes to ignore the price other parts of the world paid for things like western economic systems.

You mean like their improved standards of living?  Look at Japan and Germany.  They were destroyed at the end of WWII and both became economic powerhouses by instituting (re-instituting in Germany's case) western democracy and economic systems.  I suppose you mean the places which were colonized by the British.  Even those, such as India, ultimately prospered by having been exposed to western influences and established viable and long lasting political systems.  Not every country has done likewise but that has often been due to the overweening influence of corrupt leaders or groups which have monopolized power or robbed the public treasury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

You think so?

So tell me, what constitutes a victory in Korea?  Removal of the current regime?  Establishment of a democracy? What will be the US involvement in a post-war unified Korea, with a heavily damaged ROK nominally running things?  How do you think China will react to a US presence on their border?  What do we do with the 4 or 5 million dead and wounded civilians?  What is a sufficient number of US casualties for you to determine whether a war in NK is worth the effort?  What level of tax are you willing to pay to fund the post-war reconstruction?  What do we do with NATO and Poland/Ukraine when our forces are tied up in Korea?  How do we address an expanding Chinese military presence in the South China Sea while we're fighting a futile war, with a tired military, in the mountains of North Korea?  Where is the UN and their role?  What do our allies think of joining us in a death fest in Korea?

There is NO good to come from a war in Korea.  None.

This is a great post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, veritas said:

You mean like their improved standards of living?  Look at Japan and Germany.  They were destroyed at the end of WWII and both became economic powerhouses by instituting (re-instituting in Germany's case) western democracy and economic systems.  I suppose you mean the places which were colonized by the British.  Even those, such as India, ultimately prospered by having been exposed to western influences and established viable and long lasting political systems.  Not every country has done likewise but that has often been due to the overweening influence of corrupt leaders or groups which have monopolized power or robbed the public treasury.

No, I'm thinking of all the places the US has intervened with its military directly or indirectly in the interests of American corporations.  How many dictators has the US put in power or propped up in the interests of American corporations?  I'm sure Iran greatly appreciates the overthrow of their elected government for the Shah or Chile with the Pinochet regime.  The Cold War was full of countries declared "Communist" by the US because they didn't want to be exploited by American corporations.

Hell, there was definitely some capitalist interests at play with Iraq and Libya in recent years.  I'm sure they like their improved standards of living.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ivanbalt said:

No, I'm thinking of all the places the US has intervened with its military directly or indirectly in the interests of American corporations.  How many dictators has the US put in power or propped up in the interests of American corporations?  I'm sure Iran greatly appreciates the overthrow of their elected government for the Shah or Chile with the Pinochet regime.  The Cold War was full of countries declared "Communist" by the US because they didn't want to be exploited by American corporations.

Hell, there was definitely some capitalist interests at play with Iraq and Libya in recent years.  I'm sure they like their improved standards of living.  :rolleyes:

Because we wrongly invaded certain places is hardly an indictment of capitalism.  It's an indictment of the people in charge who made bad policy decisions.  There was also a big belief in both parties in the domino theory during the Cold War.  We wanted to keep as many places out of the Soviet orbit as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, veritas said:

I see we can add you to the growing number on the left who blame Trump rather than Kim Jung Un. I've been predicting this and it's happening right on schedule.  It's pretty sad that we've reached the point where sticking up for your own safety is seen as eroding your credibility.  Sometimes enemies need to be threatened in order for them to get the picture.  What's funny is that the people who accused others of being "Putin's pets" now find Trump more odious than the clown in NK.

Your lies and deflections are not going to work, Veritas. No where do I blame Trump for North Korea's nuclear program. Nor do I suggest that Kim is blameless. 

What I said is what I have been saying for more than a year. Trump is not fit to be president. He's a moron. Furthermore, you can go back to for months and you'll see posts from me suggesting that pulling out of TPP would be a stupid thing to do and that it would empower China and diminish US standing and clout in the region. Furthermore, Trump's idiotic moves regarding Taiwan did nothing more than further alienate the very country that may be able to help us the most regarding North Korea.

There's no coordination or strategy. His 'fire and fury' idiocy was an off the cuff remark that caught even his most trusted advisors off guard. This is an extremely dangerous situation and Trump's bluster is not helpful. It's the opposite. He's clearly not stable and does not possess the gravitas to handle the crisis. Hopefully he won't stumble into a catastrophic war.

It's not my fault you supported a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, flyboy56 said:

Our strategy was to throw the Germans out of lands they occupied to include their own land. The end goal was to destroy their HQ located in Berlin although we let Russia do that. The same goal should have been applied to Vietnam from the start when the decision was made to get involved in Vietnam and that was to destroy Hanoi. War would have been over in no time if we had. Like a game of chess you always maintain a strategy that eventually takes down the King. The US applied the same strategy against Japan using nuclear weapons and forcing the Emperor to go on radio and tell the Japanese they have surrendered. Why it took so long for the US that same strategy in Vietnam is baffling. As for the NK regime, why do you say they pose no existential threat to the US? 

There was never a policy to remove the Germans from thier own lands; the policy called for the destruction of the armed forces.  

The reason the destruction of he armed forces approach could work in Germany, and for that matter, Japan is because this was a uniformed foe, fighting a linear war.  That was not the case in Vietnam - ever.  The only strategy that ever worked in Vietnam was the ink blot strategy, by we're not patient enough to let it get results.  It didn't fit our "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em" out" mindset.

An existential threat is one that can destroy the nation.  NK does not have that capability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, flyboy56 said:

Our strategy was to throw the Germans out of lands they occupied to include their own land. The end goal was to destroy their HQ located in Berlin although we let Russia do that. The same goal should have been applied to Vietnam from the start when the decision was made to get involved in Vietnam and that was to destroy Hanoi. War would have been over in no time if we had. Like a game of chess you always maintain a strategy that eventually takes down the King. The US applied the same strategy against Japan using nuclear weapons and forcing the Emperor to go on radio and tell the Japanese they have surrendered. Why it took so long for the US that same strategy in Vietnam is baffling. As for the NK regime, why do you say they pose no existential threat to the US? 

Our strategic bombing campaign was aimed primarily at degrading the enemy's industrial war-making capacity. Churchill was a proponent of bombing cities because he thought it would demoralize the enemy. There was also some good old fashioned vengeance for the Blitz. The effectiveness of bombing German cities remains a hot topic of debate.

We didn't lose the war in Vietnam because we failed to bomb Hanoi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, flyboy56 said:

While the NK regime only had conventional weapons there never was a serious mention of a first strike. Only after they proven they have the capability. You fail to see the reasons why a first strike by the US is possible? Any country not authorized to possess nuclear capabilities will be considered for a first strike if necessary. This idea that any country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons is foolish and a child's belief that playing fair in a dangerous world is ludicrous. 

There were strong advocates for using nukes against the north during the Korean War. Ike and Truman both recognized such talk as madness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WKDWZD said:

They have made no such claim, do not be so disingenuous ... They said that they would fire 4 ballistic missiles NEAR TO Guam.

The problem with that is their guidance systems suck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JoyinMudville said:

Our strategic bombing campaign was aimed primarily at degrading the enemy's industrial war-making capacity. Churchill was a proponent of bombing cities because he thought it would demoralize the enemy. There was also some good old fashioned vengeance for the Blitz. The effectiveness of bombing German cities remains a hot topic of debate.

We didn't lose the war in Vietnam because we failed to bomb Hanoi.

Actually we did eventually start bombing Hanoi which brought the NV to the negotiation table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JoyinMudville said:

There were strong advocates for using nukes against the north during the Korean War. Ike and Truman both recognized such talk as madness. 

If they only knew the madness going on in NK now. Madness brought on by a weapon Ike and Truman believed would be madness to use on the NKs. Oh the irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2017 at 9:54 PM, Calamari said:

Now "Gawd" is all up in this business, apparently.

‘God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un,’ evangelical adviser says

Pretty nearly a done deal, the fundies are squealing for blood.

Looks for Trump's rhetoric to ratchet up further til he provokes the response he wants.

That part is happening exactly as predicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

There was never a policy to remove the Germans from thier own lands; the policy called for the destruction of the armed forces.  

The reason the destruction of he armed forces approach could work in Germany, and for that matter, Japan is because this was a uniformed foe, fighting a linear war.  That was not the case in Vietnam - ever.  The only strategy that ever worked in Vietnam was the ink blot strategy, by we're not patient enough to let it get results.  It didn't fit our "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em" out" mindset.

An existential threat is one that can destroy the nation.  NK does not have that capability.

I stand corrected. I meant the Nazis and you were referring to Germans. The path to the destruction of the armed forces was taking the allies straight to Berlin. Finally bombing Hanoi is what brought the NV to the table. We'll never know if the ink blot strategy would have worked. Nk may not have that capability yet but they are fast approaching the threshold and no real solution to stop them. If they do achieve 60 ICBM's with nuclear warheads in their arsenal would they then be an existential threat to the US? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

The problem with that is their guidance systems suck

At least we are being told their systems suck. Maybe they want to prove everyone wrong by launching 4 ballistic missiles near Guam to show they do have a reliable system? But Leader Kim says the missiles won't be ready to launch for a couple days. Will he save face by actually launching them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JoyinMudville said:

Your lies and deflections are not going to work, Veritas. No where do I blame Trump for North Korea's nuclear program. Nor do I suggest that Kim is blameless. 

What I said is what I have been saying for more than a year. Trump is not fit to be president. He's a moron. Furthermore, you can go back to for months and you'll see posts from me suggesting that pulling out of TPP would be a stupid thing to do and that it would empower China and diminish US standing and clout in the region. Furthermore, Trump's idiotic moves regarding Taiwan did nothing more than further alienate the very country that may be able to help us the most regarding North Korea.

There's no coordination or strategy. His 'fire and fury' idiocy was an off the cuff remark that caught even his most trusted advisors off guard. This is an extremely dangerous situation and Trump's bluster is not helpful. It's the opposite. He's clearly not stable and does not possess the gravitas to handle the crisis. Hopefully he won't stumble into a catastrophic war.

It's not my fault you supported a moron.

But Trump IS president and your hope should be that he can negotiate the crisis successfully with the help of his advisers.  Instead, we get endless blather about how he shouldn't be or isn't qualified to be president.  There's almost a palpable hope that some disaster happens that can be blamed on Trump.  As for China, they could squeeze NK hard at any time if they really wanted to.  It's apparent they do not.  Trump fielded a phone call from the Taiwanese president.  That's the provocative action you're describing.  It's silliness.  Oh, and I've lied about nothing.  I said the other day that the left would start blaming Trump and the words had barely been typed before the squid started doing just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, veritas said:

But Trump IS president and your hope should be that he can negotiate the crisis successfully with the help of his advisers.  Instead, we get endless blather about how he shouldn't be or isn't qualified to be president.  There's almost a palpable hope that some disaster happens that can be blamed on Trump.  As for China, they could squeeze NK hard at any time if they really wanted to.  It's apparent they do not.  Trump fielded a phone call from the Taiwanese president.  That's the provocative action you're describing.  It's silliness.  Oh, and I've lied about nothing.  I said the other day that the left would start blaming Trump and the words had barely been typed before the squid started doing just that.

I don't hope...I expect him to do so!!!!! It is his job to make this work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jtowne-swim said:

I don't hope...I expect him to do so!!!!! It is his job to make this work out.

I agree with you, but not sure I share your optimism.  I don't believe Trump has any idea about how to work this out.  What I also believe is that the last 3 administrations share a significant blame for allowing this situation to get this way.  Clinton, Bush, and Obama totally failed and simply kicked the can down the road to get us to where we are with this.  Trump owns whatever solution he comes up with, but he doesn't own the making of this problem.  That is on the last three presidents who obviously failed their country at taking on this challenge.  Clinton, Bush and Obama should all feel shame for failing to prevent this.  Maybe in the future they can have their own Mount Rushmore named the Three Stooges, assuming the world survives.  On this issue, they were about as effective as Moe, Larry and Curly.  Now Trump gets to play Schempf.  Beautiful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, cprenegade said:

I agree with you, but not sure I share your optimism.  I don't believe Trump has any idea about how to work this out.  What I also believe is that the last 3 administrations share a significant blame for allowing this situation to get this way.  Clinton, Bush, and Obama totally failed and simply kicked the can down the road to get us to where we are with this.  Trump owns whatever solution he comes up with, but he doesn't own the making of this problem.  That is on the last three presidents who obviously failed their country at taking on this challenge.  Clinton, Bush and Obama should all feel shame for failing to prevent this.  Maybe in the future they can have their own Mount Rushmore named the Three Stooges, assuming the world survives.  On this issue, they were about as effective as Moe, Larry and Curly.  Now Trump gets to play Schempf.  Beautiful!

The world will survive. Korea will be taken out.  The ideal scenario is to take out the leader.

Edited by jtowne-swim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jtowne-swim said:

The world will survive. Korea will be taken out.  The ideal scenario is to take out the leader.

I would agree with you.  And I would hope maybe if we don't do it, perhaps China or Russia could do it to keep NK on their side.  I would trust us to work under the radar with both of them except for who now occupies the WH.  Maybe the pentagon can do it without his knowledge.  And then after the fact, he can take credit for it.  Who cares how it happens, as long as it happens.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cprenegade said:

I agree with you, but not sure I share your optimism.  I don't believe Trump has any idea about how to work this out.  What I also believe is that the last 3 administrations share a significant blame for allowing this situation to get this way.  Clinton, Bush, and Obama totally failed and simply kicked the can down the road to get us to where we are with this.  Trump owns whatever solution he comes up with, but he doesn't own the making of this problem.  That is on the last three presidents who obviously failed their country at taking on this challenge.  Clinton, Bush and Obama should all feel shame for failing to prevent this.  Maybe in the future they can have their own Mount Rushmore named the Three Stooges, assuming the world survives.  On this issue, they were about as effective as Moe, Larry and Curly.  Now Trump gets to play Schempf.  Beautiful!

If you read some of MOTR very insightful posts regarding strategies against the NK regime, which according to MOTR is pretty much zilch, Trump was given a real crap stew to work with in dealing with NK. Apparently no recent former president had an idea what to do with NK so they just let slide. Should we continue with the "let NK slide" policy? Seems our highly trained war strategists don't know how to handle NK. So why do folks expect Trump to have all the answers? Maybe Trump believes doing the same thing and expecting different results as insanity. Maybe our former president's our the insane ones when it comes to dealing with NK, not Trump? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, flyboy56 said:

If you read some of MOTR very insightful posts regarding strategies against the NK regime, which according to MOTR is pretty much zilch, Trump was given a real crap stew to work with in dealing with NK. Apparently no recent former president had an idea what to do with NK so they just let slide. Should we continue with the "let NK slide" policy? Seems our highly trained war strategists don't know how to handle NK. So why do folks expect Trump to have all the answers? Maybe Trump believes doing the same thing and expecting different results as insanity. Maybe our former president's our the insane ones when it comes to dealing with NK, not Trump? 

Presidents are always handed a crap stew of some kind or another.  Bush was handed a nation absolutely unprepared for a terrorist attack.  Obama was handed an economy that was circling the bowl and affected every decision he could make for at least two years.  Trump was handed a foreign policy in disarray and a tired military.

If they are (1) unaware of those conditions when they decide to run and (2) unaware of a path for addressing them, perhaps they should all find another line of work.

As far as being insane, they all MUST have some kind of a mental issue; no rational person would want that job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Presidents are always handed a crap stew of some kind or another.  Bush was handed a nation absolutely unprepared for a terrorist attack.  Obama was handed an economy that was circling the bowl and affected every decision he could make for at least two years.  Trump was handed a foreign policy in disarray and a tired military.

If they are (1) unaware of those conditions when they decide to run and (2) unaware of a path for addressing them, perhaps they should all find another line of work.

As far as being insane, they all MUST have some kind of a mental issue; no rational person would want that job.

I agree with your last statement 100%! Yes, all presidents are handed a crap stew of one sort or another. But where issues involving highly classified information which include war strategies pertaining to specific regions or countries no newly elected president is going to have the full picture until he/she is elected. The NK issue is not new and should have been addressed by our former presidents so no newly elected president has to jump through their butts to figure it out. As for a tired military, the vast majority of military members don't usually see combat and the majority that did haven't seen combat since 2011 when our military left Iraq.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now