flyboy56

North Korea Has Miniaturized A Nuclear Warhead

334 posts in this topic

9 minutes ago, banner1124 said:

Oh sweet Jesus... trump is just as much of a maniac as Kim.  I understand that you have to let NK know that all options are on the table, but you have to do it rationally.  Does this response sound rational to you:

"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States," the president warned, responding to a question during a brief press availability at his Bedminster Golf Club, where he's spent the last several days. "They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before."

Maybe I'm over-reacting, but this seems like a very irresponsible way to address this situation at the moment

 

Irresponsible? Ya think?

Trump scares me.  Think Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are dedicated to keeping him from doing anything too foolish.  At least I hope so.

Share this post


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

That assumes that Iran and NK had no nuclear ambitions pre-Iraq, a contention I find to be without foundation.  Pipsqueak dictators always have delusions of grandeur and these places are no different.  NK has unwittingly moved themselves much closer to destruction.

It doesn't assume that at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jimmy Jazz said:

Why is Kim always described as crazy? What does he do that's crazy? All I see is a small group of elites who know that their only choices are to maintain power or die. Seen in that context, Kim (and the rest of the leadership class) seems pretty rational to me.

I make the same argument about the Ayatollah in Iran.  The concerning aspect of Kim is that he's third generation cult of personality.  He might actually believe he's a god.

Share this post


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

 

Not really.

 It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

John F. Kennedy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why the word "explicitly" was included. Experts warned  that irresponsible language from Trump could have dire consequences.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, veritas said:

Not really.

 It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

John F. Kennedy

A measured response in the face of missiles that were boated over, within 80 miles of the United States' coastline. 

 

Yeah, they're the same thing. More intellectual dishonesty. 

Share this post


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

That's why the word "explicitly" was included. Experts warned  that irresponsible language from Trump could have dire consequences.

 

What wasn't explicit about Kennedy's statement?  It was an explicit threat against the Soviet Union.  The assertion that Trump is the first president to ever utter such thoughts, is an inaccurate one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, EnochRoot said:

A measured response in the face of missiles that were boated over, within 80 miles of the United States' coastline. 

 

Yeah, they're the same thing. More intellectual dishonesty. 

Really?  It was stated that Trump was the first to ever threaten another nation with nuclear weapons.  He isn't, the circumstances notwithstanding.  Since I have debunked the claim, the knee jerk response is to attack me.  Bravo.

Edited by veritas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, veritas said:

Really?  It was stated that Trump was the first to ever threaten another nation with nuclear weapons.  He isn't, the circumstances notwithstanding.  Since I have debunked the claim, the knee jerk response is to attack me.  Bravo.

If someone thinks your argument is dishonest and says so it's not an attack... good grief :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, banner1124 said:

If someone thinks your argument is dishonest and says so it's not an attack... good grief :rolleyes:

Of course it is.  Being accused of "intellectual dishonesty" is most certainly an attack.  If he thinks the comparison isn't a good one, he can say it is inaccurate but he'd rather attack me.  However, the point made about Trump has been debunked.  The guy making the claim obviously doesn't know his history or chose to ignore it in order to attack Trump.  

In fact, I can see how this whole crisis is being massaged to make it Trump's fault instead of the nut in NK.  That's a sad commentary on the Trump haters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm trying to understand what was so "measured" about Kennedy's response.  As I recall, the Russians had placed 22 missiles in Cuba.  For the launch of even one, he promised a full retaliatory strike on the USSR; that is not measured, though it is certainly more genteel and polished.

You ignore also that Kennedy COULD threaten the USSR as Cuba was only a proxy.  That is not the case here; this is an NK "home grown" threat and the responsible party was addressed in terms it understands.

Do I like the idea of Trump running this show?  Hardly.  Equally valid however is that the world has never faced a threat such as that now put forth by NK.

Will be interesting to see if China decides to end that threat or join it.

Edited by MiddleOfTheRoad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, veritas said:

Of course it is.  Being accused of "intellectual dishonesty" is most certainly an attack.  If he thinks the comparison isn't a good one, he can say it is inaccurate but he'd rather attack me.  However, the point made about Trump has been debunked.  The guy making the claim obviously doesn't know his history or chose to ignore it in order to attack Trump.  

In fact, I can see how this whole crisis is being massaged to make it Trump's fault instead of the nut in NK.  That's a sad commentary on the Trump haters.

Where are you seeing anyone massage this to make it trump's fault?  I don't see ANY evidence of that at all... or am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

30 minutes ago, veritas said:

Really?  It was stated that Trump was the first to ever threaten another nation with nuclear weapons.  He isn't, the circumstances notwithstanding.  Since I have debunked the claim, the knee jerk response is to attack me.  Bravo.

Actually, the tweet from Marshal said it MAY be the first time. It did not say it WAS the first time.

Edited by FatBoy

Share this post


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

I'm trying to understand what was so "measured" about Kennedy's response.  As I recall, the Russians had placed 22 missiles in Cuba.  For the launch of even one, he promised a full retaliatory strike on the USSR; that is not measured, though it is certainly more genteel and polished.

You ignore also that Kennedy COULD threaten the USSR as Cuba was only a proxy.  That is not the case here; this is an NK "home grown" threat and the responsible party was addressed in terms it understands.

Do I like the idea of Trump running this show?  Hardly.  Equally valid however is that the world has never faced a threat such as that now put forth by NK.

Will be interesting to see if China decides to end that threat or join it.

That's the big question,isn't it?

So-called negotiations with the Chinese have not been encouraging, nor have Tillotson's remarks.

'Little Kim' is likely to shoot off another 'harmless' test.

What should US's response to such an event be?

What about uninhabited allied real estate?

...or a nuke anywhere but under their own dirt?

Trump has threatened 'fire and fury' if provoked.  

 

Not addressing you personally; these are just questions that have been rattling around our table of late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

Actually, the tweet from Marshal said it MAY be the first time. It did not say it WAS the first time.

Well, he's wrong in either case.

Share this post


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

Well, he's wrong in either case.

Oh. OK. You think expressing the possibility of doing something is the same as actually doing it. I disagree. Words have meanings. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FatBoy said:

Oh. OK. You think expressing the possibility of doing something is the same as actually doing it. I disagree. Words have meanings. 

 

No, the guy speculated and he speculated incorrectly.  That's all.

Share this post


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

No, the guy speculated and he speculated incorrectly.  That's all.

You're making progress. I'm very proud of you. You have gone from 'assertion' to 'speculation'. Wonderful!

Share this post


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

Why is Kim always described as crazy? What does he do that's crazy? All I see is a small group of elites who know that their only choices are to maintain power or die. Seen in that context, Kim (and the rest of the leadership class) seems pretty rational to me.

Why is it so hard for people to understand NK is still living in the 50's and the war is still going on for them? The regime does not want to be left alone, they want to finish what they set out to do. 

Share this post


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

A measured response in the face of missiles that were boated over, within 80 miles of the United States' coastline. 

 

Yeah, they're the same thing. More intellectual dishonesty. 

If ICBM's are launched from NK towards the US experts have estimated the president would have only 10 minutes to make a decision regarding a retaliatory attack against NK. Do you think it really matters where an ICBM is launched from? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They know Trump is weak.

Two fat little rich boys playing the world against itself.

Share this post


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

Tell him 'No'.  If he uses a nuclear weapon then the US will destroy him. 

I have to wonder what safeguards are being put in place to prevent anyone who has access to the nuclear weapons from going rogue and launching a few? If the decision was made to allow NK to have nuclear weapons do you think they'd allow the UN to inspect their sites, their procedures for safeguarding their arsenal? Just telling them 'No' doesn't guarantee anything.

Share this post


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

I have to wonder what safeguards are being put in place to prevent anyone who has access to the nuclear weapons from going rogue and launching a few? If the decision was made to allow NK to have nuclear weapons do you think they'd allow the UN to inspect their sites, their procedures for safeguarding their arsenal? Just telling them 'No' doesn't guarantee anything.

If someone within the regime does a rogue launch then it is the end of the regime anyways.   Kim Jung Un will not walk away from any nuclear attack that comes from North Korea.

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