flyboy56

North Korea Has Miniaturized A Nuclear Warhead

334 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, flyboy56 said:

You wouldn't think so if you were just 20 and recently married with orders for South Korea. As for China, maybe they will be more susceptible to pressure if they believed the president is just crazy enough to attack NK. China would be more than happy to let things slide back to the way they were so they can keep their heads in the sand and profit from NK. It's time we took their little buffer zone away from them. Maybe Tillerson can convince India to attack China while we hit NK? China's making a few enemies these days threatening consequences if certain countries aligned closer to the US. Let's see just how peace loving the big Asian bully really is.  

Actually, as someone who has ordered a 20 year old newlywed into harm's way, I can tell you it wouldn't change my opinion in the slightest.

The rest of your post is not taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media is hoping that Trump starts WWIII.   Listening to the comments today, it is like they can hardly control their enthusiasm that NK responded to Trump's fury comment.  Every interview with a congressman or ex-diplomat that I heard today had the media saying that Trump has to make good on his statement now that NK has continued to threaten the US.  The people being interviewed were at least trying to ratchet the rhetoric down.  Not the media.  They want blood spilled.  It's like they want to goad him into doing something extreme.   Just report the news.  

For the record, the majority of what I saw did come from CNN.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cprenegade said:

For the record, the majority of what I saw did come from CNN.  

Well then it's ok, Trump has reassured us repeatedly that he doesn't watch CNN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cprenegade said:

The media is hoping that Trump starts WWIII.   Listening to the comments today, it is like they can hardly control their enthusiasm that NK responded to Trump's fury comment.  Every interview with a congressman or ex-diplomat that I heard today had the media saying that Trump has to make good on his statement now that NK has continued to threaten the US.  The people being interviewed were at least trying to ratchet the rhetoric down.  Not the media.  They want blood spilled.  It's like they want to goad him into doing something extreme.   Just report the news.  

For the record, the majority of what I saw did come from CNN.  

Maybe you should stop watching cable news.

Share this post


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

What trump has failed to do and failed miserably i might add is to rally the region to put economic and diplomatic pressure on the chinese. What has he done instead? Pi$$ed off australia, pulled out of the TPP, and threatened south korea over trade.

 He should've stood firmly behind the TPP wish we negotiated with these allies for years and which isolates Chyna economically and then and his introductory remarks to all of these leaders he should've had the message we need to stand firm with China to force them to do something about North Korea .The unified Asian message to China should have been the price of access to our markets is dealing with the North Korea issue.

A gigantic strategic failure only weeks into his administration. Let me just add this. Trump is an unstable moron

Interesting and valid point about TPP, but I'm not sure it is quite the "gigantic strategic failure" you indicate, for 2 reasons; (1) TPP never kicked off, so we can only estimate what may have come from it. It only may have been an economic boon, and that would not be known for several years.  At this point, it is a pair of there's with cards to draw, but not something upon which to lay a strategy. (2) and more cynically, I admit, is that China only began to move toward accepting TPP in about 2011, as I recall. It is not impossible to see that conciliatory attitude as economic trolling while they went about building a military island in the middle of the South China Sea.  They now don't need a trade deal to influence issues in that area.  If those nations would not stand together in the face of a very real military threat, why would they do so for what is only some possible economic issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bmorepunk said:

Maybe you should stop watching cable news.

Actually my disclaimer was misleading.  I wasn't watching CNN, listening to it on XM radio while driving.  Not the only media I heard it coming from today, just the majority.  My point was that the media seems to be cheerleading for a major conflict.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cprenegade said:

Actually my disclaimer was misleading.  I wasn't watching CNN, listening to it on XM radio while driving.  Not the only media I heard it coming from today, just the majority.  My point was that the media seems to be cheerleading for a major conflict.  

Most of them spend their time on what allows them to maximize profit. Without this we wouldn't have President Trump. 

Share this post


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

Interesting piece.

It is interesting, can't say I would necessarily disagree with their thoughts with the exception that Grenada was in the US hemisphere of influence.  But assuming that the article is correct in assessing NK feelings, how do you think they felt about the US involvement in Libya that led to the removal and death of Gaddafi?  Given that Gaddafi had abandoned his nuclear program and begun to open up relations with the US wasn't that a sign to NK that even if you do what the US wants they might still destroy you?  In other words, make friends with the US and you still might find yourself running for cover.  What happened in Iraq and Libya had to be a warning sign to NK about what eventually happens to people who do what the US wants them to do.  Both Saddam and Gaddafi were at one time working with the US.  Both ended up dead with their countries destroyed.  Foreign policy bungling at it's best.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, cprenegade said:

The media is hoping that Trump starts WWIII.   Listening to the comments today, it is like they can hardly control their enthusiasm that NK responded to Trump's fury comment.  Every interview with a congressman or ex-diplomat that I heard today had the media saying that Trump has to make good on his statement now that NK has continued to threaten the US.  The people being interviewed were at least trying to ratchet the rhetoric down.  Not the media.  They want blood spilled.  It's like they want to goad him into doing something extreme.   Just report the news.  

For the record, the majority of what I saw did come from CNN.  

I've been watching the coverage and it seems to me that you might be seeing what you want to see because I haven't seen anything like what you claim to be seeing.  Of course to be fair I might only be seeing what I want to see as well.  Just seems to me from what I've been watching that the media actually isn't exactly sure how to cover this because they seem to be as blown away as the rest of us by those comments from trump.

Edited by banner1124

Share this post


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

It is interesting, can't say I would necessarily disagree with their thoughts with the exception that Grenada was in the US hemisphere of influence.  But assuming that the article is correct in assessing NK feelings, how do you think they felt about the US involvement in Libya that led to the removal and death of Gaddafi?  Given that Gaddafi had abandoned his nuclear program and begun to open up relations with the US wasn't that a sign to NK that even if you do what the US wants they might still destroy you?  In other words, make friends with the US and you still might find yourself running for cover.  What happened in Iraq and Libya had to be a warning sign to NK about what eventually happens to people who do what the US wants them to do.  Both Saddam and Gaddafi were at one time working with the US.  Both ended up dead with their countries destroyed.  Foreign policy bungling at it's best.  

It's what I've been saying and have continued to say though I must say I hadn't considered our actions in the 80s as well.  Given our foreign policy endeavors over the years it's amazing that anyone at all is surprised that both Iran and NK are so gung-ho about acquiring nuclear weapons.

Share this post


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

In the 40 years since you were stationed in South Korea it has become a very very different place. It's a first world country these days. Seoul is a completely modern world capital. The average South Korean doesn't want war.

And NK? What has changed in the last 40 years? SK's also know they live in a dangerous country where war can break out at anytime. This attitude has remained the same since I was stationed there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Actually, as someone who has ordered a 20 year old newlywed into harm's way, I can tell you it wouldn't change my opinion in the slightest.

The rest of your post is not taken seriously.

So you are unable to put yourself in my shoes? If lame duck Ford hadn't been president at the time a stronger message might have been sent to NK instead just sending in a platoon of armed soldiers and chainsaws. To bad Nixon wasn't still president at the time. We may one seen a stronger message. 

Edited by flyboy56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, michiganjoe said:

Interesting piece.

BS! So the NK regime wasn't thinking about a nuclear weapon right after the Korean War was temporarily halted in the 50's? They only started thinking about the weapon after the fall of Grenada? So knowing how Japan was bombed by 2 nukes wasn't on Dear Father's  mind? Who is the ******* that thought this up?! And you're buying into this load of crap?!

Edited by flyboy56

Share this post


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

It's what I've been saying and have continued to say though I must say I hadn't considered our actions in the 80s as well.  Given our foreign policy endeavors over the years it's amazing that anyone at all is surprised that both Iran and NK are so gung-ho about acquiring nuclear weapons.

And you pick two countries ruled by dictators and blame the US for their designs on getting a nuclear weapon? Amazing how you are defending dictators? Are you also going to openly defend Putin's need to protect Russia against the ugly Americans?

Share this post


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

So you are unable to put yourself in my shoes? If lame duck Ford hadn't been president at the time a stronger message might have been sent to NK instead just sending in a platoon of armed soldiers and chainsaws. To bad Nixon wasn't still president at the time. We may one seen a stronger message. 

It's not about putting ones self in another's pair of shoes; it's about avoiding a war, if possible.

Ford may not have sent a strong enough message for you, but having Nixon send that message is ridiculous.  Nixon actively ignored the Constitution, lied with a belligerent arrogance and secretly escalated a war that had long before been lost to far too ill-defined and hence, unachievable, national security objectives.  This is what you want leading the nation?  Thanks, but I'll pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

It's not about putting ones self in another's pair of shoes; it's about avoiding a war, if possible.

Ford may not have sent a strong enough message for you, but having Nixon send that message is ridiculous.  Nixon actively ignored the Constitution, lied with a belligerent arrogance and secretly escalated a war that had long before been lost to far too ill-defined and hence, unachievable, national security objectives.  This is what you want leading the nation?  Thanks, but I'll pass.

If Nixon had been in office in 1975 NV would never have attacked SV. Ford allowed that to happen by not following through with Nixon's promise to resume bombing Hanoi if they did not abide by the peace agreement. And all the while the US has done everything to avoid a war with the NK regime they have only been growing stronger. People can say this could have only been predicted in hindsight but that would be total BS! The regime has been playing the US like a cheap fiddle all the while taking advantage of our eagerness to please them. The NK regime does not want or ever will want peace with the US. They want the US out of Korea so they can resume the war they started in the 50's. And unless the NK regime experiences a miracle change their aggression is not going to stop until they get what they feel is theirs.

Edited by flyboy56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NK regime claims they will fire 4 ballistic missiles at Guam. Please do little man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, Calamari said:

 

Sheesh.

Mask slipped a bit, middleoftheroad is doing a better job of hiding his bloodlust than flyboy.

I'll give MOTR a free pass on this one but Flyboy was born 100+ years too late, and in the wrong country. He's the very sort if chap that Lord Kitchener needed to fight the Fuzzy-Wuzzies in the Sudan.

Edited by WKDWZD

Share this post


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

If Nixon had been in office in 1975 NV would never have attacked SV. Ford allowed that to happen by not following through with Nixon's promise to resume bombing Hanoi if they did not abide by the peace agreement. And all the while the US has done everything to avoid a war with the NK regime they have only been growing stronger. People can say this could have only been predicted in hindsight but that would be total BS! The regime has been playing the US like a cheap fiddle all the while taking advantage of our eagerness to please them. The NK regime does not want or ever will want peace with the US. They want the US out of Korea so they can resume the war they started in the 50's. And unless the NK regime experiences a miracle change their aggression is not going to stop until they get what they feel is theirs.

If only you were President.  We would have stayed at war with Vietnam for eternity.  We would continue to occupy Iraq.  I'm not sure how you feel about Afghanistan since Obama kind of escalated that at times and we all know how your foreign policy opinion rolls.

:rolleyes:

Maybe stick to Risk.

Share this post


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

The NK regime claims they will fire 4 ballistic missiles at Guam. Please do little man. 

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

Share this post


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

If Nixon had been in office in 1975 NV would never have attacked SV. Ford allowed that to happen by not following through with Nixon's promise to resume bombing Hanoi if they did not abide by the peace agreement. And all the while the US has done everything to avoid a war with the NK regime they have only been growing stronger. People can say this could have only been predicted in hindsight but that would be total BS! The regime has been playing the US like a cheap fiddle all the while taking advantage of our eagerness to please them. The NK regime does not want or ever will want peace with the US. They want the US out of Korea so they can resume the war they started in the 50's. And unless the NK regime experiences a miracle change their aggression is not going to stop until they get what they feel is theirs.

You just don't get it, do you?

The war in Vietnam was lost an hour after we took over for the French.  Fighting a war without clear, quantifiable and measureable military, social and political objectives is an exercise in futility and butchery.  If you can't define victory, you can not possibly achieve it.  I thought that lesson had been permanently learned in Vietnam, but we apparently have to re-learn for this generation in the cesspool that is the ME. 

 

Share this post


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

And NK? What has changed in the last 40 years? SK's also know they live in a dangerous country where war can break out at anytime. This attitude has remained the same since I was stationed there. 

Not really.  Among the older generation, to an extent this is still true, however, most of the country lives their lives as many of us do; blissfully unaware or unconcerned about the blustering from their northern brethren.

How do I know this? My last tour in Korea was 2000-2003, I occasionally still "talk" to two of my Korean workers, and my wife speaks to her mom and siblings weekly.  

Share this post


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

You just don't get it, do you?

The war in Vietnam was lost an hour after we took over for the French.  Fighting a war without clear, quantifiable and measureable military, social and political objectives is an exercise in futility and butchery.  If you can't define victory, you can not possibly achieve it.  I thought that lesson had been permanently learned in Vietnam, but we apparently have to re-learn for this generation in the cesspool that is the ME. 

 

Not to mention that the various regimes the US supported in SV were often worse than the commies in the North.  But hey, let's kill a few more million in Vietnam and neighboring countries because.

Share this post


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

And you pick two countries ruled by dictators and blame the US for their designs on getting a nuclear weapon? Amazing how you are defending dictators? Are you also going to openly defend Putin's need to protect Russia against the ugly Americans?

I'm not blaming the US for their designs on getting nuclear weapons.  I have said that several times now so the fact that you keep attributing that to me means that you either don't understand what I'm saying or you are just lying about it.  I'm also not defending dictators.  Explaining why something is isn't defending it.  Good freaking grief.  YOU need to realize that things don't happen in a vacuum and that our actions as a nation have consequences.  AGAIN, while we did not cause NK to seek nuclear weapons our actions in terms of foreign policy have made it an almost certainty now that they will NEVER stop in that pursuit and we've taken actions that made them speed up their timeline.  In my mind there's no denying that.

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