President Donald Trump

[baldgriff]

what would you guys do about NK?

I need to first state that I dont believe that the US should be in the business of "spreading democracy". It hasnt worked for numerous reasons. I also believe that we should be protecting our borders and our citizenry as best as possible.

With that understanding if we truly believe that NK has nuclear capability that will reach our borders AND that they are actually going to use it there has to be some proactive means to eliminate that threat. Im not sure if it is possible for regime change there as I dont know what other options may be available - not to mention better or worse. If it were possible to permanently eliminate their nuclear threat I would consider that option. Though I am not certain one can permanently eliminate that possibility.

[gcstomp]

DT still has a solid base who believe he is doing a swell job. We now have white supremacist marches down main street of major cities at a rate not seen since pre MLK days. More than 1/2 our population get all their news from facebook, which is a sounding board where your every pre set notion can be massaged daily with like minded voices. You a flat earther, or know that the lizardmen rule the seats of power, or whatever, you can be reinforced daily. Russia effectively won a war without a bullet being shot, by populating every corner of internet with troll farms and millions of bots that sold a narrative so effectively, along with the FBI mishandling days pre election that US is now a kakistocracy.

There are still those who auto respond that if only DNC had run better candidate, or the variant, well look at how bad HRC was if this was outcome. This response reflects a missing the forest for the trees, there has been a coup by a foreign power and it was done with misinformation.

As far as NK. Yeah, I think we in the general sense should be nervous, not that there will be a missile in your lap, but plenty of people will suffer and die because diplomacy is not something DT or NK have interest in.

[cardboardbox]

I need to first state that I dont believe that the US should be in the business of "spreading democracy". It hasnt worked for numerous reasons. I also believe that we should be protecting our borders and our citizenry as best as possible.

With that understanding if we truly believe that NK has nuclear capability that will reach our borders AND that they are actually going to use it there has to be some proactive means to eliminate that threat. Im not sure if it is possible for regime change there as I dont know what other options may be available - not to mention better or worse. If it were possible to permanently eliminate their nuclear threat I would consider that option. Though I am not certain one can permanently eliminate that possibility.

whatever we do, it has to happen before NK is capable of hitting us with an ICBM. Once they can do that, and assuming its carrying a nuclear payload, there is nothing we can do.

We are able to shoot down some missiles, any idea if this includes ICBMs?

[Piney Boy]

whatever we do, it has to happen before NK is capable of hitting us with an ICBM. Once they can do that, and assuming its carrying a nuclear payload, there is nothing we can do.

We are able to shoot down some missiles, any idea if this includes ICBMs?

Yes. Depends on which missile defense system is being used as to when we can hit it.

[Sour Masher]

what would you guys do about NK?

If the US wants to be the world police, I guess a conflict with N. Korea is inevitable--they are arguably the most repressive dictatorship in the world. However, if the US wants to focus on direct and practical military threats to us, N. Korea is not at the top pf the list of those threats. There are many countries closer to N. Korea that have much more of a vested interest in answering the question of how to deal with N. Korea. Decisions we make potentially costs millions of S. Korean lives, for instance. On the other hand, no matter what weapons N. Korea develops, it will NEVER be in their best interest to commit a military strike on the US. Ever. No government that has power wants to lose it and destroy their entire country in the process. The ONLY way N. Korea ever launches a nuclear attack at the USA is if we have already launched one at them, and even then, at that range, we should be able to intercept it. All them getting long range nukes does for them is give them more leverage and us less leverage in future negotiations.

With that in mind, I would continue to pursue backroom strategies to both punish N. Korea's pursuit of becoming a nuclear power, and also offering tangible incentives to them putting that on the back burner, like we did with Iran. Any deal, even if it costs us billions, is better than a war for all put war profiteers. Saying that, I realize that their glorious leader is hell bent on becoming a nuclear power, to gain respect and fear from the international community. However, part of his desire to do that, and his desire to demonize the US, is to distract his own people from the tremendous oppression they face. If we can sell him on the down low on how good he will look winning "victories" that overturned economic sanctions that helped feed his people, he might be persuaded to take those victories for now. I'd let him use whatever rhetoric he wanted with his own people to save face and make it seem like he won something if it means he backs down with his nuclear program. And if that doesn't work, again, that will only mean to us that if we attack them, we may pay for it. It won't mean we will have to fear a first strike. Them first striking us would be like some random guy walking up to Mike Tyson and punching him first. It would not end well for the aggressor.

[Redbirds Fan]

I need to first state that I dont believe that the US should be in the business of "spreading democracy". It hasnt worked for numerous reasons. I also believe that we should be protecting our borders and our citizenry as best as possible.

With that understanding if we truly believe that NK has nuclear capability that will reach our borders AND that they are actually going to use it there has to be some proactive means to eliminate that threat. Im not sure if it is possible for regime change there as I dont know what other options may be available - not to mention better or worse. If it were possible to permanently eliminate their nuclear threat I would consider that option. Though I am not certain one can permanently eliminate that possibility.

Well, this is just crazy as shit. You can wordy-word around it, but you are talking about a first strike here, and that is the darkest possible timeline. Unfortunately, our nutcase leader has pushed their nutcase leader to the point that it is becoming likely they will use their nuclear power against us. "Fire and fury", "calm before the storm", "only one thing"...any semi-crazed North Korean dictator should be convinced by all of that madman talk that we are ready to light the fuse.

I have always said that elected officials are relatively harmless if they are either ignorant or arrogant, but they are truly dangerous when they are both ignorant and arrogant, and Trump exemplifies this more than anyone I have ever seen. I guess it is theoretically possible that he can "out-crazy" Kim Jong-un, but do you really want to bet your children's lives on it?

The first thing we need to do with NK is to back the f*ck off a few feet and let the diplomats work a little bit. Even Rex Tillerson, an admitted non-diplomat, knew it was the smart thing to at least try to talk to these people.

[Redbirds Fan]

If the US wants to be the world police, I guess a conflict with N. Korea is inevitable--they are arguably the most repressive dictatorship in the world. However, if the US wants to focus on direct and practical military threats to us, N. Korea is not at the top pf the list of those threats. There are many countries closer to N. Korea that have much more of a vested interest in answering the question of how to deal with N. Korea. Decisions we make potentially costs millions of S. Korean lives, for instance. On the other hand, no matter what weapons N. Korea develops, it will NEVER be in their best interest to commit a military strike on the US. Ever. No government that has power wants to lose it and destroy their entire country in the process. The ONLY way N. Korea ever launches a nuclear attack at the USA is if we have already launched one at them, and even then, at that range, we should be able to intercept it. All them getting long range nukes does for them is give them more leverage and us less leverage in future negotiations.

With that in mind, I would continue to pursue backroom strategies to both punish N. Korea's pursuit of becoming a nuclear power, and also offering tangible incentives to them putting that on the back burner, like we did with Iran. Any deal, even if it costs us billions, is better than a war for all put war profiteers. Saying that, I realize that their glorious leader is hell bent on becoming a nuclear power, to gain respect and fear from the international community. However, part of his desire to do that, and his desire to demonize the US, is to distract his own people from the tremendous oppression they face. If we can sell him on the down low on how good he will look winning "victories" that overturned economic sanctions that helped feed his people, he might be persuaded to take those victories for now. I'd let him use whatever rhetoric he wanted with his own people to save face and make it seem like he won something if it means he backs down with his nuclear program. And if that doesn't work, again, that will only mean to us that if we attack them, we may pay for it. It won't mean we will have to fear a first strike. Them first striking us would be like some random guy walking up to Mike Tyson and punching him first. It would not end well for the aggressor.

I understand your reasoning here, which is sound. In my experience, however, people have a tendency to act irrationally on occasion. To suggest that Kim Jong-un might act in an irrational manner, against his own interests and the interests of his country, does not seem like a stretch to me. Anyone who believes in his own deism and subjects his citizens to such abject cruelty and neglect is capable of anything.

[Sour Masher]

I understand your reasoning here, which is sound. In my experience, however, people have a tendency to act irrationally on occasion. To suggest that Kim Jong-un might act in an irrational manner, against his own interests and the interests of his country, does not seem like a stretch to me. Anyone who believes in his own deism and subjects his citizens to such abject cruelty and neglect is capable of anything.

Above all though, he wants to maintain what he has. This isn't Hitler plotting the take over of Europe. This is a regime that is just desperate to keep what is theirs, and is puffing up with the hopes to scare off bigger fish from eating them. N. Korea's rhetoric got worse with the axis of evil talk 15 years ago and their fear and commitment to develop these weapons hardened when the USA showed it is still in the business of regime change. Yes, Kim Jong-Un is vindictive enough to lash out killing millions if he feels his demise is inevitable. Barring that, though, I just don't see any way they strike first--and it is they, even in a dictatorship. Fear of your leader possibly killing you only works until the utter destruction of your country is assured by his action. If it gets to that point, even N. Korea will have checks and balances, and the regime won't commit to a path of their own demise unless they are certain it is inevitable no matter what they do. If a worst case scenario happens, it will be because we make it happen.

I am much less confident that we can actually convince him to back off developing long range nuclear strike capability, especially now when Trump has basically reaffirmed and amplified all of his fears of what the USA will eventually do to him unless we face a nuclear deterrent. And yes, N. Korea getting that capability is a very, very bad thing. But not as bad as us starting a war with North Korea over it.

[baldgriff]

Well, this is just crazy as shit. You can wordy-word around it, but you are talking about a first strike here, and that is the darkest possible timeline. Unfortunately, our nutcase leader has pushed their nutcase leader to the point that it is becoming likely they will use their nuclear power against us. "Fire and fury", "calm before the storm", "only one thing"...any semi-crazed North Korean dictator should be convinced by all of that madman talk that we are ready to light the fuse.

I have always said that elected officials are relatively harmless if they are either ignorant or arrogant, but they are truly dangerous when they are both ignorant and arrogant, and Trump exemplifies this more than anyone I have ever seen. I guess it is theoretically possible that he can "out-crazy" Kim Jong-un, but do you really want to bet your children's lives on it?

The first thing we need to do with NK is to back the f*ck off a few feet and let the diplomats work a little bit. Even Rex Tillerson, an admitted non-diplomat, knew it was the smart thing to at least try to talk to these people.

NO - its not wordy wordy around anything. I dont think we can replace the current guy. I dont have any idea what they would end up with and if it was possible to permanently sabotage their program so they cant create nuclear then do it. My wordy wordy is more along the lines, that I doubt that even if we sabotaged any nuclear capability that the semi-crazed dictator could obtain nuclear payload from someone else so that option really isnt an option.

Honestly, I have no desire to put boots on the ground there or anywhere. If I was 100% that we could shoot down any rocket he tried to send our way - I would probably just let him keep blustering and just keep him as contained as possible. At some point though that place is either going to implode or explode. Remember Im the guy who doesnt believe in being the police for this world or spreading democracy through use of the gun. That said, pre-emptive may become the only real option and that does not mean we send a nuclear payload their way.


Here is a question, we can play diplomacy with NK but at some point they have to find it to their benefit to actually have a peaceful coexistence with those around them (and us for that matter). They also have to have something to offer other than not shooting off nuclear payloads for their to be any real reason to negotiate with him.

What do they offer anyone for the continued use of diplomacy? We are talking about a country with a population similar to Australia and a land mass of about Ohio with their primary export of coal and clothes. The only real trading partner they have is China and there we now have why we should use diplomacy - because we dont need a war with China.

[TranaGreg]

whatever we do, it has to happen before NK is capable of hitting us with an ICBM. Once they can do that, and assuming its carrying a nuclear payload, there is nothing we can do. ...

I'm really confused by this perspective (I've heard it all over the place) ... somehow the west was able to navigate through the dangers of having a pretty competent military pointing hundreds/thousands of nukes at the west for decades (ie USSR/Russia), but if NK somehow manages to develop a few ICBMs with a nuke capability all of a sudden there's nothing we can do. Yes, they're crazy by our standards, but to riff off of Sour Masher's analogy, even crazy people don't walk up to Mike Tyson & punch him in the face.

[baldgriff]

I'm really confused by this perspective (I've heard it all over the place) ... somehow the west was able to navigate through the dangers of having a pretty competent military pointing hundreds/thousands of nukes at the west for decades (ie USSR/Russia), but if NK somehow manages to develop a few ICBMs with a nuke capability all of a sudden there's nothing we can do. Yes, they're crazy by our standards, but to riff off of Sour Masher's analogy, even crazy people don't walk up to Mike Tyson & punch him in the face.

Is Kim Jong Un - Mitch Green then?? Yes people do walk up to Mike Tyson and try and punch him.

[Sour Masher]

I'm really confused by this perspective (I've heard it all over the place) ... somehow the west was able to navigate through the dangers of having a pretty competent military pointing hundreds/thousands of nukes at the west for decades (ie USSR/Russia), but if NK somehow manages to develop a few ICBMs with a nuke capability all of a sudden there's nothing we can do. Yes, they're crazy by our standards, but to riff off of Sour Masher's analogy, even crazy people don't walk up to Mike Tyson & punch him in the face.

Yeah, it amazes me that the same arguments for preemptive strikes still work after they have been used in the past to bring us into devastating conflicts. I guess it is part and parcel of our whole military/police mindset. It is the same sort of mindset and training that has law enforcement seeing and assuming the worst case scenario with every stop, and has them sometimes freak out at the slightest nose twitch and open fire. This is a tense situation, and I fear we now have a leader who is going to escalate it when a better leader would be able to stay cool and let this play out without a war. But, of course, it isn't Trump's children that will fight and die in such a war, or his friends' children. It will be the children of those who voted for him, killing and being killed by "foreigners." And such a war will show how tough he is, and his admin will be able to say everything else is a distraction, and we should all just focus on the war, and if you don't stand by your president in a time of war, no matter what, you are a traitor. So, yeah, unless those around Trump, and the public whose adoration he so craves makes it crystal clear that this path is not acceptable, I fear we are in line with another multi-trillion dollar conflict that will cost even more in blood and misery that will reaffirm for all of our enemies that the US is an aggressive world cop, and they better not get pulled over.

[cardboardbox]

I'm really confused by this perspective (I've heard it all over the place) ... somehow the west was able to navigate through the dangers of having a pretty competent military pointing hundreds/thousands of nukes at the west for decades (ie USSR/Russia), but if NK somehow manages to develop a few ICBMs with a nuke capability all of a sudden there's nothing we can do. Yes, they're crazy by our standards, but to riff off of Sour Masher's analogy, even crazy people don't walk up to Mike Tyson & punch him in the face.

because as Lucky said, you cant assume rational decisions from a crazy person. USSR understood MAD, NK I have my doubts about that. Kim might see it as his god given duty to destroy the US even if it means his own destruction.

[Sour Masher]

because as Lucky said, you cant assume rational decisions from a crazy person. USSR understood MAD, NK I have my doubts about that. Kim might see it as his god given duty to destroy the US even if it means his own destruction.

Kim Jong-Un is horrible. The world, and certainty N. Korea would be a better place if he and his regime were gone (although, there is no telling what and who would replace him--it might be just as bad). That said, I'd encourage you to read up on his history and schooling. The guy wasn't brought up just in a bubble telling him he is divine and invincible. You don't keep power in a set up like he has without some savvy and self-preservation instincts. The guy loves a lot about Western Culture. He loves basketball and Tennessee Whisky. He loves and is aware of his position and privilege. His threatening of the US is about keeping all of that, by creating a common enemy/scapegoat for his people to blame for their hardships, and by communicating to us that he is not an easy mark, and we should not do with him what we love to do--get into a war. Read the statements his regime releases on their nuclear program. Amid the name-calling and bluster, there is a clear and sincere belief that developing this program will force the USA and the world to see N. Korea as a peer top tier power, to respect their sovereignty, and to stop threatening them. Again, he is horrible, but he is not insane, and, of course he is arrogant, as anyone in his position would be, but he is not so delusional that he thinks N. Korea could really come out ahead if a full blown war with the USA were to happen. It isn't going to happen, unless we force it, which is why it is crazy for us to force it.

[TranaGreg]

because as Lucky said, you cant assume rational decisions from a crazy person. USSR understood MAD, NK I have my doubts about that. Kim might see it as his god given duty to destroy the US even if it means his own destruction.

yes, in retrospect the ussr seemed rational ... in the moment, well, maybe not so much ...