How would a US strike on North Korea go down?

[senseamp]

We'd parachute Trump and Republicans in and they'll destroy NK from the inside like they are destroying America.

 

[nickqt]

Sure! That's worked great in the past. Hitler never caused a minute of trouble after Chamberlain kissed his ass in 1938 and declared "Peace for our time!" Diplomacy has been 100% ineffective in the middle east, it's been 100% ineffective with NK, it failed before WW1 and it's failing now. It has not accomplished shit in controlling the banana republics in Central and South America. The best diplomacy is being able to squash your enemies like a bug if they fuck with you. Peace through superior firepower. THAT works.

They haven't fucked with us, genius. But you're good at being terrified at boogiemen.

You probably supported the Iraq war and rubbed a few good ones out at the shock and awe dumbfuckery you saw on TV at the time.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Preparing for war for the last 60 or so years... Actually the war in korea has never ended.. That's why they have a demilitarized zone. NK are not going to give japan and the US/SK any reason to crush them. In this scenario it's japan that is the dominant military power in the region. Unless china enters the fray on the norths behalf. Japan are right next door and have a large technologically advanced military. You can bet australia will be in there too.

Kim knows this. NK knows they would get annihlated if it came down to it. Pretty much the entire region would turn on them. They aren't stupid. I don't think NK has any oil either so an invasion is a tough sell. You also have to understand that trump is seen as a joke. No matter how many times he has the footage of him beating up vince mcmahon clandestinely beamed into NK. They aren't going to take him seriously.

Kim isn't stupid, but he is insane by any western standard. Remember he was raised to be that way, with his dead ancestor being "immortal".

But if Kim doesn't launch but decides to not ask for money but demand it- or else? Once an established nuclear force is in place what then? Japan isn't going to say boo.

Nothing about this is good. Not a damn thing.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Clinton did lose but she would have handled this a lot better than the twit in the WH has done. Anyone, literally any world leader would be better and anyone who cane second, third fourth or not admitted to a mental institution at this moment would do better.

You don't go "fire and fury" on a suicidal maniac, that's like daring a suicide bomber...

At this point I'm curious what you think Clinton would have done differently? I think she would have been more restrained on her rhetoric but NK didn't make a thermonuclear bomb due to Trump, this has been an ongoing problem for a long time and there doesn't seem to be any good solution.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Are you trying to tell us your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend sucks at oral (and yes, the pun is very much intended)?

Clinton did lose but she would have handled this a lot better than the twit in the WH has done. Anyone, literally any world leader would be better and anyone who cane second, third fourth or not admitted to a mental institution at this moment would do better.

You don't go "fire and fury" on a suicidal maniac, that's like daring a suicide bomber...

If there was more oral in the world, we wouldn't be where we are right now.

As for Clinton, we already have a sense for what she would do if Libya and Syria are any indication.

It is a global failure, spanning numerous administrations, that NK is now a nuclear threat. Trump is unquestionably incapable of leading on this, but as @Hayabusa Rider and others have pointed out, I trust Mattis and McMasters to guide his hand, two of the most brilliant military minds of the modern era.

Also, perhaps now is the time for other nations to step up on the world stage. I would welcome a Merkel-Macron led solution.

 

[urvile]

Kim isn't stupid, but he is insane by any western standard. Remember he was raised to be that way, with his dead ancestor being "immortal".

But if Kim doesn't launch but decides to not ask for money but demand it- or else? Once an established nuclear force is in place what then? Japan isn't going to say boo.

Nothing about this is good. Not a damn thing.

The issue is nothing can be done about it either way. Without kicking off a massive war which will involve a large invasion of south korea by the north and has the potential for china to enter it on the side of the north. Then we are back in the 1950s. Funny how history repeats itself. It's a rock and a hard place.

The military build up and planning for war by the north has been going on for 60 years. I cannot stress that enough. Of course it's the same with the south and now they have an impressive arms industry. I think Trump is way out of his depth on this one. I think all world leaders are.* The only way to stop dear leader is to take his toys away with a pre-emptive strike but if that happens it's the end of SK. We can pretend this is a tom clancy novel if you like.

But NK forces will be launching missiles and artillery strikes on seoul. While rolling across the border regardless of what happens to kim.

The status quo goes on.

*Well not out of their depth. (Maybe I should be running the show?) They are in a tough spot.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I trust Mattis and McMasters to guide his hand, two of the most brilliant military minds of the modern era.

Somebody has to stand in the hedge and bridge the gap between Trump and sane rational thinking.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Nah, I'll just keep squeezing your tit and listen to you cry.

Kinky. Will you buy me dinner first?

 

[mxnerd]

If U.S. strikes North Korea, it will strike Seoul as retaliation.

Then you can't buy Samsung Galaxy 8, 8+, Note and Apple iPhone 8.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Sure! That's worked great in the past. Hitler never caused a minute of trouble after Chamberlain kissed his ass in 1938 and declared "Peace for our time!" Diplomacy has been 100% ineffective in the middle east, it's been 100% ineffective with NK, it failed before WW1 and it's failing now. It has not accomplished shit in controlling the banana republics in Central and South America. The best diplomacy is being able to squash your enemies like a bug if they fuck with you. Peace through superior firepower. THAT works.

Yes, N Korea will be invading Austria at any moment.

 

[jman19]

China fought a war with the US on the DPRKs behalf, and lost hundreds of thousands if not millions of troops doing it. Why do you believe their loyalties lie with the US?

I don't - I just don't think a nuclear response by China is in the cards. Big difference between supporting an ally and willing to escalate to full on nuclear war.

 

[urvile]

It's not like north korea aren't aware that the US could strike them at any time. They are as prepared as anyone else and while ultimately they will be crushed they will do as much damage as they can.

 

[Puffnstuff]

They are as prepared as anyone else and while ultimately they will be crushed they will do as much damage as they can.

With Seoul only 25 miles from their border their short logistics lines make defense very difficult for the U.S. to fulfill and they know it.

 

[Grooveriding]

The entire situation is unnerving. Everyone is trying to behave like it's business as usual with NK and the related tensions, but it's not. America now has a leader as unhinged and insane as NK. I'd actually say Trump is worse than Kim-Jung, he's less experienced, certainly appears far less intelligent going on his language skills and behaviour and I'd venture his mental problems are even worse than Kim-Jung's - reinforced by his late age and possibility senility. If I were forced to choose between the two, I'd take the North Korean over Trump any day.

The issue now is that for some time America has had, regardless of politics, relatively stable, reasonable and competent leadership. That is no longer the case with America now having their turn at the table of having an unhinged madman leading the country. The situation in NK is the same as ever, what changed is America going off the deep end and electing an unhinged shit in primate form, more dangerous and ill than Kim-Jung. Tensions suddenly 'escalated' as soon as Trump stepped in. American foreign policy/Trump is the problem here and if a war does happen, will probably be where the blame for all the murdered people will sit.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The entire situation is unnerving. Everyone is trying to behave like it's business as usual with NK and the related tensions, but it's not. America now has a leader as unhinged and insane as NK. I'd actually say Trump is worse than Kim-Jung, he's less experienced, certainly appears far less intelligent going on his language skills and behaviour and I'd venture his mental problems are even worse than Kim-Jung's - reinforced by his late age and possibility senility. If I were forced to choose between the two, I'd take the North Korean over Trump any day.

The issue now is that for some time America has had, regardless of politics, relatively stable, reasonable and competent leadership. That is no longer the case with America now having their turn at the table of having an unhinged madman leading the country. The situation in NK is the same as ever, what changed is America going off the deep end and electing an unhinged shit in primate form, more dangerous and ill than Kim-Jung. Tensions suddenly 'escalated' as soon as Trump stepped in. American foreign policy/Trump is the problem here and if a war does happen, will probably be where the blame for all the murdered people will sit.

Aside from his tweets how is Trump's foreign policy - particularly in relation to NK - any different than his predecessors or what Clintons would have been? It's easy to say this is all Trumps fault but honestly is that true?

Here's a list of all six NK nuke tests, only one of those has been during Trumps tenure:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

 

[Atreus21]

The entire situation is unnerving. Everyone is trying to behave like it's business as usual with NK and the related tensions, but it's not. America now has a leader as unhinged and insane as NK. I'd actually say Trump is worse than Kim-Jung, he's less experienced, certainly appears far less intelligent going on his language skills and behaviour and I'd venture his mental problems are even worse than Kim-Jung's - reinforced by his late age and possibility senility. If I were forced to choose between the two, I'd take the North Korean over Trump any day.

The issue now is that for some time America has had, regardless of politics, relatively stable, reasonable and competent leadership. That is no longer the case with America now having their turn at the table of having an unhinged madman leading the country. The situation in NK is the same as ever, what changed is America going off the deep end and electing an unhinged shit in primate form, more dangerous and ill than Kim-Jung. Tensions suddenly 'escalated' as soon as Trump stepped in. American foreign policy/Trump is the problem here and if a war does happen, will probably be where the blame for all the murdered people will sit.

....

Dude, this is one of the stupidest posts in some time.

And you accuse Trump of being unhinged? You need to take some goddamn Prozac.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

Aside from his tweets how is Trump's foreign policy - particularly in relation to NK - any different than his predecessors or what Clintons would have been? It's easy to say this is all Trumps fault but honestly is that true?

Here's a list of all six NK nuke tests, only one of those has been during Trumps tenure:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

Uh. No offense, but have you been paying any attention to anything?

He's lobby almost as much criticism at SK as he is at NK.

At the time we need to stand by our ally, he's going off on twitter rants about them and threatening to tear up our trade deal. This is not rational behavior.

 

[UglyCasanova]

have you been paying any attention to anything?

Yes.

 

[FIVR]

The entire situation is unnerving. Everyone is trying to behave like it's business as usual with NK and the related tensions, but it's not. America now has a leader as unhinged and insane as NK. I'd actually say Trump is worse than Kim-Jung, he's less experienced, certainly appears far less intelligent going on his language skills and behaviour and I'd venture his mental problems are even worse than Kim-Jung's - reinforced by his late age and possibility senility. If I were forced to choose between the two, I'd take the North Korean over Trump any day.

The issue now is that for some time America has had, regardless of politics, relatively stable, reasonable and competent leadership. That is no longer the case with America now having their turn at the table of having an unhinged madman leading the country. The situation in NK is the same as ever, what changed is America going off the deep end and electing an unhinged shit in primate form, more dangerous and ill than Kim-Jung. Tensions suddenly 'escalated' as soon as Trump stepped in. American foreign policy/Trump is the problem here and if a war does happen, will probably be where the blame for all the murdered people will sit.

Kim Jong Il was quite intelligent and I think Jong Un likely is also. It is pretty obvious to anybody watching, Jong Un has correctly surmised that the US government is in chaos and cannot effectively respond to him, so he is taking advantage of this. Had almost any other leader been elected (including Jeb Bush) I think we would see a very different set of circumstances and a much more passive North Korea.

 

[FIVR]

Uh. No offense, but have you been paying any attention to anything?

He's lobby almost as much criticism at SK as he is at NK.

At the time we need to stand by our ally, he's going off on twitter rants about them and threatening to tear up our trade deal. This is not rational behavior.

He's a retard. See above. He's paying attention, just doesn't understand.

 

[Maxima1]

Had almost any other leader been elected (including Jeb Bush) I think we would see a very different set of circumstances and a much more passive North Korea.

Why do you say that?

 

[UglyCasanova]

Had almost any other leader been elected (including Jeb Bush) I think we would see a very different set of circumstances and a much more passive North Korea.

NK has been provoking us for decades. Four nuclear tests under Obama, did he cause them to be so hostile? Fault Trump where due and his rhetoric arguably escalated the situation but NK has been a thorn in the side of the US for a long time and they were developing a missile ready thermonuclear bomb well before Trump took office.

 

[Grooveriding]

....

Dude, this is one of the stupidest posts in some time.

And you accuse Trump of being unhinged? You need to take some goddamn Prozac.

It would appear stupid to anyone who is operating from within the bubble. The US right-wing has been radicalized and Trump is the culmination. If you're so insulated you can't see your country's leader is unhinged and mentally unfit to lead a janitorial staff, much less a country, that is a problem with you.

Hopefully when all is said and down the fanatical Trump base only ends up destroying themselves and no one else.

 

[Grooveriding]

Aside from his tweets how is Trump's foreign policy - particularly in relation to NK - any different than his predecessors or what Clintons would have been? It's easy to say this is all Trumps fault but honestly is that true?

Here's a list of all six NK nuke tests, only one of those has been during Trumps tenure:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

It's absolutely his fault. Rhetoric does matter when it comes from the leader of a nation, particularly a heavily armed one. Tweets, idiotic press conferences, rambling vapid threats of 'fire and fury' etc. Sane and stable leaders did not pursue that sort of idiocy. While Trump is profoundly idiotic and most adults can see that, his rhetoric still matters.

Can it all be blamed it all on him? Probably not, but if war breaks out, it almost certainly will be fully on Trump's shoulders. We have a historical record of NK just putting out state news releases and rattling their sabers for decades now. No conflicts, no emergencies. They've had the ability to nuke nations within range for some time now. NK's bravado and nuclear program is a deterrent to prevent invasion.

Things have escalated since Trump came in and started in on his limp-dicked empty school yard bravado. Rhetoric is more than enough to start wars and escalate tensions. This is the cost of putting an imbecile in charge of such a large military.

 

[UglyCasanova]

NK's bravado and nuclear program is a deterrent to prevent invasion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Per the NYT right now:

The conventional wisdom has always been that Mr. Kim, like his father and grandfather before him, is mostly motivated by a deep desire to preserve the family business — a small country that is an improbable, walled-off survivor of Cold War.

But inside the Trump administration, many have begun to question the long-held assumption that his nuclear buildup is essentially defensive, an effort to keep the United States and its allies from finding the right moment to try to overthrow him.

Mr. Kim’s real goal may be blackmail, they argue — the sort that would be possible as soon as North Korean can put Los Angeles or Chicago or New York at risk.

It may be splitting the United States away from two allies — Japan and South Korea — who wonder whether the United States would really protect them, and half-expect Mr. Trump to make good on his campaign threat that he might pull American troops from the Pacific.

Or it may be about making Mr. Kim a power broker, a man Mr. Trump and Xi Jingping — leaders of the two superpowers Mr. Kim is fixated on — must treat as an equal.

Maybe it is about all three.