New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Game on: North Korea is going down

EatTheRich

President
... that's news to me, I guess we still have nuclear weapons in South Korea? who knew? Right now we have nuclear subs in the waters, so it really doesn't matter.

But I haven't seen Kim come to meet us for negotiations; telling Dennis Rodham to have president Obama call him is not getting the job done. Trump reached out to him and what was his response? I have no idea. But I don't see any negotiations happening with North Korea, Trump has put all this heat on them and they are saying, "fvckoff, we are not afraid of you"... and announcing war against SK, Japan, and the US. So I don't see any political opening for negotiations; they have ignored - not only our threats - but also China and Russia's threats as well.

But we keep bringing more heat, so Kim might crack...

Massive Aircraft Carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)Transit Pacific Ocean
Published on May 10, 2017
Trump said he'd negotiate about N. Korea giving up its weapons, right? What else has he suggested could be a subject of negotiation? The American forces in Korea? American nuclear weapons? U.S./Japanese/S. Korean War games? The status of the Korean Peninsula? The Korean War and reparations? Sanctions? Aid?

Do you have any reason to think that if Trump agreed to discuss any of these things, N. Korea hasn't talked to him? Do you think perhaps any negotiations that occurred weren't made public?
 

Days

Commentator
Trump said he'd negotiate about N. Korea giving up its weapons, right? What else has he suggested could be a subject of negotiation? The American forces in Korea? American nuclear weapons? U.S./Japanese/S. Korean War games? The status of the Korean Peninsula? The Korean War and reparations? Sanctions? Aid?

Do you have any reason to think that if Trump agreed to discuss any of these things, N. Korea hasn't talked to him? Do you think perhaps any negotiations that occurred weren't made public?
It's a pretty good bet, that China is acting as a conduit and everything we hear in public is bullshit, that's why I watch the military response. So far, I only see a bigger and bigger build up over there. China stopped buying their coal... that speaks volumes, that's NK #1 export, so something has to give or that whole nation is going to starve. I'm quite sure Kim is negotiating through some kind of back channel... their borders are totally lined with the 3 biggest military powers on earth, I can't imagine they are not talking to anybody.
 

EatTheRich

President
It's a pretty good bet, that China is acting as a conduit and everything we hear in public is bullshit, that's why I watch the military response. So far, I only see a bigger and bigger build up over there. China stopped buying their coal... that speaks volumes, that's NK #1 export, so something has to give or that whole nation is going to starve. I'm quite sure Kim is negotiating through some kind of back channel... their borders are totally lined with the 3 biggest military powers on earth, I can't imagine they are not talking to anybody.
So why do you cast aspersions on N. Korea because you "don't see them negotiating" ?
 

Days

Commentator
So why do you cast aspersions on N. Korea because you "don't see them negotiating" ?
... because, I see China, Russia, Japan, and the USA surrounding them with armies, navies, and air forces. IOW, North Korea might be talking, but they are not agreeing to anything, at least, not yet. For Trump to come out and say he would be honored to meet with Kim; that had to come from somewhere... remember, Obama refused to meet with him.
 

EatTheRich

President
... because, I see China, Russia, Japan, and the USA surrounding them with armies, navies, and air forces. IOW, North Korea might be talking, but they are not agreeing to anything, at least, not yet. For Trump to come out and say he would be honored to meet with Kim; that had to come from somewhere... remember, Obama refused to meet with him.
So you see N. Korea surrounded by hostile powers and your response is to blame N. Korea for not making unilateral concessions?
 

Days

Commentator
So you see N. Korea surrounded by hostile powers and your response is to blame N. Korea for not making unilateral concessions?
I see North Korea bucking UN mandates, ripping up nuclear limitation agreements (after taking the aid they were getting for abiding by them), ignoring calls from Russia, China, and the USA to stop the missile testing and nuclear bomb tests, and now surrounded by the 3 largest militaries on the planet... which is pretty impressive for the 25th largest military on the planet. I'm not making a call on who is to blame although I did mention GWB and his dumbass "axis of evil" speeches, but I don't think you can say North Korea should not be held accountable for their decision to become the only nation in the 21st century to enter the nuclear arms race... again, that's not about blame, that's about being held accountable.

The big idea here is to keep North Korea from building WMD. Unless you have a better idea how to keep nations from building more nuclear warheads... in today's world, there's not a lot of options; Trump is doing the only thing Trump can do, he's reaching out to Russia and China and bringing heat on Kim... unless you can think of something he hasn't tried? It isn't about who's to blame, it is all a matter of trying to stop - by diplomacy if possible - by force if necessary - North Korea from achieving those multiple warheads for their already effective ballistic missiles.

You can make the argument that the world should just sit back and allow North Korea to build a nuclear arsenal, and I would argue that we are right on the verge of having done that (thanks to Obama's "strategic patience") ... you can make a case that North Korea is not to blame for having gone down this path... it doesn't matter, win or lose that argument and it is still insanity, the bottom line is North Korea is going to use those WMD, as soon as they are capable of delivering many warheads at a single target, to extract their same old extortion and coercion from our allies and our own nation, because their subs could annihilate the entire western coast of North America. All other nuclear nations use their nuclear arsenals for deterrence, not North Korea though, they use the threat of first strike for coercion to get the world to meet their demands... and let's not forget they are at war with us and plainly state that they intend to nuke our entire west coast as soon as they are able to do so.

Who the hell cares who is to blame? No one sane, all we care is stopping this insanity.
 

EatTheRich

President
I see North Korea bucking UN mandates, ripping up nuclear limitation agreements (after taking the aid they were getting for abiding by them), ignoring calls from Russia, China, and the USA to stop the missile testing and nuclear bomb tests, and now surrounded by the 3 largest militaries on the planet... which is pretty impressive for the 25th largest military on the planet. I'm not making a call on who is to blame although I did mention GWB and his dumbass "axis of evil" speeches, but I don't think you can say North Korea should not be held accountable for their decision to become the only nation in the 21st century to enter the nuclear arms race... again, that's not about blame, that's about being held accountable.

The big idea here is to keep North Korea from building WMD. Unless you have a better idea how to keep nations from building more nuclear warheads... in today's world, there's not a lot of options; Trump is doing the only thing Trump can do, he's reaching out to Russia and China and bringing heat on Kim... unless you can think of something he hasn't tried? It isn't about who's to blame, it is all a matter of trying to stop - by diplomacy if possible - by force if necessary - North Korea from achieving those multiple warheads for their already effective ballistic missiles.

You can make the argument that the world should just sit back and allow North Korea to build a nuclear arsenal, and I would argue that we are right on the verge of having done that (thanks to Obama's "strategic patience") ... you can make a case that North Korea is not to blame for having gone down this path... it doesn't matter, win or lose that argument and it is still insanity, the bottom line is North Korea is going to use those WMD, as soon as they are capable of delivering many warheads at a single target, to extract their same old extortion and coercion from our allies and our own nation, because their subs could annihilate the entire western coast of North America. All other nuclear nations use their nuclear arsenals for deterrence, not North Korea though, they use the threat of first strike for coercion to get the world to meet their demands... and let's not forget they are at war with us and plainly state that they intend to nuke our entire west coast as soon as they are able to do so.

Who the hell cares who is to blame? No one sane, all we care is stopping this insanity.
Again, N. Korea has many times offered to exit the arms race if the insane military buildup threatening them is moderated slightly. The claim that they--and not the U.S.--was responsible for "ripping up nuclear limitation agreements" is a lie. They kept up their end of the agreement longer than the U.S. did.

Personally, I'm more worried about the huge American nuclear arsenal ... yet you are pushing for a shift in the balance of power that would allow the U.S. to use nuclear weapons with less political fallout.
 

Days

Commentator
Again, N. Korea has many times offered to exit the arms race if the insane military buildup threatening them is moderated slightly. The claim that they--and not the U.S.--was responsible for "ripping up nuclear limitation agreements" is a lie. They kept up their end of the agreement longer than the U.S. did.

Personally, I'm more worried about the huge American nuclear arsenal ... yet you are pushing for a shift in the balance of power that would allow the U.S. to use nuclear weapons with less political fallout.
I'm pushing for a limitation in the balance of nuclear power; I want to see less nuclear proliferation, not more... are you saying the world will be safer with a return to the nuclear arms race? Thank God for North Korea's approach to nuclear diplomacy?

what have you been smoking?... cuz, I want some of that.
 

EatTheRich

President
I'm pushing for a limitation in the balance of nuclear power; I want to see less nuclear proliferation, not more... are you saying the world will be safer with a return to the nuclear arms race? Thank God for North Korea's approach to nuclear diplomacy?

what have you been smoking?... cuz, I want some of that.
No, I call on N. Korea ... as I call on all other nuclear powers ... for unilateral nuclear disarmament. I just don't pretend N. Korea is the overriding threat or that the U.S.-led military escalation is going to make the Korean situation less dangerous.
 

Days

Commentator
No, I call on N. Korea ... as I call on all other nuclear powers ... for unilateral nuclear disarmament. I just don't pretend N. Korea is the overriding threat or that the U.S.-led military escalation is going to make the Korean situation less dangerous.
North Korea is not a nuclear power... not yet. We could still walk in there and disarm them by force and they would not be able to stop it and they would not be able to retaliate.

Only if we fail to act at this juncture will we end up with a North Korea nuclear power... and they have an attitude toward nukes not seen on this planet since the end of world war II. We are in no way safer with a nuclear power North Korea.
 

EatTheRich

President
North Korea is not a nuclear power... not yet. We could still walk in there and disarm them by force and they would not be able to stop it and they would not be able to retaliate.

Only if we fail to act at this juncture will we end up with a North Korea nuclear power... and they have an attitude toward nukes not seen on this planet since the end of world war II. We are in no way safer with a nuclear power North Korea.
N. Korea is in fact a nuclear power, with an estimated 10 nuclear weapons. That they have not used them despite being besieged in a way the U.S. was never besieged by Japan is evidence that your assertions about their "attitude toward nukes" is so much malarkey.
 

Days

Commentator
N. Korea is in fact a nuclear power, with an estimated 10 nuclear weapons. That they have not used them despite being besieged in a way the U.S. was never besieged by Japan is evidence that your assertions about their "attitude toward nukes" is so much malarkey.
They haven't used them because they don't have them. What they have is enough material to make 8-10 clumsy bulky warheads, and they are not stupid enough to have done that. They are working feverishly to develop the smaller warheads that will make good use of the nuclear material they have farmed... so; not a nuclear power yet, unless they are really, really stupid.
 

EatTheRich

President
They haven't used them because they don't have them. What they have is enough material to make 8-10 clumsy bulky warheads, and they are not stupid enough to have done that. They are working feverishly to develop the smaller warheads that will make good use of the nuclear material they have farmed... so; not a nuclear power yet, unless they are really, really stupid.
They could hit Seoul, and probably Tokyo, with a nuclear weapon today if they wanted to.
 

Days

Commentator
They could hit Seoul, and probably Tokyo, with a nuclear weapon today if they wanted to.
If there sole purpose in going nuclear was to commit suicide ... sure.

But let's get real, they didn't build six nuclear subs for the fun of it, and they are building more subs. This is the real program, and it is waiting on their acheiving that smaller warhead; if we sit around for two more years, North Korea will have seven fully armed nuclear subs in the waters... ouch. Everything else pales in comparison. The entire globe will have to return to a nuclear arms race, and you can be damn sure that our new class of hunter subs will all get built; the ramifications of their acheiving that would be horrendous; even if they don't carry out a first strike. And would if they make good on their threats?? I live in Chicago so I will be around to say "I told you" ... if there's an internet to connect to...
 

EatTheRich

President
If there sole purpose in going nuclear was to commit suicide ... sure.

But let's get real, they didn't build six nuclear subs for the fun of it, and they are building more subs. This is the real program, and it is waiting on their acheiving that smaller warhead; if we sit around for two more years, North Korea will have seven fully armed nuclear subs in the waters... ouch. Everything else pales in comparison. The entire globe will have to return to a nuclear arms race, and you can be damn sure that our new class of hunter subs will all get built; the ramifications of their acheiving that would be horrendous; even if they don't carry out a first strike. And would if they make good on their threats?? I live in Chicago so I will be around to say "I told you" ... if there's an internet to connect to...
No, it's obvious that their purpose was to deter war. No, the entire world would not have to return to a nuclear arms race (which never ended). An alternative would be to make the political concessions required to avoid a military clash.
 

Days

Commentator
No, it's obvious that their purpose was to deter war. No, the entire world would not have to return to a nuclear arms race (which never ended). An alternative would be to make the political concessions required to avoid a military clash.
Sure it is obvious, after all, it isn't as though North Korea is threatening to turn American cities into "ash heaps" ... oh wait.
 

Days

Commentator
Like the U.S. already did to N. Korea? Destroying every city?
exactly, only this time, we are talking tens of millions of people living up and down the American west coast. People living in Hawaii are already scared. What would you like to tell them? "You deserve to die because of what America did to North Korean cities 60 years ago"(?) Should we sacrifice those millions to make amends for our past sins?

Or should we denuclearize North Korea?

I would love to think that North Korea will suddenly start playing by the rules as soon as they get their small warheads... it's just that, tens of millions of people could die a gruesome death, if they don't. Tokyo has 25 million people that could bite the dust from one warhead hitting home... you don't think that's insane? Kim says he is going to do it, should we gamble that he is bluffing?
 

EatTheRich

President
exactly, only this time, we are talking tens of millions of people living up and down the American west coast. People living in Hawaii are already scared. What would you like to tell them? "You deserve to die because of what America did to North Korean cities 60 years ago"(?) Should we sacrifice those millions to make amends for our past sins?

Or should we denuclearize North Korea?

I would love to think that North Korea will suddenly start playing by the rules as soon as they get their small warheads... it's just that, tens of millions of people could die a gruesome death, if they don't. Tokyo has 25 million people that could bite the dust from one warhead hitting home... you don't think that's insane? Kim says he is going to do it, should we gamble that he is bluffing?
Trump said he wouldn't rule out nuclear strikes on Rome or Paris. Why the insistent focus on the much weaker threat?
 
Top