We Could Be On The Brink of Nuclear War

[interchange]

The question here is their capacity to deploy nuclear weapons. At any rate, they are fervently advancing attempts at this capability.

The real concern in my mind is China. Any meaningful action on this front would need to be done with their cooperation (at a minimum). However, China's a lot closer than the US and thus maintains a very different relationship with NK.

 

[vi edit]

There's no oil to take. It's a LOW ENERGY country.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Even without nukes, Seoul is roughly 40 miles from the DMZ and has literally thousands of conventional missles, etc aimed at it. The conventional wisdom is that Seoul would be completely obliterated within 45 minutes of the start of a war. My daughter and soon to be born grandchild live there and our glorious leader's provocations scare the crap out of me.

Well it wasn't so long ago that NK lobbed artillery shells across the border in SK so they are radical enough to provoke action. Little Kim will learn the hard way when U.S. conventional bunker busters penetrate his safe house and send him to hell.

 

[IronWing]

Let's hope Trump's anger over the new health care act not passing doesn't carry over to North Korea...

Is this post MongGrel approved?

 

[JSt0rm]

People said the same thing about Reagan and Dubya. It's a typical knee jerk idiotic response from those that don't have a clue.

Well "I" never said it about them. If A nuke does go off be sure to know I will quote you up in a new post if we are all still alive.

 

[Thump553]

People said the same thing about Reagan and Dubya. It's a typical knee jerk idiotic response from those that don't have a clue.

I was a politically active adult during both those administrations, and strongly opposed both, and I don't recall anyone saying either would lead us into nuclear war. For Reagan the main criticism of his military tactics (against USSR) was that he was going to spend the USA into bankruptcy-fortunately USSR reached that point first and more fortunately they just folded rather than starting a war. For Dubya the main criticism was his Mid-East adventurism was going to turn the region into a boiling cesspool for years, maybe decades. So far that has proven 100% true.

BTW both of these tried to contain NK with sanctions and bribes/aid for doing what we wanted-as has every other modern US president. Admittedly it never worked, but I think the general conception was kick the can down the road until NK somehow solves the problem themselves through regime change. An unrealistic hope but probably the best of a very bad set of choices. Trump-who campaigned on not dragging the USA into foreign wars-is the first to actively provoke the NK regime.

 

[glenn1]

Nothing any administration has done so far has influenced the behavior or actions of North Korea to any appreciable amount. It seems highly unlikely that Trump would do or say something to cause Pyongyang to engage in aggressive action that would result in their own destruction. The Norks will continue to do and say crazy sh!t for the foreseeable future, the only real difference is now we have a U.S. president who likewise says crazy sh!t sometimes. So long as they only talk crazy and don't DO crazy we'll get through the next 4 years.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I was a politically active adult during both those administrations, and strongly opposed both, and I don't recall anyone saying either would lead us into nuclear war.

Then you're either brain damaged or lying. Reagan was viewed as ten times the hawk that Trump is seen as now. And Dubya was a loose cannon who was sure to get the US into a nuclear war over oil.

I can understand you people being such easily manipulated sheep, but I can't understand why anyone would be proud of it.

NK uses us a a bogeyman. As long as the leaders can convince the people that somebody is out to get them nobody will question what's happening inside the country. And the USA uses NK for the same purpose. Trump wants to raise military spending, he needs an enemy to justify that, so NK is painted as dangerous. It's a co-dependent puppet show, their leaders need to threaten us and our leaders need to convince suckers that NK is really dangerous. They're not going to attack anyone, it's suicide.And we're not going to be lobbing nukes at them because they're never going to do anything to provoke a response. Their goal is self-preservation. Saber rattling works towards that end, actual open war doesn't.

 

[sandorski]

I think a Nuclear War with NK would be the best possible survivable Nuclear War. I think even China wouldn't want to get involved and it seems likely that NK doesn't have enough Nukes to cause too much damage. That said, when you got a bumbling fool like Trump involved even Britain and France might feel compelled to nuke the US.

 

[x26]

I said it before that we will see nukes fly while trump is in office.

Hopefully One will land in your Lap!!

 

[Thump553]

Then you're either brain damaged or lying. Reagan was viewed as ten times the hawk that Trump is seen as now. And Dubya was a loose cannon who was sure to get the US into a nuclear war over oil.

I can understand you people being such easily manipulated sheep, but I can't understand why anyone would be proud of it.

NK uses us a a bogeyman. As long as the leaders can convince the people that somebody is out to get them nobody will question what's happening inside the country. And the USA uses NK for the same purpose. Trump wants to raise military spending, he needs an enemy to justify that, so NK is painted as dangerous. It's a co-dependent puppet show, their leaders need to threaten us and our leaders need to convince suckers that NK is really dangerous. They're not going to attack anyone, it's suicide.And we're not going to be lobbing nukes at them because they're never going to do anything to provoke a response. Their goal is self-preservation. Saber rattling works towards that end, actual open war doesn't.

I never said that Reagan wasn't ten times the hawk Trump is currently perceived to be, or that Dubya wasn't a loose cannon. But that isn't what you originally claimed (post #25). YOU claimed people said both Reagan and Dubya would have nukes flying before the end of their first term. I called that out as BS-you respond with moving the goal posts and personal insults. Not very impressive logic that you show.

 

[JSt0rm]

Hopefully One will land in your Lap!!

I live in a population center. I will be one of the first to die.

 

[JSt0rm]

worth a look

 

[hal2kilo]

I live in a population center. I will be one of the first to die.

Been living at our countries ground zeros my entire life. Wouldn't have it any other way. Kind of like I would much rather die of a massive heart attack, than linger on.

 

[interchange]

I think a Nuclear War with NK would be the best possible survivable Nuclear War. I think even China wouldn't want to get involved and it seems likely that NK doesn't have enough Nukes to cause too much damage. That said, when you got a bumbling fool like Trump involved even Britain and France might feel compelled to nuke the US.

My concern is not that we could survive any attack NK mounted and easily obliterate them. It's more that, one way or another, China will be roped into things. China is much more vulnerable (via geographical proxy) to attack by NK and thus will be pressured to support them against us.

 

[JSt0rm]

Been living at our countries ground zeros my entire life. Wouldn't have it any other way. Kind of like I would much rather die of a massive heart attack, than linger on.

I just want enough time to open all the cabernet I have been aging.

 

[Fern]

Then you're either brain damaged or lying. Reagan was viewed as ten times the hawk that Trump is seen as now. And Dubya was a loose cannon who was sure to get the US into a nuclear war over oil.
-snip-

Yeah. Reagan was claimed to be a "dangerous cowboy".

It's hard to find anything now because Reagan was pre-internet. But I did find this about Reagan and the apocalypse: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/21/u...ry-on-armageddon-view-ascribed-to-reagan.html

Fern

 

[Maxima1]

NK uses us a a bogeyman. As long as the leaders can convince the people that somebody is out to get them nobody will question what's happening inside the country. And the USA uses NK for the same purpose. Trump wants to raise military spending, he needs an enemy to justify that, so NK is painted as dangerous. It's a co-dependent puppet show, their leaders need to threaten us and our leaders need to convince suckers that NK is really dangerous. They're not going to attack anyone, it's suicide.And we're not going to be lobbing nukes at them because they're never going to do anything to provoke a response. Their goal is self-preservation. Saber rattling works towards that end, actual open war doesn't.

Please. You don't know that. Any war would mean his death, so apparently everyone is wrong to even worry about NK, right? By 2020, they should have many more nukes and ballistic missile tech.

 

[sandorski]

My concern is not that we could survive any attack NK mounted and easily obliterate them. It's more that, one way or another, China will be roped into things. China is much more vulnerable (via geographical proxy) to attack by NK and thus will be pressured to support them against us.

Depends on how it went down. If the US attacks, China will respond in some fashion. If NK attacks,I suspect China will let them suffer the consequences.

 

[Tequila]

I just want enough time to open all the cabernet I have been aging.

Dude, screw the cabernet. If nukes are incoming then it is time to open up the secret chest full of heroin and meth.

 

[x26]

Dude, screw the cabernet. If nukes are incoming then it is time to open up the secret chest full of heroin and meth.

Heroin + Coke=Speedball=That's the Way to Go!!!!!

 

[imported_tajmahal]

none of that has anything to do with North Korea, wtf?

It has to do with nuclear war which is the subject of the post dumbass. wtf.... You're too stupid to read the title?

 

[woolfe9998]

Yeah. Reagan was claimed to be a "dangerous cowboy".

It's hard to find anything now because Reagan was pre-internet. But I did find this about Reagan and the apocalypse: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/21/u...ry-on-armageddon-view-ascribed-to-reagan.html

Fern

The rationale is much better with Trump. People had concerns about Reagan because he was a hawk. That isn't the concern about Trump. The concern about Trump is that he is erratic, acts on impulse, is a terrible diplomat, is thin skinned and can't control his emotions. None of those things was true of Reagan.

 

[ReignQuake]

There are large amounts of rare earths that cannot be extracted using NK technology, lots of materials to build nuclear weapons or to power nuclear plants. The tactics that have been used haven't prevented NK obtaining the technology the USA didn't want them to have.

Once NK refines this technology and can defend themselves, it'll be too late, obtaining nuclear weapons to prevent invasion is the only option NK had.

 

[alien42]

It has to do with nuclear war which is the subject of the post dumbass. wtf.... You're too stupid to read the title?

stupidity would be reading the title, but not the post, and responding.

the subject of the thread is the North Korean nuclear threat.

you are indeed a special kind of snowflake.