It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House 'considers direct military action' to counter North Korean nuclear threat

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:15 AM
link   


An internal White House review of strategy on North Korea reportedly includes the possibility of direct military action or regime change to counter the hermit kingdom's nuclear threat.

White House 'considers direct military action' to counter North Korean nuclear threat



I see this statement as being either amazingly naive, or pure sabre rattling (and yet still amazingly naive).

Why would this be reported? It is naive at best, and incendiary at it's worst possible outcome. A nation like North Korea is gagging for a square go, and is just waiting for the feeling that doing so will be backed up by China. I'm finding it very hard to believe my eyes in seeing this.

If we were to attack, the best method (IMHO), would be a swift and decisive missile strike to paralyze the military and communications. This would need to be quickly backed up with a full frontal assault. A sane individual would think that perhaps the best method to achieve this would be through surprise.

Seeing this mentioned on the crawl at the bottom of my morning news was, well, a but surreal.




posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Please. Trump's just testing the waters for reaction.

Reality is North Korea's gotta go-they murder so many of their own people it's hard to believe.

China might make a stink but both Koreas need to be one again and still be our allies; which we desperately need especially with China's immense power and growth.

Trump's a wild card though-every day he spits out something new-kind of entertaining if it wasn't our reality.

Go Trump!



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: FHomerK

It's just a "review of strategy".

I'm sure it's one of many strategies being reviewed. There are extreme strategies and those that are more likely, but everything has to be on the table for an honest and thorough discussion. Seems commonplace/a non-issue.

North Korea is batsh*t crazy though!

edit on 3648x6736America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago3 by six67seven because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I think we are going to need to add more than $54billion to the budget. And Trump supporters should join since we will need more troops for the defeat of ISIS. For the next 100 years.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I think we are going to need to add more than $54billion to the budget. And Trump supporters should join since we will need more troops for the defeat of ISIS. For the next 100 years.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: FHomerK

one question - do you SERIOUSLY believe that the obama administration never curculated any " military action against NK " proposals ?

hint - if you knew the scope of what the worlds militaries have a contingency plan for - your head would exoplode



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

includes the possibility


I'm pretty sure ANY strategy that deals with an adversary has this possibility among others. It's prudent to list all possible courses of action.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Trump is smart, showing all options are on the table.

Not like Obama where he was under the table.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FHomerK

This sounds like total nonsense to me.

Kim Jong Un is not going to successfully strike a friendly or allied nation, not unless he is PERMITTED to do so. The governments who oppose his activity have access to the sort of technology which can mitigate the threat posed by North Korea's entirely pathetic nuclear capabilities.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Trump is smart, showing all options are on the table.

Not like Obama where he was under the table.


You really have to go out of your way to make everything political, don't you. I don't know how you haven't been banned yet. You used to post a multitude of hoax stories (there used to be a rule that if you posted three you would be under review), and all you do is #post.

This topic is about revisions of plans, not presumptions on presidential decisions and activities. Your comment adds nothing to the conversation.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
These types of plans shouldn't come as a surprise. That they are being revised shouldn't either. Of course the United States is formulating different plans of action.

What i find most interesting is the assertion that the United States could recognise North Korea as a nuclear state. North Korea has been determined to be recognised as such for a while now, and doing so could bode well for relations. In fact, i would wager it is more likely than regime change or any military actions right now.


edit on 2-3-2017 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: FHomerK

This sounds like total nonsense to me.

Kim Jong Un is not going to successfully strike a friendly or allied nation, not unless he is PERMITTED to do so. The governments who oppose his activity have access to the sort of technology which can mitigate the threat posed by North Korea's entirely pathetic nuclear capabilities.


I couldn't agree with you more!



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   
As posted in other thread. Working with china to assas kim jung. Little loss of life. No build up necessary. Smart 1st move that might prevent loss of our brave soldiers lives.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Oh horse feathers!

That is utter rot. Emptying Kim Jong Un's brain pan at a distance of one and a half miles with a .338 is not going to help anything, nor will poisoning him, or castrating him with a small bomb full of Stanley blades shoved into his toilet just before his morning ablutions.

For pities sake, murdering him will only hand the country over to people we know far less about, whose motivations are far harder to guess at than his! What a disgracefully witless approach!



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
People that voted or and support Trump should be on the front lines when it comes to him starting some sort of conflict.

If not, that's pretty #ing pathetic.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Why trump supporters? Obama had some of the biggest defense budgets of all time, yet I must have missed the thread about you joining up.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Yeah lets just pick a fight the week after we learn North Korea has weaponized VX gas,we should be more like the South Koreans that sort of view the North as the obnoxious uncle with bad flatulence you try to ignore at the Christmas party



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Well, there is that.

To be honest, the main issue I have with all of this is that NK cannot realistically touch targets outside its own border, without getting hit forty times harder than its hardest punch, and pretty much all its technology is so much less sophisticated than that of its potential targets, that it is unthinkable that any attack it might mount, would actually land. It would likely as not be deflected, blocked, or simply torn out of the sky. As for the VX that they have, it IS very impressive that not only have they got VX, but they have a method for keeping it low enough level to kill just one man, as opposed to an entire airport full of people.

However, their delivery systems are appallingly lackluster.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
People that voted or and support Trump should be on the front lines when it comes to him starting some sort of conflict.

If not, that's pretty #ing pathetic.


Your logic hurts my brain.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

weaponised VX agent ???????????????

ah you really mean - one needle treated with enought chemical to be fatal to one person

you do realise that most chemistry graduates could create a weapon capable of fulfilling all the requriments of that assasination - dont you ???



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join