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.

 

You are now the Leader of the US, explain how YOU would deal with DRPK.

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


You are now the Leader of the US, explain how YOU would deal with DRPK.


I would listen to my advisers, my generals, and experts in North Korea.


Then I would make a decision.



But we don't know everything, as a nobody poster on the internet, I know even less.


Thing is, we don't know everything. We don't know what's in our arsenal, what our intelligence says about North Korea.




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: network dude

I would tell him and the world, that we should all disarm every nuke, that there is in the world and let's go to war like men.


I'm not so sure that nukes even exist anymore. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still the only two cities that got hit by a bomb that size. It's very strange that we never saw another nuke dropping after that.





Textare still the only two cities that got hit by a bomb





It's very strange





that we never saw another nuke dropping after that


So uh...never mind???



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Decapitate the Chinese Communist government and military with strategic nukes, declare recognition of Taiwan as the capitol of China then ask lil Kimmie if he still wants to play.
edit on 11-8-2017 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
recognition of Taiwan as the capitol of China


Ooooo ... good one.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
I'd invite Kim Jong Un to the White House to stay for as long as it takes to hash out an agreement both sides will stick to that would ensure peace.

Nuclear war is NOT in the best interests of anyone involved.

If NK launched a first strike attack with nuclear weapons I would use the entire Arsenal of MOABs and build a few more to destroy his regime. Bombers, fighters, missile batteries, and anything else I could order to shoot would lay waste, within an hour or so, of being deployed.

Never take all out F your world up war off the table. However Peace takes precedence.



I actually am in 100% agreement here. If diplomacy fails, MOAB the crap out of them, carpet bomb, but nukes? No way. You risk irradiating our allies and pissing them off, and even provoking China into a big war.

We have enough conventional air and firepower to smoke Old Fat boy back into the stone age if need be.

I'd also be putting increased pressure on China and Russia to deal with this little troll. He is right on their doorstep, after all.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I'd resign.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
there have been some though provoking answers here. It seems like the majority ins't interested in nuclear war, that's a good thing. (IMHO) I really do have a hard time understanding what positive outcome there would be in Kimmy's mind by acting like a spoiled little bitch but he sure is good at it. Much better than dear old daddy was.

But seeing the news that people are "preparing" for nuclear war and buying up iodine pills is a bit stupid. There is but one way to prepare for Nuclear war, and that is to get right with your higher power if you have one, otherwise, drink up and enjoy. (or both) Nukes are a bit hard to hide from, pesky bastards.

But I don't have a problem with Trump antagonizing the little asshole. Kissing his ass didn't seem to do much good in the recent past.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I would deploy our warships in a posture just outside of their attack range and put our forces in the area on alert as well as deploy the majority of anti missile units to that area.

Since they test a missile almost weekly I would shoot every one of them down once they were in range.

They have nuclear weapons we do not know if they have ballistic capabilities yet, but they claim to. We have every right to defend ourselves and allies. We should show them even if they can launch an attack it will not reach us.

If they attack our bases or ships we should retaliate in kind. If they use conventional we use conventional just 100 times harder. If they dare use WMDs then we take the gloves off.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: network dude
I have heard all sorts of armchair idiots spouting about how horrible Trump is for Rough talking little Kimmy. So here is your chance.
Trump has eaten one too many cheetoes, and he exploded in a giant cloud of orange and bad hair. Pence is too scared to take the lead and he tapped you to take over. So here you are, leader of the US, and DRPK is threatening to blow you up with his new Nukes.

What is your next move? What are the ramifications of your move? Remember, the entire world is watching, and your next words may or may not start WW3.

Be a hero, show us all how it's supposed to be done.

Dear God, now you want to turn ATS into a locker room, as if to bolster Trump's ego.
The UN made a positive move, Trump tried to turn that some kind of impotence, however, he is lucky that Tillerson with the good guy-bad guy approach in turn made a wee boy of Trump and his off the cuff rants that Trump has embellished since that...because he's a dick mostly. It might work, it may not since Kimmy likes a bit of blood as long as it is not his own. Forbye, the good guy-bad guy approach is best meant to operate when the target is in a confined space and fairly helpless, whereas Kimmy is not.

My reccomendation, The UN should gather up both Trump and Kimmy, and lock them up together as troublemakers, and make all the deals they want.


The UN ???
The Oil-for-food-scam-where-Kofi-Annan's-son-stole-money UN ?
The Cambodian-genocide-do-nothing UN ?
The Rwandan-genocide-do-nothing UN ?
The Balkan-genocide-do-nothing UN ?

That UN ?



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude


You are now the Leader of the US, explain how YOU would deal with DRPK.


I would listen to my advisers, my generals, and experts in North Korea.


Then I would make a decision.



But we don't know everything, as a nobody poster on the internet, I know even less.


Thing is, we don't know everything. We don't know what's in our arsenal, what our intelligence says about North Korea.


Somebody's cranky. Hows the diet?

Have a nice glass of Bourbon.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude


You are now the Leader of the US, explain how YOU would deal with DRPK.


I would listen to my advisers, my generals, and experts in North Korea.


Then I would make a decision.



But we don't know everything, as a nobody poster on the internet, I know even less.


Thing is, we don't know everything. We don't know what's in our arsenal, what our intelligence says about North Korea.


Very rational statement. I agree with you.

***

Question: would you consider the use of nuclear weapons, preemptively and/or reactionarily?


edit on 11-8-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: VashTheStampede

I'm really glad your not involved in planning. You don't seem to take anything in account militarily.

First relive the death of little Kim would lead to the shelling of seoul. This alone would have huge casualties. Any first steps have to alimony this threat.

My suggestion would be Israel and their iron dome. It's made to take care of artillery. But you would still need to take out the artillery quickly. For this b1s with 85 500 lb bombs. You literally carpet bomb the area north of seoul.

Next you would have moved another carrier group off the coast your going to need this for sorties. You need to be able to run them out of Japan and two carriers and of course south Korea giving you the capability to run hundreds in the first couple days. Before this you need to move the marine expidituonary force to the area needed to retrieve any downed pilots and possible strikes on government officials. Need about 10000 more troops on the DMZ their job will be to pish in to North Korea about 50 miles within the first day. And finally keep running B1s out of Japan and take out every military installation in the country.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I would talk to the China President. I would tell him that if they can end NK ICBM and nukes then all is ok. If not I plant to take military action that will ensure minimal allied loss. If my Generals think nukes are the only way to do that then that is what is going to happen if NK does not halt immediately. If China can't fix in 2 weeks then I do what Generals recommend to end NK rule with minimal allied loss.

That is what I would do. It is what Truman did. I would tell China that if they want to fight for NK that was up to them to make us enemies.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Oh, I'm fine.

It's frustrating is all.

You can't play a real game of poker if half the deck is missing.
You can't bake a cake if you're not using half the ingredients.
You can't even drive a car if a wheel is missing.

Yet everyone is determining what Trump should do based on just a scant bit of information spoon-fed to us by the government and the media.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude


You are now the Leader of the US, explain how YOU would deal with DRPK.


I would listen to my advisers, my generals, and experts in North Korea.


Then I would make a decision.



But we don't know everything, as a nobody poster on the internet, I know even less.


Thing is, we don't know everything. We don't know what's in our arsenal, what our intelligence says about North Korea.


Very rational statement. I agree with you.

***

Question: would you consider the use of nuclear weapons, preemptively and/or reactionarily?



Never.

There is no winner in a nuclear war. Only losers.

But I say that sitting in my living room with my feet up on the sofa.




posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
that's two for the nuclear option. Making the US the only nation to ever use nukes in war and killing an entire nation of civilians who have no clue Ipods exist.


But wait, if we kill them BEFORE they realize you have to dock with iTunes for basic features found on Android, isn't that saving them?

Isn't it?



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
We don't know what's in our arsenal, what our intelligence says about North Korea.

Because you're not listening to me. Is that willful? LOL



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Some of you folks are obsessed with the concept of using nuclear weapons lol

Pretty scary to be honest



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: DBCowboy
We don't know what's in our arsenal, what our intelligence says about North Korea.

Because you're not listening to me. Is that willful? LOL


I should read your posts more.

Humble apologies.



posted on Aug, 11 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Talk a lot s# randomly. Sound like a tough guy to get my poll numbers up with idiots who think tough talk is "doing something." Maybe threaten military intervention in Venezuela for good measure.

Let's get real here. NK isn't striking anything first. Kim Jong Un isn't suicidal. China already said that if NK strikes first, they're hands off but if the US attacks first, they'll intervene for NK.

KJU and his regime want a nuclear arsenal for the same reason every other despotic regime has — as a deterrent against military intervention and regime change. Just like Saddam did, just like Iran does, etc.

I think that there are three basic outcomes:

1. NK perfects and builds a nuclear arsenal, becoming an even bigger problem.

2. NK abandons their nuclear ambitions.

3. War.

We don't want 1 but I think China and Russia would rather 1 than 3. Nobody should want 3. KJU doesn't want to die, China and Russia don't want a unified Korea that's friendly to the West.

Outcome #2 is *clearly* the most desirable outcome.

The Trump admin scored a solid diplomatic win with China and Russia agreeing to increased sanctions. This bizarre, impromptu escalation by Trump doesn't seem to be part of a strategy to do anything much but gin up the base.

How does Trump's tough talk advance us toward outcome #2? I don't think it does. In the meantime, there's diplomacy going on in the background that is likely to be far more fruitful. I think Trump is hoping that despite his posturing, a diplomatic solution will be achieved so that he can take credit for his tough talk making it happen.

What might a diplomatic solution look like? I imagine assurances by the US that if NK disarms, we'll lift sanctions and make some sort of non-aggression pact. If I'm not mistaken, we offered them something similar in 2013 and they refused unless sanctions were lifted.

It seems that China and Russia are realizing that this is finally coming to a head and they're more willing to exert pressure to see this defused. With that shift, NK might be willing to step back from the edge.

It's hard to do more than speculate as none of us know what is being conveyed through diplomatic channels. We only see the public statements from the various actors which are more about the leaders posturing for their respective citizens than anything.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join