Trump should respond to North Korea's ICBM launch

a reply to: Phage


No. Their liberation would be a helpful side effect.

Our casus belli already exists rests on two concepts: 1) a declared state of war currently existing, 2) target rich environment.

The fact they've threatened us with WMDs, committed several acts of war and are war criminals are all secondary albeit valid internal justifications. However you need to justify it is fine, but allowing them to produce even a single additional WMD/missile only adds to the causalities of the inevitable war.

We should hit them hard and fast, with everything we've got. They wouldn't see it coming, nor would they have appropriate time to respond. NK's dictatorship would be disconnected/disoriented/decapitated from our initial attack, and demoralized/defeated after our signature shock & awe.

Defection en masse and a low state of readiness/poor logistics would cripple any meaningful response on their behalf. Every command/control/communication/computer/intelligence/etc system they have would be dominated by US. The airspace? Also US. Waters? Again the US. Nuclear capability? US by a long shot - one SSBN can level every military installation in the entire country if needed.

Having a few nuclear weapons, a poorly trained/starving army and 60 year old communist hardware does not a parallel power make. NK doesn't understand what true power is. We've had their nuclear capability since the 40's/early 50's - they're more than 60 years behind us in that respect. Imagine what kind of super weapons we have. No doubt orbital weapons batteries capable of launching kinetic impactors, lasers, rail guns, non-nuclear EMP capability, drones, tech...NK doesn't stand a prayer against us. SK's military is no joke either, especially their graphite munitions which serves a similar purpose to EMP producing weapons.

And FYI, contrary to what people on here frequently say... Seoul, Korea is outside the illegitimate regime's artillery range.

I personally feel we are going to respond with force in the next couple days. Trump said "Ill take care of it" and then MSM went dark after that on the story.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: pavil

Nuclear weapons in the hands a unpredictable leader like Lil Kim was bad enough.

Us has actually used them, continues to use depleted uranium munitions, US is the one threatening them with armies, navies and missiles on their border, not the other way round.

I get that we dont agree. Are you actually defending NK actions here? Most of the World doesn't. Should every country have ICBMs and nuclear weapons?

Those that have them aren't threatened... the US has yet to engage another nuclear power in direct conflict.

So deterrence works. You want to risk nuclear war to get rid of one little puny dictator?

How many american lives you willing to lay at that alter?

a reply to: JBurns

o that excuses extreme human rights abuses against their own people and genocide? Is it OK that millions of the NK populace go without food, shelter, medical care, education, meaningful careers, the right to self determination?

Okay now your back to the evil dictator and WMD threatening the world? Thats US Einstein, not them.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: pavil

Nuclear weapons in the hands a unpredictable leader like Lil Kim was bad enough.

Us has actually used them, continues to use depleted uranium munitions, US is the one threatening them with armies, navies and missiles on their border, not the other way round.

I get that we dont agree. Are you actually defending NK actions here? Most of the World doesn't. Should every country have ICBMs and nuclear weapons?

Those that have them aren't threatened... the US has yet to engage another nuclear power in direct conflict.

So deterrence works. You want to risk nuclear war to get rid of one little puny dictator?

How many american lives you willing to lay at that alter?

Again we disagree. When North Korea lobs an ICBM off of California's Coast......will you let it land to see if its a dud? Thats where we are.

What would you do?

a reply to: JBurns

We're allowed to be there.

Or else... and everywhere else, lol.

intrptr out

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: pavil

Nuclear weapons in the hands a unpredictable leader like Lil Kim was bad enough.

Us has actually used them, continues to use depleted uranium munitions, US is the one threatening them with armies, navies and missiles on their border, not the other way round.

I get that we dont agree. Are you actually defending NK actions here? Most of the World doesn't. Should every country have ICBMs and nuclear weapons?

Those that have them aren't threatened... the US has yet to engage another nuclear power in direct conflict.

So deterrence works. You want to risk nuclear war to get rid of one little puny dictator?

How many american lives you willing to lay at that alter?

Again we disagree. When North Korea lobs an ICBM off of California's Coast......will you let it land to see if its a dud? Thats where we are.

What would you do?

We are their door, not the other way round. They are testing missiles for their own defense. Wouldn't you?

But I get the ignorant defense plea...

"I swear to god your honor, he was going to hit me so I hit him back, first.

a reply to: pavil

I don't think people realize how simple it would be for this to escalate into a global confrontation. Deterrence is a magical thing, it has kept us out of a gigantic war with another global power since the end of WWII..

Our generation of people have no idea how horrific real war actually is. The 'skirmishes' we have had post WWII pale in comparison with the loss of life, liberty and sacrifices people had to make to provide our way of life.

MAD is a fantastic premise. You would have to be three sheets to the wind to launch a weapon at any nuclear power. The entire world would be against you as at that point you have put the entire world into a path of destruction.

If we go on the offensive, it will be us against the world. That is not the spot to be in no matter how powerful we feel we are.

a reply to: intrptr

Didnt answer the question I see.....

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: pavil

I don't think people realize how simple it would be for this to escalate into a global confrontation. Deterrence is a magical thing, it has kept us out of a gigantic war with another global power since the end of WWII..

Our generation of people have no idea how horrific real war actually is. The 'skirmishes' we have had post WWII pale in comparison with the loss of life, liberty and sacrifices people had to make to provide our way of life.

MAD is a fantastic premise. You would have to be three sheets to the wind to launch a weapon at any nuclear power. The entire world would be against you as at that point you have put the entire world into a path of destruction.

If we go on the offensive, it will be us against the world. That is not the spot to be in no matter how powerful we feel we are.

China and Russia wont raise a finger if hostilities erupt with North Korea. We have assuredly been in conversations with both of them over NK. We've already been told by China if NK strikes first they will do nothing. The same will happen if we do a preemptive strike.

Money talks and NK doesn't have that. To be blunt it wouldn't be in either China's nor Russias interest economically to back NK when TSHTF.


Again, I'm for a peaceful solution to this first and foremost but we will have a solution one way or the other. The Status Quo can no longer continue. It will be resolved one way or another.

a reply to: dianajune

Several things that are not answered, and this is one that should be taken into account:

While Kim Jon Un, has nothing to lose, however, what about every single person under him living in North Korea? They have nothing. All of their lives they have been told that the USA is the enemy and that the USA will want to destroy their country. A strike on that country would give the more extremist parts of that government justification to launch an attack, stating that the USA violated the armistice that was signed in 1951.

Think about it over 50 years of an uneasy peace would be gone. South Korea would be devastated, Japan would be harmed badly, and the USA would have to bear the blame for the conflict, having started a war.

Any moderate voices in the North Korean government would be silenced. And in the end, the USA would be footing a bill that it can not afford.

It is in short a conflict that the USA would not be able to win, and would most certainly lose at this time frame. And the North Korean’s along with the Chinese knows it.

Yet in all of this, the one player that is ignored in this, would be China. Somehow I do not think that China would sit idly by as an attack happened, and there would be retaliation against the USA. I would suspect that there are battle plans that are drawn up and ready to be implemented at a moments notice, and this would have far reaching consequences.

And what would the rest of the world thing about the USA starting a war? The credibility of the USA is already shaky, and many of our allies and friends are already looking at the USA, how will they respond, will they support, or will they withhold that support.

And finally, are you willing to join the US military, taking on a combat role to go over there and possibly come home in a casket? Are you willing to risk your family and neighbors in that aspect?
We do not know about the military capacity of North Korea, beyond that it boasts a million man army, and have an idea on what arms and weapons that it has at its disposal.

a reply to: pavil

I totally disagree, that China, will stay out of a North Korean, conflict. Especially if tactical nuclear weapons are used. We may get away with tactical air strikes but if we go conventional against North Korea, it’s gonna get tense with China.

Russia, maybe China no.

The North Korean Peninsula has unfinished business.

a reply to: intrptr


So forget the crimes against humanity committed against NK's population? Forget the hundreds of millions that will die once this rogue dictator acquires hundreds or thousands of these weapons? Forget the fact that every dictator, despot and minor power in the world will now acquire nuclear weapons, having seen NK do so and get away with it (and actually accomplish their goals).

Do you have any idea what kind of impact this pacifist/apologist ideology would have on the global security balance?

I think POTUSs lack of discussion on the matter is telling, though. Hopefully our strike will occur in the next couple of days. Time to end this cruel charade disguised as a nation.

originally posted by: Bicent
a reply to: pavil

I totally disagree, that China, will stay out of a North Korean, conflict. Especially if tactical nuclear weapons are used. We may get away with tactical air strikes but if we go conventional against North Korea, it’s gonna get tense with China.

Russia, maybe China no.

The North Korean Peninsula has unfinished business.

We would have China's support, provided we assure China that they would have input on NK afterwards. We have been in communications with them about such things for sure. China has even stated they would do nothing if the US responds to NK aggression.

Again, preferably China makes a coup happen....they have attempted it in the past supposedly. China can play the hero and avoid mass casualties and install a more reliable partner in NK.

It all comes down to risk reward. Its not in Chinas long-term interest to support the current North Korean regime as long as it has nuclear weapons with ICBMs. Its bad for business.

a reply to: JBurns

What happened to MAGA and mind our own business. We are not the world police, and I for one think my tax dollars should be going to something that is in our countries best interests. We need to start minding our own freaking business continue to spend on defensive forces but take some of that half trillion dollar budget and divert it to things like education. It might stop these mindless drivel arguments back and forth.

a reply to: Bicent


China and Russia wouldn't dare to attack us, nor we them. Strategic nuclear deterrence works.

China has a legitimate interest in NK post-collapse, which should be recognized. USFK could pull out entirely, since nuclear deterrence takes over at that point.

We can absolutely defeat NK through conventional/asymmetric means. Nuclear/WMD not required. Those would be reserved to deter any unwise NK WMD use. Thermobaric weapons are very effective, and we have tons of them.

a reply to: JBurns

But why would we? Can you please explain to me why in his most incoherent dreams would 'rocket man' ever lob a nuke at us? Exactly what would he expect to gain from that? He might be crazy, he might be nuts, but he is no Trump..

a reply to: pavil


And risks turning China's backyard (and therefore already dismal environmental conditions) into a nuclear wasteland. As long as the rocket boy posses nuclear weapons/WMDs, that risk will always exist since second strike retaliation is assured in response to an attack using WMDs.

a reply to: mzinga


Would you rather have to spend that money on ever-increasing missile defense? You also realize every other single country will acquire and field nuclear weapons, right? I don't need to tell you how many ABM systems would need to be purchased/built to assure successful intercepts of missiles from hundreds of different nations.

How shortsighted

originally posted by: JBurns
Under the only justification we need: our own personal approval.

Sure, let's line up a few more. Maybe you can even lead the first wave through the DMZ.