US families urged to EVACUATE military bases near Seoul amid fears North Korea WAR 'close'

Say what you all like but I honestly believe war with North Korea is being planned to somehow play into getting rid of Trump as President and stopping Brexit.

Yes you all may laugh but I am convinced NK will be used as the excuse. Suddenly a few weeks ago NK was threatening to destroy the U.K. as well if we assist the US.

I can hear it now:
‘We need to stay in Europe because of this threat’
‘We need to be rid of Trump because he took America to war with a country that keeps threatening to blow them up’

Remember Trump and brexit voters... you voted WRONG, you went against the status quo. Balance must be restored one way or the other

originally posted by: dianajune
a reply to: randyvs

She was referring to the sanctions. The Trump Administration can't get enough of them. They think those things make a difference.

to quote her, " If war does break out, Kims regime will be utterly destroyed".

If there is a war over there, it's going to be hard on the U.S. If they have to have boots on the ground and need to reinstate the draft, it'll be a mess. Think about all of the law biding citizens being drafted to fight around the world, fighting for all the non law biding people that want open borders and do not want to be citizens.

originally posted by: fusiondoe
Say what you all like but I honestly believe war with North Korea is being planned to somehow play into getting rid of Trump as President and stopping Brexit.

Yes you all may laugh but I am convinced NK will be used as the excuse. Suddenly a few weeks ago NK was threatening to destroy the U.K. as well if we assist the US.

I can hear it now:
‘We need to stay in Europe because of this threat’
‘We need to be rid of Trump because he took America to war with a country that keeps threatening to blow them up’

Remember Trump and brexit voters... you voted WRONG, you went against the status quo. Balance must be restored one way or the other

Except Trump isn't gonna be impeached. There are no grounds for it.

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
If there is a war over there, it's going to be hard on the U.S. If they have to have boots on the ground and need to reinstate the draft, it'll be a mess. Think about all of the law biding citizens being drafted to fight around the world, fighting for all the non law biding people that want open borders and do not want to be citizens.

There won't be a prolonged war and there won't be a draft. All we care about is getting rid of his nuclear weapons. That doesn't require a ground invasion. If NK tries to use the limited strikes on their nuclear program as an excuse to launch a ground invasion of South Korea, the combined SK defense force with US backup will be able to hold them off. Their army is in shambles. Every single defector testifies to this. They're completely outdated, poorly equipped, poor morale, poor health, in pretty much every area they're at a drastic disadvantage. It's not like in the 50s.

originally posted by: dianajune
I've said repeatedly that they do NOT work.

Sanctions and an oil embargo are what pushed Japan to bomb us in WWII, sounds like the same issues will bring us into WWIII

a reply to: BlackmoonJester

Um...Because we invented them

Do you think so ?

en.wikipedia.org...

nuclearsafety.gc.ca...

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose

originally posted by: dianajune
I've said repeatedly that they do NOT work.

Sanctions and an oil embargo are what pushed Japan to bomb us in WWII, sounds like the same issues will bring us into WWIII

China and Russia aren't going to start a world war over North Korea, despite your sick wishes.

There won't be a prolonged war and there won't be a draft. All we care about is getting rid of his nuclear weapons. That doesn't require a ground invasion. If NK tries to use the limited strikes on their nuclear program as an excuse to launch a ground invasion of South Korea, the combined SK defense force with US backup will be able to hold them off. Their army is in shambles. Every single defector testifies to this. They're completely outdated, poorly equipped, poor morale, poor health, in pretty much every area they're at a drastic disadvantage. It's not like in the 50s.

According to the Pentagon, it would require boots on the ground:

“The only way to ‘locate and destroy – with complete certainty – all components of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs’ is through a ground invasion,” Rear Adm. Michael J. Dumont, vice director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote in a blunt assessment to U.S. lawmakers.

Their nuclear assets are not neatly stashed in a nuclear-weapon parking lot. They are mobile and all over the place. They could be in underground bunkers. They could be fortified. It's not going to be as easy as you think.

Also "every single defector" is.. how many? Two or three? There are not a bunch of defectors.. so while I have a feeling much of their army is malnourished and poorly equipped, you can't assume they all are, they have a very large army. Then there is the pesky problem of China attacking us, if we attack NK in what China considers an "unprovoked" manner.

originally posted by: fleabit

There won't be a prolonged war and there won't be a draft. All we care about is getting rid of his nuclear weapons. That doesn't require a ground invasion. If NK tries to use the limited strikes on their nuclear program as an excuse to launch a ground invasion of South Korea, the combined SK defense force with US backup will be able to hold them off. Their army is in shambles. Every single defector testifies to this. They're completely outdated, poorly equipped, poor morale, poor health, in pretty much every area they're at a drastic disadvantage. It's not like in the 50s.

According to the Pentagon, it would require boots on the ground:

“The only way to ‘locate and destroy – with complete certainty – all components of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs’ is through a ground invasion,” Rear Adm. Michael J. Dumont, vice director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote in a blunt assessment to U.S. lawmakers.

Their nuclear assets are not neatly stashed in a nuclear-weapon parking lot. They are mobile and all over the place. They could be in underground bunkers. They could be fortified. It's not going to be as easy as you think.

To destroy every single element of their nuclear program would require ground forces, for sure. That's the Admiral's assessment of what we'd have to do if we went with a balls to the wall strategy. That's not the only option. If you've noticed, every time they test a warhead or a missile, we know about it ahead of time. How do you suppose that is? We keep better track of their assets than you realize. If we're not going to engage in a balls to the wall strategy, which everyone agrees we don't want to do, we could take smaller steps. For example take out a few launchers with cruise missile strikes to let them know we mean business and aren't going to allow any more launches and tests. We stress that we're only attacking their missiles, we're not going to invade and execute a regime change unless he retaliates and escalates it to that point. That may help bring him to the table to negotiate. If he refuses, you take out more assets.

Think about when we attacked Syria's airbase. Did we seriously degrade their air force? No. But we made the point that we could seriously degrade his air force if he didn't wise up. All it took was one strike. With Kim, it might take more than one. But perhaps with limited strikes we could make it more dangerous for him to keep the program than it would be to give it up. That's what you have to do to get people to negotiate. Maybe it won't work and we will end up having to invade. But we certainly don't have to take that option right from the start. There are options in between the useless strategy now and an all out war. A lot of people said we couldn't hit Syria because it would start WW3 with Russia. They were wrong.

originally posted by: fleabit
Also "every single defector" is.. how many? Two or three? There are not a bunch of defectors..

That's factually incorrect.

Since 1953, 100,000–300,000 North Koreans have defected

That's between 1,562 to 4,687 per year on average. If you could get that wrong, which is a black and white easily researched fact, what else are you mistaken about on this subject? Just something to think about. Obviously I'll stipulate that not every single one of those 100,000-300,000 have given details about what lousy shape their military is in. I should have chosen my words more carefully there, "every single one" is a stretch. But enough have relayed information about it that I'd call it credible.

That's between 1,562 to 4,687 per year on average. If you could get that wrong, which is a black and white easily researched fact, what else are you mistaken about on this subject?

I'm talking about defecting soldiers. I don't imagine your regular joe-citizen even has a rudimentary guess about the state of their military. Heck, I imagine even most of their soldiers (at least those that defect), only have a rough guess about the state of the military they are serving in.

For example take out a few launchers with cruise missile strikes to let them know we mean business and aren't going to allow any more launches and tests.

Yea.. that won't invite Kim to start an actual nuclear war at all. I do not think there is a viable strategy that involves attack that also can't involve fully removing their nuclear capabilities. He is threatening annihilation over drills that have been a regular occurrence for quite a long time. What do you think his response to actually taking out some missiles or other targets would be? That's the problem with attacking an unstable foe whose chain of command to order a nuclear strike equals exactly 1 person. I think people are mistaken to think he would simply back off after such an attack. He has utterly ignored every threat that has come his way, and delivered on all his threats to test nuclear capabilities.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

we invented them? that's why we get ours but they were theorized for years before we made ours en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: fleabit

That's between 1,562 to 4,687 per year on average. If you could get that wrong, which is a black and white easily researched fact, what else are you mistaken about on this subject?

I'm talking about defecting soldiers. I don't imagine your regular joe-citizen even has a rudimentary guess about the state of their military. Heck, I imagine even most of their soldiers (at least those that defect), only have a rough guess about the state of the military they are serving in.

Except a significant portion of the civilian population has done at least a few years in the military. It follows that a significant portion of the defectors would have to have military experience then, and would indeed have an idea about the state of their military. Face it man, you barked up the wrong tree on that one. It's not even debatable. Unless you want to challenge the validity of basic math.

For example take out a few launchers with cruise missile strikes to let them know we mean business and aren't going to allow any more launches and tests.

originally posted by: fleabit
Yea.. that won't invite Kim to start an actual nuclear war at all. I do not think there is a viable strategy that involves attack that also can't involve fully removing their nuclear capabilities. He is threatening annihilation over drills that have been a regular occurrence for quite a long time. What do you think his response to actually taking out some missiles or other targets would be? That's the problem with attacking an unstable foe whose chain of command to order a nuclear strike equals exactly 1 person. I think people are mistaken to think he would simply back off after such an attack. He has utterly ignored every threat that has come his way, and delivered on all his threats to test nuclear capabilities.

The argument for letting him keep them is based on pretending he's smart enough not to use them. This is kinda contradictory isn't it? Sounds like all the more reason to stop them from finishing their program. Right now their ability to actually deploy an operational nuclear weapon is spotty. This is the time to take action, before they solidify that ability. Time is short.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

we invented them?

From you link.

1943 - August - Quebec Agreement signed by President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.A team of British scientists join the Manhattan Project,including Klaus Fuchs.

So who invented them ?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

we invented them?

From you link.

1943 - August - Quebec Agreement signed by President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.A team of British scientists join the Manhattan Project,including Klaus Fuchs.

So who invented them ?

You don't really think that team of British scientists was the Project do you? Most of the people on the project were Americans. I'm perfectly willing to give the foreign members of the team the credit they deserve too.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

we invented them?

From you link.

1943 - August - Quebec Agreement signed by President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.A team of British scientists join the Manhattan Project,including Klaus Fuchs.

So who invented them ?

You don't really think that team of British scientists was the Project do you? Most of the people on the project were Americans. I'm perfectly willing to give the foreign members of the team the credit they deserve too.

Of course i don't think The British Team were the project.

However i do have an issue when Americans come on here and proclaim " We invented it "

Which bloody " we " are they referring to, as if i couldn't guess.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

we invented them?

From you link.

1943 - August - Quebec Agreement signed by President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.A team of British scientists join the Manhattan Project,including Klaus Fuchs.

So who invented them ?

You don't really think that team of British scientists was the Project do you? Most of the people on the project were Americans. I'm perfectly willing to give the foreign members of the team the credit they deserve too.

Of course i don't think The British Team were the project.

However i do have an issue when Americans come on here and proclaim " We invented it "

Which bloody " we " are they referring to, as if i couldn't guess.

You can't deny it was an American project funded largely by American money and mostly employing American scientists. If we want to get technical, Leo Szilard obtained a patent for the concept of an uncontrolled chain reaction that could potentially be used as a weapon in 1934. He was Hungarian but he was a British citizen at the time. He later moved to the US and became a US citizen. A theoretical concept and a working device are two different things. Americans largely worked out the actual mechanism to turn it into a usable bomb. As with most things, it's complicated.

This is the time to take action, before they solidify that ability. Time is short.

And again.. no one can answer the simple question.. what do you do about the pesky problem of China defending NK in the event of what they consider a non-provoked attack? There is a reason previous Presidents have not taken action. There is a reason even with the current threats, people who know a lot more about the military situation with NK have said.. there are no viable military actions we can take.

The argument for letting him keep them is based on pretending he's smart enough not to use them.

He could use them now against SK if he wanted. If you actually attack their country, all bets are off. You had -better- remove -all- traces of nuclear weapons if you go that route. Which again.. is not possible with China coming to their defense, and having to put our own soldier's boots on the ground.

originally posted by: fleabit

This is the time to take action, before they solidify that ability. Time is short.

And again.. no one can answer the simple question.. what do you do about the pesky problem of China defending NK in the event of what they consider a non-provoked attack? There is a reason previous Presidents have not taken action. There is a reason even with the current threats, people who know a lot more about the military situation with NK have said.. there are no viable military actions we can take.

The argument for letting him keep them is based on pretending he's smart enough not to use them.

He could use them now against SK if he wanted. If you actually attack their country, all bets are off. You had -better- remove -all- traces of nuclear weapons if you go that route. Which again.. is not possible with China coming to their defense, and having to put our own soldier's boots on the ground.

This is the same rationale why people said we couldn't attack Syria for their use of chemical weapons. It would start WW3 with Russia. That didn't happen. Russia and China don't want a full-scale war any more than we do. If we conducted a limited operation and pledged not to actually invade the country and turn it into a democracy, I don't believe China would counter-attack. It's not in their best interest, just like it wasn't in Russia's best interest to counter-attack us when we hit Syria.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: AnonymousMoose

originally posted by: dianajune
I've said repeatedly that they do NOT work.

Sanctions and an oil embargo are what pushed Japan to bomb us in WWII, sounds like the same issues will bring us into WWIII

China and Russia aren't going to start a world war over North Korea, despite your sick wishes.

pretty sure my post was anti-sanctions, and thus anti-war...you don't think n. korea could push china and russia to war?