If they could shell Seoul for 3 weeks, yeah. After getting hit with 50 nuclear bombs that would be hard. Maybe just 34. That's all MacArthur wanted to use.

I enjoy how goaTRUMP saying he wants to solve NK's nuke threat automatically means he is going to nuke them according to liberals. He is looked at as a mad man for wanting to stop a real mad man who puts his own people in concentration camps (often times for nothing) from having nuclear capabilities.

Every sentence you just wrote is false, congrats on another winner mickey.

Speaking of concentration camps:


https://twitter.com/h4lobeam/status/844423151991869440

Just How Many Nuclear Weapons Does North Korea Have? A Look at the Numbers
April 2015
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2...t-the-numbers/

Looking at that projection for 2020 do you think Trump's thinking is along the lines of the relaxation of sanctions and development aid in exchange for curtailing their nuclear program (like the Iran deal) or a preemptive strike?

Oh I think Trump's plan in his own head is clear: he's going to win bigly.

He's already Made America Great Again. Now he is moving on to Make North Korea Great.

North Korea, Iran and Cuba are all just like health care. Any Republicans with any sense should know that they have just been crying about Obama for political reasons while they knew that their proposals would be disastrous. Well, congress could put the brakes on Trump's abominable health care proposal that would have cost about 20 million people their health care. But congress can't stop Trump from killing 20 million North Koreans.

You do realize that some trump supporters don't believe health care is a right so people losing coverage in their eyes isn't that big of a deal, right? The argument that x number of people will lose coverage means it is a failure is an opinion - not a fact.

The same can be said of the minimum wage argument. Just because jobs were lost doesn't mean raising the MW was a bad thing.

Trump's own campaign promises to cover everyone make it a failure. lol mickey.

What Goofy said about Trump and also it turned out that a lot of Trump supporters and Republicans in congress didn't want people cut from insurance.

But, sure, I realize some Trumpkins are awful. I know some of them will cheer if we nuke NK.

Even if we assumed that trump was a giant among politicians we should be concerned at how the USA would deal with N.Korea - there simply aren't any solutions to pull out of the box are there? So when trump says he will 'solve' N Korea what good scenario's are there? Obviously the incredibly low regard for trump many of us have make us even more fearful but what do you think he could do that we are missing?

It depends how you look at it.

If Hitler ran on the platform of total eliminating a religion from the earth and was elected then was prevented from killing any of the people from that religion I don't think I'd call his term a failure since I wouldn't call eliminating a religion a success.

No politician can politically be indifferent about or support a plan that cuts people from insurance. It is like trying to fix SS or state pensions - it is political suicide. However, there are still a lot of people out there that don't think health care is a right in the same way a "living wage" isn't.

I'm not sure what he has up his sleeve or what his options are as I have spent as much time in the military and as an international diplomat as I have as an accountant.

That's fair enough, there are times when we just have to rely on the competence and knowledge of those who know more than we do.

But presumably if it was a president that you generally found to be incompetent and in opposition to your moral values then you would be extremely concerned when it's a) a very serious situation and b) your side and those who do support the president cant even imagine what a good solution looks like. That's where I am.

The best scenario is the most likely scenario, he does nothing substantive but claims victory and his base eats it up. He'll state a few obvious truisms that create animosity to no benefit - then be heralded as a truth sayer who cuts through the bull****.

Can't imagine this is actually something he or anyone in his inner circle considers a priority.

And there's almost complete overlap between those conservatives/republicans and the ones who opposed his withdrawal from the TPP and the general sentiment he has towards free trade.

To me it looks like he didn't want the healthcare stuff to pass.

It is one thing to assume a bad case scenario because you don't agree with a president, but to assume he just going to start shooting off nuclear weapons on a whim (as liberals worried about prior to the election and now) is pretty silly.

You all don't see the irony here? For all the fear mongering the left claims the right does and this isn't funny to anyone else?

I'd probably make the case that he's less likely to engage in that way than a lot of conventional republicans but you can't blame people for feeling uncertain about his willingness to do things that conventional wisdom would consider to be unacceptable.

I think there's a danger here of him seeking to redress the recent fiascos and humiliation caused by his failed EO's and bills by attempting a show of unchallenged 'strength' that will give him the chance to claim a 'win' and his appalling supporters something concrete to feel good about.

At least trumps highly thought out words and policies are aimed at a rational leader like Kim Jong-un who will not do anything crazy if he feels cornered.

Well if you play a game of chicken against a person you think is ******ed he'll win every time. Maybe the whole campaign and presidency leading up to this was the ultimate slow play in dealing with these kinds of military standoffs / negotiations.


Military action probably wouldn't be popular, and even if it was there're way easier ways to win over the public.

Anyone assuming he will do it on a whim is being unreasonable but concerns about the competence and disposition of our politicians is legitimate. Very reasonable imo to argue that someone who behaves like trump should not be elected most powerful man on the planet - others are free to disagree.

It's not just trump in play here. N Korea will be discussing 'what will trump do' as well. Who knows what kim jong un will do in response if he feels threatened - maybe he thinks he can win?. The biggest risk is probably still a mistake where N Korea incorrectly think an attack is underway (or imminent) - anything that makes that mistake more likely is very dangerous.

One of the more insightful observations about the (current) North Korean people is that those who leave the country often voluntarily go back. Many of them can never shake the view of the world indoctrinated into them in which North Korea is a righteous haven in an evil world. Mass thought control is a hell of a thing.

NK is not simply a large group of otherwise viable people huddling in terror from an evil dictator. There are masses of completely brainwashed people there. Cults are prone to mass suicide, especially when their founding delusions are threatened. Nazi Germany, definitely a fascist cult analog, didn't give up until Russian tanks were rolling into Berlin.

So what do you do when a country becomes a fascist cult with nukes? I see it as one of those ugly decisions where, after exhaustively going in circles looking for a way out, it becomes clear that it's about losing the least. I don't see how this can be considered a situation capable of an equilibrium. At some point, maybe a decade or less down the road, the expected number of deaths by nuke is going to turn sharply upward. At that point there really is no rational thing to do but cap that expectation and take out their capability.

One thing is for sure. Something has to be done about NK and sooner rather than latter. China doesn't seem to want to do anything.