Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
America & North Korea America & North Korea

08-08-2017 , 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
My Country Relatively Immunized From Bloodlust, Says Man In Country Embroiled In Two Separate Wars for 15 Years and Ruled Over By Gameshow Host Who Ran On Revenge Fueled Ethnonationalist Campaign
Onion.

Oh. It's not? ****. WAAF.
08-08-2017 , 10:57 PM
Conventional war means hundreds of thousands of dead Koreans, and what at least 10,000 dead American's stationed around the DMZ?
08-08-2017 , 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
If they start with a big hit they know we will wipe them off the map.
*sighs* That's what I'm getting at here; trump's initial instinct for any minor thing is to ruin your life. He's certainly thought to just nuke them already.

Everything after that becomes "will this take much effort for me?" if it's yes, the odds go back down b/c he'd rather just golf and watch TV.
08-08-2017 , 11:02 PM
This is awful. Getting Trump out of office ASAP seems like our only hope.... and even then I really doubt any R's are gonna have any interest in trying for a diplomatic solution at this point. I'm actually starting to get legitimately scared.
08-08-2017 , 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiier04
This is awful. Getting Trump out of office ASAP seems like our only hope.... and even then I really doubt any R's are gonna have any interest in trying for a diplomatic solution at this point. I'm actually starting to get legitimately scared.
CIA should have eliminated Trump months ago. They are the only institution that can stop this war.
08-08-2017 , 11:27 PM
I'm optimistic that Mueller will find/has found enough to actually bring Trump's R approval levels low enough for R Reps & Sens to actually impeach and convict him, but I understand why some think otherwise.
08-08-2017 , 11:46 PM
I'm a bit out of touch here because I don't know what news to take seriously.

Where do we put the chances of actual armed conflict with N Korea happening? It's less than 5% right? I mean these people are dumb, but not this dumb right?
08-08-2017 , 11:59 PM
That Atlantic article on North Korea said that they could kill millions in SK using only sarin.
08-09-2017 , 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rafiki
I'm a bit out of touch here because I don't know what news to take seriously.

Where do we put the chances of actual armed conflict with N Korea happening? It's less than 5% right? I mean these people are dumb, but not this dumb right?
What people? At this point, the biggest risk has to be Trump blundering -- not Kim Jong Un.

I think it's less than 5%, yeah, but I mean, we're talking about nuclear ****ing bombs here. That's why it's kinda important not to elect reckless morons to the Presidency. A friendly reminder that Trump essentially has the authority to make nuclear decisions on his own. Sleep tight don't let the bedbugs bite.
08-09-2017 , 12:13 AM
Good god
08-09-2017 , 12:24 AM
I'm no military expert but I think it's significantly higher than 5%. If NK strikes first, armed conflict is inevitable. And I'm sure Trump (and many other people with a lot of power) don't mind the idea of a preemptive strike which would almost certainly be catastrophic imo.

Last edited by skiier04; 08-09-2017 at 12:30 AM.
08-09-2017 , 12:28 AM
Effing Trumpkins
08-09-2017 , 12:32 AM
I think the chances of North Korea striking first are close to 0. The chances of Trump starting a war via Twitter is definitely over 5%.
08-09-2017 , 12:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Effing Trumpkins
It's not just them. That last poll ITT showed 50% already want military action. Even if NK just attacks a US ship that number is gonna go to 70%+ and it's all over from there.
08-09-2017 , 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoltinJake
What people? At this point, the biggest risk has to be Trump blundering -- not Kim Jong Un.

I think it's less than 5%, yeah, but I mean, we're talking about nuclear ****ing bombs here. That's why it's kinda important not to elect reckless morons to the Presidency. A friendly reminder that Trump essentially has the authority to make nuclear decisions on his own. Sleep tight don't let the bedbugs bite.


It's not "essentially" the authority. It's absolutely, 100% complete authority to authorize the use of nuclear weapons. There needs to be emergency legislation passed immediately to remove that power from the president.
08-09-2017 , 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwax13
It's not "essentially" the authority. It's absolutely, 100% complete authority to authorize the use of nuclear weapons. There needs to be emergency legislation passed immediately to remove that power from the president.
This president needs to be immediately removed from power.
08-09-2017 , 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
This is a super naive take imo. Consider three hypothetical worlds -- the first is a world in which the US has the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead and NK does not, the second is a world in which NK has the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead and the US does not, and the third is a world in which both the US and NK have the ability to deliver nuclear warheads.

I'm as critical of US foreign policy as the next guy, but if we are measuring the safety of those hypothetical worlds on a net basis, it seems pretty obvious to me that:

World 1 > World 3 > World 2
Before Trump I would've agreed with you.

At this point it's unclear who is the bigger threat, Kim or Trump.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ligastar
CIA should have eliminated Trump months ago. They are the only institution that can stop this war.
And now their director is Mike Pompeo, so good luck with that one.
08-09-2017 , 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mather_2020
That Atlantic article on North Korea said that they could kill millions in SK using only sarin.
Chemical. Scary stuff.

Quote:
North Korea is believed to be capable of deploying its stockpile of chemical agents through a variety of means, including field artillery, multiple rocket launchers, FROG rockets, Scud and Nodong missiles, aircraft and unconventional means. [18] Additionally, U.S. military authorities believe there is long-range artillery deployed in the DMZ, along with ballistic missiles capable of delivering chemical warfare agents. [19]
08-09-2017 , 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Countries fight wars with the United States partly because they know that we have little appetite for killing millions of their civilians. Or possibly because they think that we won't destroy them because of our concern that Russia would attack us or because we worry about fallout.

The one exception was Japan. They were even more fanatic than N.Korea plus they assumed that if they stopped fighting they would have to do whatever we told them including things much worse than giving up a nuclear program. Still they surrendered because Russia didn't have their back, they had no chance of winning, and they knew that most Americans were willing to see every one of them dead.

There will be no war.

Japan couldn't nuke us back, dude.

Americans, or at least Americans like you, might be willing to see every Korean On the peninsula dead, but are you willing to sacrifice 20-25 million American lives to achieve that? Because with a 6,500 mile range that's what we're talking about here.
08-09-2017 , 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
If they start with a big hit they know we will wipe them off the map.
As was pointed out to me, this line presents a very complicated problem with Seoul.

I don't know what the correct response is. But you can count me among the percentage of people who thinks N. Korea is a huge threat. I think it's insane that our long term game plan was to stand back while they advanced their nuclear program to become anywhere near as far along as it presently.

But maybe none of that matters now, since the US now has their own over compensating little narcissistic madman leading our country. The rest of the world has every reason to be just as alarmed about us doing something rash and stupid as we do with N. Korea.
08-09-2017 , 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Japan couldn't nuke us back, dude.

Americans, or at least Americans like you, might be willing to see every Korean On the peninsula dead, but are you willing to sacrifice 20-25 million American lives to achieve that? Because with a 6,500 mile range that's what we're talking about here.
Just commenting on your last sentence. Surely we have a much better incomparable defensive mechanisms than NK. Unless it's an all out bombardment on the scale of what Russia could pull off, I'm pretty sure we could shoot down an incoming missile before it hit the states or possibly other targets. Am I wrong?
08-09-2017 , 01:17 AM
Trumpkins fantasize about chaos.
08-09-2017 , 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Japan couldn't nuke us back, dude.

Americans, or at least Americans like you, might be willing to see every Korean On the peninsula dead, but are you willing to sacrifice 20-25 million American lives to achieve that? Because with a 6,500 mile range that's what we're talking about here.

Yeah, and most casualties in war are civilians, and the US has killed millions of civilians in war.

Someone said something alluding to David being a Trump supporter. I wonder what kind of calculations he did to arrive at the conclusion that he was the person for the job of President of the United States. Maybe he had help from his parrots with that.
08-09-2017 , 01:45 AM
It's probably important to mention that the mini nuke assessment doesn't even have concensus yet, and POtuS is firing off red lines from his stupid ****ing mouth without a 2nd opinion. Other parts of the intelligence community disputed the DIA's findings.
08-09-2017 , 01:48 AM
He was probably having a bad round of golf. You know the whole deal - duff a shot, then put one in the water, and then threaten nuclear war with a lunatic every bit as unhinged as yourself. A standard American great again summer day.

      
m