Quote:
Originally Posted by Our House
A little while back, before Trump decided that he wanted to increase military spending by like 60 billion, wasn't he complaining about being in 2nd place to Russia with nukes? IIRC, he even used that comment to justify the proposed budget. "Russia has 7000 and we only have 6980...waaaah...what's the sense of having them if we can't use them?" Every other past President and leader looking toward disarmament forever and along comes this jerkoff. Is that what you were referring to Alan?
No, the point I was trying to make is that any war that breaks out on the Korean peninsula - be it "nuclear" or otherwise - is going to be much more costly than some people may be thinking. If war actually breaks out, the United States will certainly prevail - North Korea's "nuclear threat" will be neutralized. But it won't be an "easy" (or costless) victory.
There's another danger with these kind of confrontations - the danger of escalation (due to miscalculation) that gets out of hand. North Korea has allies, specifically China. Xi Jinping, China's President, has been very clear with President Trump that China prefers that this impasse be settled through negotiation. If it gets down to brass tacks, there's no guarantee that China won't side with North Korea. If it becomes a three-way standoff, nobody can predict how this might turn out. Once bombs start exploding, this could get really ugly.
Last edited by Alan C. Lawhon; 04-19-2017 at 05:26 AM.