Ground Invasion Only Way to Destroy North Korea’s Nuclear Arsenal, Pentagon Says

You got that from my post?

 

You seem to think it isn't an act of war so long as a country isn't also threatening the country they are shooting missiles over.

 

Obviously.

 

The USA has been threatening the North for years with invasion...this made it necessary for the government of the north to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent...and at the same time a huge regular army....USA just try invading them, then you will find out what real war is all about....not the ***** wars like Iraq and Afghanistan...better have lots of body bags ready...

 

Agreed.

I do not agree.

Yes. But Russia is being slandered mostly on 'hearsay' (and the intuition that is in tune with your statement) .... but without much fact. The US vs Russia with regards ISIS you've already mentioned. Then the US subversive clandestine involvement in the coup in Ukraine vs Russia's "legitimate" presence is another example. Need I mention the WMD hoax and the Building 7 magic trick? And of course the Obama-Clinton-Maxime Waters-Sarah Palin anti-Putin sandbox temper tantrums. Is that what passes for political diplomacy in the US? Russia is regarded as "the good guy" in many circles. You and your personal peers may not think so but the general world opinion sees Russia as a counterweight to American outrageousness. When Putin speaks he breathes fresh, clean air over Europe where the aforementioned American contingency is displaying a kind of opera buffa frenzy of adolescent proportions.

 

I agree Questerr. And ask Dayton3 - if that was a test the US performed on Bikini island. What was that ....... a couple of hours and then the "all clear"?

 

Please show me, through link, comment, policy or action where the United States has done such a thing anytime since the Korean War....Please?

 

You have the internet look it up yourself and research it...surely you know about the illegal invasions by the USA since the 1950 Korean war....if not what planet did you come from ?

 

'Cometh the hour, cometh the man'? He's far from ever being a statesman (but then who has got what it takes in today's US political elite? Answer me that??) but he has plenty of basic nous, and who can doubt his patriotism?

 

NK has been made a major part of Gray Zone strategy of Eurasian powers.

 

He was born on this planet but he probably has nothing more than the standard American 'education'. Only in the higher levels of education do citizens begin to go beyond the subject of political propaganda.

 

I indeed researched this immediately upon reading your commentary, and found nothing. Thus my request for you to provide ANYTHING that could show your claims to be true. That you then not only refuse to but attempt to distract with derogatory comments clearly shows the inaccuracy of what you spew.

 

I judge the euros by the ones who post here

And almost all of them are leftwing wackos dripping with hate toward America

 

You do not know your history any better than you understand current events

We did not invade South Vietnam but rather fought to save them from a violent communist takeover from the north

Afghanistan needed to be cleaned out but bush foolishly tried to buiild a better nation there when the afghans are too crazy and too backward to respond

We should have gone and killed every taliban and al quieda we could find in 6 months and then leave

But I agree that Iraq was a mistake so foreign America haters like so can always latch omto that as your reason to exist

But at least get your facts straight

Whoever told you any of the countires you mentioned were democratically elected was lying to you

 

I wonder what macarther would say about the situation in north korea today?

My guess is he would not want to see los angles or chicago destroyed by icbm’s launched from north korea

 

I get that

Liberals who hated reagan thought the soviet union would still be with us today

Many then judt like now think that America is the world villian and the commies were just defending themselves from us

They WANTED the soviets to have the ability to destroy America then and THEY WANT north korea to have that power now

 

Ty for the good thoughtful reply. You make several good points. Yes, the anti-Russia/anti-Putin rhetoric in the US is over the top. Most of that now is rooted in the domestic political fight aimed at: 1. defeating Trump in the last election. 2. Overturning the last election. 3. Deflecting attention from The Clintons' well documented collusion with Russia/Putin.

Yes, many people all over the world may view Russia as a counterweight to US power. Many of the same people, especially in Europe view the US as a counterweight to Russian power. To the extent that anyone believes the USG or the RG are "good guys" they are mistaken. Government is a cold ruthless instrument. America was settled and its government organized by people who knew that. Russians were taught the same lesson by the Tsars repeatedly until the USSR was founded on this principle among others:

"Only now can we appreciate the full correctness of the remarks by Engels when he mercilessly attacked the absurdity of combining the words of 'freedom' and 'state'. So long as the state exist there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.” V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution", Penguin, 1992,p. 86.

Of course, the notion of actually eliminating the state from human affairs was a fairy tale. It is still not clear that the power and danger posed by the state can ever be effectively checked and balanced over time.

 

I dont think the euros are reliable allies anymore

Specifically the traditional NATO countries that are embracing islam

I expect them to be neutral or even pro russian in the next great war

 

MacArthur would reject any military action that was not aimed at achieving a final unambiguous victory that would preclude further warfare of any kind from the enemy.

 

The reliability of allies is always provisional. States do what they believe to be in their best interest, and they often miscalculate.

 

I disagree with that assumption.

We have had a policy of "limited" war for a long time, one where war, like diplomacy, used a tit for tat strategy. Three stooges, slapping each other in the face, so to speak. The results of this approach have been a lot like the three stooge scenario; the problem isn't solved, just postponed, and it is soon re-running in another theater. The Teddy Roosevelt advice about speaking softly and carrying a big stick is very good; however you have to be willing and able to use the big stick when it's called for.

That tit-for-tat strategy is fine for diplomacy- but when diplomacy has failed and war is a necessity, I personally think that it is foolish to do anything less than target total destruction of your enemy pending total surrender. You do that as fiercely and rapidly as possible- lightning war. The destruction of the nuclear arsenal is far less critical than the destruction of any person who could use it.

Even your local police know this. If you are unable to negotiate with a person pointing deadly weapons at you, you shoot to kill, no exceptions. Sometimes such a potential threat is hit 20 times or more, because negotiation is over- and the intent to destroy the threat is total.

Personally I'm not willing to sacrifice American lives to minimize the losses of North Korean lives.

Do we have the capacity to wipe out the entire power structure of North Korea very quickly?

 

Did you get that straight from his grave in a seance?

When macarther made thst statement north korea did not have nuclear weapons thst could reach America

 

I got it from MacArthur's farewell address to Congress after he was relieved of command. I think he meant what he said.

 

I dont think a war with north korea can be limited

They will attack south korea with everything they have to kill as many people as possible

It could even include biological toxins

So attacking with everything we have is the best option

But it is sad to think how many innocent south koreans would die even if we achieve our objective

 

That was 66 years ago

You dont know whst macarther would say today

When he said thst china did not have nukes and macarther wanted to use our nuclear weapons on them instead of a costly ground war