A military strike against North Korea

Exactly. Makes you wonder, why would NK nuke Hawai or San Francisco. It would just sign their total destruction.

 

I'm just happy our military leadership is a lot smarter than the armchair warriors who think this is a video game.

 

Correct. Same goes if they nuked South Korea, Japan or anyone else.

Additionally, if we nuke Pyongyang, 25 million starving North Koreans will panic and head north for the border. China would rather let Fearless Leader have an "accident" than let him start a war that inevitably ends in the collapse of the DPRK.

 

The Pearl Harbor attack was not preemptive in nature and neither was Germany's invasion of the USSR.

 

Pearl harbor sure as hell can be interpreted as preemptive. Are you familiar with what economic and diplomatic maneuvers the US imposed on Japan prior to dec 7? You think Japan didn't think that was a prelude to military intervention? Granted it was a bad plan given the outcomes, but they figured destroying the pacific fleet would deal a crippling blow that the us would take years to recover from. ONe of the greatest miscalculations in contemporary history (hitlers russian invasion tops the list, but not by much).

 

Aahh because only Americans can be justified in their use of first strikes. I understand.

 

They certainly aren't stupid enough to go to war with the US because the US destroyed some nuclear facilities in NK.

 

Why not?

Better to go to war with you while you are busy nuking NK than when you are free to focus all your attention on nuking them after.
You aren't going to stop until someone stops you. Russia and China are both on your to do list just as much as North Korea... and they know it full well.

Why would they choose to let you fight them piece meal?

You want it, you'll get it. You had nukes last time round too, they still fought you.

 

As you must surely know Japan had very big plans for the whole pacific region. The US was the only power that could stop them. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was the beginning of a huge offensive, not a preemptive strike.

 

I am not talking about nuking NK. Pay attention.

 

But you're no expert.

 

Total disaster in the last 2 decades.

 

They voted for sanctions, and so there are sanctions. Seems you do not know anything. lol

 

If I were Commander-in-Chief, I would entirely take off the table all of the following options, as regarding North Korea:

(1) Diplomacy. It has failed, miserably.

(2) Sanctions. They have also failed. And as long as North Korea's sponsor, China, continues to supply them--albeit at a reduced rate now--the regime will continue to survive. (And that is especially true of a regime that cares nothing for its people--only for its armaments.)

(3) An acceptance of North Korea's becoming a nuclear state. Kim Jong-un is far too unstable (and unpredictable) to meekly acquiesce to that.

And I would go from there--with this predicate irreversibly in place...

 

You are talking about attacking a country that has defence pacts with both Russia and China.

Look at all the nukes on the deck of this ship.


When Trump first declared his intention to attack Korea, The Russians and the Chinese took fright.
They instantly mobilised their AA forces to the borders of North Korea.
And Russia, sailed this little beauty right between the US fleet and Korea.

Are you getting the message yet?

Trump took them by surprise. They blinked.
We know how they will respond.

 

Well, how about this: Kim Jong-un has repeatedly declared that he wishes to hit the US with nuclear weapons.

And I am not sure that this is merely bluster.

Gosh, it would be rather nice to have a reasoned conversation with those of another perspective.

But it is quite clear that you are not a reasonable person.

Therefore, good day, sir...

 

Er, a preemptive strike doesn't stop a war, it starts it on the attackers terms.

 

That means they won't. Historically, whenever the Russians or Chinese make such claims, it means they have no intention of following through. They're just blustering.

 

Enlighten me with a source.

 

History begs to differ. Last time round, both got involved.

 

But Trump won't. That is my prediction. There are two options, acceptance or war. We will choose acceptance.

 

Not a disaster in Iraq. Instead of a brutal dictator who attacked his own people as well as his neighbors they now have a new constitution, which the people got a vote on, and a democratically elected government. That is not to say everything is smooth sailing now in Iraq, but at least now they have a decent system in place if they can preserve and protect it and refine it as needed.

 

Sanctions would work better, if the US would establish blockades of North Korean ports.

History is replete with examples.

 

I caused ISIS to spawn in the total anarchy the US created. 100.000's are dead. Millions fled the country. It's the biggest disaster in half a century.

 

brought to them and their neighbours by ISIS.

We ****ed that shithole up.
Sucks to be our enemy.