I generally like President Trump; he has reversed ObamaCare, presided over a record stock market, done some serious de-regulation (which may have much to do with that record stock market), cracked down on illegal immigration...and much, much more. But I do wish he would get tough--really tough--with Kim Jong-un and North Korea. I think he should make it clear to the little dictator that the latter may send a nuke toward Washington, if he wishes--or toward New York, or toward Los Angeles--and utterly destroy that city. (At least, if our missile defenses do not work to intercept the missile; and they are not, or course, 100 percent reliable.) But the price for his doing so will be the utter vaporization of North Korea. And not just Pyongyang, either--but all of North Korea. And I would mean it. Entirely. I really do not think that the North Korean dictator would act rashly, under the circumstances.
It depends what you think is rash.... would he test an ICBM? Yeah. Would he test a hydrogen bomb. Yeah. Would he demonstrate submarine launched missiles? Yeah. Would he make it clear that these are clear threats to the USA? yeah. Would he continue to do all the sorts of stuff that Trump said he agreed at stop? Yeah. Would he continue to do all the stuff that he did before trump.... stuff which trump said showed how pathetically weak previous presidents were? Yeah Has trump earned a Nobel peace prize for his “progress” on North Korea? Nope
And the very next time he "tests" a missile (in an obviously provocative manner), I would send a missile to intercept it--in other words, shoot it down...
Good, then we don’t have to worry.... what is all the fuss about.... why did trump criticize other president? Why was he so proud of his “deal” if there is nothing to worry about?
I think you may be making a mistake. A rather serious one. This thread is not intended to praise President Trump's actions as regarding North Korea. So please do not ask me to defend them. I am merely stating what I would prefer to be done.
I would also “prefer” it to be a trivial problem to defend against potential NK attacks I would also prefer that shooting down a NK missile would be taken as an impediment Although I think it would more likely be taken as incitement
My only concern in this regard--and it is really not trivial--is that Kim might just target South Korea and/or Japan in retaliation, in a fit of rage. I simply do not think that he might attack the US directly, as he surely must realize what the outcome of that would be.
We don't know what's going on in the back channels. In a world where several countries have the "big missiles" I guess one more (N Korea) is no big deal. You might say that Kim is unpredictable and could send us a missile. I say Kim doesn't want to die. So I say let Kim do his bragging. There's not much we can do about it except all-out attack against N Korea. I don't see the USA doing that. So let's ignore Kim.
We've been at war for quite a long time. What if we weren't? The DPRK's war with us certainly hasn't punished us very much, but it pretty stressful for them. What if instead of more war, we simply say, "Hey, have you seen what China's been up to lately? That's gotta worry you a bit. If we relax our restrictions, I'll bet they're going to want to have quite a bit of influence over you, huh?" Maybe we don't need to be enemies any more. Maybe China's the threat you need to worry about."
~ I agree. As dangerous as it sounds I think the time has come. Let us hope Kim Kong blows himself up before we have to worry about it. Seems like he and Russia are using the same technology.
[QUOTE="Just A Man, post: 1071289452, member: 15287You might say that Kim is unpredictable and could send us a missile. I say Kim doesn't want to die. So I say let Kim do his bragging. There's not much we can do about it except all-out attack against N Korea. I don't see the USA doing that. So let's ignore Kim.[/QUOTE] (1) Kim is quite unpredictable--and, I would add, also quite immature. (2) There is really no certainty that a missile would kill Kim. He could easily be taking refuge in another country--such as China. (3) Please note that I did not suggest that we should pre-emptively strike North Korea. Here are my exact words: We "should make it clear to the little dictator that the latter may send a nuke toward Washington, if he wishes--or toward New York, or toward Los Angeles--and utterly destroy that city. (At least, if our missile defenses do not work to intercept the missile; and they are not, or course, 100 percent reliable.) "But the price for his doing so will be the utter vaporization of North Korea. And not just Pyongyang, either--but all of North Korea." The missile strike that I have posited would be retaliatory in nature--not pre-emptive.
(1) China is their sponsor; without China's help, they would surely die. (2) We are not "enemies" with the North Korean people. But it is really hard to cozy up to a dictator--and one who has murdered millions of innocents. (Unfortunately, President Trump--who once referred to Kim, disparagingly, as "Rocket Man"--has recently tried.) (3) I have not suggested that we initiate "more war"--that is surely a straw man--but I have stated, rather, how we should respond if the DPRK sends a missile our way. Please re-read the OP.
~ Sadly I agree that Kim is psychologically unstable and likely will do something that results in the U.S. taking retaliatory action. Of course nobody wants this to happen but it seems inevitable. Fortunately if it does happen at least Trump strengthened our military force.
That is not quite how their relationship works. China doesn't sponsor Korea out of benevolence. It's for strategic reasons that don't exist if we start trading with NK. I read the post. Its point is that the president as of yet has not been tough enough, as if Kim possibly doesn't realize that Trump would respond directly to a direct attack. When he says things like: Which gets a certain segment of society's panties all up in a wad with many pearls clutched, and many couches fainted on, isn't a strong enough signal to NK that Trump would react. But that shouldn't be Trump's goal. His goal is to eliminate Kim's rationale for pointing the missiles at us in the first place. That step Trump took onto the DMZ was just about the biggest step in that direction in the last 5 decades, was it not?
Certainly, it is true that China's sponsorship of North Korea is not a matter of "benevolence." Rather, China wants the DPRK to be a thorn in America's side--in the hope that it might convince us to get out of the Pacific Rim, altogether. Although I personally liked that toughness, the "fire and fury" Trump has given way to the accomodationist Trump. We have simply heard no more of "fire anf fury" in quite awhile now. The best way to "eliminate Kim's rationale" for being confrontational is simply to stare him down. The Neville Chamberlain approach simply does not work. No. It appeared to me like a step towards appeasement.
Because repeated threats become less and less serious the more you make them. If you always threaten to do something, but never do you're not going to be taken seriously. Make the threat once. That's all you need. Really? Because that's worked so well so far... What do you hope to gain by at most continuing the conflict and at worst escalating it? What do we lose by saying, "Yup, you win. Now point your missiles at China and we can start selling you blue jeans and food and booze."
[QUOTE="Fangbeer, post: 1071291524, member: 53719 What do you hope to gain by at most continuing the conflict and at worst escalating it? What do we lose by saying, "Yup, you win. Now point your missiles at China and we can start selling you blue jeans and food and booze."[/QUOTE] I have never been much of a fan of "de-escalation." Rather, I believe in escalating matters, until the other side blinks. And I seriously doubt that North Korea will ever point its missiles at its sponsor, China. Moreover, I really do not think that Kim is very interested in his country's being sold "blue jeans and food and booze." Rather, he is interested--it seems to me--only in his holding onto power.
~ Sadly this appears to be the situation. Fortunately - unlike previous administrations - at least Trump has diplomatically secured the release of hostages and the remains of American service personnel killed in N Korea - without paying Kim a single dime.
Be careful giving Trump credit for his good work. The libs and dems will turn on you and call you all the horrible names they know.
No, President Trump has not paid North Korea in American currency. But he has paid it a sort of tribute: He has given it international respect--instead of isolating it, as the Hermit Kingdom that it is.
Escalation is a terrible strategy against an opponent with nothing to lose. The only reason China trades with NK is to prevent the country from collapsing and millions of refugees flooding across the border. If we become trading partners, the relationship with China immediately changes. The threat of Chinese invasion increases exponentially. NK would absolutely need assurance that we would defend them against that.
People don’t realize Trump’s interaction with NK is actually a China strategy. NK is a puppet of China. China thought better relations with NK would take tariff threats off of them but underestimated Trump. Trump played for time and the tariffs are affecting China because Trump was actually playing China’s game against them. Now that China realized Trump isn’t going to bend you now see NK back to their old playbook.
Kim would laugh about you. Because it would mean WW III. You would attack China , South Korea, Russia and Japan, who are all close in proximity.