NK could launch their entire arsenal of nukes, maybe even hitting a few population centers.  It would result in their complete destruction.   Mutually assured destruction prevented nuclear war from breaking out between the US and USSR during the Cold War.  The same will hold true in this instance.  I don’t see this lunatic actually targeting anything other than water with his missiles.  He has to recognize the risk, and the no win situation he’s in.

Despite the rhetoric, diplomacy will end this.  If not, a surgical strike will. When the dust settles, NKs nuclear aspirations aren’t nearly as terrifying as the notion they might sell that material to a state sponsor of terror like Iran.

The US is a much bigger global tyrant than Iran though.

---

NK could launch their entire arsenal of nukes, maybe even hitting a few population centers.  It would result in their complete destruction.   Mutually assured destruction prevented nuclear war from breaking out between the US and USSR during the Cold War.  The same will hold true in this instance.  I don’t see this lunatic actually targeting anything other than water with his missiles.  He has to recognize the risk, and the no win situation he’s in.

Despite the rhetoric, diplomacy will end this.  If not, a surgical strike will. When the dust settles, NKs nuclear aspirations aren’t nearly as terrifying as the notion they might sell that material to a state sponsor of terror like Iran.

The US is a much bigger global tyrant than Iran though.

Now hang on a second, I'm all for nonintervention and ill agree were more involved in foreign affairs than we should be but that doesn't make the US tyrannical.

---

The US is a much bigger global tyrant than Iran though.

Now hang on a second, I'm all for nonintervention and ill agree were more involved in foreign affairs than we should be but that doesn't make the US tyrannical.

Tyrant and tyranny is often used for dictator led authoritarian nations so I don't mean it in that sense with the US. More so it's the bully on the playground on the international scene. It mostly does what it wants,.where it wants. It uses its military force and private contractors to control land and resources in distant counties. It directly interferes in other nations democratic process. It has forces all over the globe.

---

NK could launch their entire arsenal of nukes, maybe even hitting a few population centers.  It would result in their complete destruction.   Mutually assured destruction prevented nuclear war from breaking out between the US and USSR during the Cold War.  The same will hold true in this instance.  I don’t see this lunatic actually targeting anything other than water with his missiles.  He has to recognize the risk, and the no win situation he’s in.

Despite the rhetoric, diplomacy will end this.  If not, a surgical strike will. When the dust settles, NKs nuclear aspirations aren’t nearly as terrifying as the notion they might sell that material to a state sponsor of terror like Iran.

The US is a much bigger global tyrant than Iran though.

If that was truly the case, this North Korea situation would have been handled long ago.  Don't confuse projecting strength with tyranny.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Now hang on a second, I'm all for nonintervention and ill agree were more involved in foreign affairs than we should be but that doesn't make the US tyrannical.

Tyrant and tyranny is often used for dictator led   authoritarian nations so I don't mean it in that sense with the US. More so it's the bully on the playground on the international scene. It mostly does what it wants,.where it wants. It uses its military force and private contractors to control land and resources in distant counties. It directly interferes in other nations democratic process. It has forces all over the globe.

“You want us on that wall. You need us on that wall…”

---

I don't buy it. He's all talk and no action. He'll continue to fire his missiles and puff out his threats but there's no intentions to actually strike or harm anyone. If there was they would have already done something by now. He's really in no position to back his talks with actual force. As someone has pointed out. If he was foolish enough to actually strike with a nuclear weapon. He would have the rest of the World aiming at them with everything they've got and North Korea would be finished in short order.

I think the best way to handle this is to let him keep talking. Call his bluffs as we always have. Get some insiders over there from our side and the UN and just keep him in check. Best way to deal with this threat, if it's eventually or inevitably an actual "threat" is to smother this little bastard in his sleep or take him out with an assassination campaign.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

The US is a much bigger global tyrant than Iran though.

If that was truly the case, this North Korea situation would have been handled long ago.  Don't confuse projecting strength with tyranny.

Projecting strength. That's a pretty funny term for US foreign policy but it makes sense that's how it's viewed in America.

---

Tyrant and tyranny is often used for dictator led   authoritarian nations so I don't mean it in that sense with the US. More so it's the bully on the playground on the international scene. It mostly does what it wants,.where it wants. It uses its military force and private contractors to control land and resources in distant counties. It directly interferes in other nations democratic process. It has forces all over the globe.

“You want us on that wall. You need us on that wall…”

I get that part of it. It's all good for Ireland and most of the western world if America is the global bully.  I just fundamentally disagree with almost everything about US foreign policy.

---

I don't buy it. He's all talk and no action. He'll continue to fire his missiles and puff out his threats but there's no intentions to actually strike or harm anyone. If there was they would have already done something by now. He's really in no position to back his talks with actual force. As someone has pointed out. If he was foolish enough to actually strike with a nuclear weapon. He would have the rest of the World aiming at them with everything they've got and North Korea would be finished in short order.

I think the best way to handle this is to let him keep talking. Call his bluffs as we always have. Get some insiders over there from our side and the UN and just keep him in check. Best way to deal with this threat, if it's eventually or inevitably an actual "threat" is to smother this little bastard in his sleep or take him out with an assassination campaign.

I agree with this. We have missiles capable of shooting down a Nork attack, and their nukes are unreliable anyway.

I wonder why the assassination idea hasn't been executed? It's not as if there weren't a whole country of genetically similar people who speak the same language and could easily pass for a North Korean.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

If that was truly the case, this North Korea situation would have been handled long ago.  Don't confuse projecting strength with tyranny.

Projecting strength. That's a pretty funny term for US foreign policy but it makes sense that's how it's viewed in America.

---

“You want us on that wall. You need us on that wall…”

I get that part of it. It's all good for Ireland and most of the western world if America is the global bully.  I just fundamentally disagree with almost everything about US foreign policy.

If the United States didn't do it - the worlds oceans would be wholly and solely owned by China.

Good luck with trade commerce.

---

I don't buy it. He's all talk and no action. He'll continue to fire his missiles and puff out his threats but there's no intentions to actually strike or harm anyone. If there was they would have already done something by now. He's really in no position to back his talks with actual force. As someone has pointed out. If he was foolish enough to actually strike with a nuclear weapon. He would have the rest of the World aiming at them with everything they've got and North Korea would be finished in short order.

I think the best way to handle this is to let him keep talking. Call his bluffs as we always have. Get some insiders over there from our side and the UN and just keep him in check. Best way to deal with this threat, if it's eventually or inevitably an actual "threat" is to smother this little bastard in his sleep or take him out with an assassination campaign.

I agree with this. We have missiles capable of shooting down a Nork attack, and their nukes are unreliable anyway.

I wonder why the assassination idea hasn't been executed? It's not as if there weren't a whole country of genetically similar people who speak the same language and could easily pass for a North Korean.

Even South Koreans stand out like a sore thumb to anyone in the North. Whenever they show NK defectors ov TV in the South they have tonuse subtitles because 65 years of isolation has led to substantial differences in syntax and pronounciation.

---

I can't understand why so many of you seem to think that Kim Jong Un having the ability to destroy the United States at the touch of a button is preferable to fighting a war to prevent him having that ability. This whole idea of "well, he probably won't do it..." isn't enough for me.

Why should we accept a threat to our very existence when we have the ability to prevent it?

---

I can't understand why so many of you seem to think that Kim Jong Un having the ability to destroy the United States at the touch of a button is preferable to fighting a war to prevent him having that ability.   This whole idea of "well, he probably won't do it..." isn't enough for me.  

Why should we accept a threat to our very existence when we have the ability to prevent it?

He doesn't have the capability to destroy the US at the touch of a button. He has the ability to lob a few missiles in our direction.  If that happens, his country would be leveled before his missiles had a chance to hit anything.  He knows this.  He'll continue to threaten, and he will keep launching at water targets to amp up the rhetoric.  The moment one of those missiles is tipped with nukes, he will get a quick trip to visit his predecessors.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I can't understand why so many of you seem to think that Kim Jong Un having the ability to destroy the United States at the touch of a button is preferable to fighting a war to prevent him having that ability.   This whole idea of "well, he probably won't do it..." isn't enough for me.  

Why should we accept a threat to our very existence when we have the ability to prevent it?

He doesn't have the capability to destroy the US at the touch of a button. He has the ability to lob a few missiles in our direction.  If that happens, his country would be leveled before his missiles had a chance to hit anything.  He knows this.  He'll continue to threaten, and he will keep launching at water targets to amp up the rhetoric.  The moment one of those missiles is tipped with nukes, he will get a quick trip to visit his predecessors.

He doesn't have the capability to destroy the US right now, but he will in the future if we don't do anything.   He will continue to build nuclear weapons, and he will build better and better ICBMs, and more and more of them, until eventually, if we don't do anything, he will have the ability to destroy every major US city.

---

He doesn't have the capability to destroy the US at the touch of a button. He has the ability to lob a few missiles in our direction.  If that happens, his country would be leveled before his missiles had a chance to hit anything.  He knows this.  He'll continue to threaten, and he will keep launching at water targets to amp up the rhetoric.  The moment one of those missiles is tipped with nukes, he will get a quick trip to visit his predecessors.

He doesn't have the capability to destroy the US right now, but he will in the future if we don't do anything.   He will continue to build nuclear weapons, and he will build better and better ICBMs, and more and more of them, until eventually, if we don't do anything, he will have the ability to destroy every major US city.

All you need is one or two ICBMs to destroy the entire US.

MIRVs, baby, MIRVs. NK isn't close to getting MIRVs... but if/when they do.. it's over.

We cannot allow them to build MIRVs. One ICBM with 10+ individual guided warheads.

Take care of this situation now.

---

I can't understand why so many of you seem to think that Kim Jong Un having the ability to destroy the United States at the touch of a button is preferable to fighting a war to prevent him having that ability.   This whole idea of "well, he probably won't do it..." isn't enough for me.  

Why should we accept a threat to our very existence when we have the ability to prevent it?

He doesn't have the capability to destroy the US at the touch of a button. He has the ability to lob a few missiles in our direction.  If that happens, his country would be leveled before his missiles had a chance to hit anything.  He knows this.  He'll continue to threaten, and he will keep launching at water targets to amp up the rhetoric.  The moment one of those missiles is tipped with nukes, he will get a quick trip to visit his predecessors.

This is short sighted, imo. We should give them more credit; they are smart. While I agree that NK isn't a direct threat, I don't think it's their end goal to get into a nuclear war with the US. They have their own self-interests, and that won't be obtained by attacking the West. I think their end goal is two-fold: Leverage international bargaining power and generating revenue via arms sales (via nuclear technology). The former is a mild inconvenience, but the later is a global threat.

Should we go to war to prevent it? That's tough. It would be truly costly, and South Koreans would pay dearly, even if the US came out relatively unscathed. Our biggest threat is losing Samsung.

---

Vigilant Ace 18 is a simulated attack on NK by the US and SK. Or it could be a real attack disguised as a drill. 230 aircraft and 12,000 American troops will participate.

---

Vigilant Ace 18 is a simulated attack on NK by the US and SK.  Or it could be a real attack disguised as a drill.  230 aircraft and 12,000 American troops will participate.

One of several exercises every year. Now, if there are reports of military dependents and U.S. civilians being flown out, start worrying.

---

He doesn't have the capability to destroy the US at the touch of a button. He has the ability to lob a few missiles in our direction.  If that happens, his country would be leveled before his missiles had a chance to hit anything.  He knows this.  He'll continue to threaten, and he will keep launching at water targets to amp up the rhetoric.  The moment one of those missiles is tipped with nukes, he will get a quick trip to visit his predecessors.

This is short sighted, imo. We should give them more credit; they are smart. While I agree that NK isn't a direct threat, I don't think it's their end goal to get into a nuclear war with the US. They have their own self-interests, and that won't be obtained by attacking the West. I think their end goal is two-fold: Leverage international bargaining power and generating revenue via arms sales (via nuclear technology). The former is a mild inconvenience, but the later is a global threat.

Should we go to war to prevent it? That's tough. It would be truly costly, and South Koreans would pay dearly, even if the US came out relatively unscathed. Our biggest threat is losing Samsung.

Especially now that they can finally engineer a quality automobile. Not the Yugo impersonators from the '90s.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

I agree with this. We have missiles capable of shooting down a Nork attack, and their nukes are unreliable anyway.

I wonder why the assassination idea hasn't been executed? It's not as if there weren't a whole country of genetically similar people who speak the same language and could easily pass for a North Korean.

Even South Koreans stand out like a sore thumb to anyone in the North. Whenever they show NK defectors ov TV in the South they have tonuse subtitles because 65 years of isolation has led to substantial differences in syntax and pronounciation.

Not to mention that South Koreans are much taller due to better diet.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

War with North Korea is a strange game, the only winning move is not to play.

That reference. I see what you did there.  Would you like to play a game?

---