(08-09-2017, 06:58 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(08-09-2017, 02:46 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: CNN is doing its best to paint Trump as the aggressor here. This is despicable.

That's not really true.   I think CNN is painting Trump as foolish.   Which is certainly debatable.   I don't think it's wise to issue threats when we are not in any position to back them up.   We don't have enough assets in place right now, and it could take months to move them into place.   So any threats right now by us are empty threats, and that only makes us look bad.

---

(08-09-2017, 12:07 AM)TJBender Wrote: No source more reliable than NK itself, right?

Here's my thing: we can't shoot first. We have the most advanced missile guidance systems in the world. We need to wait for one to go up that has the right trajectory and flight path to hit a US interest, then use our defense systems to knock it down and respond with immediate surgical strikes against nuclear weapons facilities, military infrastructure and equipment, known launch sites and, hell, why not Kim Jong Un himself? If we shoot first, it's American aggression, imperialism, blah blah blah whatever NK wants to call it to draw Russia and China in. If we shoot down a missile then go headhunting, we can credibly stand before the world and say that considering NK's words and actions, they're lucky we stopped there.

My fear is that we shoot first or dramatically over-retaliate, perhaps with nuclear weapons, making it very hard for a behemoth like the United States to defend its actions on the world stage. I don't know that China or Russia would take up arms, but they would certainly impose economic penalties of their own and push the UN to do the same. Whatever happens, I hope nuclear weapons aren't involved. Their destruction is too indiscriminate and devastating to the environment to be justified when we can slide a bomb right through Kim Jong Un's bedroom window and take out the palace without scratching the paint on a car parked across the street. I hope that Mattis has more sense than to push for a nuclear strike, and if he doesn't, I hope Trump and Kelly have the stones to tell him no.

It would certainly make things easier if he gives us no choice.   One way for him to do that would be for him to strike at us first. 

As for the nuclear option, I would be opposed to a first strike or pre-emptive strike with nuclear weapons, but if anyone throws a nuclear weapon at us, we should hit them with a nuclear weapon.   That's our long-standing policy, and we should state it quite clearly, any use of nuclear weapons against us will be met with nuclear retaliation.  What's the alternative?   Conventional retaliation involves trillions of dollars of expense, and tens of thousands of American casualties.

As for your scenario, I think it's highly unlikely that Kim would launch a missile at us and then go to sleep in his own bedroom.  So forget about carrying out a decapitation strike if they launch a missile at us.