Kalbear Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Oh good, they're planning on only hitting Guam. (if I had a bet, I'd say that they'd try doing this with a non-nuclear payload). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Swordfish said: What did the intelligence say about North Korea? Don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Quote The United States has remained technically at war with North Korea since the 1950-53 Korean conflict ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty. I'm curious what the legal ramifications of this are in terms of what it means for the war powers of the executive branch...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 25 minutes ago, Swordfish said: I'm curious what the legal ramifications of this are in terms of what it means for the war powers of the executive branch...... Not much. We never declared war on the PRK. It was a "police action" authorized by the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Not much. We never declared war on the PRK. It was a "police action" authorized by the UN. Ahhh.. You're right. I hadn't realized that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrettyPig Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: Either way though, war seems inevitable now. Trump lacks the political skills and basic common sense to find a way to avoid it, and at his core, he probably wants it. Gotta show the world how strong he is and all that. He absolutely wants it. I've been saying for months that this fool wants to be immortalized as the second president in all of history to drop a nuke on a hostile power. I don't even think Trump particularly cares which hostile power it is, just so long as his tiny itchy finger gets to hit the button. Who cares if the rest of your presidency is a flaming hot mess of dog poo if your name will be forever shown in the annals as the guy that sent the Enola Gay 2.0 over Pyongyang? This pathological narcissistic clown would absolutely have the US go to war and have thousands of people die so that he can see his name in lights. It probably bugs the shit out of Trump that he has to play second fiddle to Harry Truman...a Democrat, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Swordfish said: 4 hours ago, Swordfish said: Quote The United States has remained technically at war with North Korea since the 1950-53 Korean conflict ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty. I'm curious what the legal ramifications of this are in terms of what it means for the war powers of the executive branch...... 4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Not much. We never declared war on the PRK. It was a "police action" authorized by the UN. So technically, the quote that Swordfish quoted is false information. I assume however that technically South Korea is still at war with North Korea. But that's a whole different matter when it comes to the war powers of the US exec. It does seem that Trump is reaching for the "what does a failing president do to keep himself in office?" playbook. I think "start a war, preferably with someone the whole country views as an enemy" is step 2 or 3 in the playbook. Dennis Rodman might be one outlier in the "whole country views as an enemy" situation, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 He's on a mission from God. Quote Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, one of President Donald Trump's evangelical advisers who preached the morning of his inauguration, has released a statement saying the president has the moral authority to take out North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. "When it comes to how we should deal with evil doers, the Bible, in the book of Romans, is very clear: God has endowed rulers full power to use whatever means necessary - including war - to stop evil," Jeffress said. "In the case of North Korea, God has given Trump authority to take out Kim Jong Un." Well then, that settles it I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 [homer simpson voice] mmmmm.... korean take out *drools* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 God. Trump is such a fucking dumbass. I don't see war with NK serving anyone's interest, and while it might temporarily stir up some patriotic fervor to boost Trumps poll numbers, I don't see it being politically savvy either. It's a terrible idea and every president since the 50's has successfully navigated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 8 minutes ago, S John said: God. Trump is such a fucking dumbass. I don't see war with NK serving anyone's interest, and while it might temporarily stir up some patriotic fervor to boost Trumps poll numbers, I don't see it being politically savvy either. It's a terrible idea and every president since the 50's has successfully navigated it. least of all the millions of koreans.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 5 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said: least of all the millions of koreans.... I would think that the South Koreans, who do ostensibly remain at war with DPRK, would want to have a say in whether the US takes aggressive military action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 16 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: I would think that the South Koreans, who do ostensibly remain at war with DPRK, would want to have a say in whether the US takes aggressive military action. uhh... yeah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingintheNorth4 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 We need the diplomatic expertise of Dennis Rodman right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 War and the environment are the two main areas where I have always felt Trump could do some major damage. He failed on Obamacare recently, but Americans like war, right? Let's try that! This guy is a fucking sociopath and an egomaniac and I'm legitimately worried about all of this. I don't want NK to have nuclear weapons capable of striking the US, but it doesn't take a genius to see how a having a nuclear weapon is a deterrent to foreign meddling, that's why countries want them. The thing is though, we have like 1500 of them and NK knows damn well that we can and would obliterate them 10 times over if they ever strike at us. How is it not obvious that thier bullshit is all bluster designed to add bargaining room? Meanwhile I'm reading Trumpers on other sites blame past administrations for letting NK get to this point of imminent threat to the US when the fact is that when you talk about MAD, it isn't even 'mutual' in thier case. It's we *might* take a punch, but ALL of you are dead. All past presidents have understood that the biggest risk wrt NK are casualties in SK and Japan as well as war in China and Russia's back yard. NK understands that too, but now we have the most unsubtle, least diplomatic president in US history tweeting his way to the only thing that can cause an actual war and that is backing NK into a corner. Trump profoundly lacks an understanding of literally anything and it's completely maddening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desire Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Sigh...just watched when the wind blows i better stock up on potato sacks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 It's a thorny issue. Option A: NK now, or in the future, will be irrational. Soon with intercontinental nukes. A freaking scary prospect for anyone in the pacific region. If you believe this option, you kinda have to stop them before they have ICBM capabilities. Option B: they're rational. Soon with intercontinental nukes. In that scenario, their game plan is (presumably) to insulate themselves from attack by anybody, combined with future bluffing about what they'll do if they don't get aid etc. not the worst, but looking at decades of instability and always the risk if some nutter(s) do replace the rational one. However, if they're rational, and truly believe the USA is going to attack, then they know that they're done for. Even if they do a lot of collateral damage on the way. So the rational move would be to fold, and give up the nuclear program. The issue with my analysis is that it indicates whichever is true, building up for war may be the sensible move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toth Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 First thought of the day: You've got to be fucking kidding me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, ants said: It's a thorny issue. Option A: NK now, or in the future, will be irrational. Soon with intercontinental nukes. A freaking scary prospect for anyone in the pacific region. If you believe this option, you kinda have to stop them before they have ICBM capabilities. Option B: they're rational. Soon with intercontinental nukes. In that scenario, their game plan is (presumably) to insulate themselves from attack by anybody, combined with future bluffing about what they'll do if they don't get aid etc. not the worst, but looking at decades of instability and always the risk if some nutter(s) do replace the rational one. However, if they're rational, and truly believe the USA is going to attack, then they know that they're done for. Even if they do a lot of collateral damage on the way. So the rational move would be to fold, and give up the nuclear program. The issue with my analysis is that it indicates whichever is true, building up for war may be the sensible move. Option A They already can hit S. Korea and the 25,000 or so U.S soldiers in there so you will just add more to it. ICBM are scary for the U.S and Australia the most since other Nations of the Pacific region had to be concern for 10 years already and is not a new danger. Option B They are looking for a assurance against Regime change, ceasing of war games, and their biggest goal that will be the removal of U.S troops. Lessons of Iraq and Libya is get Nukes (or equivilant WMD) and keep them. North Korea has known they will be "done for" from the U.S for decades. That will be the case with or without so it is rational to keep them since the level of destruction N.K can expect never changed rather they had Nukes or not. North Korea also has been under the constant risk or a nuttier coming from the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 1 hour ago, ants said: It's a thorny issue. Option A: NK now, or in the future, will be irrational. Soon with intercontinental nukes. A freaking scary prospect for anyone in the pacific region. If you believe this option, you kinda have to stop them before they have ICBM capabilities. Option B: they're rational. Soon with intercontinental nukes. In that scenario, their game plan is (presumably) to insulate themselves from attack by anybody, combined with future bluffing about what they'll do if they don't get aid etc. not the worst, but looking at decades of instability and always the risk if some nutter(s) do replace the rational one. However, if they're rational, and truly believe the USA is going to attack, then they know that they're done for. Even if they do a lot of collateral damage on the way. So the rational move would be to fold, and give up the nuclear program. The issue with my analysis is that it indicates whichever is true, building up for war may be the sensible move. NK will be hoping that rational heads in the US will prevail on the irrational Trump and that the US won't attack, and therefore they don;t truly need to worry. If anything that may be NK's most irrational thought process if that's indeed what they're thinking. The US, at least the rational minds in the US, know that China really doesn't want military action in or by NK. The question is, does NK still listen to China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.