Sign in to follow this  
Bogie56

Trump and North Korea

520 posts in this topic

Trump Intel Chief: North Korea Learned From Libya War to “Never” Give Up Nukes-

 

"....North Korea’s 33-year-old dictator Kim Jong-un is not crazy, said Coats. In fact, he has “some rationale backing his actions” regarding the country’s nuclear weapons. That rationale is the way the U.S. has demonstrated that North Korea must keep them to ensure “survival for his regime, survival for his country.”

 

Kim, according to Coats, “has watched, I think, what has happened around the world relative to nations that possess nuclear capabilities and the leverage they have and seen that having the nuclear card in your pocket results in a lot of deterrence capability.” In particular, “The lessons that we learned out of Libya giving up its nukes …  is, unfortunately: If you had nukes, never give them up. If you don’t have them, get them.”....

 

....In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities....

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nukes-nuclear-libya-regime-change/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have been smart enough to know it was wrong and a disaster and would have not done it.

As for Kennedy, he did a fantastic job with the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Also, Bay of Pigs goes back to Eisenhower; Kennedy inherited it.

 

They only gave us Syria, Libya and Iran. Total failures and millions displaced or murdered around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Bush II gave us Afghanistan and Iraq. Likely

a higher body count than Syria, Libya, and Iran.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no easy, simple, or painless way out of the North Korean nuke debacle.

 

As usual, we can place "ourselves" (our government bending to the profiteering will of the military industrial complex) for much of this.

"We" always have to have a threat out there to keep us on guard. A cunning and ruthless enemy who desires to take us out for whatever reasons (fanciful or real).

 

The U.S. has had since 1953 to find some way to "normalize" relations with North Korea (as we have with many of our other past "enemies"), however "we" chose not to do so. 

 

Maintaining that hostility has it's own price, and fosters the type of environment that allows such totalitarian dictatorships to thrive.

 

Our hubristic history of invading countries that don't carry a "nuclear stick" also has the negative effect of making those nations that are politically opposed to us, and fear us, and have  the capability of doing so, to develop their own nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible.

 

It was that nuclear capability that brought us both precariously close to war with Cuba and the Soviet Union in the last century, and also (by luck or the grace of god) deterred it.

It was China's conventional and the Soviet nuclear retaliatory capability (as well as terrain limitations) that kept Truman and Ike from heeding advice to use tactical nukes against North Korea during the "conflict."

The same, a decade plus later (when China had their own nuke), that served as deterrent when General Curtis LeMay reportedly advised to "bomb (nuke) North Vietnam back into the "stone-age."

 

It was India's nuclear capability that pushed Pakistan to quickly develop their own nuke... And amazingly, those two countries who had once been at war with each other, are now afraid to do so again.

 

The "international" Nuclear Club is (thankfully) a small one, but so far no member has gone to war with another member.

 

It has been our promise to protect with treasure, blood, and our nukes, the sovereignty of Japan and South Korea (as well as our NATO alliance) that has allowed both to become economic giants. 

 

The time to "liberate" or "take-out" North Korea (if it ever really existed), without the potential for severe harm to our homeland and our allies (Japan, et al), may have passed. We are now faced with the dilemma of "normalizing" a relationship with an evil little tyrant (if it's even possible), or risking a war with far more horrendous consequences than most of us wish to contemplate.

 

Since the 1953 "cease fire" agreement, our "token" military presence in South Korea has been a sacrificial lamb, whose slaughter by an invasion from the north would serve as casus belli to (hopefully justify) an all-out retaliatory response from us, and hopefully limit all immediate casualties to that peninsula. We have since tolerated the tactical and mid-range nuclear build-up of North Korea, even though it placed Japan at risk. Now they can strike us directly in the heartland.

True, at this stage, they don't have many nukes to throw at us, but closer to their home their reach is more devastating. And any and all of our regional allies are now at risk, including Australia.

Only a madman would seek to provoke such a war, as they may presently "bloody" us here, while they will most certainly be totally destroyed by our retaliation.

But, the world has never experienced the kind of collateral damage that can arise from even a "limited" nuclear exchange, and the thought of one destroyed city, be it L.A. or Pyongyang, might be enough of a deterrent.

Still, Kim Jong-un appears to be determined to not rest until he can at least reach Washington D.C. with a nuclear warhead, and at most possesses a parity in long range nuclear capability that matches either China's, Russia's, or our own.

And one wonders about his despotic sanity.

 

How would(or will) we respond if (or when) a bully boy that can threaten us here as well as there, decides to invade, or more likely "blackmail" his neighbors, starting with the far more prosperous South Korea.

Would we really risk "our own" here, to die for theirs, there?

We have not really been faced with a conundrum that harbors the potential for such dire consequences, since Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia (and Putin's recent actions to regain control of the Crimea). 

Where do we draw a line? And once drawn, are we really willing to pay the price to stand by our word?

 

Donald Trump, is an old narcistic megalomaniac, and as much damage as he has already done to his office (and can yet do to this country, and the world, in the next three plus years), barring the total demise of the republic, his time with us is thankfully  limited.  Kim Jong-un is young, and his dynastic title is "The Eternal President of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Barring an early demise, he will be a thorn with us and the world for a great many more years. 

If rational minds prevail, we will find some way to deal with North Korea, if not on a more amicable scale, then at least "ignore" them with the same presence of mind that we did with the former Soviet Union...

However, many still wonder what horrors could have been spared if Hitler could have been covertly taken-out well before the onset of WW2.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our history of invading countries that don't carry a "nuclear stick" also has the negative effect of making those nations that are politically opposed to us, and fear us, and have  the capability of doing so, to develop their own nuclear deterrent as quickly as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned about North Korea's submarine and development of an underwater launch system.  A little relieve South Korea is building up a submarine force as well.

 

North Korea's test firing of an underwater missile.

 

north-korea.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Intel Chief: North Korea Learned From Libya War to “Never” Give Up Nukes-

 

"....North Korea’s 33-year-old dictator Kim Jong-un is not crazy, said Coats. In fact, he has “some rationale backing his actions” regarding the country’s nuclear weapons. That rationale is the way the U.S. has demonstrated that North Korea must keep them to ensure “survival for his regime, survival for his country.”

 

Kim, according to Coats, “has watched, I think, what has happened around the world relative to nations that possess nuclear capabilities and the leverage they have and seen that having the nuclear card in your pocket results in a lot of deterrence capability.” In particular, “The lessons that we learned out of Libya giving up its nukes …  is, unfortunately: If you had nukes, never give them up. If you don’t have them, get them.”....

 

....In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities....

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nukes-nuclear-libya-regime-change/

 

This fits in with the Republican-Conservative credo that if everyone had guns, we would all be safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If rational minds prevail, we will find some way to deal with North Korea, if not on a more amicable scale, then at least "ignore" them with the same presence of mind that we did with the former Soviet Union...

However, many still wonder what horrors could have been spared if Hitler could have been covertly taken-out well before the onset of WW2.

it would be incredibly short-sighted to look for some long term status quo with kim jung ph uk.  :) the little ugly sheet is firing off ICBMs and rushing torwards a capacity to target the west coast and alaska. no way this situation can be accepted. the phony SoCal liberal hollywood celeb hypocrite 1%ers sure ain't gonna have it....

 

because it is now gonna be their as ses and their properties on the firing line. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be incredibly short-sighted to look for some long term status quo with kim jung ph uk.  :) the little ugly sheet is firing off ICBMs and rushing torwards a capacity to target the west coast and alaska. no way this situation can be accepted. the phony SoCal liberal hollywood celeb hypocrite 1%ers sure ain't gonna have it....

 

because it is now gonna be their as ses and their properties on the firing line. :lol:

 

So, you still have not said what tough guy Trump should settle on as acceptable losses.  How many millions dead to put the tyke in his place?  How many tens of thousands of U.S. troops do you sacrifice?  You like to sabre rattle.  Come on and spit out the answer that Obama and the others wouldn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45]kUuht00m_bigger.jpgDonald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump

 

 

More

I am very disappointed in China. Our foolish past leaders have allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars a year in trade, yet...

 

...they do NOTHING for us with North Korea, just talk. We will no longer allow this to continue. China could easily solve this problem!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45]YUk99vQB_bigger.jpgKyle GriffinVerified account @kylegriffin1

 

 

More

The President of the United States is trying to shame a foreign power on Twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Atlantic had a cover story on the problem of NK and the author

listed four possible scenarios--an all out attack on NK, a limited

attack to get rid of as much of the nuclear infrastructure as possible,

decapitation of the top leadership of NK, including Kim Jung Un of 

course, and learning to live with NK having atomic weapons and

missiles that could deliver them. None of them is very palatable,

but he concluded that the last choice may be the best of a bad lot.

Kim may be weird, but he is not suicidal, which is what an attack on

the U.S. would be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

45]i8tEy72V_bigger.jpgNikki HaleyVerified account @nikkihaley

 

 

More

Done talking about NKorea.China is aware they must act.Japan & SKorea must inc pressure.Not only a US problem.It will req an intl solution.

 

 

45]LAWRENCE_ODONNELL_2_bigger.jpgLawrence O'DonnellVerified account @Lawrence

 

 

More

Lawrence O'Donnell Retweeted Nikki Haley

"Done talking" is the definition of a failed ambassador.

 

Considering the North Koreans are just about up to speed to hit Chicago,

I consider it to, indeed, be an American issue that necessitates an American solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more concerned about North Korea's submarine and development of an underwater launch system.  A little relieve South Korea is building up a submarine force as well.

......

 

 

Reminds me back in the 50's and early '60s, of what slight "reassurance" we had knowing that there would be at least 15-30 minutes warning from the time of a confirmed Soviet launch to U.S. touchdown.

Our teachers knew then what we didn't, that we (and they) would probably be instantly killed while in the process of walking home after an alert was given. No wonder they were always so solemn whenever we'd have one of those "walk home" drills.

 

An Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) has a minimum range of 5,500 miles. It enters space in an arch before the warhead (or war heads) re-enter the atmosphere over its designated target (or in the case of a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV), multiple targets). The warheads can carry conventional explosives, radioactive elements, biological or chemical agents, nuclear (fission atomic or plutonium bombs, usually measured in kilotonage destructive power ranges) or thermonuclear devices (hydrogen bombs, measured in up to megatons).

At that time the process was an approximate 50 min flight from deeply embedded Soviet bases. The missile reaches an approximate 750 mile altitude into orbit over the North Pole, with atmospheric reentry to most anywhere above the continental U.S.. The time from reentry to impact was about 2 minutes.

However, we and they had submarines armed with nuclear tipped missiles that could launch much closer to target. 

 

Our Polaris A1 missile was then a "mid-range" nuke, with an effective range of up to 1,000 miles.

The A2 was a solid fuel type capable of submersible launch with a 1,500 mile effective range, and each sub carried 16 missiles.

Two Polaris type subs, off both our west and east coast, could essentially target anywhere within the continental U.S.

None of these missiles needed to leave the atmosphere to do their dirty work, and the time from launch to target could be as little as five or ten minutes, without any warning.

 

Of course a land mass as large as the Soviet Union required more ummph, so the Polaris A3 entered service, with an extended effective range of 2,500 miles and tipped with three MRV warheads, each.

These were later replaced on the larger ballistic subs with Poseidon MIRV tipped missiles capable of from short-medium effective ranges of up to 2,500 miles, or up to 3,200 miles with atmospheric reentry.

From the late 70's on, the Poseidon missile was replaced with the Trident 1 on our largest Ohio class ballistic submarines.

Each Trident 1 was tipped with 8 thermonuclear MIRVs, and an effective range of 4,600 miles, and each sub carried 24 Trident 1 missiles.  Since then we've moved on to the Trident 2, tipped with up to 12, ever more powerful, MIRV warheads, and an effective ICBM range exceeding 7,400 miles.

 

But a "modern" navy with nuclear powered aircraft carriers and submarines is an expense that very few nations can afford.

The Russians and Chinese have similar capabilities, as do the British and French (though on a much smaller scale).

Less expensive surface ships and diesel powered submarines are also used as ballistic launchers.

 

The main differences between land launched ICBM's and sea and submersible launches, is of course proximity to target, requiring shorter range missiles and less sophisticated targeting and guidance technology, and little to no warning.

A terrestrial launched ICBM can be traced back to it's point of origin much easier than a mobile seagoing, or submersible launched missile. Whereas determining who is responsible for the sea launch can be more difficult.

The high tech route that North Korea is currently pursuing almost always leaves a traceable "signature." 

 

When it comes to rogue nations and terrorist groups, simpler and much cheaper methods can almost have the same effect. Smaller kilotonage "suitcase" type weapons that can be carried by an individual (or several individuals). Chemical, biologic or radioactive elements (i.e. plutonium) released from small aircraft or drones over a large area, or dispersed by conventional explosives.

 

I'm afraid that we are taking a giant step backward to that fearful "brave new world" when we first entered the "atomic age."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you still have not said what tough guy Trump should settle on as acceptable losses.  How many millions dead to put the tyke in his place?  How many tens of thousands of U.S. troops do you sacrifice?  You like to sabre rattle.  Come on and spit out the answer that Obama and the others wouldn't. 

it's all about trashing trump with you. you talk about obama....who did accept the north korean situation by doing nothing just as george w. bush equally did nothing also.

 

you wanna fault trump for sabre rattling? well what else is he supposed to do? placate the ugly little psychopath with words of impotent useless diplomacy? north korea has to be neutralized. the hypocrite SoCal celeb phonies will be among the first to demand it because it will be their azzes that get targeted.

 

like rush used to say. what is a liberal but a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.  :D

 

I think it will be most interesting to see the effect that north korean ICBMs have on the liberal hollywood mentality.

 

it might even take their minds off climate change.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will be most interesting to see the effect that north korean ICBMs have on the liberal hollywood mentality.

 

it might even take their minds off climate change. 

 

You might be stunned to hear this, but a lot of people are capable of thinking about more than one thing at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's all about trashing trump with you. you talk about obama....who did accept the north korean situation by doing nothing just as george w. bush equally did nothing also.

 

you wanna fault trump for sabre rattling? well what else is he supposed to do? placate the ugly little psychopath with words of impotent useless diplomacy? north korea has to be neutralized. the hypocrite SoCal celeb phonies will be among the first to demand it because it will be their azzes that get targeted.

 

like rush used to say. what is a liberal but a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet.  :D

 

I think it will be most interesting to see the effect that north korean ICBMs have on the liberal hollywood mentality.

 

it might even take their minds off climate change.  :lol:

 

No it's not all about blaming Trump.  I'm just pointing out the conundrum that he faces.  The very same conundrum that Obama and others faced that you thought was going to be so easily dealt with by a tough Trump.  So, what are the acceptable losses in millions of deaths with your plan of pre-emptive military action?  And you know attack by North Korea though while a threat is hardly inevitable.  There is something called mutually assured destruction and if NK ever did launch an attack there would be absolutely nothing left of that country in very short order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jakeem, on 30 Jul 2017 - 6:32 PM, said:snapback.png

 

45]i8tEy72V_bigger.jpgNikki HaleyVerified account @nikkihaley


More



Done talking about NKorea.China is aware they must act.Japan & SKorea must inc pressure.Not only a US problem.It will req an intl solution.

jakeem, on 30 Jul 2017 - 6:33 PM, said:snapback.png

 

45]LAWRENCE_ODONNELL_2_bigger.jpgLawrence O'DonnellVerified account @Lawrence


More


Lawrence O'Donnell Retweeted Nikki Haley

"Done talking" is the definition of a failed ambassador.

Haley was a failure as a governor and now will be a bigger failure as an ambassador.  Being an Indian American does not endow you with any kind of international understanding or skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not all about blaming Trump.  I'm just pointing out the conundrum that he faces.  The very same conundrum that Obama and others faced that you thought was going to be so easily dealt with by a tough Trump.  So, what are the acceptable losses in millions of deaths with your plan of pre-emptive military action?  And you know attack by North Korea though while a threat is hardly inevitable.  There is something called mutually assured destruction and if NK ever did launch an attack there would be absolutely nothing left of that country in very short order.

 

That may be the best solution, let them make the first movie and this time FINISH THE JOB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jakeem, on 30 Jul 2017 - 6:32 PM, said:snapback.png

jakeem, on 30 Jul 2017 - 6:33 PM, said:snapback.png

Haley was a failure as a governor and now will be a bigger failure as an ambassador. Being an Indian American does not endow you with any kind of international understanding or skills.

 

Until you brought this up, I had no idea that the Ambassador was of Indian descent.

 

So I looked her up and I found out that she was a two-term governor in your state.

 

She must have done something right to be elected twice, but on the other hand I do see that she had a good response to that Dylann Roof shooting and had that Confederate flag taken down. So she did at least one good thing.

 

I don't think anyone's ethnicity or race has anything to do with whether or not they can hold any particular public office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

jakeem, on 30 Jul 2017 - 6:32 PM, said:snapback.png

jakeem, on 30 Jul 2017 - 6:33 PM, said:snapback.png

Haley was a failure as a governor and now will be a bigger failure as an ambassador.  Being an Indian American does not endow you with any kind of international understanding or skills.

 

notice how o'dunsal faults a conservative for her non-caucasian ancestry. they like it better when conservatives are white.

 

liberals like o'dunsal are ready to abase even their own race to show the oppressed non-white minorities how sorrowful they are for their imagined collective guilt of the white race...

 

 

sick.

:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until you brought this up, I had no idea that the Ambassador was of Indian descent.

 

So I looked her up and I found out that she was a two-term governor in your state.

 

She must have done something right to be elected twice, but on the other hand I do see that she had a good response to that Dylann Roof shooting and had that Confederate flag taken down. So she did at least one good thing.

 

I don't think anyone's ethnicity or race has anything to do with whether or not they can hold any particular public office.

Her ethnicity probably helped get her the UN position, along with her many taxpayer funded "economic" trips to Europe and elsewhere.  This was the extent of her international experience.  

Of course, it also removed her from governor's office and permitted a very early Trump supporter to become governor.

She was governor twice, but then Brownback is two term governor of KS.

She primarily was in a good position when some large corporations came calling and took credit for it.  Of course, there were many, many millions of incentives provided.

She also opposed most health care, education, transportation, etc. related improvements in the state.  Her appointments make Trumps look brilliant.  Had a very poor relationship with the state legislature.

The only thing she did right IMO was on the flag and that was probably political in order to gain national stature as her prospects in SC were over.   She appointed one incumbent US Senator and Lindsey Graham would beat her terribly in a primary.

Could try for Congress as Mark Sanford did, but she would face formidable opponents there. 

She won the governorship primarily because S.C. hasn't voted for a Democrat in decades except for Hodges, '99-'03 who won because he advocated a lottery.  She came very close to losing her elections, especially the first one.  Sarah Palin helped her get the GOP nomination for governor the first time.  That was when Palin was riding high in GOP circles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before Haley was against the Confederate flag, she was for it.

I recall her making one statement that foreign companies

thinking of locating to SC don't really have any problem with

it. So it they don't why should I? Sadly it took a mass murder

for her to change her mind. There was even a minor sex

scandal when she ran the first time, though it never came

to anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before Haley was against the Confederate flag, she was for it.

I recall her making one statement that foreign companies

thinking of locating to SC don't really have any problem with

it. So it they don't why should I? Sadly it took a mass murder

for her to change her mind. There was even a minor sex

scandal when she ran the first time, though it never came

to anything.

I believe it was the governor of Alabama who was recently in a major sex scandal. And you say this one was a minor sex scandal; would you mind elaborating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it was the governor of Alabama who was recently in a major sex scandal. And you say this one was a minor sex scandal; would you mind elaborating?

Yes, the now ex-governor of Alabama was in a big scandal. It's

been a while, but as I remember, some well known guy said that

Haley had an extramarital affair with someone, either himself or

someone else. She denied it and it never went any further. She

won the election and the rest is history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us