Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think it's a safe bet that NK will have the capability to nuke an American city within the next few years.

The problem being, there isn't an obvious way to stop that short of an all out attack on the regime, which will be a disaster for obvious reasons (especially for their neighbors to the south).

So it's looking more and more likely that we are just going to be entering into an age where we just have to live with the fact that NK could theoretically nuke us. The alternative being an incredibly costly and bloody war.

From the article, it says they have up to 60 nuclear weapons. It sounds like their nuclear program has far outpaced what people thought. Now that they have miniturized the warhead and they can put it on a missle, I bet they can hit the west coast if not now, but within 6 months.

Well, the Trump admin has it's 'big bad' distraction.

To be frank, Obama told Trump personally he was going to have to deal with this on January 20th.

I doubt this affects Robert Mueller if thats what you are getting at.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, the Trump admin has it's 'big bad' distraction. lol

yes, god forbid we are distracted from the soap opera in the white house by the legitimate threat of a nuclear North Korea

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
lol

yes, god forbid we are distracted from the soap opera in the white house by the legitimate threat of a nuclear North Korea


Do we shit our pants now or wait?

Originally posted by Sable
To be frank, Obama told Trump personally he was going to have to deal with this on January 20th.

I doubt this affects Robert Mueller if thats what you are getting at.

Why do you want to be Frank? Wait, he's a cool guy I guess.

No, it won't. But it can (and will) sway public opinion. So wait for the show, cos it's coming in full force and fat little Kimmy's going to be wearing devil horns and waving a plastic pitchfork.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why do you want to be Frank? Wait, he's a cool guy I guess.

No, it won't. But it can (and will) sway public opinion. So wait for the show, cos it's coming in full force and fat little Kimmy's going to be wearing devil horns and waving a plastic pitchfork.

I know you have never thoug NK wasn't anything more then puffing their chest. Anything can sway public opinion, that's the public right to have their opinion.

Going into N. Korea would be another blunder that would out scale the epic blunder that was the second Iraq war. Thousands of US deaths, tens of thousands Iraqi deaths and a 1.8 Trillion (and still rising due to associated costs) hole burned into US tax payer's wallet and for what? To kill Saddam and his two shitty sons, wreck the country and leave it an unstable and dangerous breeding ground. But hey, defense/weapons contractors and the rich investors got richer.

You want to deal with NK? You let the ****ing Chinese do it. You tell them to have Kimmy behave or we'll stop buying your cheap plastic products, your fabrics, your steel etc. China's going to notice a 450billion dollar loss more than we'll notice a 115billion one. But that's not going to happen, because Trump needs to have his Big Bad.

I doubt Trump goes to war with North Korea. Hes doing this so he has a nuclear detterant.

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
lol

yes, god forbid we are distracted from the soap opera in the white house by the legitimate threat of a nuclear North Korea

Bingo.

But yeah, dem Russians. Should we shit our pants now over them, or wait?

Originally posted by Afro Cheese
lol

yes, god forbid we are distracted from the soap opera in the white house by the legitimate threat of a nuclear North Korea

This will be a one day news cycle, then back to bashing Trump. Maddow will be on tonight saying how this is a conspiracy. And how Macedonians are a bigger threat

Originally posted by Surtur
Bingo.

But yeah, dem Russians. Should we shit our pants now over them, or wait?

#triggered

I honestly don't give a shit. Nothing will change. Plus I live near the east-coast so I give even less of a rat's ass.

Originally posted by Sable
I doubt Trump goes to war with North Korea. Hes doing this so he has a nuclear detterant.

The US has the largest or second largest (depending on Russia's true arsenal size) nuclear armament in the country, that deterrent's been there for decades

Originally posted by Robtard
#triggered

You were triggered? Okay.

Originally posted by Robtard
The US has the largest or second largest (depending on Russia's true arsenal size) nuclear armament in the country, that deterrent's been there for decades

I am talking about Kim, he is doing this so he has a deterrent.

Originally posted by Robtard
The US has the largest or second largest (depending on Russia's true arsenal size) nuclear armament in the country, that deterrent's been there for decades Fake news

Originally posted by Robtard
Do we shit our pants now or wait? Ever hear of multitasking?

Originally posted by Robtard
Going into N. Korea would be another blunder that would out scale the epic blunder that was the second Iraq war. Thousands of US deaths, tens of thousands Iraqi deaths and a 1.8 Trillion (and still rising due to associated costs) hole burned into US tax payer's wallet and for what? To kill Saddam and his two shitty sons, wreck the country and leave it an unstable and dangerous breeding ground. But hey, defense/weapons contractors and the rich investors got richer.Oddly enough, had Saddam ever been even nearly as provocative as the NK regime, I wouldn't have been surprised if even a Democratic White House opted to take him out.

In Saddam's case, it was the apparent posturing of having WMDs. In Kim's case, there's no doubt about the weapons.

So why hasn't anything been done about it? Basically, they are holding their citizens and the rest of south east Asia hostage.

I've heard that Generals are saying even we were to take out 90% of their military capability in the initial strike, they would still be perfectly capable of flattening much of Seoul in retribution.

So I do agree that regime change in this case would be a disaster (I don't agree with the general premise that it's always a disaster, though).



China has no interest in solving the problem for us. They know that it's a bigger problem for us than it is for them, and that we have very few cards to pragmatically play without risking the kind of disaster mentioned above.

As for the trade war/boycott idea... I'm guessing they would call our bluff. If you want an actual trade war with China then I think you're nuts.

Are we doing the history revision thing again? How lovely. Reality: Saddam stated over and over that he was abiding by UN rules and was not pursuing nukes up until the start of war. Several other countries backed his claim, even some of our allies. eg Remember when the Right thing to do was hate on France? "Freedom Fries!"

Wouldn't come to a trade war, China would lose more; it knows that. It's not happening because Kimmy's more valuable as a big visible enemy to frighten the rubes.

What's the solution to nuclear NK then?

There really is no solution, its the world we live in.

Originally posted by Robtard
Are we doing the history revision thing again? How lovely. Reality: Saddam stated over and over that he was abiding by UN rules and was not pursuing nukes up until the start of war. Several other countries backed his claim, even some of our allies. eg Remember when the Right thing to do was hate on France? "Freedom Fries!"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html

You really believe China would just capitulate? They would suffer from such a trade war, yes, and so would we. We'd run the risk of tanking the global economy in the process of fulfilling said threat. Which is why it's a bluff. Which the Chinese would be smart enough to know.

some problems don't have obvious solutions

so imma have to go with "i dunno"

And yet he said openly he had no nukes and was abiding by UN rules every time Bush gave him one of his deadlines leading up to the invasion.

If NK really wanted to be dealt with, China could force their hand. China is NK's major trade partner, if China stopped, NK would be more ****ed than it is now.

Fair enough.

NK threatning to strike Guam.

NK plotting Guam strike

The Guam thing is from a statement on their state run media outlet - aka, propaganda. Take it with a big grain of salt.

I'm amazed how the US intelligence community has morphed from being uselessly incompetent peddlers of fake news to suddenly being the font of infallible knowledge in such a short time.

Originally posted by BackFire
The Guam thing is from a statement on their state run media outlet - aka, propaganda. Take it with a big grain of salt.

I have heard this statement for almost 10 years regarding North Korea, and look where we are.

Originally posted by Sable
I have heard this statement for almost 10 years regarding North Korea, and look where we are.

Yes, they have yet to actually attack anything.

If they were actually going to attack Guam, they certainly wouldn't announce it on the news hours/days beforehand.

Disregarding threats and an advanced missile program way beyond what everyone thought based on they haven't attacked anyone isn't the right approach. The UN needs to deal a $50 billion dollar sanction to them. That will end this charade.

Originally posted by Sable
Disregarding threats and an advanced missile program way beyond what everyone thought based on they haven't attacked anyone isn't the right approach. The UN needs to deal a $50 billion dollar sanction to them. That will end this charade.

I didn't say it should be disregarded, I said it should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's obviously a serious threat and should be treated as such, but NK has a history of bluster and making threats and then not following through. There's also just nothing to be gained for Kim by attacking Guam. It would provoke full blowback from America and pretty much no country would back him at that point. Probably not even China or Russia.

Originally posted by BackFire
I didn't say it should be disregarded, I said it should be taken with a grain of salt.

It's obviously a serious threat and should be treated as such, but NK has a history of bluster and making threats and then not following through. There's also just nothing to be gained for Kim by attacking Guam. It would provoke full blowback from America and pretty much no country would back him at that point. Probably not even China or Russia.

Since its pretty clear he has a nuclear detterant, and NK is now an armed nuclear power, with over 2,000 artillary pointed right into S.Korea, he's got more chips then people think.

I don't think he does. He wants to remain in power, and he wants his country to continue to exist, those are the only things he really cares about. Attacking Guam, or SK or Japan for that matter will only ensure that neither of those things happens.

I thiml we are on two different lines. I am saying he has his forbidden nuclear program, which is a deterrant. He probbably wont strike Guam, but the fact he has nukes now with a ever so advancing nuclear program far beyond what we knew till now. He can keep going until he has a massive nuclear arsenal. Hundreds if not thousands, and whos going to stop him.

Yeah that's true, regardless of whether he actually attacks anyone anytime soon, him simply having nukes is a huge global problem, let alone having a lot of nukes.

Originally posted by Sable
I doubt Trump goes to war with North Korea. Hes doing this so he has a nuclear detterant.



Let's hope Trump is trying to just puff his chest but that sounded like Norman Osborn monologue bro. NK is a very unstable nation with a comic book level crazy head of state. Legit delusional. And he's afraid, terrified by what has happened to other dictators. The level of patience and strategy needed to deal with him requires a far better man than any of us can vote for. Worse, the person in charge is an even bigger man child than G.W Bush.

Sooooo I think a lot of innocent people might die if this goes sideways, including some in the West. We can't even trust the corporate interests to maintain the status quo as Kim is batshit crazy.

That is where you are wrong. Kim isnt crazy and as smart as you might think you are, hes smarter. He isnt afraid of anyone, everything you just said is dead wrong. Trump is smarter then Bush and wont be sucked into a war like both Bushes.

Both leaders are incompetent Manchildren.

Trump has already shown he is a hypocritical piece of shit by dropping the MOAB/bombing Syria, giving him nuclear capabilities when he is incapable of forming any sort of strategy and has the attention span of a gnat is also unsettling as ****.

Pretty much a lie, Trump didnt give anyone nuclear capabilities.

Originally posted by Sable
That is where you are wrong. Kim isnt crazy and as smart as you might think you are, hes smarter. He isnt afraid of anyone, everything you just said is dead wrong. Trump is smarter then Bush and wont be sucked into a war like both Bushes.

Kim is definitely batshit crazy but I never said he was dumb or I was smarter than him. Although I don't know how you can conclusively say he's more intelligent than me or anyone else on this board? Okay,

You say this....but Trumps statement and actions since taking office have proven that he most likely will if Kim makes bad tweets about him.

Google: Kim Jung Un isnt crazy. Expand your mind.

I can conclusivley state it because hes outsmarted people in smarter and tougher positions then some forum lurkers who think they are Gods gift to mankind.

It sure ain't perfect, but you know who North Korea is making look really good right now? The Iran deal.

Originally posted by Robtard
And yet he said openly he had no nukes and was abiding by UN rules every time Bush gave him one of his deadlines leading up to the invasion. which doesnt contradict anything i've said. if he was a power with WMDs trying to hide it from the world, he would obviously lie about having them. the fact remains that he confessed to purposely feeding into the narrative that he did have them in a more rounda bout way, so as to appear strong. WMDs were always a central focus of saddam's foreign policy.

i agree that if China wanted to stop them, then they could do so. i'm saying they dont want to, and threatening a trade war won't force their hand.

You know given the serious nature of the NK situation you'd think/hope the media would leave the Anti-Trump hysteria behind, but nope.

Originally posted by Surtur
You know given the serious nature of the NK situation you'd think/hope the media would leave the Anti-Trump hysteria behind, but nope.

I think in times of crises we should be extra critical of our leaders, NO MATTER who it is. The whole, us vs. them and unequivocal support of the public isn't usually a good sign imo. Especially now that Trump is given the thumbs up by God. Last time stuff like this started lining up, the US basically violates international law and invaded a country on a lie and anyone who disagreed was labeled as anti-American and a supporter of 9/11 terrorists by the vast majority.

My rule of thumb is that when a large part of the VOCAL majority is in favour of something, giving an ear to the minority is very important.

Your dismissal of criticism against Trump as Anti-Trump hysteria because we have to gear up for NK is kind of scary. Next it will be unpatriotic to critique Trump and those not in favour of attacking NK are communists. I -hope- that's a worst case unrealistic scenario.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I think in times of crises we should be extra critical of our leaders, NO MATTER who it is. The whole, us vs. them and unequivocal support of the public isn't usually a good sign imo. Especially now that Trump is given the thumbs up by God. Last time stuff like this started lining up, the US basically violates international law and invaded a country on a lie and anyone who disagreed was labeled as anti-American and a supporter of 9/11 terrorists by the vast majority.

My rule of thumb is that when a large part of the VOCAL majority is in favour of something, giving an ear to the minority is very important.

You can be extra critical without being hysterical though. It's a lesson the left needs to learn ASAP.

What you just said would also hold more weight if they weren't extra critical of Trump 100% of the time lol. They are. They whined because he got an extra scoop of ice cream.

Originally posted by Surtur
You can be extra critical without being hysterical though. It's a lesson the left needs to learn ASAP.

What you just said would also hold more weight if they weren't extra critical of Trump 100% of the time lol. They are. They whined because he got an extra scoop of ice cream.

why does the 'left' need to learn this lesson ASAP?

So what? He's an elected official. They should 110% critical 100% of the time. People in positions of authority should be criticized at all times and under a microscope.

You keep saying 'they' who are 'they'? That them vs. us mentality as if everyone who is critical against Trump has a team t-shirt is dangerous thinking. It's a sea of people with indistinguishable voices offering criticism. Also it wasn't just a scope of ice cream: Your statement is misleading. It was what it represented about his mentality but that's irrelevant. I'm sure some people ran too far with it but it's 2017, some ******* with social media always will. Doesn't make Trump criticism any less valid.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
why does the 'left' need to learn this lesson ASAP?

Because a majority of our media are left leaning.



Except they didn't do it for Obama. Not to the same extent. And I doubt they will do it for the next democratic president either.



"They" is the media. Yes, they whined over a scoop of ice cream, and here you are defending it lol. Cuz it speaks to his "mentality". It speaks to their mentality to whine over anything and everything. The "us vs them" is hardly unique to Trumpers, but okay.

Here you illustrate a perfect problem. You can't even admit the ice cream thing was asinine lol. You totally can, it doesn't mean you support Trump or like him. Bullshit needs to be called out, not just when Trump pulls bullshit.

Which is another reason I don't take them seriously. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, anyone? Barely a peep from the media. Trump gets an extra scoop of ice cream? Cover it. Sean Spicer has a flag pin and comes out with it upside down? Cover it. Person connected to the DNC arrested after trying to flee the country? Shh. Media outlets exposed for being reluctant to cover the Lynch/Clinton meeting? Shh.

Originally posted by Surtur
You know given the serious nature of the NK situation you'd think/hope the media would leave the Anti-Trump hysteria behind, but nope.

^ LoL, this guy. "Stop saying mean things about my Trump when NKs trying to kill us all!"

Alarmist and blind allegiance are a scary combo

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I think in times of crises we should be extra critical of our leaders, NO MATTER who it is. The whole, us vs. them and unequivocal support of the public isn't usually a good sign imo. Especially now that Trump is given the thumbs up by God. Last time stuff like this started lining up, the US basically violates international law and invaded a country on a lie and anyone who disagreed was labeled as anti-American and a supporter of 9/11 terrorists by the vast majority.

My rule of thumb is that when a large part of the VOCAL majority is in favour of something, giving an ear to the minority is very important.

Your dismissal of criticism against Trump as Anti-Trump hysteria because we have to gear up for NK is kind of scary. Next it will be unpatriotic to critique Trump and those not in favour of attacking NK are communists. I -hope- that's a worst case unrealistic scenario.

BINGO

Similar was done during the early stages of the Iraq war, if you dared open your mouth that Bush was wrong and that we maybe shouldn't be in Iraq, you were insta labeled an 'America hater", "don't support the troops", "unpatriotic" etc by these same types of people.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I think in times of crises we should be extra critical of our leaders, NO MATTER who it is. The whole, us vs. them and unequivocal support of the public isn't usually a good sign imo. Especially now that Trump is given the thumbs up by God. Last time stuff like this started lining up, the US basically violates international law and invaded a country on a lie and anyone who disagreed was labeled as anti-American and a supporter of 9/11 terrorists by the vast majority.

My rule of thumb is that when a large part of the VOCAL majority is in favour of something, giving an ear to the minority is very important.

Your dismissal of criticism against Trump as Anti-Trump hysteria because we have to gear up for NK is kind of scary. Next it will be unpatriotic to critique Trump and those not in favour of attacking NK are communists. I -hope- that's a worst case unrealistic scenario. there is of course a difference between "being critical" and framing every single issue in terms of "how does this help/hurt Trump?"

I think very often the teamsport aspect of politics is actually making a it harder to approach any given topic from an angle other than either being pro or anti-trump. And i think that ultimately is stifling a lot discussion, not encouraging it.