BREAKING: There's A Report That NK Tried To Launch A Missile

[Kathianne]

the report says it failed. More to follow?

[Abbey Marie]

And away we go...

[Kathianne]

And away we go...

Glad it failed, I hope that buys some time. The problem seems to me to be that China doesn't have the influence we'd hoped. Kim, I believe is truly insane and sees himself as a god. He doesn't give a damn about the people.

[KarlMarx]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9865&stc=1

Will the idiot who tried to start World War III please raise their hand

[jimnyc]

They issue threats, want to shoot missiles, but then fail. Regardless, I would think about somehow getting rid of this guy while they can. I can't imagine this getting any better, only worse.

[sear]

jc #5

The time to terminate the Kim Jong dynasty was before they went nuclear.
It's late in the game to entertain such thoughts now.

NK's artillery has been holding Seoul hostage for decades.
They'll reduce it to rubble if we resume the U.S. War in Korea.

[jimnyc]

jc #5

The time to terminate the Kim Jong dynasty was before they went nuclear.
It's late in the game to entertain such thoughts now.

NK's artillery has been holding Seoul hostage for decades.
They'll reduce it to rubble if we resume the U.S. War in Korea.

Of course that makes it MUCH more difficult, but not impossible. I'm not saying we should go into full blown war with NK, but there's got to be a way to turn them around for the better. I think their entire problem is their leader. Dang, many folks over there are eating GRASS!! I would be THRILLED if I lived there, and someone came in and made the little fat bastard disappear. I don't claim to have a single clue on how to make it happen, but he needs to go, IMO. He's a threat to far too many at this point. We need some sort of quick strike, and have the ability to defend against anything they may shoot in the air until he's gone.

[gabosaurus]

Kim is trolling us big time. All of North Korea's major occasions are marked by orchestrated parades featuring mockups of weapons it may or may not have. The Sun Day parade featured replicas of ICBMs, which NK has never been able to build before. Kim claims to have 20 and 30 mt nukes, which have never been tested.
The question is, will Trump respond to Kim's trolling?

[Drummond]

jc #5

The time to terminate the Kim Jong dynasty was before they went nuclear.
It's late in the game to entertain such thoughts now.

NK's artillery has been holding Seoul hostage for decades.
They'll reduce it to rubble if we resume the U.S. War in Korea.

Nobody should do anything about North Korea, then ?

Perhaps the threat will just .. magically disappear ?

I agree, it's late in the day to deal with NK ... but as they say, better late than never ?

[sear]

"Nobody should do anything about North Korea, then ?" D #9

Thank you for phrasing it in the form of a question.

No, that is not my position, neither stated nor implied.

Once again, you grotesquely misinterpret my posted words.

IF
we were willing to contemplate renewing active combat & or regime change for North Korea, the time to do so was when consequence risk was lower.

Waiting until now? STUPID!! If we didn't do it then, WHY NOW ?!?!

"Nobody should do anything about North Korea, then ?" D #9

All options are on the table.
The U.S. could act with impunity there.
But our Asian allies, South Korea and Japan are vulnerable, and within range of NK WMD.

I would consider it unethical for the U.S. to obliterate Pyongyang, at the cost of Tokyo & Seoul.

"Perhaps the threat will just .. magically disappear ?" D

Perhaps.
Why don't you contemplate that likelihood while you're feeding your unicorn?

"I agree, it's late in the day to deal with NK ... but as they say, better late than never ?" D #9

The name for such calculation is "risk to benefit ratio".

The substantial U.S. military presence in that region, & along the DMZ is ostensibly for the protection of South Korea, and beyond that, Japan.

I would consider it a betrayal, and I believe Asian culture would vehemently agree, if instead of deterring NK aggression the U.S. sparked an all-out military confrontation.

We might make out fairly well in that scenario. But our Asian allies might easily lose tens of thousands in population, and countless $hundreds of $Billions in infrastructure.

If THEY have that much on the line, don't you think THEY should have a say in whether we renew the U.S. war in Korea?

And let's not ignore the role of China in all this. It was China that helped battle the Korean armistice to a draw.
I know of no reason China wouldn't play at least as decisive a role in it this time around.

If we could persuade China to switch sides, we could take a closer look.

BUT !!

The person in position to do that most expeditiously is Kim Jong Un.

[KarlMarx]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but no one mentions the Clinton administration's role in this fiasco.

The 1994 "framework" that the Clinton administration entered into with the regime was, in effect, you stop developing nukes, we give you money. And, like all treaties made with regimes bent on getting the bomb, they lied through their teeth (as are the Iranians)

Furthermore, Loral Aerospace was allowed to sell critical guided missile technology to the Chinese, the NK's allies, in exchange for campaign donations. Technology that, no doubt, was then given to the NKs.

And here we are, years later, having to deal with the mess that the Clinton Administration, through its corruption, ineptitude, and plain old apathy, allowed to happen.

I can only imagine what a President Hillary Clinton would be doing in response to this situation.

[Drummond]

"Nobody should do anything about North Korea, then ?" D #9

Thank you for phrasing it in the form of a question.

No, that is not my position, neither stated nor implied.

Once again, you grotesquely misinterpret my posted words.

IF
we were willing to contemplate renewing active combat & or regime change for North Korea, the time to do so was when consequence risk was lower.

Waiting until now? STUPID!! If we didn't do it then, WHY NOW ?!?!

"Nobody should do anything about North Korea, then ?" D #9

All options are on the table.
The U.S. could act with impunity there.
But our Asian allies, South Korea and Japan are vulnerable, and within range of NK WMD.

I would consider it unethical for the U.S. to obliterate Pyongyang, at the cost of Tokyo & Seoul.

"Perhaps the threat will just .. magically disappear ?" D

Perhaps.
Why don't you contemplate that likelihood while you're feeding your unicorn?

"I agree, it's late in the day to deal with NK ... but as they say, better late than never ?" D #9

The name for such calculation is "risk to benefit ratio".

The substantial U.S. military presence in that region, & along the DMZ is ostensibly for the protection of South Korea, and beyond that, Japan.

I would consider it a betrayal, and I believe Asian culture would vehemently agree, if instead of deterring NK aggression the U.S. sparked an all-out military confrontation.

We might make out fairly well in that scenario. But our Asian allies might easily lose tens of thousands in population, and countless $hundreds of $Billions in infrastructure.

If THEY have that much on the line, don't you think THEY should have a say in whether we renew the U.S. war in Korea?

And let's not ignore the role of China in all this. It was China that helped battle the Korean armistice to a draw.
I know of no reason China wouldn't play at least as decisive a role in it this time around.

If we could persuade China to switch sides, we could take a closer look.

BUT !!

The person in position to do that most expeditiously is Kim Jong Un.

H'm.

Even though you don't rule out the possibility (or need ?) for action to be taken .. you have also added a few caveats along the way.

Here's a thought. Maybe N Korea wasn't tackled because of previous dithering ? Obama showed scant interest in dealing, decisively, with N Korea, and nothing was done. So, we have to fast-forward to today, and the prospect of that rogue regime having had MORE and MORE time to refine its capablities ...

Except, of course, it now appears that Trump doesn't want to follow his predecessors' dithering ! He wants something done, before the ICBM capability of N Korea is perfected.

I don't blame him !!

YES, it's late in the day. But with yet more delays, and excuses for delays dreamed up, so it'll be even LATER in the day.

How late is TOO late, and what consequences would that create, Sear ?

[sear]

"Even though you don't rule out the possibility (or need ?) for action to be taken .. you have also added a few caveats along the way.

Here's a thought. Maybe N Korea wasn't tackled because of previous dithering ?" D #12

Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush (elder)
Clinton
Bush (younger)
Obama
Trump

Ditherers all!

"Obama showed scant interest in dealing, decisively, with N Korea, and nothing was done. So, we have to fast-forward to today" D

You've very conveniently overlooked the other dozen U.S. presidents that share equal stewarship.

"How late is TOO late, and what consequences would that create, Sear ?" D

Good question for South Korea.

[Drummond]

"Even though you don't rule out the possibility (or need ?) for action to be taken .. you have also added a few caveats along the way.

Here's a thought. Maybe N Korea wasn't tackled because of previous dithering ?" D #12

Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush (elder)
Clinton
Bush (younger)
Obama
Trump

Ditherers all!

"Obama showed scant interest in dealing, decisively, with N Korea, and nothing was done. So, we have to fast-forward to today" D

You've very conveniently overlooked the other dozen U.S. presidents that share equal stewarship.

"How late is TOO late, and what consequences would that create, Sear ?" D

Good question for South Korea.

Your list doesn't impress me. Circumstances have changed over the years, and you're not addressing relevant context. For example, do you claim that there was a North Korea that was a nuclear threat back in Eisenhower's days ??

And, tell me. Your 'ditherers all' list ... included Trump !!! Explain THAT one. Surely, the point here is that Trump is NOT dithering as others have done ??

Sear, I see objections. Caveats. Arguments which criticise .. BUT, what I don't see from you is anything to lead me to believe that you don't support a position leading to yet more 'dithering'. What do YOU think should be done .. and, how soon ?

I fail to see, short of actually launching an all-out nuclear attack, what more the N Korean regime could do to prove itself a threat ! It's one we cannot live with indefinitely, do you agree ? Or not ?

[sear]

"Your list doesn't impress me." D #14

Why would it?
It's fact based, grounded in unrefuted logic. Did I omit someone? President McGillicuddy perhaps?

Republicans amuse me.
Many a stalwart GOP flag-waver credit Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War.

BUT !!

"The Wall" fell during the Bush (elder) administration.
Why does President Truman deserve any less credit for winning the Cold War than Reagan?

"Circumstances have changed over the years" D #14

Of what can that not be said? Rain?
Is there any circumstance that has changed it more, and more quickly and more profoundly than NK developing both nuclear WMD,
AND the delivery systems (missiles) to plop them on Seoul, and Tokyo? The capitals of two key Asian allies?

"you're not addressing relevant context. For example, do you claim that there was a North Korea that was a nuclear threat back in Eisenhower's days ??" D

For you to ask that proves you've COMPLETELY missed the point.

No.
I'm explicitly asserting PRECISELY the opposite!! U.S. policy of a dozen administrations (Democrat & Republican alike) kicked the can down the road, enabling NK to at long last threaten our valued allies in the region with nuclear WMD (in your words) "because of previous dithering ?"

"And, tell me. Your 'ditherers all' list ... included Trump !!! Explain THAT one. Surely, the point here is that Trump is NOT dithering as others have done ??" D

NK still has nuclear weapons, thus my comment. That wasn't so during the Ford administration.

I have NOT asserted Trump is doing nothing.

I think moving the aircraft carrier group to the region is an excellent way of putting pressure on China, to deal more forcefully w/ NK.
Early (preliminary) kudos to the Trump administration for this. I can't think of anything President Trump has done that has impressed me more.

BUT !!

It would be premature to start popping celebratory champagne corks here.

It's a promising early indication.
But we are far from a solution to the NK / WMD problem.

"Sear, I see objections. Caveats. Arguments which criticise .. BUT, what I don't see from you is anything to lead me to believe that you don't support a position leading to yet more 'dithering'. What do YOU think should be done .. and, how soon ?" D

Once I've been forced by hostage coercion to accept the role of U.S. secretary of State, I can offer a position on that.
I'm not refuting your observation.

Instead I'm several steps beyond it, simply exercising my First Amendment right to express an opinion.
There's no requirement in the First Amendment for me to express an opinion on that.

"I fail to see, short of actually launching an all-out nuclear attack, what more the N Korean regime could do to prove itself a threat !" D

It's not ONLY the actual use (though NK has reportedly already detonated multiple underground tests), but the CAPACITY to use, the mere POSSESSION of such weapons that is objectionable. Same reason convicted felons are not in several States legally entitled to their 2nd Amendment rights, a right they ostensibly forfeited by their crime.

"It's one we cannot live with indefinitely, do you agree ? Or not ?" D

I agree that SK, Japan, China, and the U.S. agree.
sear is not in a policy-making position on it. I'm not sure any opinion I could formulate on it would be worth posting.

My interest is in the intrigue, the strategy, as well as human welfare, and the geo-political outcome.

////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Part of the problem with totalitarian dictators is, they are accustomed to having absolute * power.
This pudgy dope murdered his own uncle, perhaps his most reliable ally in his crooked regime.
He also assassinated his own brother, and perhaps a "wife" or two.

The pop-psychology explanation for this is it "spoils" such leaders, who become temperamental, and with such vast power as nuclear weapons, exceptionally dangerous.

Twits like this have been known in the past to do an exceedingly foolish thing, out of frustration.

The raison d’être for the Kim Jong dynasty is self-preservation.
And if NK / KJU gets boxed in, NK may lash out in frustration.

Complicating that, consider the lesson of Libya.
When Libya / Quadaffy had WMD, we let him alone.
After he voluntarily rid Libya of them, we rid Libya of him, and have been paying the price ever since.

The U.S. has proven itself exceedingly ill-equipped to respond to the power vacuums it creates when it inflicts regime change on sovereign nations.

"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams

* - Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. - paraphrase of Lord Acton

But the quotation is:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,"
writes John Emerich Edward Dalbert-Acton, 53, April 5 to Cambridge University professor Mandell Creighton. Lord Acton is a liberal Roman Catholic and a leader of the opposition to the papal dogma of infallibility
Source:
The People's Chronology is licensed from Henry Holt and Company, Inc. Copyright © 1995, 1996 by James Trager. All rights reserved. (aka MS Bookshelf '98)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

jc #5

The time to terminate the Kim Jong dynasty was before they went nuclear.
It's late in the game to entertain such thoughts now.

NK's artillery has been holding Seoul hostage for decades.
They'll reduce it to rubble if we resume the U.S. War in Korea.

I find it utterly amazing how you made that post and did not mention Bill Clinton and how he helped NK nuke up(conveniently covering for Dems)...
I am sure it was mere trivial oversight on your part... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:--Tyr

[jimnyc]

I wonder how many MOAB's we currently have in our arsenal? At $170,000 a pop, that's a HUGE discount in comparison to the tomahawks. I figure if we sent 59 of them in Syria, at $1.6 million apiece, that's 94.4 million. At that same price we can hit the fat little guy with approximately 552 MOABS. Considering what damage was done with just ONE of those suckers, I would imagine 552 of them might cause an issue for the fat little kid. Take out their communications, nuclear sites, and then with the 500 left drop them all around the fat kids house.

[sear]

jc #17

Though you may not have explicitly done so, it's a mistake to consider each kiloTon as equal.

They're different munitions, with different purposes.

I agree, kill as many bad guys for the lowest possible $cost.

But Hellfire has a fairly specific application.

So does the MOAB, but it's a different application.

[jimnyc]

jc #17

Though you may not have explicitly done so, it's a mistake to consider each kiloTon as equal.

They're different munitions, with different purposes.

I agree, kill as many bad guys for the lowest possible $cost.

But Hellfire has a fairly specific application.

So does the MOAB, but it's a different application.

I merely compared the cost, and showing that if the same amount of money were used, what the approximate equivalent would be. If you spend similar, this is how many you can drop.

And of COURSE I don't expect them to do any of this, but it's what "I" would like to see happen. The little asshole needs to be dead. It's gotten this far by ignoring the problem, hoping it would go away and whistling in the wind. This guy WILL nuke someone if he gets the chance, I have zero doubt of that. If dropping enough MOABS at once to incinerate their country to the stone age works, I'm all for it.

In all likelihood, if anything, they will nail them with missiles from both ships and jets, and eliminate their nuclear facilities, communications and other things of importance, and set them back as far as possible. Hitting the clueless leader wannabe would just be a serious bonus.

[sear]

"I merely compared the cost, and showing that if the same amount of money were used, what the approximate equivalent would be." jc

Precisely.

And because it's a false comparison, because the lethality between the two is not identical, it's a bogus conclusion.

The question is not the cost.
The question is the cost per corpse.

"If you spend similar, this is how many you can drop." jc

You appear to be presuming lethality parity. And now for the 3rd time I try to explain, that assumption has not been proved.

"The little asshole needs to be dead."

Life in solitary might be an interesting experiment; and no worse than the horrors he's inflicted on others.

You want your blood chilled?

Check out North Korean prison camp #14 escapee Shin Dong-hyuk. The things this guy survived are so far beyond what any rational fiction author could come up with.

[jimnyc]

And because it's a false comparison, because the lethality between the two is not identical, it's a bogus conclusion.

Again your gibberish is cut, I'm not dealing with extended posts with someone that can't comprehend or figure out how to use the boards built in system and the manner in which everyone here uses.

As for your thoughts on my comparison? Who gives a shit. I know I don't care about your extend a post ranting BS. I simply made a comparison monetarily. I made no conclusions on anything. You seem to just want to disagree for the hell of it and invent arguments that aren't there. As for the rest of the gibberish, it went unread after this point.