US Military Plans Bombing Strikes On North Korea

[Bengalzona]

(08-11-2017, 12:47 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Roughly how many KIA?  Is that more or less than the KIA in Iraq over nonexistent WMD programs?

Without going through and counting (because I am lazy), I'm going to assume that there is not really a comparison. We clearly lost a lot more troops in Iraq over the course of our involvement there. But Iraq WMD was also a Bush Jr./Cheney boondoogle, not a Trump screw-up.

The Trump Admin really hasn't done a lot of killing so far (outside of supporting taking away folks' insurance). They bombed an airfield, after they sent a warning for everyone to "get out and run away!". They dropped "the Mother-of-All-Bombs" in Nangarhar Province in Afghanistan. The Afghans reported 94 ISIS-type individuals were killed in that blast. They sent some special-ops dudes into Yemen, which got a SEAL killed.

Obama was able to kill 2,160 islamic militants and 67 civilians in drone strikes in Pakistan alone from 2008 to 2013. It looks like the Trumpies need to up their game if they want to keep up with "wimpy Obama"!

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-11-2017, 09:15 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: North Korea has the military capability to destroy South Korea now.

But I don't believe they want to destroy them. I believe they want to complete a reunification of the country. North Korea has never had the capability to do that alone. They tried it once with Russia and China backing them and it didn't work.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-11-2017, 02:52 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:

I don't love war and death, but I do love putting our foot up people's asses when they threaten our safety and the safety of others.

I love taking a stand and not just waiting for something bad to happen.  

Republicans love putting a figurative boot in some other country's ass as long as it doesn't literally involve their boots on the ground. It's their porn.

Quote:Really?  Trump attacked a base that had launched a chemical weapons attack on civilians, and you're criticizing it?

It was both a tactical and strategic failure. They had advanced warning so the mission was compromised before it began. The airfield was up and running again in less than 24 hours. It didn't stop future chemical attacks or other violations of the law of warfare (e.g. bombing a hospital killing civilian healthcare providers.) The missile strike killed part of the civilian population the missile strike was allegedly meant to protect. The missile strike violated the UN resolution imposing sanctions against Syria for using chemical weapons. By violating the same international law which imposed the sanctions against Syria, the US weakened its own ability to enforce those sanctions against Syria in the future. The US further strained an already tenuous situation.

It amounted to nothing more than an expensive publicity stunt for Trump and a temporary halt to his declining approval rating.

Quote:Even liberals said he did the right thing.

You mean those people who you claim are idiots? Just because some people say one thing you agree with doesn't make them correct.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-11-2017, 09:26 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: But I don't believe they want to destroy them. I believe they want to complete a reunification of the country. North Korea has never had the capability to do that alone. They tried it once with Russia and China backing them and it didn't work.

How long have we been in Afghanistan with no end in sight? North Korea would be so much worse.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-11-2017, 09:25 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Without going through and counting (because I am lazy), I'm going to assume that there is not really a comparison. We clearly lost a lot more troops in Iraq over the course of our involvement there. But Iraq WMD was also a Bush Jr./Cheney boondoogle, not a Trump screw-up.

The Trump Admin really hasn't done a lot of killing so far (outside of supporting taking away folks' insurance). They bombed an airfield, after they sent a warning for everyone to "get out and run away!". They dropped "the Mother-of-All-Bombs" in Nangarhar Province in Afghanistan. The Afghans reported 94 ISIS-type individuals were killed in that blast. They sent some special-ops dudes into Yemen, which got a SEAL killed.

Obama was able to kill 2,160 islamic militants and 67 civilians in drone strikes in Pakistan alone from 2008 to 2013. It looks like the Trumpies need to up their game if they want to keep up with "wimpy Obama"!

I was looking at it from the angle of how many people did the US kill in Iraq over a pack of lies vs. how many people did North Korea kill during those incursions. I would wager the US is responsible for more deaths in just that one country since 2003 than North Korea since 1953.

Many Americans fail to see how our actions affect our international standing. Pointing out someone's hands are covered in blood is a really ineffective tactic when the hand doing the finger pointing is dripping blood.

[Matt_Crimson]

(08-11-2017, 09:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How long have we been in Afghanistan with no end in sight?  North Korea would be so much worse.

I guess I'm confused at what you're insinuating here. If you're arguing that the US has caused more destruction than North Korea then I would say yes they have, but the comparisons aren't really realistic. You're comparing a small deprived country to the United States and saying "look at who's doing the bombing". We are invested militarily around the world because we have the capability to do that.

If North Korea was as powerful as the United States history and the world map would be much different.

[Arturo Bandini]

Just a question.

Is the president the only one to decide for a nuclear strike ?

[Belsnickel]

(08-11-2017, 10:01 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Just a question.

Is the president the only one to decide for a nuclear strike ?

Technically? Yes. Now, if at any step along the way there is enough of a mutiny, for lack of a better word, it can be stopped. That is unlikely, though, and the POTUS does not have to consult Congress or anything first.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-nuclear-weapon-launch/

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-11-2017, 10:01 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I guess I'm confused at what you're insinuating here. If you're arguing that the US has caused more destruction than North Korea then I would say yes they have, but the comparisons aren't really realistic. You're comparing a small deprived country to the United States and saying "look at who's doing the bombing". We are invested militarily around the world because we have the capability to do that.

If North Korea was as powerful as the United States history and the world map would be much different.

I'm insinuating North Korea is a can of worms we don't want to open. The loss of life on our side will be so much worse than Afghanistan. If we can't get the F out of Afghanistan after almost 1.5 decades, how are we going to fight in Afghanistan and North Korea simultaneously and accomplish the mission and get the F out of either country? It's not going to be nearly as easy as some seem to think. Plus there is the unintended consequences aspect to consider, e.g. Iraq. Our actions in Iraq resulted in unintended consequences which made everything in that theater worse. Specifically the rise of ISIS.

[*jason*]

(08-11-2017, 10:27 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I'm insinuating North Korea is a can of worms we don't want to open. The loss of life on our side will be so much worse than Afghanistan. If we can't get the F out of Afghanistan after almost 1.5 decades, how are we going to fight in Afghanistan and North Korea simultaneously and accomplish the mission and get the F out of either country? It's not going to be nearly as easy as some seem to think. Plus there is the unintended consequences aspect to consider, e.g. Iraq. Our actions in Iraq resulted in unintended consequences which made everything in that theater worse. Specifically the rise of ISIS.

Especially when that can of worms may also contain millions of Chinese pouring over the Yalu River. Anyone who was there in the 50's knows what a good time that was.

[Millhouse]

So what should the U.S. and the world do?

The same approach over the last few decades, with the result being them building more and more nukes with more ICBMs as diplomacy, no matter who does it, will not work? All the while perfecting that technology and constantly making threats on wiping out our country? Not just verbal threats, but showing videos of them doing so. And when they do have a massive stockpile 10 to 20 years from now, it will be too late to do anything about it.

We will just have to cross our fingers and hope that this soulless ultra-militaristic nation with a lifelong sadistic dictator wont use them on us or anyone. And people yapping about Iraq and Afghanistan. Blah blah blah. Those countries and Islamic groups never posed a threat as great as North Korea is right now. They have explicitly stated they want to destroy us with nukes, and they are building the capabilities to do so.

But hey, if they do use them on us someday down the road and we never took action, at least we can hold our heads high while seeing it all end around us and say, 'at least we didn't have any bloodshed in not preventing in our destruction.'

[*jason*]

(08-11-2017, 11:30 AM)Millhouse Wrote: So what should the U.S. and the world do?

The same approach over the last few decades, with the result being them building more and more nukes with more ICBMs as diplomacy, no matter who does it, will not work? All the while perfecting that technology and constantly making threats on wiping out our country? Not just verbal threats, but showing videos of them doing so. And when they do have a massive stockpile 10 to 20 years from now, it will be too late to do anything about it.

We will just have to cross our fingers and hope that this soulless ultra-militaristic nation with a lifelong sadistic dictator wont use them on us or anyone. And people yapping about Iraq and Afghanistan. Blah blah blah. Those countries and Islamic groups never posed a threat as great as North Korea is right now. They have explicitly stated they want to destroy us with nukes, and they are building the capabilities to do so.

But hey, if they do use them on us someday down the road and we never took action, at least we can hold our heads high while seeing it all end around us and say, 'at least we didn't have any bloodshed in not preventing in our destruction.'

Why do you suppose we didn't attack the Soviet Union when they threatened to "bury" the United States at the United Nations all those years ago. Does making a video of the act push the threat over the edge?

[Millhouse]

(08-11-2017, 11:44 AM)jason Wrote: Why do you suppose we didn't attack the Soviet Union when they threatened to "bury" the United States at the United Nations all those years ago. Does making a video of the act push the threat over the edge?

I'm assuming we didn't attack because of mutual assured destruction.

[*jason*]

(08-11-2017, 11:50 AM)Millhouse Wrote: We didn't attack because of mutual assured destruction.

Do you think the Chinese will sit back if we lob a nuke or two at their neighbor and ally? I mean I know we crossed into China the first go round into Korea. I just have a hard time picturing the United States sitting back and letting China attack Mexico if the shoe were on the other foot.

[Belsnickel]

(08-11-2017, 11:55 AM)jason Wrote: Do you think the Chinese will sit back if we lob a nuke or two at their neighbor and ally? I mean I know we crossed into China the first go round into Korea. I just have a hard time picturing the United States sitting back and letting China attack Mexico if the shoe were on the other foot.

Not to mention the Soviet Union Russia. We're playing in their back yard as well as China's, and none of them want war on the Korean peninsula. That would be the end result if we make a preemptive strike, and they would side with NK.

[Millhouse]

(08-11-2017, 11:55 AM)jason Wrote: Do you think the Chinese will sit back if we lob a nuke or two at their neighbor and ally? I mean I know we crossed into China the first go round into Korea. I just have a hard time picturing the United States sitting back and letting China attack Mexico if the shoe were on the other foot.

When I did mention using nukes on them? Only reason I would support a nuke attack on them if they launch one first. Otherwise I would never support that.
 
Anyways, my question was what should be done. Based on your questions as answers, I am assuming you want nothing to be done and we will just have to cross our fingers hoping they will never use them on us in the future.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-11-2017, 12:05 PM)Millhouse Wrote: When I did mention using nukes on them? Only reason I would support a nuke attack on them if they launch one first. Otherwise I would never support that.
 
Anyways, my question was what should be done. Based on your questions as answers, I am assuming you want nothing to be done and we will just have to cross our fingers hoping they will never use them on us in the future.  

The tool bag is not strike or "nothing." Diplomatic options are vast, as are military and espionage options. My only position is that making the first move militarily is not a wise tactic. It will result in a war on a much larger scale and result in many thousands of people, if not millions, including innocents dying. Foreign policy experts I have seen/heard expanding on this topic seem to indicate that there are still diplomatic solutions available to us and that military actions can still be avoided, and should be. I tend to defer to the experts on things like this.

[Bengalzona]

(08-11-2017, 09:49 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I was looking at it from the angle of how many people did the US kill in Iraq over a pack of lies vs. how many people did North Korea kill during those incursions. I would wager the US is responsible for more deaths in just that one country since 2003 than North Korea since 1953.

Many Americans fail to see how our actions affect our international standing. Pointing out someone's hands are covered in blood is a really ineffective tactic when the hand doing the finger pointing is dripping blood.

Certainly, our hands are covered in blood.

Which is all the more reason we don't have to take crap from NK.

[Bengalzona]

(08-11-2017, 11:30 AM)Millhouse Wrote: So what should the U.S. and the world do?

The same approach over the last few decades, with the result being them building more and more nukes with more ICBMs as diplomacy, no matter who does it, will not work? All the while perfecting that technology and constantly making threats on wiping out our country? Not just verbal threats, but showing videos of them doing so. And when they do have a massive stockpile 10 to 20 years from now, it will be too late to do anything about it.

We will just have to cross our fingers and hope that this soulless ultra-militaristic nation with a lifelong sadistic dictator wont use them on us or anyone. And people yapping about Iraq and Afghanistan. Blah blah blah. Those countries and Islamic groups never posed a threat as great as North Korea is right now. They have explicitly stated they want to destroy us with nukes, and they are building the capabilities to do so.

But hey, if they do use them on us someday down the road and we never took action, at least we can hold our heads high while seeing it all end around us and say, 'at least we didn't have any bloodshed in not preventing in our destruction.'

I generally agree that a new approach is necessary. Lord knows that I am no fan of Trump and his cohorts. But I do think that the hardline approach is worth it at this point. They wanted our full attention. Now they have it. They may find that it is not what they wanted at all.

I'm behind the President on this one.

[Millhouse]

(08-11-2017, 12:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The tool bag is not strike or "nothing." Diplomatic options are vast, as are military and espionage options. My only position is that making the first move militarily is not a wise tactic. It will result in a war on a much larger scale and result in many thousands of people, if not millions, including innocents dying. Foreign policy experts I have seen/heard expanding on this topic seem to indicate that there are still diplomatic solutions available to us and that military actions can still be avoided, and should be. I tend to defer to the experts on things like this.

Unfortunately those experts haven't had much of a say in the diplomacy over the last couple of decades then. 

Who knows, maybe Trump's rhetoric could be what is needed after all. He may not mean striking first, but if he gets China & Russia worried that he might, they may actually have to step up their game to get a leash on Fatboy.