![]() |
If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened (/Thread-If-a-North-Korean-nuclear-attack-happened) |
RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - GMDino - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 02:31 PM)Millhouse Wrote: But if they would strike us with a nuke first we would be mad for nuking them? I think that could set a dangerous precedent by letting the world know that if you nuke us, we will not nuke back. Even Hillary has said a few times over the years she would use nukes as President if we were struck first. I side with "yes" we would be mad. It's not R or D or Russian or Korean or American for me. That fact that we can destroy so much so quickly is madness. To me. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - GMDino - 08-10-2017 ![]() RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - GMDino - 08-10-2017 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/during-all-hands-deck-moment-trump-short-hands Quote:During an all-hands-on-deck moment, Trump is short on hands RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Interceptor - 08-10-2017 A view of North Korea as seen by South Korea. A view of North Korea as seen from within. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - TheLeonardLeap - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 05:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Which is why North Korea was so peaceful and had zero nuclear ambitions and threats until Trump took over as President. Right? All Trump's fault. Thanks GMD, for providing us with the opinion quip of some random person on Twitter. Your presence and contributions sure do make this forum better. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Belsnickel - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 06:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Which is why North Korea was so peaceful and had zero nuclear ambitions and threats until Trump took over as President. Right? All Trump's fault. An understaffed diplomatic corps has a detrimental effect on preventing hostilities. That was what the tweet was about. Do you disagree with that? RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - TheLeonardLeap - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 06:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: An understaffed diplomatic corps has a detrimental effect on preventing hostilities. That was what the tweet was about. Do you disagree with that? Yes, because Iran has been threatening to destroy us for what feels like decades now. A fully staffed diplomatic corps hasn't stopped NK from getting nukes, or launching nukes, or threatening to use nukes. Irrational people are irrational. Words don't work with them, hence why they are irrational to begin with. Words only possibly make you feel better about yourself for having tried and pretending it made a difference. If words worked, they would no longer be irrational people. Good luck with convincing the guy who came to power and purged a bunch of family members by shooting them in the head and burying them in shallow ditches, that he shouldn't be evil anymore. Didn't his wife go missing like year ago? Yeah, she's dead too. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Belsnickel - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 06:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because Iran has been threatening to destroy us for what feels like decades now. A fully staffed diplomatic corps hasn't stopped NK from getting nukes, or launching nukes, or threatening to use nukes. Diplomacy prevents threats from becoming actions. An understaffed diplomatic corps makes diplomacy more difficult. We often don't see what goes on behind the scenes, but what keeps foes like Iran and North Korea from actually making good on their threats are the diplomatic back channels utilized to prevent this from happening. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - TheLeonardLeap - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 06:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Diplomacy prevents threats from becoming actions. An understaffed diplomatic corps makes diplomacy more difficult. We often don't see what goes on behind the scenes, but what keeps foes like Iran and North Korea from actually making good on their threats are the diplomatic back channels utilized to prevent this from happening. No, what kept Iran and North Korea from actually making good on their threats is the fact that North Korea didn't have missiles capable of reaching the US and Iran didn't have enriched uranium. Both of those has changed due to a failure in diplomacy and negotiations. Don't get me wrong, having an understaffed diplomatic corps ISN'T good. You need them to deal with allies and other rational countries. That doesn't mean it would make a damn bit of difference on North Korea being crazy or not. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Millhouse - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 06:47 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, because Iran has been threatening to destroy us for what feels like decades now. A fully staffed diplomatic corps hasn't stopped NK from getting nukes, or launching nukes, or threatening to use nukes. This NK video was from over a year ago, after Obama had years to work with them, and with what I assume a fully staffed St. Dpt. Now they have started an ICBM program with reported small enough warheads to fit. Diplomacy has failed, period, in preventing them to obtain nukes. And if since nothing can be done thru diplomacy with Fatboy, the only peaceful solution is to do nothing while they keep building and perfecting missile technology with more powerful nukes. And in a few short years, they would realistically have the capability of wiping us out. And if they do wipe us out or most of us, then we would have done the right thing by not doing anything before that though... RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Matt_Crimson - 08-10-2017 (08-09-2017, 01:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Every country, every situation, is different--especially when compared to NK. There is no "one way" to handle threats of verbal attacks. Wait I'm a little confused here Dill. You're saying NK had no reason to trust our diplomacy, but what reason did we have to trust them? I may be mistaken, but wasn't it North Korea that crossed the 38th parallel and initiated what would become known as the Korean War? Wasn't it North Korea that attempted a reunification of the Korea's by force? I don't understand this "imperial aggressor" stance that North Korea has when they're the ones who decided to invade South Korea because they had Russia and China behind them. We found out during the Bush administration that the unusual digging that the North Koreans were doing during the Clinton administration was in fact a part of the North Koreans attempt to cover up a secret nuclear program while still under the non-proliferation treaty. The North Koreans even admitted what they were doing and pulled themselves out of the treaty altogether. If anything, I'd say North Korea has way more to prove in terms of trust than the US does in relation to them. Quote:I don't see any scenario in which NK carries out a nuclear attack on the US without extreme provocation, like a land invasion by the US. At this point I'm not sure of the sanity of the Kim regime. Part of me feels they just might be crazy enough to nuke us. Quote:Which is why diplomacy plus sanctions are the best option right now. Kim can't strike everyone sanctioning his regime, and sanctions would bring it down more certainly than military attacks. The US lacks leadership with any international stature right now. The question is whether people around the current president can manage the crisis. Sad that generals are the only reasonably competent diplomats on the Trump team. I'm not sure how diplomacy will solve anything in all honesty. When North Korea invaded South Korea they clearly showed what their main goal is, and that is the reunification of Korea. That will never happen under diplomacy. What the North wants out of "diplomacy" is for the US to pack their bags and get out of South Korea so that they can finish their reunification process. It's the reason they hate us. It's not because we're "imperialists". It's because we stopped them from successfully taking over South Korea and reunifying the nation. It's my personal belief that North Korea's goals of modernizing their nuclear capabilities has very little to do with "US aggression" and more to do with North Korea wanting to attempt another reunifying campaign against the South. I don't see diplomacy working as long as the Kim family is still the leadership of the country. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Vlad - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 05:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is this some kind of a joke? Attempts at diplomacy with NK goes as far back as Clinton, perhaps even farther. Here Billy say how the North Koreans have agreed to dismantle its nuclear program. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - GMDino - 08-10-2017 (08-10-2017, 11:12 PM)Vlad Wrote: Is this some kind of a joke? I'm aware that the latest spin is that NK is a result of the failure of Clinton and Obama. I'm also aware that the current administration puts more stock in tough talk than on diplomacy. And that they are utterly understaffed and unprepared to handle actual events versus the conspiracy and fake events they tweet about. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - TheLeonardLeap - 08-11-2017 (08-10-2017, 11:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm aware that the latest spin is that NK is a result of the failure of Clinton and Obama. He said "goes back as far as Clinton" which would mean Clinton, Bush, Obama. But by all means, pretend that he was targeting only Democrats, and that diplomacy can fix this if only Trump had a full staff. Which makes me wonder. If you think the thing that's keeping them from solving this diplomatically is a full staff, does that mean you think Trump is capable of solving this problem, when Clinton, Bush, and Obama couldn't? Because either you think Trump with a full staff is capable enough to solve something the last three Presidents couldn't do, or you have to admit you're bitching about not having a full staff because it's yet another thing about Trump you can ***** about even though you acknowledge it wouldn't make a difference. Choose. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Matt_Crimson - 08-11-2017 Quote:Australia vows to invoke mutual defence pact if NK attacks US In addition to this Japan said it will shoot down any North Korean missles fired by NK towards US territory. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Belsnickel - 08-11-2017 (08-11-2017, 07:21 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: In addition to this Japan said it will shoot down any North Korean missles fired by NK towards US territory. These are other world leaders trying to convince the US not to make a preemptive strike. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - GMDino - 08-11-2017 (08-11-2017, 12:04 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: He said "goes back as far as Clinton" which would mean Clinton, Bush, Obama. There have been a number of articles about this and how the right wing noise machine has placed the blame firmly on Obama (and less on Clinton) while allowing Bush and Bush to remain mostly blame free. That is what I was commenting on. I think that a person who was prepared to handle the job of POTUS would also know that there is a full staff for a reason. But a person who is used only hiring family because he can't "trust" anyone else is ill-prepared for the job. His choice of words proves that. His lack of attention to detail shows that. On top of that right now Trump is giving Kim everything he wants: A fight of words. Kim's propaganda machine is probably in overdrive about the American Menace. And they don't even have to make up an quotes. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Vlad - 08-11-2017 (08-11-2017, 09:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: There have been a number of articles about this and how the right wing noise machine has placed the blame firmly on Obama (and less on Clinton) while allowing Bush and Bush to remain mostly blame free. You realize that the recent "breaking" news by the Washington Post reporting that the NK's had 60 miniature nukes is a 4 year old story? Don't report on it when Obama was prez. Nows a good time. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - Vlad - 08-11-2017 (08-10-2017, 10:06 AM)Au165 Wrote: Maybe, it actually makes more strategical sense for them to hit Guam than a U.S. mainland target. Guam could actually capsize or sink. At least one Democrat thinks islands float. There are probably a lot more that do I bet. RE: If a North Korean nuclear attack happened - GMDino - 08-11-2017 (08-11-2017, 12:17 PM)Vlad Wrote: You realize that the recent "breaking" news by the Washington Post reporting that the NK's had 60 miniature nukes is a 4 year old story? That has zero to do with what I said. |