Wait to be bombed or bomb now?

Today, North Korea fires off another short range missile. 10'. Success!

Cheers

 

Here's some footage of the missile test:

 

="mbk734, post: 1067344251, member: 66946"]Here's some footage of the missile test:

[/QUOTE]

Let me guess, the CIA, FBI, NSA and British Intelligence all point to this evidence with "high confidence" that it proves the Trump administration spoke with Russians. Am I right?

Cheers

 

Well...I don't see California as being as valuable to this country as I used to....

 

Kim is making noise. In militar terms "demonstrating", what's up elsewhere?

Careful boys......

Cheers

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/asia/north-korea-prison-camps-new-satellite-images/


Only after I see Trump putting “liberals” in happy camps will I consider him as big a threat to the human race as the crazy fat kid and his barbarian allies.

I personally am willing to let the crazy fat kid attack first, if for no other reason than right now South Korea would get the worst of any attack. I consider our obligations to South Korea and Japan…to be US; “America first” includes all our obligations under international law.

“Throughout 2000 the Taliban continued to host Usama Bin Ladin despite UN sanctions and international pressure to hand him over to stand trial in the United States or a third country. In a serious and ongoing dialogue with the Taliban, the United States repeatedly made clear to the Taliban that it would be held responsible for any terrorist attacks undertaken by Bin Ladin while he is in its territory.” http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2000/2432.htm

 

Oh dear!

 

Obviously, we have a high potential for disaster here- the ability to build nuclear devices, now the ability to build ICBM's and the worlds most irrational, delusional and paranoid dictator in control of them. The probability of this person actually pushing the button in a moment of excessive self-indulgence would seem to be almost a given- and at a minimum, not a risk that should be allowed to exist. The people of N Korea aren't willing to remove him. His own power structure is unwilling to take him out as well, which probably would just put someone similar in his place anyway, leaving the imminent risk still on the table.

It would seem that a coalition would be appropriate- a multi-nation demand that the entire nuclear capacity and missile technology be dismantled and destroyed. It should have a deadline for agreement, and a deadline for compliance with total inspection. However, we have done such things poorly in the past and achieved little, and this leader is far less rational than others we have tried this with. I would see little chance of success.

In the alternative, the coalition could perform a pre-emptive strike; a single massive attack that would destroy all nuclear facilities and anything related to the capacity to produce nukes, missiles or advanced weapons, and perhaps all top leadership as well. Nasty alternative, but perhaps becoming the only rational one- and that is Kim's doing; he is creating the situation that limits the alternatives.

My father always told me that if a fight was imminent with some jackass bully and couldn't be avoided- hit him first and hit him hard, then hit him hard again before he can get past the initial shock. That isn't starting the fight- it's ending it as quickly and with as little risk as possible. Kim is a bully agitator threatening everyone and getting away with it. It's only a matter of time until that arrogance goes to his head to the point he really believes he can act on it, and that can't be allowed- and that means destroying the capacity to do so. The only question is how and when such action will take place.

 

I do agree. I've tried to be open minded (for a so called neocon) but I think your strategy is spot on, sensible, logical and with the least loss of human lives.

 

Why would you do something like that? Absorb a first strike? You'd be sacrificing your allies as well as your own citizens. It's goes against all logic, military and otherwise.

 

This ain't 2000. Neither Afghanistan nor Syria attacked us so...I think I'll stand with the fact that our weapons and intent form a much more serious threat than anything N Korea is doing.

 

Why exactly is your scenario realistic and why should anyone consider it seriously?

Do you have any evidence that North Korea would launch a nuclear strike against the US?

 

Support the above bolded claim with evidence.

 

Exactly.

 

so what? We ain't the world's policeman

 

There is many websites that state North Korea and Kim does not like America. It's up to you if you choose to believe or not believe but Kim did state in the past he wanted to see America burn so that leads me to believe he does not like us.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/792012/North-Korea-Kim-Jong-UN-hate-US-conflict-Donald-Trump-war

 

Perhaps Lil' Kim will learn to tone it down if he understands that that talk makes the Donald nervous, and when the Donald gets nervous, he gets dangerous.

 

I'm guessing OP poster didn't wish to engage this post.

 

I'm not the OP but here is my opinion...

I'm not for attacking NK unless we get help from China but i'm also not for waiting for NK to get nuclear warheads that can reach the US. It is a scary situation indeed and I hope Russia does not try to make things worse then they have to be. We need China as an ally if we want to take down NK with minimal loss of life.

Whatever happens, South Korea will probably take the worst of the fighting.

 

He has accomplished a lot of Tweets...............that's worth something, isn't it .........on the world stage..........Maybe

 

Well, I chose not to...is that ok? Do you want to make me reply? Do you believe in free speech? Or freedom not to speak? I find some people dont warrant reply. I'll give you an example.

"And just plain stupid.
It is no wonder your friends are worried about you"

My friends are not worried about me. They were however oblivious totally to the North Korean crisis. Understandably they dont want a war at all, they share some views of no war for any reason even preventative reasons, which I disagree with. But thats their right. But your comments in your quote are manipulation of words and unnecessary and provocative . So there you have it and I've proven such provocation as you were disappointed you got no reply. I know your type very well.
I chose to ignore you because your attitude, that of not participating in a rational debate is not within your capabilities. And thats my right.

 

Thanks for your input. Yes, I think Trumps hosting of China's leader could just be the best strategic move pre conflict.

 

And Khrushchev said he would bury the West. Clearly we should have launched a pre-emptive war against the Soviet Union because it was inevitable they would attack us.

 

I think, regards to my original post, there seems to be a creeping in of views away from my original bunch of questions

"What is the better timing than now? What further diplomatic measures could be taken that havent been tried"

The words "than now" tell readers I cannot see clearly that waiting is the better option. Waiting for NK to obtain the capacity to lauch a nuclear weapon via ICBM doesnt make sense to me BUT I respect people suggesting to wait until he does. I'm interested in views on why people think this.
People can call usvthat are on this side of the decisive fence, "neocons, warmongers" and the like. While its a shame also that those on that side of the fence arent intetested as to the way we think attaching warmonger to posters of my views is to not realise that I am promoting the very opposite.
Its a view of prevention of war through necessary action. Was it Washington that said "if you want peace be prepared for war" sadly

 

A good point. How serious is Jong un? Just today news has stated some nose cones on missiles during his ego pumping parade were loose...mock up missiles. Were the good operational missiles tucked away ready for launch. I suppose satellite photos are the best way to conclude and spies. ?