wardialer wrote:

Now let me stress this again and I know I sound like a broken record here, I mean NK is throwing these hissy fits or threats for YEARS and YEARS and nothing has happened. The world is still spinning. So what makes us think that Kim will launch a strike?? I mean come on people, Really?

And also, it just drives me up the walls when I see these news alerts about threats from Kim and after a day or so, no news at all, the media is keeping quiet on NK.

Nothing will come out of this. But if Trump wants gain intel or a strike, then I think the best option for him as listed above.

That was before we had an unstable dickhead in the White House with a huge ass ego poking another unstable bear as said above.

Now Kim wants to strike near Guam in a matter of days. That alone is a direct threat.

Now it's breaking news that he may not have been "tough enough" and won't rule out a preemptive strike.

CH47A wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CH47A wrote:

I believe I saw a post toward the top of page 1 about starting a war.

I did go through the full list, both pages, and I tried to see if anyone had properly responded to that idea about starting a war. I didn't see that anyone had, but if I missed it, I apologize.

You see, ladies and gentlemen, it is not possible to start a war in the context in which the statement was made. The War has never ended. That is why the military command structure is a United Nations Command. I've worked in that Command Building in Yongsan. It is still a United Nations War. We are simply at a pause in the War.

So now that we have that clear, I'd like to ask y'all a question, please.

What do any of y'all think the reason is for there being no peace treaty yet?

I mean, that is hardly President Trump's fault. You reckon it is maybe former-President Obama's fault? Or any of the previous Presidents?

In other words: Don't blame the guy making provocative statements, blame everyone else. Typical.

I'm a tad bit confused, seb146. Do you mean that President Trump is responsible for the Korean War? AND he is to blame for there being no peace treaty? I have to use the punctuation indicating a second question, seb146, because that was the key question in that quote box you put in your post.

DPRK makes usual threatening statements, Trump makes inflammatory statements, DPRK responds, Trump makes worse statements, DPRK responds. But, somehow, Trump is not to blame because there never was a peace treaty. That is the basic premise of your post. Don't blame Trump when Trump sends us into nuclear annihilation, blame every other president before him instead. That is how I read your post. And it is laughable, if it were not so sad.

maortega15 wrote:

Now it's breaking news that he may not have been "tough enough" and won't rule out a preemptive strike.

If he had real balls, Trump would fly over to Pyongyang in AF1, land, and invite Kim to discuss the situation to seek a resolution.

It would be a risk to him personally sure, but I truly do not think Kim would shoot him down and it would prove Kim to be less than and Trump to be more than. A tremendous win for Trump (and we know how much he loves winning), his base would go nuts! If NK did shoot him down he would have died for what he believes (provoking apparently) and give the USA the opportunity to unload what ever arsenal of freedom is felt to be necessary.

But that would take balls (and the presidential candidate with balls didn't get elected now did she? /kidding).

I would love to be proven wrong (seriously).

Tugg

Dutchy wrote:

Those four missiles are aimed at 30-40km off the coast of Guam. That is enough for America to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths? So you reckon that China will do nothing under those circumstances? China and NK have a pact like the one in NATO, perhaps they will honor it, perhaps they won't, do you want Trump to gamble that?

I honestly don't know, maybe the NK do it and the US does the same, send an ICBM into the water 30-40km off the NK coast, maybe all hell breaks lose and millions die, hopefully we will never find out.

I think China would seal it's border with NK and see what happens, as I said, they are in a no win situation as well.

I wouldn't want Trump gambling on whether a bird will take a crap on the Presidential limo let alone gambling on a war.

jetwet1 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Those four missiles are aimed at 30-40km off the coast of Guam. That is enough for America to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths? So you reckon that China will do nothing under those circumstances? China and NK have a pact like the one in NATO, perhaps they will honor it, perhaps they won't, do you want Trump to gamble that?

I honestly don't know, maybe the NK do it and the US does the same, send an ICBM into the water 30-40km off the NK coast, maybe all hell breaks lose and millions die, hopefully we will never find out.

I think China would seal it's border with NK and see what happens, as I said, they are in a no win situation as well.

I wouldn't want Trump gambling on whether a bird will take a crap on the Presidential limo let alone gambling on a war.

Each and every side does the provocate thing. The US moves through an area which China claims as theirs, NK firing missiles like it was Quatorze Juillet, Trump taking a call from the rogue Chinese province of Taiwan, China building artificial islands in the South China Sea and claiming 90% of that sea without historical backing. NK is the junior here and thereby it could provoke just a little bit more, because when the grizzly gets annoyed everyone knows they are in for a hell of a ride. But alias, we have a US president which has such a small ego that he can't take a four-year-old trying to gain attention and just give him a pat on the shoulder and move on.

What are we waiting for then?

We need to just take out all Comms, Radar, and all of NK's missile launch systems by launching air strikes. And I am just shocked that the US has not ever done any action yet. This is the strategy that the Trump Administration should conduct. Only strikes on all communications and radar and missile launch systems and that's that. Now with that said, we do not want to take out Kim nor its civilians, because that would be devastating and we do want to avoid a full blown war.

We need some more intel on who is funding NK with these programs. Because NK alone would not have all this technology coming from NK, how??? Its a poor starving nation. Its got to be China or Iran funding this regime with all their missile systems...

And, Kim would never launch a missile because he knows very well that we have missile launch detection systems scattered throughout the Pacific region.

BobPatterson wrote:

I look forward to your opinion.

By carefully sabotaging the peace process between N and S Korea a couple of years ago shew that the US has massive interest in keeping the tensions up, up, up.

That strangely coiffed beachball is probably much less deranged than The Trump or
a wide range of thinktankers and strategists in the US.

If NK can't have peace, they have to go for something else....

Afaics this is supposed to turn into a refugee gift to China like the regime change ops gifted to Europe.
"Merkel loves you."

What I don't get is how the US expects to fend off its own demise by laying waste to other regions.
Reigning in resulting blow back takes up more and more energy. client nations are increasingly less
willing to step in for the US. Today the US has to more heavily bankroll their own wars.
Additionally arming up the warring parties has been taken up by other, cheaper low tech suppliers.

wardialer wrote:

1. We need to find out and do more intel on how NK is getting funded by their missile nuclear programs and cut those assets off. Maybe its China, Iran, or Pakistan that is funding NK. Just like we have done to ISIS, is by cutting their drug and oil cash flow from them. We need to do the same to NK.

If it was that simple, why hasn't it been done before? You know, before it became a big clusterfuck of a problem.

wardialer wrote:

2. Again, the US has the technology and intel to pinpoint or to collect on where these mobile or missile silos are and do a bombing campaign on them. And also, lets strike all of their comms and radar equipment as well while we are at it.

Do you really think, even with all its military might, the US can destroy the entire NK military in a single strike? If you can't, you can't stop NK lobbing some very nasty stuff at Seoul and possibly much further.

wardialer wrote:

Now let me stress this again and I know I sound like a broken record here, I mean NK is throwing these hissy fits or threats for YEARS and YEARS and nothing has happened. The world is still spinning. So what makes us think that Kim will launch a strike?? I mean come on people, Really?

NK has only recently developed ICBMs that very clearly work. It's questionable that they have nukes to fit them just now, but it won't be very long before they do. Are you still prepared to stand by and say "Oh, they won't do anything."? Appeasement has a pretty poor track record when it comes to despots.

Dutchy wrote:

Those four missiles are aimed at 30-40km off the coast of Guam. That is enough for America to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths?

How would you feel if those missiles were splashing down 40km from Amsterdam? That would be a lot less comfortable, wouldn't it?

scbriml wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Those four missiles are aimed at 30-40km off the coast of Guam. That is enough for America to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths?

How would you feel if those missiles were splashing down 40km from Amsterdam? That would be a lot less comfortable, wouldn't it?

Yes indeed, but that might be because I live 40km of Amsterdam

BobPatterson wrote:

Senator McConnell is not a victim. He is getting his just rewards. Only not in the form he had hoped for.

Actually I believe that McConnell is happy that the bills failed - the GOP version of Health Care would end up driving the GOP out of office. Unless, of course, the GOP passed a law saying only white folks could vote. Even then it would be a high risk.

Right now McConnell is far more popular in the Senate than Trump will ever be. He also has very strong support in his home state do why should he be worried.

Tugger wrote:

maortega15 wrote:

Now it's breaking news that he may not have been "tough enough" and won't rule out a preemptive strike.

If he had real balls, Trump would fly over to Pyongyang in AF1, land, and invite Kim to discuss the situation to seek a resolution.

Well, he DID say it he would be honored to meet Kim Jong-Un, so it only makes sense to take him at his word and push him to do it...oh wait...we shouldn't take him at his word in this instance or something.

I asked one community member here a question after I did not impolitely point out the absolutely insulting way that member publicly interpreted one of my posts and then that same community member just insulted me again. Don't you folks just love a free society based on a democracy that is more than just a name?

I saw somebody write something about how some official(s) of the United States somehow derailed some sort of peace talks and I am wondering what that community member thinks about the peace talks that took place before that example placed before us in that post I am sort of indirectly citing. I mean, I didn't actually do that quote box thing.

Now before I get to the most difficult question asked in about the last 5 hours, or so, I am going to wonder with my fingers on this keyboard why nobody wants to discuss the many, many provocations from the north side of the DMZ over the past many, many decades. Didn't the events that transpired before World War Two teach the citizens of this planet anything? So many of you folks seem so intent upon absolutely ignoring the brutal killings all over this planet by the regime that sits north of the DMZ. Some of you really seem to believe that all this trouble is the fault of a democratically elected official in these United States. Well, you have no idea how lucky you are to be able to post those views here and not have to worry about your life being snuffed out because your views don't fit with a ruling family. A kind of king by divine right type of regime that some of you folks want to inform the world is just not at fault in all this. That it is the President of the United States that has caused all this to happen.

You know, the three rulers of that country strangely named have faced all sorts of Presidents of the United States that have been polite and patient and even kind in some ways and what result did those polite, patient, and kind styles achieve? Those three rulers of the strangely named country have faced Presidents of the Republic of Korea that have been polite, patient and kind and have even sat at a table face-to-face with polite, patient, and kind leaders from the Republic of Korea and what results did those individuals representing the Republic of Korea achieve by being polite, patient, and kind?

But some of you folks just want to ignore all those different leaders and their ways and ignore the responses from north of the DMZ, I guess. I don't know for sure what's going on with that style, but I do know that any one of you could have run for President of the United States back that last time the chance was there. Did any of you take advantage of that aspect of the democratic process in the United States? I mean, if you believe so strongly in what you are writing here, why not get out and tell the rest of the country? AND!!! I sincerely apologize to other citizens of other free nations that post here because I just now focused on the United States political system.

Okay, one community member asked for my opinion about further talks. I suspect I feel a certain pride that somebody seems to place some value on my opinion. I guess some of the folks that have tried to educate me over the years, starting with my parents, ought to feel proud of their hard work, because I really am one dumb SOB. But I try to learn. And that question about further talks . . . that is a tough one.

My goodness . . . I have started about three times to place an answer to that question on this site, in this post, in a public arena - - - and three times I have hit/used that Back Space key. I've had to answer that question publicly and maybe I have not been honest with a lot of the public when doing so. I think this might be the first time I am going to face up to a very, very unpleasant truth. When the September first decree was made I think was when I sensed that we were in for it.

No, there won't be any further negotiations, UNLESS there is a dramatic change in tone from that one fella north of the DMZ. I'm afraid the defecation is going to hit the fan. And it might make some of you feel better to blame one United States individual like it seems you want to do here, but this is something that has been building like volcanic pressure for years. I just don't see it going any other way. To be very honest, I may not survive this one myself. My daughter is not going to give up her work toward her doctorate, so I am not leaving.

By the way, it is the strong possibility of gas attack that worries most of us, not the nukes. It is gas canisters on top of the missiles that is the number one worry here. I haven't seen too many folks posting on this board about that problem; if anybody.

You know those rather inexpensive spring facemasks we use in this part of the world can be useful if they are wet. They can give us about an extra 60 seconds or more. Even that short amount of extra time can make the difference between life or death. But people don't seem to know that it is the eyes that are the really big problem after you get some protection over the nose and mouth.

Anyway, you folks on the Net are the only ones that will be able to yak-yak-yak pretty soon. We won't have a Net to go to for a while after the defecation starts to fly, which it will. The yak-yak-yak is all over, folks. And if you want to blame a single individual for that I suggest you look toward the true guilty party. It ain't your President that caused this. It might in some way make you feel cool to yak that idea here and anywhere else, but we over here know very well that this started long before that fella got into his present job.

You see, folks, this is the last battle of the Cold War. Unfortunately, it's showtime. Real soon! Wish us luck, please. We're gonna need it!!

scbriml wrote:

Do you really think, even with all its military might, the US can destroy the entire NK military in a single strike? If you can't, you can't stop NK lobbing some very nasty stuff at Seoul and possibly much further.

How many artillery tubes will NK have close to the DMZ that can actually hit Seoul? 10,000? 20,000? How much damage would 10 rounds of rapid fire from EACH one cause in Seoul?

scbriml wrote:

NK has only recently developed ICBMs that very clearly work. It's questionable that they have nukes to fit them just now, but it won't be very long before they do. Are you still prepared to stand by and say "Oh, they won't do anything."? Appeasement has a pretty poor track record when it comes to despots.

Look at the damage that conventional artillery can do to South Korea and nukes are not important this year. Probably not next year either.

scbriml wrote:

How would you feel if those missiles were splashing down 40km from Amsterdam? That would be a lot less comfortable, wouldn't it?

I see this as a huge risk for both countries, The US is led by a very stupid man in military and diplomatic issues. We have a "leader" who is expert in having lawyers filing bankruptcies and stiffing workers/contractors. What is the risk of a "mis-calculation" non the part of this idiot who actually starts a war - even if it is a non-nuclear?

DPRK ....

And I wish to now show Mir that my opinions posted some hours ago are now backed up by stories on Arirang.

Updated: 2017-08-11 09:57:15 KST
South Korean citizens calm despite war of words between Pyongyang and Washington

Updated: 2017-08-11 11:28:31 KST
Seoul and Washington agree to discuss all steps against Pyongyang

Actually the second story is only the tip of the pyramid of communications between United States officials, GS personnel, and active duty; and their counterparts in the ROK government.

Unfortunately, I don't agree that this is the same as in 2013, as I think we see Arirang is stating in the first article. But that doesn't matter on the point about that freaking out idea.

It is sort of sad, actually, because in this part of the world we have all been sort of trained for this moment in history. We all knew it was going to happen eventually after that 3rd Kim fella started going off weird with his dictates and killings around the world. Sure we had hope when he first came to power, but that hope didn't last too long. Same thing happened with that Hitler fella, didn't it?

Anyway, these posts I am doing are for those that are really sincere in understanding what's been going on over here for a very long time. Even longer than my four-plus decades on the scene.

CH47A wrote:

Now before I get to the most difficult question asked in about the last 5 hours, or so, I am going to wonder with my fingers on this keyboard why nobody wants to discuss the many, many provocations from the north side of the DMZ over the past many, many decades. Didn't the events that transpired before World War Two teach the citizens of this planet anything? So many of you folks seem so intent upon absolutely ignoring the brutal killings all over this planet by the regime that sits north of the DMZ. Some of you really seem to believe that all this trouble is the fault of a democratically elected official in these United States. Well, you have no idea how lucky you are to be able to post those views here and not have to worry about your life being snuffed out because your views don't fit with a ruling family. A kind of king by divine right type of regime that some of you folks want to inform the world is just not at fault in all this. That it is the President of the United States that has caused all this to happen.

And that is no excuse. We didn't need nukes against Stalin or Hitler. The only reason, "they" say nukes were used in Japan was to speed up the inevitable. We know the entire Kim regime from grandfather to present grandson are horrible people doing horrible things to their own people. I don't say this lightly but with a purpose: so what? As DPRK becomes more and more isolated, they will have fewer and fewer people to hate and torture. We don't need to children hurling insults at each other. We need at least one adult. Which is why we did not have this problem for the past 50 years...

seb146 wrote:

.....We didn't need nukes against Stalin or Hitler. The only reason, "they" say nukes were used in Japan was to speed up the inevitable.

Your complete lack of understanding is truly a spectacle to behold.

Let me please apologize, seb146, because I am kind of a dumbass that doesn't seem to be able to put two-and-two together very well.

I mean, I don't see where that quote you put up has me stating that we need to use nuclear weapons systems. And I do not remember where I actually wrote that we need to use nuclear weapons systems. Don't get me wrong, I am not stating you are posting anything wrong. I just can't remember, that's all. Could you help me out on that please? You know, a quote of my writing that nuclear weapons systems need to be used by UN Forces.

I'd appreciate your help. Thank you.

wardialer wrote:

Here are several strategies that I can think of that Trump can do.

and they are both nonsense

1. We need to find out and do more intel on how NK is getting funded by their missile nuclear programs and cut those assets off. Maybe its China, Iran, or Pakistan that is funding NK.

Good luck with that. Not even China can stop the inflow of drugs from North Korea, and that is a vital ally. The US can not stop drugs, even North Korean, to cross over its own border.

Just like we have done to ISIS, is by cutting their drug and oil cash flow from them. We need to do the same to NK.

we didn´t cut the cash flow, we cut them off Oil by taking territory from them, which we finally managed to do after they ran into manpower problems. If you want to do that to NK, you need to kill a couple of million NK citizens and occupy about half the nation, and the right parts at that, and that dries up the cash flow.

2. Again, the US has the technology and intel to pinpoint or to collect on where these mobile or missile silos are and do a bombing campaign on them. And also, lets strike all of their comms and radar equipment as well while we are at it.

Good luck with that. The combined West couldn´t find scud launchers in a desert when they tried, or tanks in Yugoslavia, the probability of anyone finding all missiles storage locations reliably is basically zero, even with improvements in technology. NK is using mobile launchers for a reason, no silos, any Tunnel will do, to many possible locations. As said above, the NK military is very limited, but they know exactly what they are up against and plan for that. That is not Saddam believing he can take on the world in an open battle, they know they can´t and they won´t even try.

So what makes us think that Kim will launch a strike?? I mean come on people, Really?

Well, if there is no risk of him launching a strike, there is no reason to kill 1000s of NK citizens to disarm them. But you know very well why they don´t strike, don´t you? It would end them. The nation and its government. They use MAD on a little scale. You attack us, and we set the world economy back a decade or two and destroy much of South Korea. They have more than 5 Million paramilitary troops, once their artillery cleared the DMZs mine fields and fortifications, stopping them would cost millions of lives on both sides. On that tiny 150 miles stretch of DMZ, they can effectively attack with about twice the troops Germany had invading Russia on a front 10 times that long and they didn´t stop before Moscow. Want to carpet bomb Seoul to stop 100th of thousands paramilitary NK troops pouring through its streets?

We know almost noting about what is going on in NK, we don´t even know if their drug trade and human trafficking is really government controlled, or organized crime and just a result of corruption. What if their low yield nuke tests are not failures or ineptness, after all building a nuke is a hell lot easier than building an ICBM, but they never really wanted high yielding warheads to cut the heart our of US cities? Maybe they just wanted something along the lines of a W48/W82 warhead for their artillery? Or to stick 20 or 30 or so on an ICBM as MRVs to make them impossible to intercept all of them?

best regards
Thomas

About that business of hundreds of thousands of combatants crossing the DMZ and heading toward Tongduchon, then Uijeongbu down MSR 1, do you know why they have to stay on the paved roads? I mean, you did indicate the target was the capital, right? That is MSR1. You know what is on either side of MSR1? Do you know why we worry more about an attack in winter instead of right now?

And you seem to have left an important element out of your thinking on strategy. What do you reckon will be happening in Osan while all this military activity is going on? And those carriers with the fine Navy pilots? You reckon they might have some work to do?

My apologies, Thomas, but you sure do seem to have a few things sort of missing in that post up there.

I'll say again, nothing will happen. No missiles aren't going to strike US territory.
Kim knows that if he will pull the trigger on this, it is game over for his regime. Plain and simple. The media is just making a huge hype on this. It's time to move on.

CH47A wrote:

And those carriers with the fine Navy pilots? You reckon they might have some work to do?

Yes, they have to find, target and take out 17.000 or so artillery tubes or it doesn´t matter how far the foot soldiers get.

About that business of hundreds of thousands of combatants crossing the DMZ and heading toward Tongduchon, then Uijeongbu down MSR 1, do you know why they have to stay on the paved roads? I mean, you did indicate the target was the capital, right?

i also said a couple of 100k, not 5 Million. And i didn´t say they can´t be stopped, i said stopping them would cost millions of lives. It is also no like there is dozens of miles of buffer, kill, zone between the border and residential areas.

best regards
Thomas

Let me offer something else, Thomas. Something that is no military secret, but if you haven't actually been in the business you probably don't know. A lot of the super highways / freeways / toll roads (whatever they are called) -- they have special places in many, many locations along the highways that are so well built -- I mean militarily specially built -- that they can be used as emergency airstrips by even a C5. And if you can put a C5 down on a piece of strip you can sure put lighter jets down on those spots. And refuel them. And fix them. And even hide them.

I wonder how many of you folks really understand how built up the military facilities are all over the ROK?

Yes, armed conflict is a nasty business, but we are pretty good at it in the United States Armed Forces. And I know bloody well that the ROK Armed Forces are pretty darn good. You folks keep citing the high numbers of DPRK military personnel, but they have a long way to go to match up against the UN Forces and the ROK Forces.

Oh yes, and this one ain't gonna be nothing like anything in a flat sand area. You folks know about the mountains in Korea?

And it ain't the mountains on either side of MSR1 I was referring to, Thomas.

Why conventional if you can simply nuke out North Korea? There is nothing wrong with using the nuclear arsenal to its fullest to protect the safety of the US.

tommy1808 wrote:

<. <> <> truncated <> <> <>

i also said a couple of 100k, not 5 Million. And i didn´t say they can´t be stopped, i said stopping them would cost millions of lives. It is also no like there is dozens of miles of buffer, kill, zone between the border and residential areas.

best regards
Thomas

I really do need new glasses, I guess. I swear I can't find where I made mention of millions of humans on an MSR. Could you help me, please?

And I wasn't referring to any fighter pilots going after any fixed sites, if there are troops on the MSR.

And you don't understand one very important problem for anyone moving large forces through that area at this time of the year -- rice paddies. That is why we worry about winter. They are frozen and make great places to move all sorts of vehicles. In summer they ain't no good for nothing except breeding the biggest mosquitoes in the world and rice growing.

Then you got them big monster hills with gun emplacements all over the area and once the air forces from up north are wiped out those mountain units are pretty much free to tear up any folks down below they don't like the looks of.

The ground war won't be too much about all sorts of fancy pieces of equipment once the air campaign has gained control of the skies.

Anyway, please help me with my eyesight. Thank you.

seahawk wrote:

Why conventional if you can simply nuke out North Korea? There is nothing wrong with using the nuclear arsenal to its fullest to protect the safety of the US.

You have asked the big, big, big question. I suspect that tactical nuclear arms might be considered for early use.

But we now have some conventional weapons systems that pack some real power. I believe we just recently used one of them in a combat situation and it worked as it was thought it would -- really well. (Grammar - really good?)

Anyway, there are all sorts of political considerations with the use of those larger nuclear weapons systems. Maybe even the smaller ones. And there are all sorts of them fancy thinkin' folks that decide on them fancy political questions.

You reckon that amazing show of strength with all those cruise missiles recently in the Middle East might have been a method for testing a few matters related to that sort of business? Then you consider how many of those we have probably stockpiled all over this area and it is not pleasant to think what it would be like to have somebody pissed off at you with the authority to use those things.

CH47A wrote:

Let me offer something else, Thomas. Something that is no military secret, but if you haven't actually been in the business you probably don't know. A lot of the super highways / freeways / toll roads (whatever they are called) -- they have special places in many, many locations along the highways that are so well built -- I mean militarily specially built -- that they can be used as emergency airstrips by even a C5. And if you can put a C5 down on a piece of strip you can sure put lighter jets down on those spots. And refuel them. And fix them. And even hide them..

Since NK can´t take out air bases beyond artillery range anyways, that does matter how exactly? And btw, i live in Germany, whatever SK has to protect itself is pretty much a carbon copy of what we had until removing much of it in the 90s. Highway airstrips, holes for explosives in pretty much every bridge, explosive storage near by. Good to stop tanks, not good to stop troops on foot.

If NK could be defeated without devastating SK in the process, it would have been done.

best regards
Thomas

NK has now threatened the US and that means protecting the USA is the only concern the US president should have.

CH47A wrote:

[Anyway, there are all sorts of political considerations with the use of those larger nuclear weapons systems. .

you mean aside of the fact that using nuclear weapons is a crime against humanity, and therefore illegal, just as much as pre-emptive strikes are?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Since NK can´t take out air bases beyond artillery range anyways, that does matter how exactly? And btw, i live in Germany, whatever SK has to protect itself is pretty much a carbon copy of what we had until removing much of it in the 90s. Highway airstrips, holes for explosives in pretty much every bridge, explosive storage near by. Good to stop tanks, not good to stop troops on foot.

If NK could be defeated without devastating SK in the process, it would have been done.

best regards
Thomas

Sir, you reckon a missile -- short range, too -- could be used on airfields?

Anyway, I thought you weren't properly considering the campaign in the air by the aircraft with humans in them, we call fighter pilots, and those many aircraft we now have where the pilot is in Alexandria.

And that reference to grunts: you got any idea what grunts could do in a valley when the hostile against you has numbers at altitude? They could pretty much get themselves blown to that non-Heaven place, if they don't have troop carriers. And if they have troop carriers, they just get sent to that non-Heaven place in groups all fried inside a neat box.

I get the strange feeling you really do not understand the terrain between Tongduchon and the northern reaches of Seoul. Actually, between the DMZ and Tongduchon ain't so cool for grunts, but I admit I'll give them that stretch of highway, although that will cost them dearly.

Oh well, you obviously haven't done all the necessary research to be able to discuss a military campaign in that neck of the woods. And you don't seem too keen on learning. So I've done the best I can. I thought maybe you might want to learn something.

CH47A wrote:

And you don't seem too keen on learning. So I've done the best I can. I thought maybe you might want to learn something.

you sound exactly like the military did before and during Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan ......

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

Yes indeed, but that might be because I live 40km of Amsterdam

Guam is a military target. Amsterdam much less so.
Then the Dutch today don't go around and p*ss on other people.

seahawk wrote:

NK has now threatened the US and that means protecting the USA is the only concern the US president should have.

As threatening NK started the whole shebang and the NK threat less than balances the US threat
you may want to reconsider the course of action. What about toning it down a bit?

seahawk wrote:

NK has now threatened the US and that means protecting the USA is the only concern the US president should have.

At all cost, even if these costs are bore by another country?

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

NK has now threatened the US and that means protecting the USA is the only concern the US president should have.

At all cost, even if these costs are bore by another country?

If you look back in history that was never, ever an issue for the US.
Actually more like a "welcome thing" (TM). Think of all the profits we can make in rebuilding!
( Cue Iraq, though that never worked out quite well due to lack of execution proficiency of the profiteers. )

tommy1808 wrote:

CH47A wrote:

And you don't seem too keen on learning. So I've done the best I can. I thought maybe you might want to learn something.

you sound exactly like the military did before and during Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan ......

best regards
Thomas

More like the military did during and after the invasion of Germany

787Driver wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

CH47A wrote:

And you don't seem too keen on learning. So I've done the best I can. I thought maybe you might want to learn something.

you sound exactly like the military did before and during Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan ......

best regards
Thomas

More like the military did during and after the invasion of Germany

But they've unlearned everything that brought success at the time.
( probably the Brits that made a difference?

With the initial Korean War the series of US nonvictorious wars that ended in
increasingly bigger debacles started.

success: Grenada is the only one that comes to mind. And that was like "ambushing peacefully growing grass".

787Driver wrote:

More like the military did during and after the invasion of Germany

.... you mean including killing plenty of non-German citizens along the way, which is exactly what you don´t want to do to SK citizens?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

More like the military did during and after the invasion of Germany

.... you mean including killing plenty of non-German citizens along the way, which is exactly what you don´t want to do to SK citizens?

best regards
Thomas

After the millions of civilians the Germans killed, that looked suddenly like the best solution. Ditto in Korea if NK decides to attack some day with nuclear warheads.

787Driver wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

More like the military did during and after the invasion of Germany

.... you mean including killing plenty of non-German citizens along the way, which is exactly what you don´t want to do to SK citizens?

best regards
Thomas

After the millions of civilians the Germans killed, that looked suddenly like the best solution. Ditto in Korea if NK decides to attack some day with nuclear warheads.

Well, I didn't say it can't be done nor did I say it shouldn't be done IF NK attacks anyone. I just said it won't be done without killing tons of SK citizens and that is something best to avoid.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

.... you mean including killing plenty of non-German citizens along the way, which is exactly what you don´t want to do to SK citizens?

best regards
Thomas

After the millions of civilians the Germans killed, that looked suddenly like the best solution. Ditto in Korea if NK decides to attack some day with nuclear warheads.

Well, I didn't say it can't be done nor did I say it shouldn't be done IF NK attacks anyone. I just said it won't be done without killing tons of SK citizens and that is something best to avoid.

Best regards
Thomas

Of course not. That's the sad reality of being at war. But don't forget who has been the aggressor after the ceasefire was agreed to, by developing nuclear weapons and threatening the other part on a daily basis to use these weapons against them. Imagine the outcry if SK got a leader similar to Kim and started pointing nuclear missiles towards China. I doubt China would put up with that for very long either.

Nobody wants a war, but if NK is capable of destroying millions of people in the west at the touch of a button combined with their mad leader, well that's hard to tolerate and they don't want to give up their nuclear weapons programme.

787Driver wrote:

I doubt China would put up with that for very long either.

They would put up with that probably about exactly as long as the USSR accepted US nukes and visa versa, or both accepted the Chinese Bomb, or as long as India lived with Pakistan having them and the other way round, or as much as no one makes much of a fuzz about NATO nuke sharing or Saudi/Pakistan (if that is real) .....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

787Driver wrote:

I doubt China would put up with that for very long either.

They would put up with that probably about exactly as long as the USSR accepted US nukes and visa versa, or both accepted the Chinese Bomb, or as long as India lived with Pakistan having them and the other way round, or as much as no one makes much of a fuzz about NATO nuke sharing or Saudi/Pakistan (if that is real) .....

best regards
Thomas

Or probably they wouldn't if you combine that with daily threats of annihilation...

For china, nothing has changed over the past months with regards to DPRK Why should china be more worried now about them in comparison to two months ago.

The fact that missiles can reach the US makes no difference to China.

As I said earlier, the trump administration made such progress, and your president couldn't help opening his mouth and racheting up the rhetoric again.

Does he want a war?

Is that his plan to get reelectected?

IF, we could have nuked Hitler early on, would all of the minions left in Germany still have wanted to wage war with their Head of State gone???

So, project that thought, only more so,I think to the NK situation. If their Head of State was taken out, who would the NK minions left,be fighting for??

These were Dictator Heads of State, worshiped by many.

Right now, it is about 'saving face' for both NK's leader and Trump. If Un backs down, he will bring shame to himself and his country, likely ending up dead. If Trump backs down, he will lost what little trust he has from his base, make the USA look weak and personally ruined. We need to find someway so both sides seem like they won. No one will win a war, indeed it would likely kill millions, destroy SK and Japan and put the world into a massive economic depression.
Maybe it means backing off of sanctions which generally are useless anyway. Maybe it means ending war games in the region or even giving back some small islands of SK to NK. Maybe it means actually having the leaders of SK and NK speaking to each other. Un craves attention and respect as much or more than Trump, both leaders have to have a sense they 'win'. Yes, that may mean the obscene and despotic rule of NK continues with its horrors upon its citizens, but that is far preferable for all than any war. Besides, the USA supports or acknowledges many governments that are horrible to their people. Personally I wish both leaders would drop dead of a massive heart attack or stroke, but that is not going to happen. I cannot support any war or any use of nukes. I would rather the USA is shamed than millions in the world dead.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

IF, we could have nuked Hitler early on, would all of the minions left in Germany still have wanted to wage war with their Head of State gone???

So, project that thought, only more so,I think to the NK situation. If their Head of State was taken out, who would the NK minions left,be fighting for??

These were Dictator Heads of State, worshiped by many.

Removing the government ( dictator or not ) removes the path to a peace treaty ( or just a capitulation.)
One reason why the Iraq war never really came to an end. Nobody there to give up in an official manner.
( probably not graspable for the intellectually challenged war mongerers posting .. )

DIRECTFLT wrote:

IF, we could have nuked Hitler early on, would all of the minions left in Germany still have wanted to wage war with their Head of State gone???

You mean in the way carpet bombing cities with equal damage did nothing to break moral or even impede production of war supplies?
More likey that a significant chemical and biological reply would have come back.

[Quote]So, project that thought, only more so,I think to the NK situation. If their Head of State was taken out, who would the NK minions left,be fighting for??

These were Dictator Heads of State, worshiped by many.[/quote

NK is a necrotheocracy, not unreasonable to expect many citizens to fight for their god.

Best regards
Thomas

ltbewr wrote:

I would rather the USA is shamed than millions in the world dead.

How many nukes would anybody attribute to NK? 1?... 2? max 4?
enriching to the levels required for weapons grade material takes big resources and time, time, time.
Nobody has ever mentioned large enriching facilities in NK.

The US has handed around images on occasion. But the same images were used
to prove nuclear installations in various other countries too. Someone has to make
up his mind where the pictures were really taken.

Real damage can only come from the US ( having sufficient resources.)

Looks like the US is politically sailing on a sea of terrible lies.