[b]August 6th and August 9th, 1945.[/b] That’s seventy-two years and six days since America used nuclear weapons on Japan. And now, seventy-two years and six days later, another Little Boy and Fat Man are hell bent on recreating nuclear devastation.
[i]The Nagasaki Prefecture Report on the bombing characterized Nagasaki as "like a graveyard with not a tombstone standing".[/i]
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@room101 I agree with your assessment of Trump, but fortunately we have some really good generals who actually develop the war plans, not the president. And we have more than a few MOABs in inventory.
I believe there will be conflict, but it won't be nuclear.
@sarabee1995 MOABSs hhhmmmmmmm. Did you see the report by Reuters? They visited the site a few days after it was deployed. None of the tunnels etc were damaged. In fact, it was largely ineffectual.
@Ellen Nothing. Kim Jong-un is saber rattling. Just like the Soviets did during the Cold War. And they actually had the capability to launch an effective nuclear strike against anybody that they chose.
He's baiting Trump. He's playing silly ego games with him and Trump is too dumb to understand that.
@room101 What would you advise the president if one of the PRK's very inaccurate missiles is launched on a trajectory that puts Guam at risk?? Would you not act?
@sarabee1995 what kind of action are we talking about here? Japan has the capability to intercept such a launch. As does the US and South Korea.
During the first Gulf War, Saddam launched scud missiles into Israel. He was seeking to provoke a retaliatory attack which he thought would galvanize the rest of the Arab world to his side. The Israelis were asked not to retaliate. They didn't. And a major conflict in the Middle East was averted.
@room101 The Israelis were asked not to retaliate and were made assurances that we would retaliate for them and replenish their missile defenses.
They were not asked not to retaliate with no conditions. They were assured that the launchers would be taken out and the launch capacity eliminated. And we honored that deal.
So, when North Korea launches a missile at Guam, let me repeat... 1) Take out the missile 2) Obliterate the launch facility and/or capability
No less than what was done in the first Gulf War that you reference.
@sarabee1995 did we take out Saddam's missiles? Before they hit their targets? Are you sure about that?
Regardless of the conditions of the deal struck with Israel, the point is, they didn't retaliate and a larger conflict was averted. The point is, averting a larger conflict by stopping this ridiculous rhetoric and maybe even trying to understand what's going on in North Korea.
It’s an embattled nation which has been dealing with perceived threats for decades. All that we in the West have done, since the PRK came into being, is given ammunition to the paranoid delusions of its successive dictators. Maybe it’s time to try a different approach because, let’s face it, our threats have achieved zilch thus far.
@room101 Well he backed off because of the "rhetoric." Little Boy was expecting what he has gotten for the last 20+ years...the US to come to the table and negotiate with him..give hum more stuff..food, fuel, etc. He realizes he is not getting that with this administration.
@Ellen he didn't get any "stuff" from the Obama administration either. In 2014 Obama threatened North Korea with military action and as late as September of last year, Obama imposed sanctions against them.
As for Trump, if you honestly think that anybody on the world stage takes that moron seriously, then there really is nothing more for you to say.
@room101 And he didn't get anything from Clinton either I guess. OK. Whatever. I'll go away and shut up like we're all supposed to do because you said so.
@Ellen I didn't say that you had to shut up and go away. I said that you had nothing to say if you believe that anybody takes the moron in chief seriously.
As for Clinton:
[i]"Soon after Clinton took office in 1994, North Korea threatened to abandon its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty behind. North Korea refused an international inspection related to the treaty. This led the Clinton administration to seek to bring the nation back into the fold.
Former President Jimmy Carter was secretly sent to Pyongyang to pave the way for a diplomatic agreement.
Clinton’s administration successfully established a deal known as the Joint Framework Agreement which offered $4 billion worth of nuclear, energy, economic and diplomatic benefits in exchange for the halting of North Korea’s nuclear program in 1994. The deal also included two light-water nuclear reactors, which were believed to be more difficult to use to make weapons than Pyongyang’s plutonium reactor.
The International Atomic Energy Agency was set to oversee all of this and do routine inspections.
"This agreement will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective -- an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula,” Clinton said at the time."[/i]
@Ellen If I may say one last thing. What we need to remember is that we are dealing with dictators, and dictators have a very specific psychology. If you threaten or insult them, then bad sh*t happens. I'll use Saddam Hussein as an example again.
After the first Gulf War, the UN imposed a resolution against Iraq saying that they could not have any form of WMD's. In the intervening ten years between the two wars in Iraq, Saddam did all that he could to prevent the UN inspectors from doing their jobs. Why? We now know that he didn't have any WMD's so why did he do that? Because, to a dictator like him, the inspections were an insult and a threat to his notions of absolute power.
Did he need to be deposed? Yes. Was it a just war? If we go by the reasons given, not so much.
Similarly with North Korea. The more we insult and threaten their dictatorship, the more chance there is of their nuclear power becoming a reality. A reality that they may well use.
Does that dictatorship need to be deposed? Yes. Would it be a just war? Under the current circumstances, I don't agree that it would.
@room101 Yes, fine. But what would you advise the President in the seconds following a North Korean missile launch on trajectory toward Guam with a ten minute flight time?
Tic...
Tock...
Tic...
Tock...
The missile is reaching apogee. They are scrambling to move/hide the launcher. What do you do?
@sarabee1995 sorry for the late reply, I've been on holiday in the south-west coast of England.
[i]"what kind of action are we talking about here? Japan has the capability to intercept such a launch. As does the US and South Korea."[/i]
Of course we have to do something if North Korea actually launches a strike. I'm not advocating that we sit on our collective hands and do nothing. What I'm calling for is an end to Trumps BS rhetoric which will only come if more people call him on it. Openly.
What I also disagree with is the view that a conventional conflict is somehow inevitable. Just think what that would actually mean. For the people of South Korea. And how would China react to the prospect of a massive influx of Korean refugees and a unified Korea which has a huge US military presence on its south-eastern border.
We've pulled crap like that twice in recent years. How well has that gone for anybody concerned?
@room101 So then your answer is take out the missile and obliterate the launch site? Right? Because that's all I've been advocating.
As for Trump BS rhetoric ... ugh, I have no comment.
And of course a conventional conflict is not inevitable. But, I do agree with Trump on this: The DPRK is a client state of China and China needs to reel in the nuclear program and tone down the rhetoric coming from the Korean peninsula.
War never works out well in the short term, but it is sometimes the lessor evil of two awful choices.
@sarabee1995 oh and btw, what's your idea of short term? In less than four weeks time it will be 16 years since Bush jnr went to war in Afghanistan. And Trump is now talking about sending yet more troops and private military contractors.
