Entire U.S. Senate to go to White House for North Korea briefing

[Karadros]

What method would he use? Would he go full Trump Norris or would he release orange gas?

Donald Trump is... Agent Orange.

[satimy]

I trust Mattis
I like that Trump is actually going to the Senate instead of taking unilateral action

[Allybeboba]

So now the US can finally end this war that lasted longer than any other war in US history, which is a good thing!

I also like the tactic of "lets wait 65 years until their weapons are so outdated we cant possibly lose!"
No doubt Trump will take credit for that too

Maybe the EU can take care of NK for the world in this particular case. I don't see how it is just America's responsibility to deal with NK.

[Deleted]

This, in the end, has nothing more to do with Trump than that he happens to be the US president at this time, though the "hurr, Trump" drones are out in force literally everywhere. What this is about is NK seeing no way to ensure the regime's survival other than ICBM, nuclear survival. The US, or the international community in general, doesn't exactly have a good track record with whatever deals it sets up. So, it's simply about the fact that we're approaching the time where a final decision has to be made regarding whether you want a country like NK to have ICBM nuclear capabilities, and live in that kind of world given how they act, or take action against them before it happens.

Action could be a surgical strike against their R&D, which would be deniable but difficult. It could be precision bombing, which relies on having the right targets, and the targets even being placed so that they can be bombed. The third is full-scale invasion, which would certainly be the end of NK, but also cost a lot of lives.

Again, this has nothing to do with Trump and whatever favorable or unfavorable qualities people might want to associate with him. The situation would be here if Hillary had won, too, or any other candidate.

I would have to agree. Now is the time to make a decision, do we let them have the capabilities of reaching the US with nuclear ICBMs or do we stop them just before that? Last few weeks it seems we're heading towards the latter, which I agree is the preferable solution. But still, we'll see some horrors possibly.

[The Penguin]

Donald Trump is... Agent Orange.

Oddly, I can see the Donald reciting the oath as he obliterates the Korean cockroach.


What's mine is mine and mine and mine!

And mine and mine and mine!!

Not yours!!!

[Ulmita]

What i don't get here is why isn't NK allowed to have nukes and USA / Russia are for example.

Shouldn't we be pushing for global disarmament?

[Sesshou]

Well, Hillary was going to play in Syria. So far Trump has bombed Afghanistan, missile striked Syria, raided Yemen, and now wants little wars all over in addition.

People can draw their own conclusions from it.

Uh, we have been bombing Afganistan for a long time. Hillary literally the same week advocated attacking Assad airfields in an interview in retaliation for the gas attack. Now maybe she wouldn't have been for Yemen, but we will never know.

[Azadina]

Maybe the EU can take care of NK for the world in this particular case. I don't see how it is just America's responsibility to deal with NK.

Fine by me. We can just let them be. It's the America they want to blow up, not EU.

[Deleted]

What i don't get here is why isn't NK allowed to have nukes and USA / Russia are for example.

Shouldn't we be pushing for global disarmament?

No, never.

The nuclear weapon balance in the world has stopped WW3 multiples times already. Without weapons of mass destruction, countries are tempted to go to war faster than with the threat of total destruction as a response.

[Ulmita]

No, never.

The nuclear weapon balance in the world has stopped WW3 multiples times already. Without weapons of mass destruction, countries are tempted to go to war faster than with the threat of total destruction as a response.

Then let NK alone.

[Skroe]

What i don't get here is why isn't NK allowed to have nukes and USA / Russia are for example.

Shouldn't we be pushing for global disarmament?

No. And Russia's cheating with the INF Treaty illustrates why.

I've talked about the INF Treaty here for years and how Russia's cheating is a big deal... arguably bigger than Crimea or Syria. It basically puts to death any notion of global zero, nuclear disarmament. Why? Because the INF Treaty was the only nuclear weapons treaty to ban an entire class of weapons. A Global Zero Treaty would look very much like the INF Treaty. And what what happened? The nightmare scenario for Global Zero as a matter of principle.

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, the leaders of the United States and Russia both signed the INF Treaty. Fast forward 30 years and what happened: one of those two countries (Russia) had a change of government in that time. And it decided that the INF Treaty no longer served it's aims because it was at a military disadvantage without Intermediate Range Weapons. So it started to develop INF Treaty prohibited weapons while lying and saying it was in compliance, because it had figured that the US would not develop INF weapons of it's own that the treaty had destroyed. The US tried for about 9 years to bring Russia back into compliance without declaring them in material breach. As a matter of principle, the US did not want to break the treaty even though Russia had.

And just like that, we lived the nightmare of global zero by proxy: what happens when there is world wide nuclear abolition, and 30 years and a change of government later, somebody cheats? What's the world's response? Go to war against them? No way. Sanction them? Doesn't work. Protest through treaty channels? We've actually lived that, and country's don't need to care. Develop nuclear weapons of your our own to counter the cheater? If the INF example is any indication, this wouldn't happen... a treaty breach would be a step too far as a response.

That is why nuclear weapons will never go away. They may go lower as Russia gets poorer and the US's get better. But zero? No way. And you can thank Russia for etching that in stone. Global Zero died the day Russia decided it needed an intermediate range missile because the example of how that went down is a cautionary tale against wider disarmament ambitions.

If we cannot trust Russia to permanently disarm with one class of weapons, how can we trust them when it comes to all classes of nuclear weapons?

[GennGreymane]

I was just about to summon Skroe, then I saw he posted anyway

[Ulmita]

No. And Russia's cheating with the INF Treaty illustrates why.

I've talked about the INF Treaty here for years and how Russia's cheating is a big deal... arguably bigger than Crimea or Syria. It basically puts to death any notion of global zero, nuclear disarmament. Why? Because the INF Treaty was the only nuclear weapons treaty to ban an entire class of weapons. A Global Zero Treaty would look very much like the INF Treaty. And what what happened? The nightmare scenario for Global Zero as a matter of principle.

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, the leaders of the United States and Russia both signed the INF Treaty. Fast forward 30 years and what happened: one of those two countries (Russia) had a change of government in that time. And it decided that the INF Treaty no longer served it's aims because it was at a military disadvantage without Intermediate Range Weapons. So it started to develop INF Treaty prohibited weapons while lying and saying it was in compliance, because it had figured that the US would not develop INF weapons of it's own that the treaty had destroyed. The US tried for about 9 years to bring Russia back into compliance without declaring them in material breach. As a matter of principle, the US did not want to break the treaty even though Russia had.

And just like that, we lived the nightmare of global zero by proxy: what happens when there is world wide nuclear abolition, and 30 years and a change of government later, somebody cheats? What's the world's response? Go to war against them? No way. Sanction them? Doesn't work. Protest through treaty channels? We've actually lived that, and country's don't need to care. Develop nuclear weapons of your our own to counter the cheater? If the INF example is any indication, this wouldn't happen... a treaty breach would be a step too far as a response.

That is why nuclear weapons will never go away. They may go lower as Russia gets poorer and the US's get better. But zero? No way. And you can thank Russia for etching that in stone. Global Zero died the day Russia decided it needed an intermediate range missile because the example of how that went down is a cautionary tale against wider disarmament ambitions.

If we cannot trust Russia to permanently disarm with one class of weapons, how can we trust them when it comes to all classes of nuclear weapons?

Listen, i know your narrative well and i know how you tend to throw all the blame to others. You excel on that and you do it well.

However, someone has to think what would happen if NATO didn't push eastwards? There are F-35s in Esthonia for God's Shake.
Also, INF is a bs treaty if you think about it. Both sides have shitons of cruise missiles that can be launched from ships / air assets. I am not saying that an intermediate ballistic missile is the same as a cruise missile, (hold the same warhead(s), speeds, liftoff weight etc) but the danger is already there.

The INF treaty breach is a bullshit preach by the US warmongols to justify for gear to Russian borders.


Russia has to respond at some point, just be afraid what their reaction will be.

[Skroe]

I was just about to summon Skroe, then I saw he posted anyway

Has the situation with North Korea changed in the past 15 days? Has the US found a way to destroy 10,000 artillery aimed at the south without using nuclear weapons? Has the US accepted the 100,000 North Korean troops deaths and the, 1 million South Korean casualties the conflict would incur?

No. It hasn't.

A nuclear armed North Korea is, in a sense, ironic punishment for the United States. I've said recently we're a non-serious country. I mean it. We've been a non-serious country for nearly thirty years. While we kicked ass in a country that had no WMDs (Iraq), froze nuclear progress in a country very far from the technology and treated it like it was a big deal (Iran), and treated islamic terrorism like some kind of existential threat (ridiculous), unfinished business from the 1950s has spent the better part of the last 20 years making impressive rocketry and nuclear advances.

We didn't treat our serious problems seriously before they metastizied, and here we are in 2017 and they have. But then, on issues ranging from health care, to national finances, to our military readiness, to our infrastructure (a state/local problem, once again), that can be said on many issues.

And of course the new nightmare is just a few years away: North Korea developing a reliable solid fueled intermediate or medium range missile, and putting it in a submarine. Even a shitty diesel submarine so armed is hysterically dangerous to US security. And we go in a frenzy over ISIS putting youtube videos up. How fucking quaint. As I said, a non-serious country.

Nothing will come from this. The US is incapable of fighting a sustained military conflict in Asia-Pacific at the moment. Our military readiness is worn down from 15 years of doing Brushfire wars on the cheap and spending ~$600 billion a year on a global military strategy that needs about $750 billion. We have ridden the 1980s and 1990s inheritance the Greatest Generation gifted us as far as it can go.

Our carriers need to spend time in dock undergoing deferred repairs - a process which will take one to two years per carrier. Our vintage 1980s submarines are being retired at a rate double the one that we're commissioning replacements. Our F/A-18 fleet is a maintenance disaster. Our Air Force has a significant pilot shortage. All the weapons we're going to mess with China won't be widely introduced for another five years.

Anyone who wants to see the US return to it's historic military power compared to it's rivals, come back around 2028. Until then, it's a good 11 years of a "reset". A reset from the Iraq and Afghan War which caused conventional warfighting capabilities to atrophy. A reset from the 1980s-era equipment that gets older and older. A reset from silly people like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama taking US power for granted, rather than as a limited resource like any other.

By 2028 we'll have our armed forces back at their conventional warfighting bread and butter. We'll have a larger force that will repair Obama's stupid cuts. We'll have many F/A-35s, B-21Bs, and new modern warships. But today? The cost of a Second Korean War would be, basically, American Superpowerdom as we know it.

This is a time to build power... to carefully tend the crop... not to burn through it. We can't do something about North Korea now without an unacceptably high cost. In a decades time, maybe that'll be different. That's what happens you we nationally procrastinate. We have to find ways to win well into the future because we didn't nip a problem in the bud. It's the 1950s all over again in that regard in a sense.

[Vorkreist]

Maybe the EU can take care of NK for the world in this particular case. I don't see how it is just America's responsibility to deal with NK.

You can't see it can't you? I mean its the EU controlling south korea and japan in that side of the world right?

[Skroe]

Listen, i know your narrative well and i know how you tend to throw all the blame to others. You excel on that and you do it well.

Except Russia breached the INF Treaty. Nobody else did. The US in fact, explicitly avoids developing missile technology that could breach it, even though it's well within our technical means.

However, someone has to think what would happen if NATO didn't push eastwards? There are F-35s in Esthonia for God's Shake.

Russia never got a treaty on NATO saying it wouldn't push Eastward. No Treaty, no deal. That's international relations work. That's a non-serious complaint. There is however, a treaty on Intermediate Range weapons. Do you understand the difference? Russia's complaint on Eastward expansion has no-legal basis. The US's complaint on Russia's INF violation has a serious legal basis.

As for F-35 in Estonia... there's two of them and 20 maintainers, doing familiarity training on the facilities. You're really going to whine about our two F-35s? There's what... a grand total of four US Air Force owned F-35s on the entire continent right now? Big deal. When the US starts erecting climate controlled hangers in Germany to host B-2s, then you'd have a valid complaint. But the chances of that happening ever are basically zero.

Also, INF is a bs treaty if you think about it.

It's a legal document. It doesn't matter if you or I think it's "bs".

Both sides have shitons of cruise missiles that can be launched from ships / air assets. I am not saying that an intermediate ballistic missile is the same as a cruise missile, (hold the same warhead(s), speeds, liftoff weight etc) but the danger is already there.

US hasn't had nuclear armed tomahawks deployed on Warships or land-based launchers in decades. In fact, the last nuclear armed tomahawks. which sat in the hedge stockpile for years, were destroyed (disposed of) back in 2012.

And as we've seen from the Syrian strikes, US cruise missiles, with 1 ton warheads, have a limited, precision destructive capacity (by design). For the US to lay waste to vast swathes of land from a ship or submarine, it would need to use a nuclear weapon warhead on one of these cruise missiles, or a cruise missile with sub munitions (bomblets), neither of which the US has anymore. But Russia does.

The INF treaty breach is a bullshit preach by the US warmongols to justify for gear to Russian borders.

Nonsense. Russia ACTUALLY developed a treaty-breaking missile, and the US did not.

I think the US should. But let's be clear. As of today, the US has no missile that does, and has no missile on the drawing board that would. I think it should. And it wouldn't be a particularly large program. But only Russia cheated. The US never did.

Russia has to respond at some point, just be afraid what their reaction will be.

Uh-huh. So let's be clear, you're not actually serious about global nuclear disarmament. If you were, you would be holding Russia to account for it's unilateral treaty violation of, litterally, the ONE treaty that would be the template for a Global Disarmament Treaty. Instead, you're doing what you always do: defend Russia.

You know what the best part about this? INF Weapons allow Russia to target European cities and bases, since they're too close for most of their ICBMs. In terms of my life or the majority of US military power, they're basically a non-factor. INF weapons allow Russia to point a gun at the head of Europe, just as North Korea points a gun at Seoul in the form of aterillery. It is exactly the same thing. Hostage taking.

And here you are, European... Greek... excusing it.

[Allybeboba]

^And crickets is all I hear from that remark...

[bladeXcrasher]

I hope the reality has set in on the Trump administration that anyone saying this ends up in a ground war is INSANE. Seoul gets wiped off the map overnight and mushroom clouds appear in Japan and the rest of South Korea.

Trump would have to nuke. There is zero way around this.

I don't think you have the slightest idea on the USA's policy on the use of nuclear weapons. If NK nuked SK and Japan we wouldn't nuke NK.

[bladeXcrasher]

You sure about that? Remember, Trump is one who will make the call.

Yes, I'm sure about that. If the last 3 months have showed people anything about the USA government workings, it's that the POTUS' power isn't absolute.

[yetgdhfgh]

As long as china doesnt get military involved i dont really care

NK is a gnat that buzzes and annoys and can easily be squished!