Kim Jong-un backs down

[Skroe]

If only we had a strong leader in the past it would have never had gotten this far.

The problem isn't the leaders alone. The problem's the American people.

Was it not last year that the Trumpkins were the most vocal of warhawks in wanting to spend vast amounts of US military power squashing ISIS?

ISIS. 30,000 rapists and terrorists confined to a couple of cities in the middle of the desert, in Syria, a country that is aligned with Russia. That is who the Trumpkins, in their infinite wisdom, wanted to fight like they were the Nazis. Not Russia. Not China. Not North Korea. ISIS.

We got to this point because the American people have had completely fucked up security priorities for 25 years, predating 9/11. It's forgotten the importance of conventional and nuclear deterrence. It's let both erode, and then became fixated on fighting brown skinned turban wearers that this day in age are nothing more than a chronic skin rash.

[Wildtree]

But then again, Americans never took the Wars seriously enough to finance the right tools.

That can't be further from the truth..
How so?
1. 241 years existence, 25 years of it in peace, the rest is all sorts of wars.
2. The USA has the largest economy on the planet. Even with adjustment of the population numbers and such, it is still way ahead of the game vs anyone else. That comes entirely from the fact that the country very well knows how to take war serious, and make the big bucks from it.
Let's not forget, prior to WW2 the country was in the crapper. The great depression was horrendous and destructive on the population. And then, a few years down the road comes the god-send.. WW2.
This was the birth time of the largest military industrial complex this world has ever seen.
This fact is the secret of the US' economy and it's successes.
No, the US knows very well how to exploit wars, on all levels.
If you would end that system, the US economy would collapse and fall into oblivion. History likely repeat itself with another great depression too. But worse, it would drag half the planet with it. Since we're in a different trade environment now.
And no, the military is still second to none. There's no one anywhere close. And no one anywhere in sight that could match the US' fire power.
You don't need all the things you've mentioned, since you'd only need em if there was an appropriate enemy. And last I've checked, there's none on Earth.
Maybe in outer space. But for such, no one on Earth would be a match. Any species that is capable of making it to Earth with space ships is outmatching us by far.

[Trassk]

Trump and Mattis basically telling them we would erase them from the planet had an effect, it seems.

About time somebody stood up to NK instead of cowering in fear and appeasement.

So after all the freaking out about trump being the worst president ever for declaring a threat to NK, it turns out he actually did something right?

[BuckSparkles]

So after all the freaking out about trump being the worst president ever for declaring a threat to NK, it turns out he actually did something right?

They will never give him credit though. Their hatred for Trump is above anything else.

[Skroe]

Are you saying that NK forces are a match for the entire world combined?

No. I'm saying the entire world's forces largely can't even show up to the field of battle in the first place, and America's are in a sorry state because we've spent 16 years fighting the wrong wars, stupidly, and not investing in maintenance and replacement like we should have. Once again, 15 years ago we had 10,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Today we have around 3000. Across the whole planet. That sounds like a lot? It's not. We used nearly 900 in 2003 against Saddam Hussein. Unlike Saddam Hussein, North Korea has more artillery emplacements and air defense than we have cruise missiles.

Like let me put this in perspective for you. The British Royal Air Force has so few Helicopters, that they might as well give them names like we named our 20 strong fleet of B-2 bombers. Almost no country in the world besides America has anything approaching the logistical capabilities to move large numbers of their forces (such that they exist) to Korea. And again, only Russia, China and the US has anything that can be called a "Heavy Bomber", and only America has good ones. And no one else is planning.

North Korea is no match for the US. But we'd come out of a conflict with them having expended an enormous amount of our military power, which is already severely depleted because Americans decided to become obsessed with fighting ISIS the past four years. This is a time to rebuild our military power, not spend it, yet again, on another fools errand just so Americans can feel like they're in control and doing something.

I mean it comes down to this. The US was running out of bombs to bomb ISIS with and raided its global reserve stockpile, until it put in an emergency order. We fought stupid wars wrong and came away pooer. What did we expect to happen?

The rest of the world though? What rest of the world? The European powers need and keep their forces close to home. Everyone else is mostly highly heterogeneous garbage and nobody else has the logistics.

You know why America is the world police? At it's core it's because we buy hundreds of things like this:



Or let me put it another way. We don't just have cops. We have cop cars and police helicopters. Everybody else decides to walk to the scene of the crime. And I do mean walk. And frankly, that's really, really good for world peace because the complexity and costs of deploying modern military forces far from home acts as an inhibitor against it. It is in America's best interests nobody else decides to have cop cars and police helicopters so to speak.

But that won't be lasting terribly much longer. We're around just 25 years out from China having Carrier Strike groups in the mid-Atlantic. You know, while we were obsessed with ISIS cutting off the heads of people in Syria (which in no way effects our security), they were figuring out how to produce twice as many ships as us per year. Americans have the best priorities.

[Sky High]

So after all the freaking out about trump being the worst president ever for declaring a threat to NK, it turns out he actually did something right?

if he actually did anything other than antagonize them id love to see it. as far as I can tell it was the actual adults in the room and the military that shrugged the NK threats off as they always do.

[turboether]

Really? With what exactly?

Our munitions stockpiles which are at near historic lows and won't be replenished until the 2020s.

Our military, which is about 110,000 troops undermanned?

Our Air Force, which has a 1000 pilot (one third the force) shortage?

Our Navy, which is in the midst of long delayed long duration maintenance?

People talk about US military power as if it's some kind of magical genie. We go, rub a lamp, make a wish and our problem goes away.

America is not the only power who would be upset with a North Korea unrestrained. I would be quite surprised if the world reacted to an unprovoked nuclear attack with soft-cocked sanctions and asking 'Un nicely to kindly step down before he lobs another or by golly we'll be very upset. Nothing in my post hand-waved the cost of ending the regime, which would undoubtedly high, especially for South Korea, but I know a man in your position of knowledge is acutely aware that America has rode to war for far less, and that if a bomb lands on NATO allies you are obligated to assist and defend them.

[ohiostate124]

He must have read that copy of Art of the Deal that Dennis Rodman brought him.

[ParanoiD84]

That can't be further from the truth..
How so?
1. 241 years existence, 25 years of it in peace, the rest is all sorts of wars.

The world have been in constant warfare since the dawn of man, no world peace always wars somewhere so i dont see what difference that makes, europe where no better before or the middleeast or whatever place on this planet, wars, wars and more wars and i dont see that stopping anytime soon. Even little sweden where always at war before and where a superpower to because of wars, shame that didnt last btw would have been awesome

[BuckSparkles]

Because every other previous attempt at deescalation resulted in NK nuking us???????

God knows how many times this has been said to you, but "erasing them from the planet" would really suck for everyone.

Erasing NK from the planet would suck for everyone?

[LMuhlen]

@Skroe I guess we'll have to wait and find out. Or not. Probably not. Because Kim Jong-boom doesn't seem to think like you.

[Skroe]

That can't be further from the truth..
How so?
1. 241 years existence, 25 years of it in peace, the rest is all sorts of wars.
2. The USA has the largest economy on the planet. Even with adjustment of the population numbers and such, it is still way ahead of the game vs anyone else. That comes entirely from the fact that the country very well knows how to take war serious, and make the big bucks from it.
Let's not forget, prior to WW2 the country was in the crapper. The great depression was horrendous and destructive on the population. And then, a few years down the road comes the god-send.. WW2.
This was the birth time of the largest military industrial complex this world has ever seen.
This fact is the secret of the US' economy and it's successes.
No, the US knows very well how to exploit wars, on all levels.
If you would end that system, the US economy would collapse and fall into oblivion. History likely repeat itself with another great depression too. But worse, it would drag half the planet with it. Since we're in a different trade environment now.
And no, the military is still second to none. There's no one anywhere close. And no one anywhere in sight that could match the US' fire power.
You don't need all the things you've mentioned, since you'd only need em if there was an appropriate enemy. And last I've checked, there's none on Earth.
Maybe in outer space. But for such, no one on Earth would be a match. Any species that is capable of making it to Earth with space ships is outmatching us by far.

Nonsense from top to bottom. What did I say? Tools. Your a taxi driver. You gonna be a taxi driver with an 18 wheeler? No. You're gonna be a taxi driver with Volkswagen or a Toyota Camary.

Your little diatribe here is utter nonsense in the sense the scale of investment is irrelevant if it's buying the wrong crap.

For example, to fight the War on terror properly, we should NEVER have had F-16s orbiting Iraq and Afghanistan for years on end. Even in 2017 deploying carriers to the Gulf to bomb ISIS is a farce. Even A-10s are overkill

We should have bought 300 Super Tucano's 10 years ago and used them. What's a Super Tucano? This.



It's a crop duster with guns that can drop precision bombs and supports night vision. And it's cheap. And you know what it would have done? Not had us savage the service life of our high end armed forces. 15 years ago there were nearly 2000 1700 F-16s in service. Now there are fewer than 900. 10 years from now, it'll be about 300. The USAF is retiring about 100-200 a year. Because we've flown them to the bone.

It's actually that bad. The F-15C, which will fly until 2040... all of them need a central fusealage rebuild to address a metal fatigue risk that has already caused one to break up mid-flight. The rebuild will cost $70 million per aircraft for 220 aircraft. The cost of a new F-35, by the way, is $90 million. So yeah, we're nearly buying a whole new fighter to fix the ones that flew a lot more than they should have over the last 20 years.

Think of it like an air conditioner. You have an air conditioner rated for 30 years. But you run it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Does it last 30 years? No. It lasts 7. It's the exact same principle. Service hours are a thing and thanks to using the wrong tool for the job for decades, the Army, the Air Force and the Navy now face a fleet service life crisis.

So it's really funny you think I'm making some kind of play for high end bombers... when I'm not. That has to come because the stuff we have is worn down. But we got in this mess, because 15 years ago, we occupied Iraq with stuff meant to wreck the Red Army, and we orbited Afghanistan with stuff meant to nuke Sibera. All because we wanted to save a little money. A Super Tucano? $9 million per aircaft.

How many US troops died before lawmakers decided to shell out some extra money and up-Armored Humvees? How many died before Robert Gates rush-ordered the MRAP program to replace the Humvees with something not perfectly designed to get Americans killed by a roadside bomb?

It's very simple: if the US bought and used things like this up-gunned crop-dusters 15 years, it would have a B-1B Lancer fleet (for example) that wasn't entering it's final 15 years and wasn't presently mostly cut open to undergo long delayed repairs from doing things it was never meant to do. And we'd be more prepared to fight North Korea or anybody else.

But we didn't, because we never took the wars seriously enough.

[hyphnos]

Trump and Mattis basically telling them we would erase them from the planet had an effect, it seems.

About time somebody stood up to NK instead of cowering in fear and appeasement.

No, the chinese telling them that they were on their own if they attacked the US first did.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.97653ed5eac9

[Donald Hellscream]

He has got to know that if he made good on his threat, it'd be over for him.

[ParanoiD84]

It would create an international refugee crisis. The peninsula and surrounding area would be flooded with homeless, starving refugees. Social services in those areas would break beyond capacity. Such a correction would require a massive international relief effort. The success of such Marshall would need to mimic the development of Israel's. All of this ignores the fallout from simply being a participant in a war against a black hole.

No one likes NK. But few people actually understand foreign policy and the true consequences of those actions. Honestly, the best outcome out of a series of shitty outcomes would probably be China taking over NK with international aid.

Would be fun to see how well north koreans would function in normal countrys after being fed propaganda 24/7 and all the other crazy stuff going on there. I mean they cant even access the real internet or tv that dont run their propaganda 24/7 without being executed

[BuckSparkles]

It would create an international refugee crisis. The peninsula and surrounding area would be flooded with homeless, starving refugees. Social services in those areas would break beyond capacity. Such a correction would require a massive international relief effort. The success of such Marshall would need to mimic the development of Israel's. All of this ignores the fallout from simply being a participant in a war against a black hole.

No one likes NK. But few people actually understand foreign policy and the true consequences of those actions. Honestly, the best outcome out of a series of shitty outcomes would probably be China taking over NK with international aid.

F@ck NK. The scenario involving NK has me more concerned about South Korea, Japan, and of course China's reaction. We could literally flatten every inch of NK and I wouldn't shed a tear.

[Deleted]

"Guys, North Korea didn't went with their fake threats and saber rattling! Victory!"

I thought the pro-Trumpers hated faked news, and yet you fell for Kim family trademarked BS.

[Wildtree]

So it's really funny you think I'm making some kind of play for high end bombers... when I'm not.

No, I didn't. At least it wasn't the intend.

That has to come because the stuff we have is worn down. But we got in this mess, because 15 years ago, we occupied Iraq with stuff meant to wreck the Red Army, and we orbited Afghanistan with stuff meant to nuke Sibera. All because we wanted to save a little money. A Super Tucano? $9 million per aircaft.

How many US troops died before lawmakers decided to shell out some extra money and up-Armored Humvees? How many died before Robert Gates rush-ordered the MRAP program to replace the Humvees with something not perfectly designed to get Americans killed by a roadside bomb?

It's very simple: if the US bought and used things like this up-gunned crop-dusters 15 years, it would have a B-1B Lancer fleet (for example) that wasn't entering it's final 15 years and wasn't presently mostly cut open to undergo long delayed repairs from doing things it was never meant to do. And we'd be more prepared to fight North Korea or anybody else.

But we didn't, because we never took the wars seriously enough.

That fits my claim though.. I argued that the US appreciates a good war at any given time, because it translates in economic advancement.
It's about two things..
Superiority and big money.
Its not about people, and never was. No war was ever fought with the welfare of the people that fought it in mind. They're on their own, they have to care for themselves. Lawmakers and other government officials behind office desks do not care about these kind of statistics.
They care for economic success, because that gets them elected, that secures their job.
Just look at the monkey in chief.. Worthless piece of human garbage, and yet playing the economy fiddle keeps him popular with his followers.

Your arguments in all respect and honor.. but as the saying goes, follow the money trail.
It's an artificial construct that is designed to maximize revenue. And more often than not rational decisions aren't maximizing any profits.
Even trying to safe money is tailored towards that goal. Safe on the wrong spot now, and get even more revenue later.

[jibberbox85]

Argument's already? Damn, we're only 2 pages in. This is like a record.

Yea, i was wondering when that was going to start up myself.

[Exotath]

Kim Jong probably realized the US will probably destroy itself at the rate we're going.