What US sanctions will do to Russia, Iran and North Korea - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Ongoing wars and conflict resolution, international agreements or lack thereof. Nationhood, secessionist movements, national 'home' government versus internationalist trends and globalisation.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14831686
MB. wrote:They absolutely do, or at least, Trump does. Did you not see Mattis' statement this morning? Trump prioritized DPRK as one of his first actions as president.
Do you think Bush "didn't want a war" in Iraq?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08 ... eople.html
Image


Its just changing the rhetoric from Obama's leadership that would represent laying on his back and pissing himself like a little puppy. Any act would have go through congress don't loose any sleep.
#14831691
Obviously, I don't have a clue what China would do. Typical US strategy would be to offer them something in advance such as Mongolia or Australia. :) I don't believe that is practical in this situation, and I have no real alternatives other than risking it. :?:
#14831695
anarchist23 wrote:I'm no expert in military logistics.
A nuclear attack would annihilate NKs leadership quickly whereas a conventional attack would take long enough for North Korea to decimate Seoul with biological and chemical weapons and for IBMs to be launched.
USA has over 4000 nuclear weapons and President Trump is insane.


Image



It would be strategically risky, I do not see why we cannot just obliterate them using conventional weapons.
#14831707
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea ... an-n791221

I love silly stories like this. NBC knows our attack plan for North Korea. :lol: I thought I was silly for speculating, but I feel better after reading this. If our military is so incompetent to give out this information, we should just call all our troops home. To me, it is a fantasy article about the nicest way to wage war.
Supposedly, we will only use B 1 bombers that can't carry nuclear weapons and this will reassure the North enough that they won't attack the South. :lol:
#14831715
Trump's cabinet is desperately trying to roll back on this. Tillerson says its all just smoke and mirrors. Mattis in his statement tried to go with "the alliance is strong" but the truth is this little incident has just made Trump look like a dumbass retard even more so than usual.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/09/polit ... index.html

#14831747
One Degree wrote:I don't believe that is practical in this situation, and I have no real alternatives other than risking it. :?:


You do realise you are supporting nuclear war? If the US strikes first with a NUCLEAR BOMB, they would be isolated and internationally condemned. Even NATO wouldn't come to their aid. And May, her knickers would be pulled up quite quickly indeed (I would hope). Then you are risking China not responding. NK are not a threat to the US because they don't have the Arsenal. China could send a volley of nukes towards the US in one strike and they would have to shoot them all down. A very dangerous idea. The US would be risking everything for nothing.

As I said earlier, whoever strikes first loses. Regardless of NK rhetoric, they are not insane enough to do it (otherwise they would have done so by now). If Trump is, the quicker he gets impeached the bloody better.
#14831799
The attack on Hiroshima was a test of the power of an atomic bomb compared to conventional bombs.

The citizens wondered why they alone had remained undisturbed for so long a time. There were fantastic rumors that the enemy had something special in mind for this city, but no one dreamed that the end would come in such a fashion as on the morning of August 6th.

From "The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" by The Manhatten Engineer District.
#14831803
Everyone should be clear that the US does have a strike-first plan on North Korea, and Trump is just batshit enough to do it.

From everything I've read, North Korea wants to take a shortcut, but still be treated as a legitimate country. They are right bastards, for sure. So was Saddam, but it in no way justified the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

Nor should the same rhetoric here mean that anybody with any sense should support the US going into North Korea.

Though I find this mostly the kind of thing that, like a conspiracy theory, makes us feel more in control of an out-of-control world, there has been speculation that part of this has to do with long term Russian plans coming to fruition. I don't have the source, but I was watching German news yesterday and the German rocketry experts were saying that this newest model from North Korea looked Russian. Take that, of course, with a grain of salt.

But I do that to underline how predictable the American response is. It's not too difficult to manipulate Americans. If there is anything to the Russian accusations (and I'm not saying there is) it is no different than the British easily getting Bush to go to war with Iraq after French oil companies were about to get that sweet Iraqi oil without giving BP a cut. Then, of course, the British got a disproportionately large share of oil fields and cut out, leaving Uncle Sam holding the bag to protect and distribute the oil while being able to wag a finger in shame for US aggression.

And I in no way think the US is anything other than stupid enough to fall for the same thing again, if the Russian connection is accurate.

The United States has been shoveling bullshit into its mouth about having to maintain an aggressive military posture for long enough that it believes it.
#14831806
I admire North Korea. It is a terrible and cruel regime but that is the price it must pay for standing against the United States and while the rest of the world cowtows to the economic and military might of America they continue to resist.

Kim should push toward aggression with America as their zeal and willpower will never be ultimately defeated by fire and fury but can be by lack of it.
#14831809
MememyselfandIJK wrote:you really think China and Russia would just sit around? That would start WWIII

Yes, I completely agree. Trump can do very little, he is sabre rattling that's all but it could backfire with terrible consequences.


The United States is likely to "seriously consider" shooting down any North Korean missiles tests aimed at the waters around the US territory of Guam, but experts warn the technology isn't guaranteed to work.
Pyongyang doubled down on its threats to launch missiles at Guam early on Thursday, announcing a potential plan on state media for the "simultaneous fire of four Hwasong-12 (rockets)."

Adam Mount, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told CNN the US military could use its THAAD defense system or Aegis destroyers to stop any North Korean projectiles. THAAD, or the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, is one of the US's main weapons against offensive missiles.
"If they had confidence from their readings that they would not hit US territory, it's possible they'd just let them fall into the sea, but I think they'd also take a very serious look at shooting them down," he said.
If the missiles landed within 40 kilometers (25 miles) of Guam, as threatened, according to UN law, they would fall within the United States' exclusive economic zone although not their territorial waters.
After North Korea's initial threat against Guam, the territory's Homeland Security Advisor George Charfauros told CNN he was confident of their defense systems.
"They've slowly developed their capabilities but we stand in high confidence with the US (Defense Department's) ability to not only defend Guam and the surrounding areas but also the continental US... There are several layers of ballistic missile defense."
But Bruce Bennett, a senior defense analyst at the Rand Corporation, told CNN it would ultimately be US President Donald Trump's decision whether to test their missile defenses.
"This is an experimental system — we could potentially miss or hit, we don't know for sure. And even people who make cell phones, who have substantially more testing than THAAD does, sometimes have cell phones burn up," he said.
Mount suggested an attempt to shoot down the missile might be exactly what Kim Jong Un wants, as missing even one projectile would be an embarrassment for the US military.
How would it work?
The United States and its allies have two primary missile defense options to intercept a missile between North Korea and Guam.
In South Korea, a recently deployed THAAD missile defense system would not be able to intercept a launch toward Guam but could quickly detect the launch on its radar.
Guam itself is equipped with its own THAAD missile system, which could intercept any missiles launched from Pyongyang toward the island.
"The system's designed to engage multiple targets simultaneously, so that should be quite feasible to do," Bennett said.
However, Bennett added, it depended how far away the missiles were targeted, as the total range of THAAD was 200 kilometers (124 miles). "The closer you get to that, you're stressing the performance of the system," he said.
Alternatively, United States destroyers equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defenses could take down a missile at an even longer range, before it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere.
"The US might decide to put an Aegis system much closer to Guam to have two levels of defense, but that's a presidential decision," he said.
Carl Schuster, a Hawaii Pacific University professor and former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center, told CNN a single ship equipped with Aegis could probably take out two missiles.
Calling America's bluff
The United States has long trumpeted its ability to defend against missiles that threatened the country's territory, which might be what Pyongyang is counting on.
In response to North Korean missile tests, the US military has tested its missile defense system in May, and multiple times in July, although they later admitted one had failed.
But Mount said Pyongyang's threats to launch multiple missiles at Guam could be a deliberate action to call the United States' bluff on missile defense.
"It was no accident that North Korea threatened to launch four missiles, it deliberately complicates the decisions of US policy makers," he said.
If any of the four long-range missiles successfully made it through US defense, Mount said, it would be a huge victory for the rogue state.
"If the United States did try to intercept the missiles they would want to intercept all of them, because failing to intercept them all would send a message about the (US's) limited capacity ... those systems aren't perfect," he said.
Bennett said North Korea would be hoping for the US to fail, but even if the missile defenses failed it wouldn't be a disaster.
"This is a system that has never been called upon to shoot down a North Korean missile before. As a result, asking to do that for the first time, if it does, great," he said.
"If it doesn't, that means you might have some sort of software or system failure and better to find that out in peacetime rather than at war."


http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/10/asia/ ... index.html









.
Last edited by anarchist23 on 10 Aug 2017 11:38, edited 5 times in total.
#14831812
Let's face it, sometime soon the Armistice is going to end and the Korean War is going to resume.... Only a matter of time. Sometime this century.

The US has been secretly hopeful for decades that before the armed conflict would continue that an internal Coup or citizen uprising would do the dirty on the NK leader and governing party, or that the NK leader would send troops south and try a ground invasion and be the first to break the agreement(An assassination wouldnt cut it, they'd blame it on the US, and yeah the War would be back on).

But that just isn't going to happen with a leader as young as Kim Jong-Un. He isn't that stupid as to allow political control to be wrestled away from him.

An invasion of North Korea is inevitable. A land invasion with a view to reunification of Korea as one country. I do hope it doesn't have to happen in my lifetime, but I suspect this will happen.
#14831813
B0ycey wrote:You do realise you are supporting nuclear war? If the US strikes first with a NUCLEAR BOMB, they would be isolated and internationally condemned. Even NATO wouldn't come to their aid. And May, her knickers would be pulled up quite quickly indeed (I would hope). Then you are risking China not responding. NK are not a threat to the US because they don't have the Arsenal. China could send a volley of nukes towards the US in one strike and they would have to shoot them all down. A very dangerous idea. The US would be risking everything for nothing.

As I said earlier, whoever strikes first loses. Regardless of NK rhetoric, they are not insane enough to do it (otherwise they would have done so by now). If Trump is, the quicker he gets impeached the bloody better.


I am not supporting anything. I have clearly said I am speculating. Applying moral standards to everything people say is a little silly, especially when it is speculation about war. You are saying the US would lose, if they struck first, because the world would be mad at them. :knife: I can assure you no military commander bases his plans on your feelings, that is for politicians. The US, or any country, only needs to worry about world opinion if they choose to. North Korea certainly isn't concerned. All the major countries have histories of being despised for something, and in the long run, it means nothing.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

To address the first statement, I don’t support th[…]

EU-BREXIT

What? The problem with Corbyn is he won't come ri[…]

Do we owe reparations to LGBT?

I acknowledge that you don't possess the ability[…]

Trump and Russiagate

@blackjack21 Blackjack21 is a smart guy but hi[…]