Trump seems to have signalled that war is imminent. I didn’t see a thread about this so I will open the topic or ask to be directed to an active thread on the topic. Thanks!
No.
Regards,
Shodan
You will not realize that you have been at war until after Trump declares his victory – his best victory.
War with NK has been imminent for years. What makes this time any different?
Nothing has changed. Kim is doing what he does, Trump is doing what he does.
Twenty years ago, if NK attacked Seoul, it would have done horrific damage to Seoul and then NK would be destroyed. Now, if NK attacks Seoul or the US west coast or Guam or Tokyo, it would do horrific damage and then NK would be destroyed. Therefore, NK will not attack unless it believes it is going to die anyway. Trump is not going to attack.
Regards,
Shodan
I would dissent from the popular opinion here and say that there is a higher probability of war today in Korea than during the hysteria about Bush bombing Iran ten or twelve years ago.
As far as actual odds of war? Maybe 10%. Far from likely but not impossible. (I put the odds of Bush attacking Iran at like 0.1%, for reference sake.)
The Australians who volunteer are going to be really upset when they find themselves fighting in Korea.
In a Trumpian twist, we are going to war with the Snorks. In a further Trumpian twist, he will accidentally bomb the Smurfs instead.
Well, yes, something definitely has: North Korea has nuclear weapons and ICBMs.
War is still highly unlikely…but the situation is significantly different from what it was ten years ago.
“Norks” may or may not be an appropriate nickname for the North Korean leadership, depending on how seriously you take the situation:
I think that etymology is wrong. Norks is used as a slang term for breasts in Australia. I don’t see any reason why Australians would adopt a slang term based on the name of New York City. And Nork isn’t a common slang term for New York City.
What I’ve read is that there is a North Coast Dairy in New South Wales which is also known as Norco. And some of their advertising campaigns features the prominent display of cows’ udders. So the association in Australia of Norco with udders transferred into nork becoming a slang term for breast.
Okay, now explain why the Brits adopted “Yonkers” as slang term for breasts.
Is there any word, in any language, that when pluralized, has not been used as a slang term for breasts?
“Yes.”
The outcome for NK hasn’t changed, which is what I meant. Therefore the likelihood of war hasn’t changed - it’s suicide for NK to attack Tokyo or Seoul or the US, just like it was suicide for them to attack Seoul before they had nukes.
It’s not MAD yet, but you are correct that now the US could suffer significant damage. But that doesn’t change the odds, because the odds of a successful outcome for NK are still close to zero.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you’re asking the wrong question.
The real question is, what are the odds that Kim Jong Un would see a victory in being annihilated but inflicting a blow to the US in the process? IMHO, the odds are low but not zero. The odds of his father and grandfather thinking that, even though they did not have the tools to do so, were IMHO substantially lower.
And we now have a delusional belligerent sociopath in charge of our nukes.
I thought Trump was a Smurf. 
As a long-term brit and somewhat expert on slang terms, I can confidently say that this is not a common term for breasts.
I cannot say for certain that it has never been used but I am certain that it isn’t common enough to have ever reached my ears.
“waps” “whammers” “shirt-potatoes” “jugglies” “baps”?..yes…“Yonkers”?..not to my knowledge
Oops; I missed that context. Sorry.
Terrifying, even at very low odds. And, yeah, this is the sort of reasoning that very bad people sometimes succumb to. I wouldn’t put that kind of reasoning outside the realm of possibility for our leader, let alone theirs.