What does “start anything” mean? At present NK is threatening to send unarmed missiles into international waters near Guam — totally legal AFAIK. Trump has threatened to attack preemptively not only if NK does just that, but even if they talk about it. Clearly it would be the orange sociopath who aggressed in such a scenario.
The good news is that, with Bannon, Rancid Idiotibus, and the Mooch all side-lined, key Trump advisers are all adults now. If somebody would just delete Trump’s Twitter account we’d be safe.
We don’t need to threaten to retaliate. It’s pretty obvious that we would, if we were attacked.
We do not need to retaliate immediately. When we see missiles coming in our general direction, we don’t need to launch back, north korea isn’t going anywhere.
We really shouldn’t retaliate until or unless an actual nuclear munition goes off in our or one of our allies territories.
When it was russia, we needed to retaliate as soon as we saw missiles, because they had the ability to degrade our ability to retaliate in their first strike. Our missiles needed to be on the way before they were destroyed or rendered useless by loss of communication.
North Korea is not going to be diminishing our nuclear or any other type of capability, no matter what they try to throw at us, so we can take our time in retaliation. Our real concern should be our allies in the area, and preventing as much casualties as we can.
Adults all realize that. Even Donny Boy probably does, though lacking any humanitarian values he may allow whim and his own bluster to do the irrational.
Rather than a holocaust on the Korean Peninsula the likeliest risks are subtler, e.g. China taking over from U.S.A. the role of the world’s most respected economic, political and military superpower.
You’re stupid for thinking the Pit is here for explanations … what the hell were you thinking posting sensible and clear-headed statements … fine then, be non-insulting if you wish … just remember you expose yourself to the absolute worst comment of all time:
I agree with you … THAT should scare the living shit outta ya …
So now fuckface is saying that military action against Venezuela is an option. I’m not sure what Venezuela’s done, other than sitting on oil Putin or Trump might want. In any case, I hope we’re next. That would go over like gangbusters.
If a nuke gets dropped on this country, then a response in kind is the only appropriate response. To not do so is to send out a signal to every nuclear-armed nation in the world that you can nuke us and we won’t nuke you back, and thus is the entire status quo of nuclear deterrence broken permanently.
A Grenada do-over. Cuban bulldozers are extending the runways so that big jets from Venezuela can land huge cargoes of opiates, and American veterinary students are being held hostage on sex farms.
Yes, but they are stupid horrible adults for the most part. The kind of adults you get when you let a petulant child pick his own babysitters.
Now some of them might not seem so bad at times, but that’s just because they are surrounded by people that are way more stupid and horrible than they are.
But even the most adult of the bunch would be the most stupid and horrible person in the room in a decent administration.
I disagree. A conventional military attack which removes the Kim regime from power would be just as strong a deterrent as a nuclear counter-strike. It’s the North Korean government not the North Korean people who will order any attacks against us, so the North Korean government should be the target for our response.
We can topple the regime just fine without using nukes.
The signal that would be sent to everyone is that we will respond with a proportional and rational response, not just some knee-jerk retaliation that is more about getting even than it is about actually preventing further launches.
We can take out the entire city that they are in. We don’t need to assassinate individually. (BTW, are you saying that the world’s intelligence agencies do not have assassins?)
We can take out the govt, and there will be a number bystanders in the city that get killed. Nukes will just kill more people, without killing any more of the key players.
If what we are going for is the goal of killing as many north koreans as we can, then sure, we should use nukes, that’s what they are good for. Personally, I don’t see any need to kill any more civilians than are necessary, so I see a more measured, surgical and effective approach to be more pragmatic.
*“Kim, stop being a jerk and we will send food, but keep it up and we will strengthen sanctions.” *
Actually, I would not mind if China whacked him, shot his generals and took over. China may not be wonderful, but compared to Best Korea, it’s a paradise (all things being relative).
If you see ads for “short guys with bad haircuts, must be able to travel starting this afternoon”, that’s the insertion team that’ll surreptitiously wander into Kim’s briefings…
what they don’t tell you is that you may not wander out again.