jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (71 posts)

Is Donald Trump going to attack North Korea?

  1. Don W profile image82
    Don Wposted 2 weeks ago

    I'm struggling to keep up with all this. Is Trump really planning to attack North Korea if they do another nuclear test? Is it seriously being considered as a possibility? Or is it just sabre rattling? And is this type of brinksmanship the best approach to foreign policy?

    1. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 2 weeks ago in reply to this

      To understand President Trump a person needs to read The Art Of The Deal.  No doubt, Trump and Xi made a deal on trade that is more fair for the US economy.  The deal must be sweet for China since they have stepped up to finally stand up to Kim Jong un.

      China was going to be cut out of the TPP, thus they were getting ready to defend their backyard in the South China Sea.  Trump stopped the unfair TPP, and an inevitable war in the SCS.

      Interesting.  According to former British foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the US may have sabotaged Kim Jong-un’s missile test through a cyber-attack. He says they have done that sort of thing before. 

      From what I understand the recent Vault 7 dump by Wikileaks revealed that US intelligence embeded software in everything computer controlled and can shut anything down, including nuclear power plants thanks to Honeywell, (plus all their spying technology was revealed).  Even their codes were revealed (so the deep state lost big league).   So, Sir Rifkind may be right.  Every humanitarian effort must be taken first, and I believe we're working on it night and day.

      The Chinese are a proud people and are all about saving face.  My feeling is that China will fire first if Nork missiles are fired, as Xi said, so I think that is a part of the deal. Japan and the US are in this with China.  North Korea wouldn't stand a chance.

      I hope there is a US Navy Seal team already on the ground seeking to put Kim Jong un in a straight jacket and his comrades. They have threatened and bullied Japan and South Korea long enough and they are the countries that have the most to lose if Nork nuclear weapons are launched. 

      The North Korean people are good people, but they are suppressed by a dictator. Most of the North Koreans have no electricity, it wouldn't be hard to take down the power grids.  The citizens are malnourished and that is why they are so small. They are brainwashed and basically uneducated but I believe they would appreciate caring leadership, as well as a hand up.     

      Anyway, these are some of the pieces of the puzzle I have put together so far from different sources. 

      I guess we have Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to thank for North Korea's nukes, and Obama kicked that can too.

    2. AshutoshJoshi06 profile image86
      AshutoshJoshi06posted 13 days ago in reply to this

      I think Trump as off now is trying to cozy up with the Chinese (the only ally N Korea can rely on). In all likelihood an attack might not happen as of now, that's probably because they need to throughly assess the capabilities of North Korea, which I believe CIA has failed to do so far. Has NKorea miniaturised the nuclear paylods to be carried off on the ICBMs is still not a confirmed fact in the public domain. Do they have ICBM strike capability and to what range? They do have the advantage of nuclear deterrance  though. US would also need to look into the safety aspect of its ally - South Korea which is in firing range.

      There is another possible scenario, can N Korea  launch a preemptive strike? Kim Jon Un is a mad man and may be he can make a hasty decision. At this juncture though, especially post US dropping the MOAB on Afghanistan, it appears to be a failed scenario. The message has been sent to all parties.

    3. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      I get that Trump is trying to use China as leverage against N. Korea. If that works, then great.

      But what happens if N. Korea refuses to play ball? Pence today said N. Korea should not test the resolve of Trump. Is Trump backing himself into a corner, with no other option but military force? If or when N. Korea do test another nuclear weapon, then what? War between the US and N. Korea? Seriously? Would Congress approve that (assuming Trump asks their approval)? If Congress does not approve, then what? If Congress does approve, on what legal basis can the US attack N. Korea? The possibility that it might at some unknown point in the future attack the US? That seems a bit flakey to say the least.

      1. AshutoshJoshi06 profile image86
        AshutoshJoshi06posted 12 days ago in reply to this

        Has US ever required a legal basis to destablize nations and topple govts or regimes???.. You let loose some propaganda pimps like CNN or sponsor human right sham groups like White Helmet and you have enough incriminating evidence. 
        Btw WMDs are still missing from the scene...supposedly they went to Syria...and may be from there to Libya..so on an so forth

        1. promisem profile image92
          promisemposted 10 days ago in reply to this

          No country requires a legal basis to destablize nations and topple governments. They have been doing it to each other worldwide for thousands of years.

          The motive is pure national interest (usually economic or religious).

    4. promisem profile image92
      promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      Conjuring an international incident is a popular way for politicians to distract voter attention from problems at home.

      He'll keep banging the drum as long as our intelligence agencies keep rolling out evidence about Russian help with the election.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 12 days ago in reply to this

        It's really too bad there isn't a smidgeon of evidence showing that Russia either actually "helped" with the election, OR that they "helped" Trump, to give any credence to your conspiracy theory.

        1. promisem profile image92
          promisemposted 12 days ago in reply to this

          How many times do our intelligence agencies, British intelligence and even Republicans like McCain and Graham have to say there is a problem?

          Have you seen TV interviews with Carter Page admitting to meetings? Have you read about Michael Flynn's demand for immunity? Have you read the public admissions of meetings with Russians by Carter Page, JD Gordon and Jared Kushner?

          I don't have a theory. I have facts from interviews with people that I see and hear. I'm not suffering from denial like the people who voted for Trump.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 12 days ago in reply to this

            How many times do you have to be told that "People know people in Russia" does not indicate that Russians were successful in affecting our election?  Perhaps you should quit making the claim until such evidence can be found: something more than "they tried" or "Business people know other business people".

            No, you're not suffering from denial, just from fantasy.

            1. promisem profile image92
              promisemposted 10 days ago in reply to this

              You didn't answer my questions. I'm sensing a pattern again.

              Did you see the interviews? Did you you read Flynn's demand for immunity? Did you read or hear the information  from our intelligence agencies, British intelligence and even Republican members of Congress who are now investigating the intelligence reports?

              Feel free to evade.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image80
            Sharlee01posted 12 days ago in reply to this

            promisem - I have not seen any form of evidence that President Trump or any of his cabinet have done anything illegal in regards to their dealings with Russia? I have seen the media reports in regards to Carter Page, as well as Flynn. There has been nothing reported in regards to illegal activity on their part. I think you may be getting ahead of yourself speculating that they did something illegal? If I were to speculate, I actually would speculate that if our Government agencies found any proof of illegal activity on the part of our president or anyone one in the administration, they would bring charges Both men you mentioned have not even been questioned yet. If there was indication that they broke the law, I would think they would have been  questioned. I think it wise to wait until the investigations re complete.It is not just or fair to smear these men's name's just because we can...   

            In regards to Flynn and his request for immunity. Think back to the Hillary Clinton email investigation, and how all of her  cohorts  took immunity... It appears you are exhibiting a bit of a double standard. Immunity just may let lawbreakers off the hook once again. Not a pleasant thought...

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 12 days ago in reply to this

              It doesn't seem to matter if actions were illegal: if we don't mention what interactions were for the insinuation is that any contact with the evil Russians contaminates the person talking to them as well, smearing them quite effectively.

              1. promisem profile image92
                promisemposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                You're right. For some people, breaking the law and colluding with foreign governments doesn't matter if it means their candidate gets the Presidency.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                  Wonderful word, "colluding", isn't it?  It can be used whenever any contact at all is made, turning a tip of the hat while crossing the street into outright treason.  At least if you don't care about truth - much like claiming Trump broke laws by "colluding" with Russia.

            2. promisem profile image92
              promisemposted 10 days ago in reply to this

              Sharlee, I didn't say Trump and his cabinet members did anything illegal. Please carefully re-read my posts.

              We are not talking about Hillary's email server. We are talking about the potential for treason. I'd say there is a big difference.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image80
                Sharlee01posted 10 days ago in reply to this

                promisem- "How many times do our intelligence agencies, British intelligence and even Republicans like McCain and Graham have to say there is a problem?"   I have heard many of the media reports. However, each and every time I find myself asking, what evidence are they offering? They don't even give an innuendo of what they are referring to. I truly believe if Comey had any evidence that would prove that anyone in the Trump campaign colutted with Russia to interfere with the election, he would act on it.

                "Have you seen TV interviews with Carter Page admitting to meetings? Have you read about Michael Flynn's demand for immunity? Have you read the public admissions of meetings with Russians by Carter Page, JD Gordon and Jared Kushner?"   
                Once again there is no evidence what so ever that these men colutted with the Russians to interfere with our election. Only innuendo.

                Actually your comments are in the same vein as the media.  You offered vague  innuendos that Carter Page, Michael Flynn,  JD Gordon and Jared Kushner colluted with the Russians, which by the way would be a crime.
                You offered your opinion without any form of facts to prove your  theory. 

                You  also make this glaring statement in a post to "wilderness".
                "You're right. For some people, breaking the law and colluding with foreign governments doesn't matter if it means their candidate gets the Presidency."

                1. promisem profile image92
                  promisemposted 9 days ago in reply to this

                  The director of the FBI stated on national TV, in front of Congress, that there is an ongoing investigation and that he can't reveal details of that investigation.

                  Yet Trump supporters claim it's all smoke by the media. So is the FBI director lying to the nation and Congress?

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                Which person (above the age of 18!) in the US does not have the potential to commit treason? 

                None, you say?  Then perhaps we should quit building "potential" into "treason" until there is actually treason being committed.  Or did you not care if it was or not - any lie that can be forced down the throat of gullible people will suffice?

    5. Sharlee01 profile image80
      Sharlee01posted 12 days ago in reply to this

      I dislike saying this, but my common sense makes me believe that North Korea  will  at some point attack perhaps Japan, South Korea or America before our president will be forced to take action against North Korea.  It's sad to see many believe president Trump would choose to be an aggressor. I see him as a man that if he was in the position that he had  to protect America he would. I don't think he would be quick to do anything just over North Korea testing missiles. This has been going on for years. If they develop the capability to deliver a long range missile, hopefully he will take action, and quickly...

    6. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      Hi Don W. I wish I could join this conversation with some depth of understanding, but I can't, so I will just offer a speculation.

      In the past, we have assented to N. Korea's militaristic threats blackmail with - oil, food, and humanitarian shipments. I recall that each time N. Korea rattled their sabers, we responded with appeasement shipments and concessions.

      I think, Pres. Trump is announcing a change of position - to use the trending term, " there is a new sheriff in town," to let N. Korea know the game has changed.

      Unfortunately, my shallow, (hear that ahorseback), knowledge of its leader causes concern that he may be willing to escalate - rather than rethink, his actions.

      I am not optimistic. If he has ever watched any high-stakes poker, he may decide his only choice is to go 'all in!'

      GA

    7. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      Playing devil's advocate, what right has the US got to tell N. Korea (or any sovereign country) what weapons it can and can't develop? And what right does it have to threaten a country because it refuses to do what the US president demands?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        Might makes right.

        What right did Kennedy have to tell Cuba to get the missiles out?  What right did we have telling N. Vietnam what to do, or N. Korea either?  What right do we have to tell other countries how to treat their people?  To tell Saddam not to gas his own people? To tell Assad how to behave? What right did the Allies have to give land they didn't own to Israel?

        Might makes right, it seems.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 11 days ago in reply to this

          Hello  Wilderness, I would suggest it is not a "might makes right" authority, but a national security authority.

          Of your listed examples, I believe Cuba, and today's N. Korean situation clearly demonstrate our national security interests.

          Although debatable, if one were of the mind of the times that believed in the accepted 'Domino theory' of the advance of Communism, then Vietnam could also be seen as a national security interest.

          But Saddam... you might be right on that one.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

            How about Assad?  Do we have the right to interfere in how he treats his people?

            Yes, security can be used as a reason, but is it really a valid one?  Even if we perceive a security risk, do we have the right to "throw the first punch"?  We certainly had the right to enter Kuwait, and thereby Iraq, but our friends were already invaded and asked for help - going after Saddam because of WMD's doesn't fit that idea at all.

            And I will submit that using our security, that starting a war because we think the other guy might be dangerous, is more excuse than reason, And Vietnam, or the Korean war, were both good examples - starting a war in another country because we demand they use our form of government is an excuse to spread our culture, but not a valid reason to kill thousands or millions of people.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 10 days ago in reply to this

              Yes, I think that if we do perceive a national security threat we do have the right to throw the first punch. I addressed your examples that I think could easily be defended as such instances. The ones I did not address, and your further example here, don't seem to be as easily attributed.

              As for your other point... that has been a national debate for decades hasn't it. Humanitarianism or Imperialism. Isolationism or Globalism. You know, that '... all it takes for evil.. etc.' thought.

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                If you, walking down the street, suddenly punch a passerby in the nose because you "perceived a threat" I daresay you're looking at at least a little time behind bars. 

                Perhaps it's not OK because someone bigger (city cops) say so, but the US has no one bigger. 

                Don't misunderstand me here - I supported invasion because of WMD's even when we couldn't find any.  But I'm not sure I can wiggle an ethical reason out of it, and I'm darned sure I can't find an ethical reason to kill thousands of Koreans because a madman might or might not attack with vastly inferior forces.

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                  I don't think your "...street..." example is a comparable one. Let's try a more real world theoretical: Would Israel have a right to the first punch standing if they knew Hezbollah was bringing a convoy with a nuclear bomb across Jordan's Northeast border?

                  So that you don't misunderstand me either, let me offer an analogy;

                  If I, as a father, knew that there was a nest of baby rattlesnakes in the corner of the backyard my toddler children play in - would I not have a family security, ("might makes right"), justification to contain, disarm, (defang), or remove those baby rattlers?

                  And for further clarity, I do not, (at this point), support any U.S. military "first punch" action against N. Korea.

                  GA

                  1. colorfulone profile image89
                    colorfuloneposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                    Trivia:  A little piece of puzzle from seven years ago (March 2010) South Korea accused the North of torpedoing the Cheonan, it sank.

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                    When Hezbollah crosses the border, a clear right to do pretty much whatever they please exists.  Until then, their "knowledge" is but guesswork (unless they have a crystal ball?) and that is insufficient, ethically, to kill. 

                    Not that I wouldn't take out the convoy 200 miles short of the border, and let the chips and consequences fall where they may.  Pretty much what we did over the WMD question.


                    LOL  You don't like my example and I don't like yours.  You may do whatever you wish with a rattlesnake (or a puppy).  You do not have that right with a person.

          2. Don W profile image82
            Don Wposted 11 days ago in reply to this

            Is the US the only country that has the right to pursue it's own national security interests? Does N. Korea not have the same right?

            The US has nuclear weapons capable of hitting N. Korea. So do Russia, China, India, Pakistan, UK, France, Germany, Italy etc.

            Are all those countries offering to dismantle their nuclear weapons in return for N. Korea not developing any?

            If the US threatens N. Korea with military action for developing nuclear weapons, while it continues to point such weapons at N. Korea, then Wilderness is correct, it's a case of might is right.

            N. Korea has no less authority to develop nuclear weapons, than the US or any other country that currently possesses them.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 10 days ago in reply to this

              Pretty much the way I see it. 

              But I will say that frightening the biggest, baddest fighter on the block isn't smart.  Not smart at all, and has resulted in negative consequences more than a few times.

            2. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 10 days ago in reply to this

              Don, with the theoretical '...all things being equal' qualifier, the logic of your point is sound.

              Do you think that has been the case with N. Korea's leaders; Kim Jung -sung, -il, -un? 

              In the real world that we live in, Wilderness is right. My point was that in some circumstances, that "might makes right" reality also has the legitimacy of national security validation.

              GA

              1. Don W profile image82
                Don Wposted 10 days ago in reply to this

                If you want to make a comparison that's relevant to the national security of both countries:

                How many countries has N. Korea invaded in the last 30 years?
                How many countries has the US invaded in that time?

                How many sovereign nations has N. Korea bombed in the last 30 years?
                How many sovereign nations has the US bombed in that time?

                How many nuclear weapons does N. Korea have that can reach all parts of the globe?
                How many does the US have that can reach all parts of the globe?

                How many battle groups does N. Korea currently have in the vicinity of US territorial waters?
                How many does the US have in the vicinity of N. Korean territorial waters?

                How many troops does N. Korea have permanently stationed on the US border?
                How many troops does the US have permanently stationed on the N. Korean border?

                By these measures, which country is the greater risk to the other?

                In other words, where is the "national security validation" that legitimizes this "might is right" reality? I can't see it.

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 9 days ago in reply to this

                  Don, if I thought your list of comparisons were relative to the situation, I would retract my thought that we should attack N. Korea first - if I had ever presented it.

                  But I didn't support that notion before, nor do I now. I also don't support your inference that N. Korea is a blameless innocent. I just can't see it.

                  GA

                  1. Don W profile image82
                    Don Wposted 9 days ago in reply to this

                    Not suggesting you made the inference that the US should attack N. Korea first. I took your comment more as a suggestion that the US has a "national security validation" of the "might is right" reality..

                    My point is that by most objective measures, N. Korea has engaged in less military conflict in the last 30 years than many other countries in the international community. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "national security validation". I take it to mean that a country's actions are justified because they are in the interests of its national security.

                    If so, then in a world full of nuclear weapons, why isn't it justified for N. Korea to want to develop its own nuclear weapons? Don't get me wrong, it's equally justified for the US not to want N. Korea to have nuclear weapons. But it's not more justified. And you're right, the motivations are not necessarily innocent. But the US desire to bully other countries with its big guns, is no more or less valid than N. Korea's desire to develop big guns to bully others with.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 13 days ago

    I think it is a possibility.  I don't see Trump as commonly issuing empty threats, and that includes the threat of war - in this case there is a real fear and possibility of a NK atomic bomb being detonated in NYC, and that isn't something that anyone should make empty threats about, let alone Donald Trump.  Minus the religion, I really don't see a lot of difference between the barbarism of ISIS and NK, and NK has a madman at the helm!

  3. Le Cheuf profile image61
    Le Cheufposted 13 days ago

    For sure that Trump's policies aimes at givin a clear and concise message, there's a new sheriff in town. However this approach of flexing the military might of the US is a dangerous policy as it risks backfiring at him. Of course the possibility is there and there is a real chance that the attack might happen, however im sure that both leaders are quite cautious of their role and their responsibilities towards their nations. Let's hope that The US and North Korea find a middle ground and avoid a potential senseless loss of men in a war that if happened can drag on for years and potentially became a new Afganistan.

    Regards, Don W

  4. colorfulone profile image89
    colorfuloneposted 13 days ago

    It came out over a month ago that the Obama Administration initiated a campaign to remotely manipulate data inside of North Korea's missile system.  (NYT)

    The Trump Administration inherited that technology, and it looks like the US Military may have used that technology when the Nork missile launched.   

    It would be wise not to broadcast that capability to the world, so we may not take credit if that's what went down.   Instead, let Kim Jong un be embarrassed.

  5. AshutoshJoshi06 profile image86
    AshutoshJoshi06posted 13 days ago

    That's what the propoganda machinery says, I highly doubt that. A failed test could be technical difficulties it happens all the times even to the best ones.
    And if it that's the case it remians to be seen how far have they penetrated. Till they dont assess and neutralize all possibilities threating US or it allies, I don't think they would act anyways!

  6. profile image61
    Jakiyla Jordanposted 12 days ago

    the reason why the N.Korea is coimg back on trump because trump started it bt puting syria out there and there coimg back for trump so i dont blame the N.Korea people to do wjat they have to do

    1. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 12 days ago in reply to this

      It helps to know the history between the US and NK from 1950 to 1953. To the present it has been a state of war, and strategically ignored and even funded as NK grew its military power that they now threaten to use against us.

  7. crankalicious profile image88
    crankaliciousposted 12 days ago

    Honestly, I think that if Trump is using China to solve the North Korea problem, it's a pretty good strategy because China absolutely does not want the U.S. to attack North Korea nor does it want North Korea to start a war. If China can exact some pressure on North Korea but shutting off trade, this seems like a good strategy to start. China knows that if there's a war, then they will have U.S. troops on their doorstep and they would prefer that not happen.

    Let's face it, the North Korea problem was going to come to a head sooner or later and diplomacy and/or appeasement was only going to work for so long. Democrat or Republican - were we really going to let North Korea develop nuclear weapons that they could deliver onto U.S. soil? Nobody, no matter how pacifistic, was going to allow that.

    That said, I think what North Korea wants is respect. It's possibly worth a try to talk to them - invite Kim Jong Un to the U.S. and show him the sites. You can always talk first then bomb later. But if we bomb first, there probably won't be much talking later, except maybe North Korea surrendering prior to wiping out South Korea, we hope.

    1. AshutoshJoshi06 profile image86
      AshutoshJoshi06posted 12 days ago in reply to this

      A war is not in the interest of either China or North Korea. North Korea doesnt have a standing against the US military might, perhaps the USS fleet and the warships in adjoining waters would be enough for deathly blow. Having said that, I am not to optimistic of Trump's plans either and I reckon he wouldn't prefer a conventional war for the cost it would bear and there isnt oil either as a payoff. If he do take that step, its gonna be total annihilation. But for him to do that there has to be a stronger case and China comes into picture here as a North Korean ally with its own interests in that region. Who knows if they have defence treaties in place?

      That reminds me how the Soviets were reassuring as an ally for us when Nixon ordered his mighty 7th fleet into Bay of Bengal fearing that India would anihilate Pakistan in the 1971 War. That was almost the tipping point of WWIII, cuz if Pakistan wouldnt have surrendered the US would have attacked India pulling in Soviet and China. It intially intended to only scare off India. Thoughs its interesting that Nixon administrations request to line up Chinese troop on Indian border was also rejected due to Peace Treaty between Soviet and India, China avoided facing Sovoet retaliation.

  8. sivasubrahmanyam profile image61
    sivasubrahmanyamposted 11 days ago

    Mr. Trump will not take such a drastic step. Korea may experiment one more nuclear missile what is it going to get is only World Wide protest only and becomes cheap in the eyes of other countries. The GDP of Korea is only is 15 billion whereas that of U.S is 18 trillion. The population density of Korea is nearly 202/sqare whereas the figure for U.S is only 32/sq.k.m.Moreover, it has not earned any reputation globally. With such poor face, it can not face U.S in any front. They may beat their own drum, but if it crosses the limit it will break their drum only.

    1. AshutoshJoshi06 profile image86
      AshutoshJoshi06posted 11 days ago in reply to this

      So what you  are trying to imply is because Korea is a small nation it should surrender and essentially become a US base. What absurd logic is that? As far as its nuclear capability goes, its good that they have acquired it else America would have long bombed it to stone ages!!!

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 11 days ago in reply to this

        How is that?  If American would have bombed it to stone age long ago, then why isn't the country a slag covered rock by now?  After all, their nuke ability, small thought it is, is new and there was lots of time to slag it if that's what America does.

  9. AshutoshJoshi06 profile image86
    AshutoshJoshi06posted 7 days ago

    Mr Dictator threatened Australia today, telling them to stop being a sycophant toeing American line, reiterating they are very well in DPRK's nuclear range.
    Does that bring us one step closer to nuclear war?

 
working