China Fears North Korea US Conflict At Any Moment

[Unkotare]

The worst case scenario is that after S. and N. Korea resume their War after all these years (64 years) that China will then also get involved forcing the USA to get involved too.

Last time the USA and China fought in Korea the Chinese did not have any nukes.

This time they do.

Last time the Chinese forces on the ground in Korea beat the USA and pushed them back to the DMZ line.

Same thing would probably happen again.

The USA cannot beat nor even stop a Chinese army on the ground.

You realize modern warfare is not conducted via individual hand-to-hand combat, single-file, right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We are not going to voluntarily initiate taking out Seoul.

I think you meant Pyongyang, the capitol of N Korea.

lol That would make more sense, unless Bendog is really a NK agent . . . .

Or unless you dopes don't realize that he meant there would be massive retaliation on Seoul if we were to attack NK.

Not necessarily. The US response to that would likely be to destroy NK's whole military infrastructure, and if you recall, during the campaign President Trump was clear he would use nuclear weapons if he believed they were called for. The retaliation from NK would likely be below the threshold that would trigger a massive US response.

There are thousands of artillery pieces targeting SK. Do you believe we could locate and destroy all of them before they get a shot off?

There would be massive casualties in SK.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We are not going to voluntarily initiate taking out Seoul.

I think you meant Pyongyang, the capitol of N Korea.

lol That would make more sense, unless Bendog is really a NK agent . . . .

Or unless you dopes don't realize that he meant there would be massive retaliation on Seoul if we were to attack NK.

Not necessarily. The US response to that would likely be to destroy NK's whole military infrastructure, and if you recall, during the campaign President Trump was clear he would use nuclear weapons if he believed they were called for. The retaliation from NK would likely be below the threshold that would trigger a massive US response.

There are thousands of artillery pieces targeting SK. Do you believe we could locate and destroy all of them before they get a shot off?

There would be massive casualties in SK.

SK also has the capability of inflicting massive casualties on NK without US help so there will be a brief period of massive casualties and destruction on both sides but the US would quickly degrade NK's ability to strike the South. Every NK artillery piece would be able to fire at least one round, but every time it fired it would become a target, itself, so the question is, how may rounds would each NK artillery piece be able to fire before being destroyed?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think you meant Pyongyang, the capitol of N Korea.

lol That would make more sense, unless Bendog is really a NK agent . . . .

Or unless you dopes don't realize that he meant there would be massive retaliation on Seoul if we were to attack NK.

Not necessarily. The US response to that would likely be to destroy NK's whole military infrastructure, and if you recall, during the campaign President Trump was clear he would use nuclear weapons if he believed they were called for. The retaliation from NK would likely be below the threshold that would trigger a massive US response.

There are thousands of artillery pieces targeting SK. Do you believe we could locate and destroy all of them before they get a shot off?

There would be massive casualties in SK.

SK also has the capability of inflicting massive casualties on NK without US help so there will be a brief period of massive casualties and destruction on both sides but the US would quickly degrade NK's ability to strike the South. Every NK artillery piece would be able to fire at least one round, but every time it fired it would become a target, itself, so the question is, how may rounds would each NK artillery piece be able to fire before being destroyed?

NK artillery would be very effective. That's why it's there. We have no capability to target and attack thousands of artillery pieces simultaneously in real time. It could take weeks to seriously diminish that capability.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol That would make more sense, unless Bendog is really a NK agent . . . .

Or unless you dopes don't realize that he meant there would be massive retaliation on Seoul if we were to attack NK.

Not necessarily. The US response to that would likely be to destroy NK's whole military infrastructure, and if you recall, during the campaign President Trump was clear he would use nuclear weapons if he believed they were called for. The retaliation from NK would likely be below the threshold that would trigger a massive US response.

There are thousands of artillery pieces targeting SK. Do you believe we could locate and destroy all of them before they get a shot off?

There would be massive casualties in SK.

SK also has the capability of inflicting massive casualties on NK without US help so there will be a brief period of massive casualties and destruction on both sides but the US would quickly degrade NK's ability to strike the South. Every NK artillery piece would be able to fire at least one round, but every time it fired it would become a target, itself, so the question is, how may rounds would each NK artillery piece be able to fire before being destroyed?

NK artillery would be very effective. That's why it's there. We have no capability to target and attack thousands of artillery pieces simultaneously in real time. It could take weeks to seriously diminish that capability.

In the event of all out war, communications and transportation would also be degraded so that while a few artillery pieces might survive for weeks, their numbers would be seriously reduced immediately and the ability to resupply them would nearly vanish.

 

[Flopper]

The U.S. can destroy NK submarines without a trace of what happened. We can destroy their intermediate & long range missile capabilities.

The only real NK deterrent is their artillery on the SK border. If the U.S. can devise a way of destroying that capability, before they can fire on Seoul, NK is defenseless.

There is no doubt the US can obliterate NK but at what cost. Maybe NK can't drop nuclear weapons on the US but they sure as hell can hit South Korea and Japan where there are 75,000 US military and over 100,000 US civilians.

BTW Seoul with a population of over 10 million is only 150 miles from the DMZ or 15 mins by air. 70% of NK's 1 million active duty military personnel are within 90 miles of the DMZ.

Not if we hit them first.

There is upward of 20,000 NK troops at the DMZ and several hundred thousand within a short distance. Within a few hours there would up to a million NK troops at the DMZ and probably an equal number on the South Korean side. Any attack on NZ would result in a major military battle commencing within minutes with significant causalities on both sides.

 

[Flopper]

Simply because China has leverage over North Korea does not make it their responsible to settle disputes between the US and North Korea. China and the US have no mutual defense agreements. We don't even have any trade agreements. The only entity that has a responsibility to settle disagreements between nations is the UN and Trump has not bothered to involve them.

Until Trump decided on unilateral actions against North Korea, China was a currency manipulator raping the United States, a state sponsor of cyber hacking, and a villain.

WTF? The UN has been doing NOTHING and it was there long before Trump. NK insists it is actively working on weapons to use against us as soon as possible. What has the UN done about NK? If they had gotten off their asses and done the job they were created to do, we wouldn't be in this mess! The UN is much too busy obsessing over Israel.

For the UN to intercede there has to be active support from it's members. Is Trump addressing the UN, No. Is Trump building a coalition of nations, No. Instead of building consensus, he's sending Pence and a naval task group to Korea and telling the world he'll act alone.

The sad fact is he probably has no other choice. He's made enemies out of China and Russia who hold two permanent seats on the Security Council and the only two countries that has any chance of influencing N.K.

The US had tried diplomacy for decades through several administrations. It fails every time because NK intends to strike the US as soon as it is possible. They have been very clear about their aims.

When someone shows you who he is, believe him.

The idea that we are rushing into something is ridiculous. Decades of negotiations and agreements have all been broken by NK. How exactly is that rushing?

Regarding the UN, the only entity responsible for handling this mess, they don't care. They aren't interested as you admit. Their only interest is bitching about Israel. Meanwhile, NK is still actively progressing in their mission to attack us. So, it is up to China or us.

We do not negotiate with North Korea. We do not have diplomatic relations with them and we don't recognize their sovereignty.

We should be using every once of our diplomacy to further isolate NK. The country has essential no oil production and produces less than half the coal they need. They also only produce about 2/3 of the grain they need. They need hard currency which they get from exports. Their major trading partners are China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, and the Republic of the Congo. If Trump is such a great deal maker, this is where he should concentrate his efforts.

The US should be working through the UN to continue tighten sanctions and getting tough on countries that are breaking those sanction. Secondly, we need to be working through the UN to form a military coalition. It may not be needed, but it needs to be there.

Of course the biggest problem is China and Russia, NK's top allies. Our relations with China are problematical at best after a year of condemnation by Trump. According to Trump our relations with Russia are at an all time low after recent events in Syria.

Regardless of the long standing ties between China & NK, China's current economic relationship with the U.S. is far more important to them than their relationship with NK.

Whatever wingnuts may say about Obama, he put the screws to Russia and has set Trump up to negotiate with Russia from a VERY strong position. If we need Russia's cooperation in dealing with NK, Trump has more than a few cards in his hand.

Our issues with NK are of direct security concern for the U.S. Our issues with Russia are secondary. Trump should be able to negotiate Russia's cooperation without a problem.

In the end, NK leadership has put far too much emphasis on the importance of their nuclear program to the NK people. They will not be able to back down.

This leaves only a few possibilities:

1. War between NK & the U.S. China would possibly invade NK to prevent a total U.S. takeover and Korean reunification.
2. China forcing them to back down...possibly going to war with them.
3. Trump backing down and losing face. That will create the political atmosphere for impeachment.
4. Trump's spinning a state of continued pressure on NK, while NK continues to develop nukes, as a victory. Nothing really changes.

In war, leaders make military decisions, political decisions, and decisions that improve their self image, but those decisions are not necessarily logical decisions. Consider some of the ridiculous decisions Hitler made.

 

[Richard-H]

The U.S. can destroy NK submarines without a trace of what happened. We can destroy their intermediate & long range missile capabilities.

The only real NK deterrent is their artillery on the SK border. If the U.S. can devise a way of destroying that capability, before they can fire on Seoul, NK is defenseless.

There is no doubt the US can obliterate NK but at what cost. Maybe NK can't drop nuclear weapons on the US but they sure as hell can hit South Korea and Japan where there are 75,000 US military and over 100,000 US civilians.

BTW Seoul with a population of over 10 million is only 150 miles from the DMZ or 15 mins by air. 70% of NK's 1 million active duty military personnel are within 90 miles of the DMZ.

Not if we hit them first.

There is upward of 20,000 NK troops at the DMZ and several hundred thousand within a short distance. Within a few hours there would up to a million NK troops at the DMZ and probably an equal number on the South Korean side. Any attack on NZ would result in a major military battle commencing within minutes with significant causalities on both sides.

Two Words:

Messines Ridge

 

[Richard-H]

WTF? The UN has been doing NOTHING and it was there long before Trump. NK insists it is actively working on weapons to use against us as soon as possible. What has the UN done about NK? If they had gotten off their asses and done the job they were created to do, we wouldn't be in this mess! The UN is much too busy obsessing over Israel.

For the UN to intercede there has to be active support from it's members. Is Trump addressing the UN, No. Is Trump building a coalition of nations, No. Instead of building consensus, he's sending Pence and a naval task group to Korea and telling the world he'll act alone.

The sad fact is he probably has no other choice. He's made enemies out of China and Russia who hold two permanent seats on the Security Council and the only two countries that has any chance of influencing N.K.

The US had tried diplomacy for decades through several administrations. It fails every time because NK intends to strike the US as soon as it is possible. They have been very clear about their aims.

When someone shows you who he is, believe him.

The idea that we are rushing into something is ridiculous. Decades of negotiations and agreements have all been broken by NK. How exactly is that rushing?

Regarding the UN, the only entity responsible for handling this mess, they don't care. They aren't interested as you admit. Their only interest is bitching about Israel. Meanwhile, NK is still actively progressing in their mission to attack us. So, it is up to China or us.

We do not negotiate with North Korea. We do not have diplomatic relations with them and we don't recognize their sovereignty.

We should be using every once of our diplomacy to further isolate NK. The country has essential no oil production and produces less than half the coal they need. They also only produce about 2/3 of the grain they need. They need hard currency which they get from exports. Their major trading partners are China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, and the Republic of the Congo. If Trump is such a great deal maker, this is where he should concentrate his efforts.

The US should be working through the UN to continue tighten sanctions and getting tough on countries that are breaking those sanction. Secondly, we need to be working through the UN to form a military coalition. It may not be needed, but it needs to be there.

Of course the biggest problem is China and Russia, NK's top allies. Our relations with China are problematical at best after a year of condemnation by Trump. According to Trump our relations with Russia are at an all time low after recent events in Syria.

Regardless of the long standing ties between China & NK, China's current economic relationship with the U.S. is far more important to them than their relationship with NK.

Whatever wingnuts may say about Obama, he put the screws to Russia and has set Trump up to negotiate with Russia from a VERY strong position. If we need Russia's cooperation in dealing with NK, Trump has more than a few cards in his hand.

Our issues with NK are of direct security concern for the U.S. Our issues with Russia are secondary. Trump should be able to negotiate Russia's cooperation without a problem.

In the end, NK leadership has put far too much emphasis on the importance of their nuclear program to the NK people. They will not be able to back down.

This leaves only a few possibilities:

1. War between NK & the U.S. China would possibly invade NK to prevent a total U.S. takeover and Korean reunification.
2. China forcing them to back down...possibly going to war with them.
3. Trump backing down and losing face. That will create the political atmosphere for impeachment.
4. Trump's spinning a state of continued pressure on NK, while NK continues to develop nukes, as a victory. Nothing really changes.

In war, leaders make military decisions, political decisions, and decisions that improve their self image, but those decisions are not necessarily logical decisions. Consider some of the ridiculous decisions Hitler made.

Are you saying that Trump's decision making motives and capabilities are roughly equivalent to that of Hitler?

If so, you've gained my respect!

 

[Richard-H]

The worst case scenario is that after S. and N. Korea resume their War after all these years (64 years) that China will then also get involved forcing the USA to get involved too.

Last time the USA and China fought in Korea the Chinese did not have any nukes.

This time they do.

Last time the Chinese forces on the ground in Korea beat the USA and pushed them back to the DMZ line.

Same thing would probably happen again.

The USA cannot beat nor even stop a Chinese army on the ground.

The U.S. lost the Korean war (or let it be fought to a standstill) on purpose.

First, the U.S. high command know that the Chinese attack was coming. The Chinese had told them AND the USAF had spotted massive amounts of Chinese troops moving to the NK border.

Second, the U.S. had the capacity to launch a major bombing campaign of coastal and near coastal Chinese cities - including Beijing. That would have forced the Chinese out of the war. They did not.

Third, the U.S. had nukes and could have used them, but did not.

The reason for this intentional defeat was the the U.S. high command couldn't care less about North Korea. They'd just as soon let the communists have it.

What mattered to them was retaining control of the U.S. and western Europe politically. They knew that by fighting a long drawn out war against the communists would result in American working class hating and fearing communism. They would have a core of Korean war vets that were fanatically against communism. Along with that any political views (like liberalism and socialism) that could be associated in any way with communism would be equally hated. That what they truly wanted - and that's what they got. A fanatically anti liberal core of American workers.

If a war were to happen today, and if the U.S. were determined to win, they could incinerate any amount of Chinese troops instantaneously. The Chinese have, for all intents and purposes, no air force and no air defenses. They wouldn't last a day under a determined U.S. force.

On the other hand, I doubt that they'res anyone in America that wants to go to war with China. We like the Chinese in general and we love the low priced goods that we import from China.

 

[bendog]

Or unless you dopes don't realize that he meant there would be massive retaliation on Seoul if we were to attack NK.

Not necessarily. The US response to that would likely be to destroy NK's whole military infrastructure, and if you recall, during the campaign President Trump was clear he would use nuclear weapons if he believed they were called for. The retaliation from NK would likely be below the threshold that would trigger a massive US response.

There are thousands of artillery pieces targeting SK. Do you believe we could locate and destroy all of them before they get a shot off?

There would be massive casualties in SK.

SK also has the capability of inflicting massive casualties on NK without US help so there will be a brief period of massive casualties and destruction on both sides but the US would quickly degrade NK's ability to strike the South. Every NK artillery piece would be able to fire at least one round, but every time it fired it would become a target, itself, so the question is, how may rounds would each NK artillery piece be able to fire before being destroyed?

NK artillery would be very effective. That's why it's there. We have no capability to target and attack thousands of artillery pieces simultaneously in real time. It could take weeks to seriously diminish that capability.

In the event of all out war, communications and transportation would also be degraded so that while a few artillery pieces might survive for weeks, their numbers would be seriously reduced immediately and the ability to resupply them would nearly vanish.

I don't think any reputable site shares you optimism that we can destroy NK's artillery and short range missles, which very possible could include nuke, to keep Seoul from being severely damaged and prospects are for tens of thousands of casualites. If you actually have something, link it. thanks.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not necessarily. The US response to that would likely be to destroy NK's whole military infrastructure, and if you recall, during the campaign President Trump was clear he would use nuclear weapons if he believed they were called for. The retaliation from NK would likely be below the threshold that would trigger a massive US response.

There are thousands of artillery pieces targeting SK. Do you believe we could locate and destroy all of them before they get a shot off?

There would be massive casualties in SK.

SK also has the capability of inflicting massive casualties on NK without US help so there will be a brief period of massive casualties and destruction on both sides but the US would quickly degrade NK's ability to strike the South. Every NK artillery piece would be able to fire at least one round, but every time it fired it would become a target, itself, so the question is, how may rounds would each NK artillery piece be able to fire before being destroyed?

NK artillery would be very effective. That's why it's there. We have no capability to target and attack thousands of artillery pieces simultaneously in real time. It could take weeks to seriously diminish that capability.

In the event of all out war, communications and transportation would also be degraded so that while a few artillery pieces might survive for weeks, their numbers would be seriously reduced immediately and the ability to resupply them would nearly vanish.

I don't think any reputable site shares you optimism that we can destroy NK's artillery and short range missles, which very possible could include nuke, to keep Seoul from being severely damaged and prospects are for tens of thousands of casualites. If you actually have something, link it. thanks.

Estimates are that a war between the Koreas with conventional weapons will produce 1,000,000 dead in the first 24 hours. I'm not disputing that, however there is no evidence NK has any deliverable nukes so that estimate is far below the number who would be killed if we don't prevent NK from acquiring them. You are making the same argument Neville Chamberlain made when he declared he had achieved peace in his time, but if he had followed Churchill's advice and taken action to stop Hitler before he became too powerful, he would have saved tens of millions of lives at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. If NK would respond to an attack that only took out its nuclear weapons program at a level that would bring a full US attack on its military infrastructure, then clearly the NK leadership is too crazy to be allowed to have nukes, regardless of the cost of stopping them.

 

[bendog]

There are thousands of artillery pieces targeting SK. Do you believe we could locate and destroy all of them before they get a shot off?

There would be massive casualties in SK.

SK also has the capability of inflicting massive casualties on NK without US help so there will be a brief period of massive casualties and destruction on both sides but the US would quickly degrade NK's ability to strike the South. Every NK artillery piece would be able to fire at least one round, but every time it fired it would become a target, itself, so the question is, how may rounds would each NK artillery piece be able to fire before being destroyed?

NK artillery would be very effective. That's why it's there. We have no capability to target and attack thousands of artillery pieces simultaneously in real time. It could take weeks to seriously diminish that capability.

In the event of all out war, communications and transportation would also be degraded so that while a few artillery pieces might survive for weeks, their numbers would be seriously reduced immediately and the ability to resupply them would nearly vanish.

I don't think any reputable site shares you optimism that we can destroy NK's artillery and short range missles, which very possible could include nuke, to keep Seoul from being severely damaged and prospects are for tens of thousands of casualites. If you actually have something, link it. thanks.

Estimates are that a war between the Koreas with conventional weapons will produce 1,000,000 dead in the first 24 hours. I'm not disputing that, however there is no evidence NK has any deliverable nukes so that estimate is far below the number who would be killed if we don't prevent NK from acquiring them. You are making the same argument Neville Chamberlain made when he declared he had achieved peace in his time, but if he had followed Churchill's advice and taken action to stop Hitler before he became too powerful, he would have saved tens of millions of lives at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. If NK would respond to an attack that only took out its nuclear weapons program at a level that would bring a full US attack on its military infrastructure, then clearly the NK leadership is too crazy to be allowed to have nukes, regardless of the cost of stopping them.

No I'm making the same claim that defense experts make about a war with NK. You are the fella saying we can destroy thousands, perhaps 13000, artillery tubes and short range missiles. We are NOT going to attack NK peremptorily with Nukes. Mattis will quit before that, and the military will rebel because it would be an illegal order under intl law.

I think what Trump is doing is saber rattling (while sending the navy to a different ocean so as to not unduly worry Jina, SK and Japan). The ultimate problem is no one wants to have to "care" for NK. There are millions of people who know less about the world than their forebearers knew in 1948, which was very little. There are no skills, no industry and they cannot even feed themselves.

We want Jina and SK to assure the NK military that they can continue to enslave those poor souls without worrying about losing their spot at the feeding trough. And we can shoot down any missile the crazy fat kid tries to test.

 

[toomuchtime_]

SK also has the capability of inflicting massive casualties on NK without US help so there will be a brief period of massive casualties and destruction on both sides but the US would quickly degrade NK's ability to strike the South. Every NK artillery piece would be able to fire at least one round, but every time it fired it would become a target, itself, so the question is, how may rounds would each NK artillery piece be able to fire before being destroyed?

NK artillery would be very effective. That's why it's there. We have no capability to target and attack thousands of artillery pieces simultaneously in real time. It could take weeks to seriously diminish that capability.

In the event of all out war, communications and transportation would also be degraded so that while a few artillery pieces might survive for weeks, their numbers would be seriously reduced immediately and the ability to resupply them would nearly vanish.

I don't think any reputable site shares you optimism that we can destroy NK's artillery and short range missles, which very possible could include nuke, to keep Seoul from being severely damaged and prospects are for tens of thousands of casualites. If you actually have something, link it. thanks.

Estimates are that a war between the Koreas with conventional weapons will produce 1,000,000 dead in the first 24 hours. I'm not disputing that, however there is no evidence NK has any deliverable nukes so that estimate is far below the number who would be killed if we don't prevent NK from acquiring them. You are making the same argument Neville Chamberlain made when he declared he had achieved peace in his time, but if he had followed Churchill's advice and taken action to stop Hitler before he became too powerful, he would have saved tens of millions of lives at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. If NK would respond to an attack that only took out its nuclear weapons program at a level that would bring a full US attack on its military infrastructure, then clearly the NK leadership is too crazy to be allowed to have nukes, regardless of the cost of stopping them.

No I'm making the same claim that defense experts make about a war with NK. You are the fella saying we can destroy thousands, perhaps 13000, artillery tubes and short range missiles. We are NOT going to attack NK peremptorily with Nukes. Mattis will quit before that, and the military will rebel because it would be an illegal order under intl law.

I think what Trump is doing is saber rattling (while sending the navy to a different ocean so as to not unduly worry Jina, SK and Japan). The ultimate problem is no one wants to have to "care" for NK. There are millions of people who know less about the world than their forebearers knew in 1948, which was very little. There are no skills, no industry and they cannot even feed themselves.

We want Jina and SK to assure the NK military that they can continue to enslave those poor souls without worrying about losing their spot at the feeding trough. And we can shoot down any missile the crazy fat kid tries to test.

It would be irresponsible not to stop NK from acquiring deliverable nukes, so while it would be preferable to talk them out of their nuclear weapons program, if that fails a military strike is the only responsible thing to do. The war would be terrible but not as terrible as the war after they have nukes, and the population is well educated and technologically sophisticated so with some humanitarian aid and some guidance from countries in the region, they could quickly become self sufficient and their children would have a brighter future than they have now.

 

[Siete]

China Fears North Korea US Conflict At Any Moment


now that loose cannon Trump has his boats going in the right direction China needs to at least consider worrying.

 

[Flopper]

For the UN to intercede there has to be active support from it's members. Is Trump addressing the UN, No. Is Trump building a coalition of nations, No. Instead of building consensus, he's sending Pence and a naval task group to Korea and telling the world he'll act alone.

The sad fact is he probably has no other choice. He's made enemies out of China and Russia who hold two permanent seats on the Security Council and the only two countries that has any chance of influencing N.K.

The US had tried diplomacy for decades through several administrations. It fails every time because NK intends to strike the US as soon as it is possible. They have been very clear about their aims.

When someone shows you who he is, believe him.

The idea that we are rushing into something is ridiculous. Decades of negotiations and agreements have all been broken by NK. How exactly is that rushing?

Regarding the UN, the only entity responsible for handling this mess, they don't care. They aren't interested as you admit. Their only interest is bitching about Israel. Meanwhile, NK is still actively progressing in their mission to attack us. So, it is up to China or us.

We do not negotiate with North Korea. We do not have diplomatic relations with them and we don't recognize their sovereignty.

We should be using every once of our diplomacy to further isolate NK. The country has essential no oil production and produces less than half the coal they need. They also only produce about 2/3 of the grain they need. They need hard currency which they get from exports. Their major trading partners are China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, and the Republic of the Congo. If Trump is such a great deal maker, this is where he should concentrate his efforts.

The US should be working through the UN to continue tighten sanctions and getting tough on countries that are breaking those sanction. Secondly, we need to be working through the UN to form a military coalition. It may not be needed, but it needs to be there.

Of course the biggest problem is China and Russia, NK's top allies. Our relations with China are problematical at best after a year of condemnation by Trump. According to Trump our relations with Russia are at an all time low after recent events in Syria.

Regardless of the long standing ties between China & NK, China's current economic relationship with the U.S. is far more important to them than their relationship with NK.

Whatever wingnuts may say about Obama, he put the screws to Russia and has set Trump up to negotiate with Russia from a VERY strong position. If we need Russia's cooperation in dealing with NK, Trump has more than a few cards in his hand.

Our issues with NK are of direct security concern for the U.S. Our issues with Russia are secondary. Trump should be able to negotiate Russia's cooperation without a problem.

In the end, NK leadership has put far too much emphasis on the importance of their nuclear program to the NK people. They will not be able to back down.

This leaves only a few possibilities:

1. War between NK & the U.S. China would possibly invade NK to prevent a total U.S. takeover and Korean reunification.
2. China forcing them to back down...possibly going to war with them.
3. Trump backing down and losing face. That will create the political atmosphere for impeachment.
4. Trump's spinning a state of continued pressure on NK, while NK continues to develop nukes, as a victory. Nothing really changes.

In war, leaders make military decisions, political decisions, and decisions that improve their self image, but those decisions are not necessarily logical decisions. Consider some of the ridiculous decisions Hitler made.

Are you saying that Trump's decision making motives and capabilities are roughly equivalent to that of Hitler?

If so, you've gained my respect!

I'm saying Trump's decisions are self serving and when they happen to be in the best interest of the country, it's purely coincidental.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why in the hell not wait to make the announcement until they were actually arriving?
NK must be laughing at this cluster fuck as we all are.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Foreign Minister Wang Yi said if war occurred there could be no winner.

That's happened with a past Korean war. I suppose it can happen again.

 

[Thinker101]

Why in the hell not wait to make the announcement until they were actually arriving?
NK must be laughing at this cluster fuck as we all are.

Why in the hell not make the announcement 6 months ago, why not draw a red line...oh, that's right, it's not Obama.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Why in the hell not wait to make the announcement until they were actually arriving?
NK must be laughing at this cluster fuck as we all are.

Why in the hell not make the announcement 6 months ago, why not draw a red line...oh, that's right, it's not Obama.

Or just simply wait until their arrival was imminent, dope.

There would be no question if they were actually there. They're not. The appearance of competency is the point of posturing, otherwise it's empty.

This shit was easy. Simply wait until it's time to announce. Trump, per usual, could not contain his need to make a headline.