US said preparing strike to ‘utterly destroy’ N. Korean nuclear program

[toomuchtime_]

On Sunday, the UK’s Sunday Times reported that top military advisers to US President Donald Trump have told their British counterparts that Washington was considering a preemptive strike against North Korea’s nuclear program, and believed it had the firepower to neutralize it.

Citing “senior sources” in the British government, the paper said the US believed it was able to “utterly destroy” the key installations required to remove the threat the program posed to North Korea’s neighbors and the US.

According to the paper, US Defense Secretary James Mattis discussed a US strike on North Korea with his British counterpart Michael Fallon some two weeks ago, and similar conversations have been held between British officials and Trump’s national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

“They’ll do anything it takes. Nothing is off the table. They think they’ve got the capabilities to target things and utterly destroy them. They are confident they know where everything is and can target it efficiently,” one British official is quoted as saying.

Another source told the Times that US officials “are getting to the point where they think they may have to take out the facilities preemptively…. They are much closer to taking military action than they were a year ago.”

US said preparing strike to ‘utterly destroy’ N. Korean nuclear program

It will be a hard sell to Japan and South Korea, maybe that's why Pence is visiting them now.

 

[Rocko]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

 

[Chuz Life]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Do list the COUNTRIES that the U,S, has "threatened" with nuclear weapons and please provide links to support your claims about it.

 

[Rocko]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Whom have threatened with nuclear weapons? It's not the act of the threat itself, it's the fact that you have to take a nuclear threat seriously

 

[shockedcanadian]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Because Americans aren't forced into concentration and labour camps, sometimes from birth when their mothers bear them there. Again, I don't want to have to repeat the premise of false moral equivalencies. There is not in this situation, America and Americans are free, combative, free to challenge authority and voice their opinions. North Koreans are not. Much like their major sponsor China but much worse if you can believe it. Beyond this, thier leader has threatened America with nuclear war, words have consequences as we have been told over and over.

If you were allowed to visit N Korea tomorrow, you would be given your own "tourguide" (see, North Korean state patsy spy) who would be with you on your travels. Reminding you that you cannot take video footage and have some specific limitations. You can listen to the most indoctrinated citizens on the planet tell you that their Supreme Leader can do no wrong.

He can walk on water, fly a ship to the sun and do anything the mind can imagine and is pure without flaws. Check youtube videos of those who have snuck video out, some citizens asked questions who are either stating the most ridiculous things out of fear, or because they truly believe it. All while a portrait of their plump leader is hanging on their wall in their homes.

As an aside to this, the CIA Director is right, Wikileaks, Assange and Snowden have operated as enemies against the United States. Like it or not, they are either purposely complicit or conveniently naive. Wouldn't it be great if they spent some time exposing Russia, China and North Korea? No nation is perfect, but some are so imperfect and unnatural that America is well within their rights to defend themselves through offensive actions.

Finally, I must state I am not a warhawk. The reaction by the U.S and the world should depend on the intelligence and specific details their generals and agencies have. After that you have to put your faith in their decisions based on the totality of the information they possess.

 

[william the wie]

While possible this action would be economically costly in implementation and aftermath. Something like $50 billion just in fuel and munitions

 

[shockedcanadian]

While possible this action would be economically costly in implementation and aftermath. Something like $50 billion just in fuel and munitions

Not if the entire world does what they know is right. As with many such situations, you allow them to fester, you will one day be faced with a threat at your doorstep. Simply because the world didn't want to step on Chinas toes they keep their tail between their legs...now China is expanding in the South China Sea. Anyone think Japan enjoys this Chinese adventure?

 

[P@triot]

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Because the only nations we "threaten" are oppressive regimes of evil. Like Kim Jong-Un. Bashir al Assad. And Hitlery Clinton.

 

[Dragonlady]

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Because the only nations we "threaten" are oppressive regimes of evil. Like Kim Jong-Un. Bashir al Assad. And Hitlery Clinton.

Not true. Americans have threatened a LOT regimes that did nothing to them, but threatened to nationalize US corporate holdings. That's enough for the US to send in the troops.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If we hit his nukes = North Korea will probably attack the south.

 

[P@triot]

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Because the only nations we "threaten" are oppressive regimes of evil. Like Kim Jong-Un. Bashir al Assad. And Hitlery Clinton.

Not true. Americans have threatened a LOT regimes that did nothing to them, but threatened to nationalize US corporate holdings. That's enough for the US to send in the troops.

Bwahahaha! And who "nationalizes" corporations? Oh yeah...oppressive regimes!

 

[P@triot]

If we hit his nukes = North Korea will probably attack the south.

With what?

 

[Marion Morrison]

If we hit his nukes = North Korea will probably attack the south.

With what?

Probably the artillery they have lined up on the border.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Whom have threatened with nuclear weapons? It's not the act of the threat itself, it's the fact that you have to take a nuclear threat seriously

The US doesn't threaten with nuclear weapons, it threatens with invasion, bombing, sanctions and the like. It's still a threat, and it's still US arrogance that North Korea "threatening" something they can't even deliver is bad, but the US actually doing something is okay. How many countries has North Korea invaded in the last 20 years?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Because Americans aren't forced into concentration and labour camps, sometimes from birth when their mothers bear them there. Again, I don't want to have to repeat the premise of false moral equivalencies. There is not in this situation, America and Americans are free, combative, free to challenge authority and voice their opinions. North Koreans are not. Much like their major sponsor China but much worse if you can believe it. Beyond this, thier leader has threatened America with nuclear war, words have consequences as we have been told over and over.

If you were allowed to visit N Korea tomorrow, you would be given your own "tourguide" (see, North Korean state patsy spy) who would be with you on your travels. Reminding you that you cannot take video footage and have some specific limitations. You can listen to the most indoctrinated citizens on the planet tell you that their Supreme Leader can do no wrong.

He can walk on water, fly a ship to the sun and do anything the mind can imagine and is pure without flaws. Check youtube videos of those who have snuck video out, some citizens asked questions who are either stating the most ridiculous things out of fear, or because they truly believe it. All while a portrait of their plump leader is hanging on their wall in their homes.

As an aside to this, the CIA Director is right, Wikileaks, Assange and Snowden have operated as enemies against the United States. Like it or not, they are either purposely complicit or conveniently naive. Wouldn't it be great if they spent some time exposing Russia, China and North Korea? No nation is perfect, but some are so imperfect and unnatural that America is well within their rights to defend themselves through offensive actions.

Finally, I must state I am not a warhawk. The reaction by the U.S and the world should depend on the intelligence and specific details their generals and agencies have. After that you have to put your faith in their decisions based on the totality of the information they possess.

Wait, what do concentration camps and all of that have to do with this?

What does having a "tourguide" if you go visit North Korea have to do with any of this?

The US isn't exactly squeaky clean here. There are people in the US who get treated like shit, take the Native Americans. Take Leonard Peltier. Oh, yeah, the US will justify it, just as North Korea will justify it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

What about regimes who don't wear rouge?

 

[Rocko]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Whom have threatened with nuclear weapons? It's not the act of the threat itself, it's the fact that you have to take a nuclear threat seriously

The US doesn't threaten with nuclear weapons, it threatens with invasion, bombing, sanctions and the like. It's still a threat, and it's still US arrogance that North Korea "threatening" something they can't even deliver is bad, but the US actually doing something is okay. How many countries has North Korea invaded in the last 20 years?

So because North Korea hasn't invaded anyone that means we should their nuke threats seriously?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's unacceptable for rouge regimes to threaten us with nuclear weapons. I'm all for a preemptive strike to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Why is it acceptable for the US to threaten countries, but it's not okay for those countries to threaten the US?

Whom have threatened with nuclear weapons? It's not the act of the threat itself, it's the fact that you have to take a nuclear threat seriously

The US doesn't threaten with nuclear weapons, it threatens with invasion, bombing, sanctions and the like. It's still a threat, and it's still US arrogance that North Korea "threatening" something they can't even deliver is bad, but the US actually doing something is okay. How many countries has North Korea invaded in the last 20 years?

So because North Korea hasn't invaded anyone that means we should their nuke threats seriously?

No, it doesn't.

The point I'm making is that people are trying to make out that North Korea is dangerous and should be dealt with, but ignore the fact that US is one of the biggest dangers to world peace right now.

 

[Divine Wind]

If we hit his nukes = North Korea will probably attack the south.

That's what Neutron bombs are good for.