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

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Probably the artillery they have lined up on the border.

The artillery that we could easily knock out of the sky? Do you really think that a non-nuclear nation would risk pissing off Donald Trump, South Korea, Japan, and even China? Not even Kim Jong-Un is that crazy.

Uh, excuse me, but how does one knock thousands of rounds of artillery out of the sky?

Have you been reading science fiction novels recently?

 

[Borillar]

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.

Damn right it would be a hard sell. We fuck up and Seoul or Tokyo is ashes.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That is what they said about stopping the advance of men and matériel in Vietnam for the Tet offensive.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

Our politicians feel a sense of entitlement to being failures at diplomacy, simply Because they have recourse to the Peoples' exorbitantly expensive superpower.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

I don't believe this report. Get back to us when you have sources that are not afraid to remain 'anonymous'.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Putting down terrorists and totalitarian regimes that threaten us with nukes doesn't makes the US a "danger to world peace". Those countries are the danger to "world peace" (whatever that is), and countries have a right to defend themselves.

You seem to be forgetting that North Korea did invade South Korea and the only reason they don't take it over by force is the presence of US forces. We fought a long and bloody war against those assholes, and technically the war never ended. We are within our rights to attack them and put an end to the war and end that tyrannical regime.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Putting down terrorists and totalitarian regimes that threaten us with nukes doesn't makes the US a "danger to world peace". Those countries are the danger to "world peace" (whatever that is), and countries have a right to defend themselves.

You seem to be forgetting that North Korea did invade South Korea and the only reason they don't take it over by force is the presence of US forces. We fought a long and bloody war against those assholes, and technically the war never ended. We are within our rights to attack them and put an end to the war and end that tyrannical regime.

The problem is the US has interfered in some way in countries like Venezuela, not a threat to the US, or Iraq, not a threat to the US, or Iran, not a threat to the US, or Afghanistan, not a threat to the US or North Korea, not a threat to the US. I mean, North Korea are struggling to even get missiles up in the air without them exploding. They can't do much at all.

In fact, most of these countries want nukes so the US can't invade them, and the US wants to stop them getting nukes so it can threaten to invade them.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Putting down terrorists and totalitarian regimes that threaten us with nukes doesn't makes the US a "danger to world peace". Those countries are the danger to "world peace" (whatever that is), and countries have a right to defend themselves.

You seem to be forgetting that North Korea did invade South Korea and the only reason they don't take it over by force is the presence of US forces. We fought a long and bloody war against those assholes, and technically the war never ended. We are within our rights to attack them and put an end to the war and end that tyrannical regime.

The problem is the US has interfered in some way in countries like Venezuela, not a threat to the US, or Iraq, not a threat to the US, or Iran, not a threat to the US, or Afghanistan, not a threat to the US or North Korea, not a threat to the US. I mean, North Korea are struggling to even get missiles up in the air without them exploding. They can't do much at all.

In fact, most of these countries want nukes so the US can't invade them, and the US wants to stop them getting nukes so it can threaten to invade them.

Your reasoning to leave NK alone is because their missiles are exploding? Like that means they will never be able to launch and hit Japan or even the US? You probably said they would never get nukes too.

This is a regime that starves, tortures and executes its own citizens if they dare displease the regime.

You may feel comfortable with a sadistic madman with nukes, who also threatens the US. The rest of us aren't content with leaving the situation "as is". The Boy-king needs to be dealt with. I hope Trump does one way or another.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Putting down terrorists and totalitarian regimes that threaten us with nukes doesn't makes the US a "danger to world peace". Those countries are the danger to "world peace" (whatever that is), and countries have a right to defend themselves.

You seem to be forgetting that North Korea did invade South Korea and the only reason they don't take it over by force is the presence of US forces. We fought a long and bloody war against those assholes, and technically the war never ended. We are within our rights to attack them and put an end to the war and end that tyrannical regime.

The problem is the US has interfered in some way in countries like Venezuela, not a threat to the US, or Iraq, not a threat to the US, or Iran, not a threat to the US, or Afghanistan, not a threat to the US or North Korea, not a threat to the US. I mean, North Korea are struggling to even get missiles up in the air without them exploding. They can't do much at all.

In fact, most of these countries want nukes so the US can't invade them, and the US wants to stop them getting nukes so it can threaten to invade them.

Your reasoning to leave NK alone is because their missiles are exploding? Like that means they will never be able to launch and hit Japan or even the US? You probably said they would never get nukes too.

This is a regime that starves, tortures and executes its own citizens if they dare displease the regime.

You may feel comfortable with a sadistic madman with nukes, who also threatens the US. The rest of us aren't content with leaving the situation "as is". The Boy-king needs to be dealt with. I hope Trump does one way or another.

Why do North Korea not like the US? Think about it? They're on the other side of the world. North Korea doesn't start complaining about the DRC, or Kuwait, or whoever, it's about the US. There's a reason for it. The US has made its trouble and then has to fight the trouble it made, then you live in that fear and that fear then becomes justification to spend billions on war.

 

[Godboy]

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.

Name them.

 

[Godboy]

Why do North Korea not like the US? Think about it? They're on the other side of the world. North Korea doesn't start complaining about the DRC, or Kuwait, or whoever, it's about the US. There's a reason for it. The US has made its trouble and then has to fight the trouble it made, then you live in that fear and that fear then becomes justification to spend billions on war.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Putting down terrorists and totalitarian regimes that threaten us with nukes doesn't makes the US a "danger to world peace". Those countries are the danger to "world peace" (whatever that is), and countries have a right to defend themselves.

You seem to be forgetting that North Korea did invade South Korea and the only reason they don't take it over by force is the presence of US forces. We fought a long and bloody war against those assholes, and technically the war never ended. We are within our rights to attack them and put an end to the war and end that tyrannical regime.

The problem is the US has interfered in some way in countries like Venezuela, not a threat to the US, or Iraq, not a threat to the US, or Iran, not a threat to the US, or Afghanistan, not a threat to the US or North Korea, not a threat to the US. I mean, North Korea are struggling to even get missiles up in the air without them exploding. They can't do much at all.

In fact, most of these countries want nukes so the US can't invade them, and the US wants to stop them getting nukes so it can threaten to invade them.

Your reasoning to leave NK alone is because their missiles are exploding? Like that means they will never be able to launch and hit Japan or even the US? You probably said they would never get nukes too.

This is a regime that starves, tortures and executes its own citizens if they dare displease the regime.

You may feel comfortable with a sadistic madman with nukes, who also threatens the US. The rest of us aren't content with leaving the situation "as is". The Boy-king needs to be dealt with. I hope Trump does one way or another.

Why do North Korea not like the US? Think about it? They're on the other side of the world. North Korea doesn't start complaining about the DRC, or Kuwait, or whoever, it's about the US. There's a reason for it. The US has made its trouble and then has to fight the trouble it made, then you live in that fear and that fear then becomes justification to spend billions on war.

NK is on the side of the world? Are you high? The UN is entirely against NK, and supports sanctions against it.
Now even China is tired of their crap and is standing with the US, as opposed to before when they fully supported the regime.

You obviously hate the US and its foreign policies for the last 70 years. Maybe you should think about finding citizenship elsewhere, plenty of other countries out there.

Since you're confused about how the world thinks about North Korea, here are a few recent resolutions passed:

The UN Security Council has passed a number of resolutions since North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006.

Resolution 1718 in 2006 demanded that North Korea cease nuclear testing and prohibited the export to North Korea of some military supplies and luxury goods.[1][2] A Sanctions Committee is established, supported by a Panel of Experts that issue annual reports.[3][4][5]

Resolution 1874, passed after the second nuclear test in 2009, broadened the arms embargo. Member states were encouraged to inspect ships and destroy any cargo suspected being related to the nuclear weapons program.[2]

Resolution 2087, passed in January 2013 after a satellite launch, strengthened previous sanctions by clarifying a state’s right to seize and destroy cargo suspected of heading to or from North Korea for purposes of military research and development.[2]

Resolution 2094 was passed in March 2013 after the third nuclear test. It imposed sanctions on money transfers and aimed to shut North Korea out of the international financial system.[2]

Resolution 2270, passed in March 2016 after the fourth nuclear test, further strengthened sanctions.[6] It banned the export of gold, vanadium, titanium, and rare earth metals. The export of coal and iron were also banned, with an exemption for transactions that were purely for "livelihood purposes".[7]

Resolution 2321, passed in November 2016, capped North Korea's coal exports and banned exports of copper, nickel, zinc, and silver.[8][9]

In February 2017, China announced it would ban all imports of coal for the rest of the year.[10]

Sanctions against North Korea - Wikipedia

Plus the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 that had full support from Republicans and Dems signed by Obama.

It's no surprise though that now its a Republican President taking action against North Korea, suddenly progressives are playing politics and taking the side of North Korea.

 

[Kondor3]

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?

If we listen to fools like you, the Hermit Kingdom and its Insane Fuhrer will soon have ICBMs capable of reaching the Continental United States, tipped with hydrogen bombs, capable of cooking-down our people and our cities, and, soon thereafter, MIRVs; capable of delivering multiple warheads per missile, to further increase destructive power.

If it's a toss-up between listening to those who want to strike now and eliminate that possibility so that my fellow Americans continue to live, and to sleep in peace, vs. listening to retards like you who would do nothing, even after those kocksukers launch on us, well...

You Fifth Columnist Assholes go to the back of the line... we'll laugh at you later... or indict you for sedition... either is fine.

Meanwhile, perhaps you can lube-up for the next Enemy of the United States for whom you wish to bend over and take one up the stern rail.

Scum.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Damn right it would be a hard sell. We fuck up and Seoul or Tokyo is ashes.

The point of fighting a forward engagement is so that Los Angeles and Seattle are not ashes.

 

[Kondor3]

All the pro Trumpers creaming their jeans wanting to destroy N Korea...

Be prepared for the many dead in S Korea...

You guys find that acceptable??

So long as the kill-ratio is high in favor of the US and its allies, that time may have come.

 

[francoHFW]

Here we go again. Why do GOPers think people anywhere are crazy enough to use nukes? So we have to attack them first again?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Putting down terrorists and totalitarian regimes that threaten us with nukes doesn't makes the US a "danger to world peace". Those countries are the danger to "world peace" (whatever that is), and countries have a right to defend themselves.

You seem to be forgetting that North Korea did invade South Korea and the only reason they don't take it over by force is the presence of US forces. We fought a long and bloody war against those assholes, and technically the war never ended. We are within our rights to attack them and put an end to the war and end that tyrannical regime.

The problem is the US has interfered in some way in countries like Venezuela, not a threat to the US, or Iraq, not a threat to the US, or Iran, not a threat to the US, or Afghanistan, not a threat to the US or North Korea, not a threat to the US. I mean, North Korea are struggling to even get missiles up in the air without them exploding. They can't do much at all.

In fact, most of these countries want nukes so the US can't invade them, and the US wants to stop them getting nukes so it can threaten to invade them.

Your reasoning to leave NK alone is because their missiles are exploding? Like that means they will never be able to launch and hit Japan or even the US? You probably said they would never get nukes too.

This is a regime that starves, tortures and executes its own citizens if they dare displease the regime.

You may feel comfortable with a sadistic madman with nukes, who also threatens the US. The rest of us aren't content with leaving the situation "as is". The Boy-king needs to be dealt with. I hope Trump does one way or another.

Why do North Korea not like the US? Think about it? They're on the other side of the world. North Korea doesn't start complaining about the DRC, or Kuwait, or whoever, it's about the US. There's a reason for it. The US has made its trouble and then has to fight the trouble it made, then you live in that fear and that fear then becomes justification to spend billions on war.

NK is on the side of the world? Are you high? The UN is entirely against NK, and supports sanctions against it.
Now even China is tired of their crap and is standing with the US, as opposed to before when they fully supported the regime.

You obviously hate the US and its foreign policies for the last 70 years. Maybe you should think about finding citizenship elsewhere, plenty of other countries out there.

Since you're confused about how the world thinks about North Korea, here are a few recent resolutions passed:

The UN Security Council has passed a number of resolutions since North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006.

Resolution 1718 in 2006 demanded that North Korea cease nuclear testing and prohibited the export to North Korea of some military supplies and luxury goods.[1][2] A Sanctions Committee is established, supported by a Panel of Experts that issue annual reports.[3][4][5]

Resolution 1874, passed after the second nuclear test in 2009, broadened the arms embargo. Member states were encouraged to inspect ships and destroy any cargo suspected being related to the nuclear weapons program.[2]

Resolution 2087, passed in January 2013 after a satellite launch, strengthened previous sanctions by clarifying a state’s right to seize and destroy cargo suspected of heading to or from North Korea for purposes of military research and development.[2]

Resolution 2094 was passed in March 2013 after the third nuclear test. It imposed sanctions on money transfers and aimed to shut North Korea out of the international financial system.[2]

Resolution 2270, passed in March 2016 after the fourth nuclear test, further strengthened sanctions.[6] It banned the export of gold, vanadium, titanium, and rare earth metals. The export of coal and iron were also banned, with an exemption for transactions that were purely for "livelihood purposes".[7]

Resolution 2321, passed in November 2016, capped North Korea's coal exports and banned exports of copper, nickel, zinc, and silver.[8][9]

In February 2017, China announced it would ban all imports of coal for the rest of the year.[10]

Sanctions against North Korea - Wikipedia

Plus the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 that had full support from Republicans and Dems signed by Obama.

It's no surprise though that now its a Republican President taking action against North Korea, suddenly progressives are playing politics and taking the side of North Korea.

I clearly didn't say North Korea was on the side of the world, now did I?

The UN might be against North Korea, but North Korea is against the US. I said that too.

China might be tired of their crap, but they're also not willing to have the US as next door neighbors. That's the biggest issue here. What would China do to prevent the US having a border with China? How far would China go to keep Fatboy in charge just to stop the US?

As for you thinking I'm confused about how the UN (which isn't the whole world, it's controlled by a few countries and they get smaller countries to back them up with promises of free stuff), I'm not confused.

 

[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?

If we listen to fools like you, the Hermit Kingdom and its Insane Fuhrer will soon have ICBMs capable of reaching the Continental United States, tipped with hydrogen bombs, capable of cooking-down our people and our cities, and, soon thereafter, MIRVs; capable of delivering multiple warheads per missile, to further increase destructive power.

If it's a toss-up between listening to those who want to strike now and eliminate that possibility so that my fellow Americans continue to live, and to sleep in peace, vs. listening to retards like you who would do nothing, even after those kocksukers launch on us, well...

You Fifth Columnist Assholes go to the back of the line... we'll laugh at you later... or indict you for sedition... either is fine.

Meanwhile, perhaps you can lube-up for the next Enemy of the United States for whom you wish to bend over and take one up the stern rail.

Scum.

Ah, insults. Well, it seems you don't have an argument and it seems I can't be bothered with such people. So, bye, welcome to the ignore list.

 

[bendog]

Clinton was near to attacking NK's nukler program, but Carter went on a peace mission ... and declared peace in our time. I don't think there's much doubt that the US could reduce the nukler program to rubble. But the question is what would the NK military do in response. They have the capability to put thousands of artillery rounds into Seoul. And they probably can use chemical warheads (sarin) if they choose. But that would lead SK to an all out war on NK, and there's no way NK can win that w/o China's help.

As others said, it may be that Pence is over there to find out if SK is ready to take this on before the crazy fat kid gets nukler delivery systems to blackmail Tokyo too.

 

[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.

Damn right it would be a hard sell. We fuck up and Seoul or Tokyo is ashes.

Really? First, it's not clear NK has a deliverable nuclear weapon. Second, I'm sure they noticed that during the campaign, President Trump indicated there were some instances in which he would use our nuclear weapons and a nuclear attack on our allies would likely be one of them. The Korean government could survive the loss of its nuclear program, but it could not survive a nuclear attack aimed at destroying its whole military infrastructure. I believe the NK retaliation to a US attack would be calculated to be below the threshold of precipitating another US attack.