|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 12:55:33 GMT -5
I just love that name. Too bad it's not a place in a good-hearted fantasty novel. OK, now back to reality. I've got a lot of questions, and I can't believe what I'm reading each day in the headlines. Things have gotten pretty scary. So just how worried should we be about a nuclear attack on the U.S. or another country, by N.Korea? And if they decide to attack the U.S., where are they likely to strike first? What do you all think of Trump's "fire and fury" statement? General Mattis gave a statement which clearly supports Trump's words. This is big stuff. www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/mattis-pentagon-north-korea/index.htmlFor those of you who think our military spending should be decreased rather than increased, aren't you a teeeeeensy bit grateful the Trump administration has been spending $$ to improve our readiness for this problem? I know I am.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 13:03:00 GMT -5
you know what I'm not a teensy bit grateful for?
Trump throwing out off-the-cuff, irresponsible, gratuitous threats about bringing down "fire and fury" on North Korea.
I'd literally rather have anyone else in charge of the nuclear codes right now, with the exception of Bannon. Not even Kelly, McMaster, and Mattis can get this jackass in line.
Holy fuck, do you really feel still good about this asshole? FFS.
As for me, every day I wake and hope to see a headline that he's resigning or being impeached.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Aug 9, 2017 13:21:55 GMT -5
No. No, I am not even a teeeeeensy bit grateful. We already have the largest military budget in the freaking world (so what more does he need to spend our money on???), and if we end up in a nuclear war it'll very likely be because of our childish, blowhard "leader."
We have two immature, narcissistic heads of state bloviating at each other right now. It's not cute. It's not amusing. And I still stand by my opinion that we're spending too much on the military and moronic walls instead of putting that money to better use.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 13:24:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 9, 2017 13:24:42 GMT -5
For those of you who think our military spending should be decreased rather than increased, aren't you a teeeeeensy bit grateful the Trump administration has been spending $$ to improve our readiness for this problem? I know I am. I'm not sure I would really accept the premise here, so I dunno how to answer this as a strict yes or no. Trump pushed for a 3 percent increase in military spending over what the Democrats wanted to spend, and while I guess one could argue over whether that's a significant increase or a minor one, I don't see how such an increase necessarily improves our readiness for this specific problem (the problem of North Korea). And really, if this somehow blows up into a hot war, then I'll be doubly unimpressed with Trump, because Trump's whole campaign shtick w/ regard to military spending was really more about peace through strength and building up the military so as to avoid exactly the predicament we're in right now. Kim Jong-un, above all, is an opportunist with regard to the United States. If the US didn't have a president who was so bad at this game, who knows if we would even be discussing these North Korean threats in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 9, 2017 13:34:00 GMT -5
Geraghty is overlooking an awful lot to say that Trump isn't the problem (or at least a big part of the problem). Start with this. Remember that Kim-Jong-Un actually endorsed Trump for president? Well, I don't think it was because he thought Trump would be a thorn in his side. And yeah, North Korea is developing its nuclear program to wider capability, but stop and think about why for a minute. While some aspects of that program I'm sure are part of a long-term development process, take the mobile transporter NK now has, for example. That was given to them recently by China. Why now?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 9, 2017 13:35:52 GMT -5
For those of you who think our military spending should be decreased rather than increased, aren't you a teeeeeensy bit grateful the Trump administration has been spending $$ to improve our readiness for this problem? I know I am. Be specific - in what way has the Trump administration improved our readiness for this problem? Extra bonus points: answer my question without using Google.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 13:40:53 GMT -5
There can be no "readiness" for nuclear missiles. We could wipe North Korea off the map, and they know it. But the cost (in human lives and destruction, not mere dollars) would be mind-boggling.
As has been the case since 1945, the best "readiness" is a sane, level-headed leader who does not needlessly, mindlessly escalate tensions -- who keeps us out of nuclear war.
And that, I fear, is what, for the first time since 1945, we don't have.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 9, 2017 13:56:27 GMT -5
Whatever the Trump admin has or hasn't done pales in comparison to the failures of previous admins (simply because Trump hasn't had years to solve the problem yet; three years from now, he may be in the same boat).
And I don't think Trump's rhetoric is going to be effective at accomplishing anything. I also don't think it's particularly damaging. North Korea is still operating in a different world.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Aug 9, 2017 13:58:28 GMT -5
The way I see things is that NK is not the primary threat to the USA. The USA is. The last 15 or so years have left no doubt in the minds of the world that the USA has plans of world empire with the USA in charge.
I see nothing wrong with countries wanting a way to defend themselves with advanced weapons, against advanced weapons.
And why would anyone have to stop "isolating" themselves? That Idea is stupid.
As far as US military spending, The USA could could cut it in half of what it is today and still be the worlds mega power. So in short, cut that military budget now.
I feel sorry for the people of Guam and surrounding islands. Pawns
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 14:12:35 GMT -5
For those of you who think our military spending should be decreased rather than increased, aren't you a teeeeeensy bit grateful the Trump administration has been spending $$ to improve our readiness for this problem? I know I am. Be specific - in what way has the Trump administration improved our readiness for this problem? Extra bonus points: answer my question without using Google. What's this "without using Google" crap? You'll believe me without citations? right. Mattis just stated that since the earliest days of the Trump administration, military brass has been meeting with Trump specifically in regards to N. Korea and emphasis has been placed on increasing missile defense preparedness/capability etc. I assume that costs money. Do I get any extra points? If so, may I now cite this? Anyway, I am considering, due to the recent Google hoopla, of changing my search engine to Duckduckgo. It doesn't track me and protects my privacy from both them and everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 9, 2017 14:13:49 GMT -5
Whatever the Trump admin has or hasn't done pales in comparison to the failures of previous admins (simply because Trump hasn't had years to solve the problem yet; three years from now, he may be in the same boat). And I don't think Trump's rhetoric is going to be effective at accomplishing anything. I also don't think it's particularly damaging. North Korea is still operating in a different world. "But Clinton..."
If you think rhetoric about launching nukes is just rhetoric, sure, it doesn't matter what Trump and Dear Leader tweet at each other.
Where North Kore is concerned, however, words sometimes do mean things.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 9, 2017 14:18:00 GMT -5
What's this "without using Google" crap? You'll believe me without citations? right. No, I mean I want you to produce an original, defensible thought rather than searching for someone else's words as you desperately reach for a defense of Trump. No. I'm sure military brass have been meeting with the President (duh) and asking for more money (duh) and including "missile defense preparednes/capability etc." in their justifications (duh). This would be a true statement, umm, pretty much every year since 1946 or so. I want to know what Trump has actually done, and in what way it differs from what every other president has done and would do, that makes you feel so tingly and safe with Trump in charge and comparing nuclear dick sizes with North Korea.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 9, 2017 14:26:56 GMT -5
As I've said on other NK threads, I think Un is operating in a different world, that NK's actions and his words are not actually responsive to anything we're doing or saying, at all. I noted in the thread about the guy who was released from NK captivity that Trump deserves ZERO credit for securing this guy's release, despite all his fans shouting that such was the case. He didn't do shit there. Just as Obama didn't do shit to get Americans released from NK during his term.
Again, no one--and this includes Trump, so far--has managed to accomplish jack with NK. There's no "but, Clinton" here, though I can see how imagining that such is the case is easy to do. Trump hasn't changed the NK situation; he's neither made it better nor made it worse, imo. So he's in the same place as everyone else. But again, he's had less time on the clock. That's just a simple observation on my part. I have no reason to suppose that he will make it any better. And maybe he might even make it worse. Though again imo, Un isn't really playing the same game. He's doing whatever he has to to stay in power. And if that includes developing nukes and spouting off about it, so be it.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Aug 9, 2017 14:39:20 GMT -5
It would be interesting though, in an academic sense, if the US would actually invade-attack-occupy a nuclear armed country.
I think not. Too much political risk do to blow-back.
|
|