North Korea
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Did any american media mention the fire and fury unleashed upon NK in the 50's as a reference point?
As unhelpful as Trump is what do people expect to be done about NK? The time for quietly letting them get on with it are over surely? Or are we all content to see them armed?
I'd be suprised if the US aren't currently working a back channel towards regime change and their disarmament.
I'd be suprised if the US aren't currently working a back channel towards regime change and their disarmament.
you mean when the US (with a bit help from other UN nations) came to the aid of South Korea after the North (supported both with material and manpower by China and the USSR) launched a war of aggression? A war the North Korean government only survived due to Chinese troops coming to the rescue?
There is nothing honorable in carpet bombing a country to ruins.
The way news outlets have ramped this up .Must be the slow august month. A nothing burger as Trump supporters like to say.
There is a bit more to the war then just "oh look the US bombed them" something I find many on the CE Forum tend to forget. Included the immense destruction and death the North brought to the people and cities/towns/villages of the South. Important to keep the context of the war out there.
There's never been a slow minute let alone a month since Trumpster landed on the national political scene.
I shouldn't but lol
A nuclear strike obviously could happen without much warning, but any sort of conventional attack is probably at least a few months away. The US forces currently in region don't have enough to go after North Korea in the type of campaign that would be needed. There is also the issue of the tens of thousands of US civilians in South Korea who probably would be evacuated first.
To move additional ground, naval, and air forces into the region, build up needed supplies, would take a few months. Even with the support of the South Korean military (without whom any conventional campaign is a no go) we still need time to build up our forces.
To move additional ground, naval, and air forces into the region, build up needed supplies, would take a few months. Even with the support of the South Korean military (without whom any conventional campaign is a no go) we still need time to build up our forces.
You should remember that the US hit civilian targets (dams and the like). A war crime even in the 50s. The purpose was to starve the entire population to death. It is more complex than "oh look the US bombed them" and I'm not sure it's worth going back over the history as that was done earlier in the thread with little success from anyone.
Anyway, more current:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/north-korea-donald-trump/index.html
American presidents have always spoken of North Korea with the type of language Trump used, only not quite as brash. I think Trump did the logical thing from a US viewpoint. I don't see any fault in his rhetoric to be honest.
About 4 fighter jets have just flown past mine. Obviously we aren't involved in this but it's unusual enough to be a bit creepy
indeed - it took months to build up for desert storm in iraq - this would probably be even trickier logistically...
China could probably move much quicker though so I think the reality is anything multinational would have to be chinese led - and if there was any coup, rebellion or decapiation strike on the regime I suspect China would have a lot of troops in the country double quick time (humaniarian at least in guise) telling the usa et all that their prescence is no longer required - so yeah unless its a multi national chinese led operation kim has probably got 3-6 months to get ready for any serious ground assault
Where are you then?
North of England. Another 3 have gone past since that post. Assuming it's not the same one doing massive circles.
Obviously doesn't mean anything. It's just weird seeing them knowing we could be on the verge of nuclear war.
Edit: Make that 4.
Looks like they're flying directly West in a straight line. Hope there's an airshow on somewhere
You really shouldn't be posting while flying a fighter jet.
I beg to differ
there's been a long history of verbal back and forth between the two sides and even some non-verbal actions that have not led to renewed conflict. Granted much of it occurred during the Cold War so there was more of a balance to keep each side from going too far.
Who was the last president to threaten use of nukes?
Truman?
Bush didn't take it off the table iirc. Eisenhower threatened it, though was persuaded not to (albeit, that was during the actual war). American presidents can't take anything off the table in terms of NK, because it makes their allies (Japan, SK, et al) in the region nervous about America's commitment.
I think what's happening now is different in a sense because even the Chinese have concerns about the North Koreans. If America is threatened (though it's not a serious threat in all honesty) with a strike on Guam, for the sake of not losing face, Trump sort of has to respond the way he did.
Maybe all this fire and fury talk is directed not only at Korea but also at China ?
On Twitter?
Nah, he didn't. Unity with China, Russia and the rest of the world is the way forward. A show of strength is definitely needed, but sane, rational threats not aggressive hyperbolic rhetoric. Trump will back himself in to a corner. What if North Korea respond with another threat? Just one more and Trump has to go to war, he's just said so. That then means at least millions of deaths in South Korea alone. If he doesn't go to war then Russia and China and the rest of the world know the man is full of shit and bluster.
Sorry, he's gone way too far, gone way over the top and he's come across as the clueless, arrogant, narcissistic bully that we all know he is. Everyone knows the USA's nuclear capabilities, it's there for everyone to see on Wikipedia for fecks sake, nobody needed it pointed out. Again it's just another brag from him saying he's had the entire nuclear arsenal updated and modernised in 6 months. Bollocks. We all know that's not true, but again he can't help himself. This shit is real, and dangerous and he's making it worse. His big mouth is going to get himself and the rest of us in trouble. Fair enough Kim is a despicable, dangerous little prick, but there is a way to handle him and i'm just not sure Trump's usual bully boy approach will work.
I doubt it. First of all he just said this without any plan. He is the typical wane-be tough guy. Additionally over the last year's China itself grew more and more worried of NK. They certainly don't want Kim to have nukes, but also weren't willing to move aggressively against him.
If push comes to shove, we should obliterate the bastard. I don't mean nuclear. But we can level his palace and his city.
But don't make public threats.
But don't make public threats.
I don't pay much attention to his twitter in all honesty. It's a sideshow I ignore. It gets quoted a lot, but I doubt he writes any of it himself.
There never will be unity with China, Russia or any of the other major powers. They all compete with each other for influence in the same regions. So whilst they might reach a multilateral agreement on Korea, it'll be a rare and brief moment of "needs must" diplomacy. Also, the United States can't be backed into a corner. It's militarily impossible. They can back the Koreans into a corner, though that rhetoric won't be Trump's own doing, rather a mixture of his intelligence agencies and his cabinet.
I think you're letting your dislike of the man muddy your interpretation of events. The Pacific alliance (mainly Indonesia, South Korea, Australia and Japan) like hearing (nay, demand to hear) hard-line rhetoric from the US on these issues. The Korean War started, in part, because the then Secretary of State left South Korea out of his speech which detailed key assets in the region. Since then, no US official has dared make the same mistake. There are factions within the South Korean government (more liberal than the previous administration) which would rather minimal interference from the US, but that hasn't stopped them asking for the US to place state of the art missile defence systems in South Korea.
For once, I don't think Trump did anything out of the ordinary or incorrect. His brashness means that the message is a bit tactless, but it's the exact same message the US has sent to its allies in the region for decades.
I'm not saying Trump is correct in the way he is going about this but I'm not sure you are correct with the part in bold either. If it was simple, one of the last three Presidents would have prevented it coming to this. Trump and a nuclear missiled North Korea.
They did prevent war, each one of them. North Korea just shut up and carried on as normal. What they didn't prevent was NK continuing to develop weapons.
Seriously? Wow, it's perfectly clear what he writes himself and what he doesn't and it's clear he writes an awful lot.
Nope, of course not, it would just be perceived, but a show of unity from the entire world is needed, or at least from some of the bigger countries, preferably from Russia and China who border NK.
I didn't say that though, I said Trump has backed himself and his country in to a corner. He said if North Korea made another threat then it would be met with fire, fury and power. That's his EXACT words. Now if Kim does make another threat Trump has no option. If he does he starts a war one that could possibly escalate beyond just North Korea and the USA. If he doesn't he's just made empty threats and China and Russia know he and the USA can be pushed around and played with some more.
It's what he said and how he said it that is worrisome. I have said strength is needed, as is tact, diplomacy and intelligence. Outright threatening war in return is dangerous and leaves him little option. As I said in another thread it's his dangerous hyperbolic rhetoric I have a problem with. Strength, yes, mindless aggressive threats and rhetoric, no. I also don't trust his situation at home, he would do anything to distract from his falling support numbers, failures with policy and of course the constant Russia talk. He saw his numbers rise when he dropped the MOAB.................. I think enough said.
Last edited:
You really can't compare today with WW2 times. I mean you always have the implied threat, but rarely do presidents flout it as a sign of their country's might.
That was sort of my point.
I don't understand why his reign hasn't been demolished already. Half his nation starves whilst he lives a life of luxury wasting the countries very few resources on nuclear weapons he can never use.
If they had oil North Korea wouldn't even exist now.
If they had oil North Korea wouldn't even exist now.
They didn't prevent anything, they closed their eyes to the problem.
This problem will not go away with more reducing of tensions and self-congratulation for not escalating further whilst NK advance.
As for Trump backing himself into a corner im sure other world leaders are aware of the concept of tough talk. Its a bit childish to say he has to cos he said so
The Dynastic Dictatorship of North Korea survives because of the backing of the two nations that were responsible for creating it and propping it all these decades.....USSR/Russia and China.
Much like South Korea would not exist today if not for the backing of the US.
From '03:
Trump hasn't done much different to Bush. The above might be judged to be somewhat biased against the United States, but is accurate in some respects. Namely, that the US has made these threats for a long, long time. Trump's style of politics just means that he's willing to be more dramatic and open with it in order to play the "mad man" character Nixon theorized. Though threat of "power" and "destruction" against North Korea aren't much different in tone to the "shock and awe" of the Iraqi campaign. One is linguistic, the other actual destruction. As of now North Korea and the United States are posturing.
I don't think so. It's been demonstrated by linguistic analysis that a lot of those messages aren't composed by the same person. It's impossible to know how much is written by him, but I'd guess very little since assuming office. Presidents have mandatory speech writers who write in their cadence and tone. Tweet is no different in today's age.
Except that was said about every other country from Rome onwards that was the most powerful nation on earth.
Until they weren't. USA will be no different.