North Korea

[Brwned]

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.

Are you proposing the idea that the ease at which a country can be influenced is heavily dependent on the official leader? That doesn't stack up with what someone like Putin has said publicly, in which he essentially dismissed the idea that the president is remotely important when compared to the institution he's a part of, citing the example of Obama's inability to close Guantanamo in 8 long years despite his sincere desire to do so.

It's easy to dismiss as another Putin lie but I believe in this case he was sincere in his belief that it's mostly business as usual regardless of the president, as it is in most political institutions, by design.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Are you proposing the idea that the ease at which a country can be influenced is heavily dependent on the official leader? That doesn't stack up with what someone like Putin has said publicly, in which he essentially dismissed the idea that the president is remotely important when compared to the institution he's a part of, citing the example of Obama's inability to close Guantanamo in 8 long years despite his sincere desire to do so.

This is also part of my larger point. The state apparatus (congress, the senate, et al) form a larger part of Trump's decision making. Influencing or constraining action as events unfold.

 

[Silva]

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.

That would involve fecking South Korea and potentially Japan too. They're not suddenly going to forget they had a ton of missiles aimed at Seoul.

 

[legolegs]

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.

Well at least the inhabitants of the city will only be killed by regular bombs not by an evil nuke then.

 

[langster]

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.

Come on mate, you're a smart lad. It's pretty easy to tell when he's Tweeting, also the timing usually gives it away too. It's also very easy to check what's been on the news minutes before he Tweets.

Its a bit childish to say he has to cos he said so

So he makes empty threats then? What's the point of a threat if it's not meant? How else would you expect them to be perceived other than as a sign of weakness? There's an old saying, a bluff taken seriously is a good bluff but an empty threat treated as a bluff is dangerous. The news today has been full of Generals and Defence secretaries complaining about the Rhetoric being used, all saying it's gone too far and is dangerous. Heck, even Tillerson has been doing the rounds playing down Trump's words. Tillerson who made a statement this morning only for Trump's Tweets to completely contradict what Tillerson has just said. How is undermining your own Secretary of State good? Who do you expect Kim to listen to? Or Putin for that matter? The Secretary of State says one thing, then inside a few hours the President contradicts what was said and ramps up the dangerous rhetoric. Mixed messages and a childish bullies desire to threaten, no matter how well intentioned ultimately cannot help the situation. Unity within his own fecking cabinet and all sending out the same message would be a good start.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Though threat of "power" and "destruction" against North Korea aren't much different in tone to the "shock and awe" of the Iraqi campaign.

Maybe. But there is a clear distinction between nuclear (now) and conventional (iraq) war threats. Making them publicly increases the paranoia of people which is what he's driving at. Now I see many here worried that N Korea has made a nuclear threat .... not realizing that N Korea are suspected to have nukes since 2009.

Crucial difference in conventional war, you can at least try to keep collateral damage minimum as people can relocate or just hide till localized conflict is over...which is not possible in a nuclear war.

"People in North Korea suffer under Kim's rule"
"Let's nuke them. Problem solved"

 

[Red Dreams]

Well at least the inhabitants of the city will only be killed by regular bombs not by an evil nuke then.

...he would have killed them.

 

[Fergies Gum]

 

[Raoul]

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Trump hasn't done much different to Bush...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.

That's true and in all likelihood posturing is what it will remain. What's also true is that on the eve of the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing Trump also appears to be aping Truman's address to the nation after the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb (@2.05):

"If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen...."

"North korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening - beyond a normal statement - and as I said they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before"

It's a clearly provocative and specifically meaningful message but while there is a possibility this gets out of hand it's difficult to know what Trump is supposed to do. It's an inherited mess. North Korea has and is successfully and swiftly pursuing a policy that directly threatens the US while casting the latter as the great enemy of its people. Previous attempts at containment have obviously not prevented this from happening. The current crisis represents the failure of past policy. Trump's noted diplomatic expertise has managed to quickly get complete unanimity at the UN to institute further sanctions - with both Russia and China aboard. That's not nothing and indicates just how serious North Korea's advancing capability has become and is being treated. A North Korea with newly advanced firepower then threatens the US and its citizens directly. That now has to be considered a credible threat. It's a massive shame that this has all come to a head under the stewardship of an orange idiot, but whoever was in charge surely couldn't abide credible nuclear threats to their populace. Having thought about it I wouldn't have been surprised to hear Trump's statement come out of any president's mouth given the threat leveled in their direction. The tone might have been different, but the meaning would have been the same.

The reason it seems scary this time round is not really what was said, but who said it. I get the uneasy feeling that he could bumble into a disastrous war through ego alone.

 

[langster]

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

Right then, so what exactly does Trump do now? He's been called out on his bluff. Not only has he been called on his bluff, he's been mocked about it being a load of shit bluff.

This is exactly what I feared would happen and why he shouldn't have said it.

 

[VeevaVee]

What is NKs actual reasoning for wanting to attack?

 

[Ekkie Thump]

What is NKs actual reasoning for wanting to attack?

The ramped up sanctions that the US were cheerleading.

 

[Raoul]

Right then, so what exactly does Trump do now? He's been called out on his bluff. Not only has he been called on his bluff, he's been mocked about it being a load of shit bluff.

This is exactly what I feared would happen and why he shouldn't have said it.

Trump shouldn't have said what he did yesterday as its only going to make him look like he has to act with the North Koreans ignore him and proceed with their plans.

 

[langster]

Trump shouldn't have said what he did yesterday as its only going to make him look like he has to act with the North Koreans ignore him and proceed with their plans.

Exactly my point. More so really that not only have they ignored him but they have called him out on it too.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

That's true and in all likelihood posturing is what it will remain. What's also true is that on the eve of the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing Trump also appears to be aping Truman's address to the nation after the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb (@2.05):







It's a clearly provocative and specifically meaningful message but while there is a possibility this gets out of hand it's difficult to know what Trump is supposed to do. It's an inherited mess. North Korea has and is successfully and swiftly pursuing a policy that directly threatens the US while casting the latter as the great enemy of its people. Previous attempts at containment have obviously not prevented this from happening. The current crisis represents the failure of past policy. Trump's noted diplomatic expertise has managed to quickly get complete unanimity at the UN to institute further sanctions - with both Russia and China aboard. That's not nothing and indicates just how serious North Korea's advancing capability has become and is being treated. A North Korea with newly advanced firepower then threatens the US and its citizens directly. That now has to be considered a credible threat. It's a massive shame that this has all come to a head under the stewardship of an orange idiot, but whoever was in charge surely couldn't abide credible nuclear threats to their populace. Having thought about it I wouldn't have been surprised to hear Trump's statement come out of any president's mouth given the threat leveled in their direction. The tone might have been different, but the meaning would have been the same.

The reason it seems scary this time round is not really what was said, but who said it. I get the uneasy feeling that he could bumble into a disastrous war through ego alone.

I really don't think NK is a credible threat at all. I understand why the US will act, possibly preemptively, but NK won't initiate a nuclear war in which they lose 100% of the time.

They moved away from a policy of containment under the Obama administration iirc.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Maybe. But there is a clear distinction between nuclear (now) and conventional (iraq) war threats. Making them publicly increases the paranoia of people which is what he's driving at. Now I see many here worried that N Korea has made a nuclear threat .... not realizing that N Korea are suspected to have nukes since 2009.

Crucial difference in conventional war, you can at least try to keep collateral damage minimum as people can relocate or just hide till localized conflict is over...which is not possible in a nuclear war.

"People in North Korea suffer under Kim's rule"
"Let's nuke them. Problem solved"

My only point is that the use of nuclear rhetoric is nothing new, especially in relation to North Korea.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Come on mate, you're a smart lad. It's pretty easy to tell when he's Tweeting, also the timing usually gives it away too. It's also very easy to check what's been on the news minutes before he Tweets.

The fact that it's known he doesn't write all of his tweets, makes me disregard the rest as I can't ever be sure what is actually him or a staffer. I also think it serves primarily to distract people and put white noise into the news cycle.

 

[Smores]

Right then, so what exactly does Trump do now? He's been called out on his bluff. Not only has he been called on his bluff, he's been mocked about it being a load of shit bluff.

This is exactly what I feared would happen and why he shouldn't have said it.

The exact same as before. Powerful language sets the tone of the debate and that's all it was, more for the international communitys interest than scaring North Korea. I'm not sure why you think it was a bluff as if thats how politics works, Kim picks up the paper and cancels everything because of a headline.

All politician's deal in tough language at times, Obama included and it didn't make a difference that he didn't deliver then either.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

All politician's deal in tough language at times, Obama included and it didn't make a difference that he didn't deliver then either.

Red lines and Syria come to mind.

 

[horsechoker]

North Korea is teasing a wild lion, if they attack Guam they'll be bombed of the face of the earth.

 

[langster]

Red lines and Syria come to mind.

Yeah and look how that backfired on him and how he will never be allowed to forget it.

North Korea have outright called Trump out and it's moronic. They have openly mocked him, a known idiot with thinner skin than anyone on the planet and they have called him out. If what Trump said was a bluff it backfired and provoked Kim even further. Now what does he do? If he doesn't act he will never live it down and will be pushed by everyone, especially Russia. If he does, well then a lot of people are going to die. The only question is how many.

North Korea have now threatened to fire FOUR missiles at Guam and have them land 30-40km from the island. Trump isn't mentally stable enough or politically experienced enough to deal with any of this and his words so far and the fact even Fox News is slamming him now really doesn't give me much confidence. The fact even North Korea have his number and China have called the US to cut the rhetoric gives me even less.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Red lines and Syria come to mind.

Obama was rational enough to swallow his pride and did what he thought to be the most peaceable solution to the problem, at a cost to his credibility. The worry here is knowing Drumpf's character, his refusal to be seen as weak and tendency to double down on a mistake, do you have the confidence that he'll act with the same rationality?

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I really don't think NK is a credible threat at all. I understand why the US will act, possibly preemptively, but NK won't initiate a nuclear war in which they lose 100% of the time.

They moved away from a policy of containment under the Obama administration iirc.

I agree that in all probability they won't - what's changed of course is that now they maybe can and that alone lends a threat more credence. It at least has to somewhat ramp up the level of risk and also the level of domestic concern to a pitch that requires it to be addressed. That's why I'm not so much concerned by what was said as much as who said it. I think Trump has a non zero chance of screwing this up.

I'm curious about your reasons for finding a US preemptive strike against a state you consider poses no risk understandable though.

I've always considered the normalisation policy to be a continuation of containment - just using a carrot instead of a stick - but I'm not that knowledgeable about it. I guess it was stymied by events - the North sinking a South Korean ship and then the death of Jong Il. After that it was back to UN and unilateral sanctions.

 

[langster]

Obama was rational enough to swallow his pride and did what he thought to be the most peaceable solution to the problem, at a cost to his credibility. The worry here is knowing Drumpf's character, his refusal to be seen as weak and tendency to double down on a mistake, do you have the confidence that he'll act with the same rationality?

Exactly right. Even worse is the latest statement out of North Korea has yet again directly mocked Trump, calling him weak, saying he bluffed and mocking the fact he said what he did from a golf course. They have done their homework and know he will right now be stomping his feet and screaming at everyone in sight. I bet he's being held down by the Secret Service who are trying to stop him Tweeting out his response whilst wrestling the nuclear football with his other hand.

 

[Silva]

North Korea is teasing a wild lion, if they attack Guam they'll be bombed of the face of the earth.

They won't attack Guam. If the regime really feels like testing Trump they might shoot near it, followed by the US army shooting near NK. If either side is mad enough to commit an act of war the entire region is fecked.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

North Korea have outright called Trump out and it's moronic. They have openly mocked him, a known idiot with thinner skin than anyone on the planet and they have called him out. If what Trump said was a bluff it backfired and provoked Kim even further. Now what does he do? If he doesn't act he will never live it down and will be pushed by everyone, especially Russia. If he does, well then a lot of people are going to die. The only question is how many.

I don't think there will be any war. There'll be tough talk, and in the end, the US and China will come to some agreement whereby NK gets food aid in return for South Korea and the US stopping military maneuvers on the North Korean border, and NK following a similar path to Iran in terms of their nuclear program. But it will take a lot longer as North Korea is in a far stronger position than Iran was, and also a lot less inclined to bargain due to historical reasons.

I'm curious about your reasons for finding a US preemptive strike against a state you consider poses no risk understandable though.

Understandable from a US perspective of protecting their interests in the region (South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan and the East China/South China Sea in general). It has a strategic value for the US and always has, which is why I could understand them talking about taking action, or even taking some kind of action (though this is unlikely). I wouldn't say it's morally justified, but from a US viewpoint I could just about understand the logic behind it.

 

[Fergies Gum]

An ex GOP senator not happy with the way Trump is handling this issue.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Obama was rational enough to swallow his pride and did what he thought to be the most peaceable solution to the problem, at a cost to his credibility. The worry here is knowing Drumpf's character, his refusal to be seen as weak and tendency to double down on a mistake, do you have the confidence that he'll act with the same rationality?

I do, because despite Trump being odious, he's also a pragmatist and a survivalist (in a political/business sense). He possesses similar traits to a lot of authoritarian leaders. Rational at a specific level of business despite eccentricities in character.


There's also the fact that the president of the United States can't just declare nuclear war. There are a myriad of other agencies and government offices which have input or authority. He's the commander in chief, but he's not a dictator.

 

[langster]

I don't think there will be any war. There'll be tough talk, and in the end, the US and China will come to some agreement whereby NK gets food aid in return for South Korea and the US stopping military maneuvers on the North Korean border, and NK following a similar path to Iran in terms of their nuclear program. But it will take a lot longer as North Korea is in a far stronger position than Iran was, and also a lot less inclined to bargain due to historical reasons.

In the ideal world I would agree with you, and with anyone else in charge, even George W Bush I would be inclined to believe it would turn out ok, but not with the lunatic in charge of the USA now, and not after how NK have directly insulted him to his face. As mentioned earlier, he's also looking for any distraction from the Russia story and he absolutely LOVED the media coverage and small jump in the polls that he got from dropping the MOAB in Afghanistan. He's too unpredictable and mentally unstable for me to feel entirely safe about it all.

I know North Korea don't want war, I know they just like sabre rattling every now and again and I know they just want to be treated and taken seriously. They want to be a big player, they want to be involved in the G20 or even G8 (now 7 obviously) and they want sanctions removed and they want aid for their people. Trump doesn't know any of that, he openly admitted that the President of China had to explain it all to him (in 10 minutes) and he then said "nobody knew it was so complicated" His inexperience and dodgy temperament are showing and exposed and so far, North Korea are using it to their advantage. I just hope saner heads and calmer temperaments prevail.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

I do, because despite Trump being odious, he's also a pragmatist and a survivalist (in a political/business sense). He possesses similar traits to a lot of authoritarian leaders. Rational at a specific level of business despite eccentricities in character.

Him being a survivalist has little to do with this situation though. Destroying NK and feck up the whole region is consistent with his 'America first' isolationist philosophy, he's advocated such course of action for decades. Just watch that interview 18 years ago, bluntly brushed off the prospects of millions dying if the US remains safe. What does it matter for him if SK and Japan is devastated humanly and economically after an invasion into NK? More jobs for the US.

I agree that we have cause enough to believe that he'll chicken out of a full on conflict with the main players like China or Russia, but bullies tend to find someone they can safely pick on to maintain the facade. If he's given the assurance from Beijing and Moscow that there wont be military repercussion then all bets are off.

 

[Silva]

I do, because despite Trump being odious, he's also a pragmatist and a survivalist (in a political/business sense). He possesses similar traits to a lot of authoritarian leaders. Rational at a specific level of business despite eccentricities in character.

Everything he's done so far has put greater legal scrutiny on himself, his business, family and associates. It's hard not to think his supposed pragmatism/intelligence comes from the fact that his father made him crazy rich.

 

[entropy]

0.00001 chances. Time to bunker down folks!

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/34...korean-missile-could-penetrate-guams-defenses

 

[langster]

0.00001 chances. Time to bunker down folks!

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/34...korean-missile-could-penetrate-guams-defenses

For fecks sake, what a load of shite. They said they would fire FOUR missiles simultaneously because the defence systems weakness is that it can't deal with multiple threats at once. One missile, yeah fine it would stop it, but it can't handle four. Kim's done his homework again with this threat. Real or not, if he did fire four, at least one would get through.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

In the ideal world I would agree with you, and with anyone else in charge, even George W Bush I would be inclined to believe it would turn out ok, but not with the lunatic in charge of the USA now, and not after how NK have directly insulted him to his face. As mentioned earlier, he's also looking for any distraction from the Russia story and he absolutely LOVED the media coverage and small jump in the polls that he got from dropping the MOAB in Afghanistan. He's too unpredictable and mentally unstable for me to feel entirely safe about it all.

There's a difference between dropping a bomb in the middle of a desert and starting a nuclear war. Even Trump knows that (and by Trump, I also refer to his entire administration, who aren't idiots). He won't chase ratings with a strike on North Korea, he won't be allowed to.

People are seriously overreacting. There won't be a war between North Korea and the United States any time soon.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Him being a survivalist has little to do with this situation though. Destroying NK and feck up the whole region is consistent with his 'America first' isolationist philosophy, he's advocated such course of action for decades. Just watch that interview 18 years ago, bluntly brushed off the prospects of millions dying if the US remains safe. What does it matter for him if SK and Japan is devastated humanly and economically after an invasion into NK? More jobs for the US.

I agree that we have cause enough to believe that he'll chicken out of a full on conflict with the main players like China or Russia, but bullies tend to find someone they can safely pick on to maintain the facade. If he's given the assurance from Beijing and Moscow that there wont be military repercussion then all bets are off.

And do you believe Bejing will give the US reassurances about starting a potentially nuclear conflict on its border? Sorry, but .

 

[Nanook]

For fecks sake, what a load of shite. They said they would fire FOUR missiles simultaneously because the defence systems weakness is that it can't deal with multiple threats at once. One missile, yeah fine it would stop it, but it can't handle four.Kim's done his homework again with this threat. Real or not, if he did fire four, at least one would get through.

I'm not even sure it could handle one. The US missile defence program has been a very expensive failure.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

North Korea’s Strategic Force of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) is examining an operational plan for a medium-to-long-range ballistic missile attack on the island of Guam, a spokesperson for the organization said in a statement carried by the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Wednesday.

The plan, the details of which were reportedly outlined yesterday, is in response to the U.S.’s test launch last Wednesday of the Minuteman-3 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base and of the recent arrival of six B-1B Lancers at the Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.

Guam is a U.S. territory and home to several American military bases.

The U.S. flew B-1B bombers over the Korean peninsula on the 30 July, in a response to North Korea’s second test of the Hwasong-14 ICBM, and again yesterday, according to the KPA statement.

“The Strategic Force of the KPA has taken special note of such maneuvers,” the statement reads. “The KPA Strategic Force is now carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic rocket Hwasong-12 in order to contain the U.S. major military bases on Guam…”

The statement said that U.S. strategic bombers “get on the nerves of the DPRK” with their “frequent visits to the sky above south Korea.”

The plan will be “will be put into practice in a multi-concurrent and consecutive way” on the order of Kim Jong Un, it added.

“The U.S. should clearly face up to the fact that the ballistic rockets of the Strategic Force of the KPA are now on constant standby, facing the Pacific Ocean and pay deep attention to their azimuth angle for launch.”

In a separate statement also released on Wednesday, the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) condemned recent talk of military action against North Korea from policymakers in the U.S.


A military intervention against the DPRK would be met with a “just all-out war,” the statement said, which would seek to destroy “the strongholds of the enemies including the U.S. mainland.”


“…the army of the DPRK will turn the U.S. mainland into the theatre of a nuclear war before the inviolable land of the DPRK turns into the one,” the statement added.

The KPA also said that a U.S. preemptive strike against North Korea missile and nuclear targets would be “mercilessly repelled” by the DPRK armed forces, and would lead to a regional conflict.

“Preemptive strike is no longer the monopoly of the U.S.,” the KPA said, saying that they would “burn up” all U.S. military assets in the area, “including Seoul.”

Referencing recent comments by Senator Lindsey Graham, as well as Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Dunford, the KPA promised a “preemptive retaliatory operation of justice” if it saw even a “slight sign” of a U.S. “beheading” operation against North Korea’s leadership.

“Once the U.S. shows a sign of starting to carry out the foolhardy plot, we will launch the Korean-style pre-emptive retaliatory operation of justice to annihilate the masterminds of the thrice-cursed operation and all the criminals involved in it,” the statement reads.

“The U.S. will be forced to suffer an imaginably terrible disaster for the ‘beheading operation.'”

The statement also attacked an alleged U.S. plot to foment regime change and social upheaval in the North, saying that U.S. was encouraging “murder, arson, destruction with the use of rogue-like special commandoes to be infiltrated into the DPRK.”

“The “secret operation” touted by the U.S. policy-makers is a foolish scheme aimed at bringing down the social system of the DPRK,” it added.

The comments by North Korea’s military come hours after U.S. President Donald Trump promised “fire and fury” against the DPRK should it continue to threaten the United States.

“(Kim Jong Un) has been very threatening… and I said they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before,” Trump said.

For lack of a better term, what the North Korean state media peddles is a fantasy. They don't possess the capability to do half of what they say. Even if they did, they also know they'd be destroyed within seconds of attempting it. Trump peddles in a similar market of machismo. Both Trump and Kim get to act tough on the world stage, and there's not much more to it (as of yet). I find it a little funny that Trump's "fire and fury" could easily be taken from NK state propaganda, though.

The only thing that's noteworthy for me is that North Korea is on the verge of economic collapse. That the state media even mentions sanctions is a telling sign. They'll need Chinese support very soon, and they won't get that unless they make concessions.

 

[RedSky]

And do you believe Bejing will give the US reassurances about starting a potentially nuclear conflict on its border? Sorry, but .

It'd probably start China preparing for war against America tbh. I'm sure they're already doing that as a precaution.

 

[langster]

There's a difference between dropping a bomb in the middle of a desert and starting a nuclear war. Even Trump knows that (and by Trump, I also refer to his entire administration, who aren't idiots). He won't chase ratings with a strike on North Korea, he won't be allowed to.

People are seriously overreacting. There won't be a war between North Korea and the United States any time soon.

That has been discussed in his own thread, he can act on his own if he wants.

As for the rest, I agree, I don't think there will be a war, but that's more out of hope than certainty. I can't put any faith in someone who is so mentally ill, someone so thin skinned, vengeful and nasty and someone who is a pathological liar so desperate for adulation he still holds rallies in favourable states 6 months after he took the Presidency. I can't see how anyone can be absolutely certain nothing will come of this considering the people in power from either country. I also think that Trump sees North Korea as a problem that the world needs to sort out and one that has gone on too long. I also think he sees NK as weak and a country he could easily defeat. He also sees war as a popularity contest and with his mental state, nothing would surprise me. Hopefully his staff will just ignore him and saner heads will prevail. Just let him play golf and let the big boys and girls do their jobs properly.