4 ms·

Well, with so much effort to isolate North Korea and bring them on the path of war with repeated threat, I would not expect less from them. And knowing the past

• throwasehasdwi 9y ago
  Well, North korea has been working on nukes for like 40 years and there hasn't been a war yet so I don't think the US is as eager as you think. You don't see anything wrong with a madman in a country always on the edge of collapse that's constantly threatening to turn the USA into a crater having nuclear weapons? Kimmy is over there threatening to bomb out the US and Japan and put everyone's heads on pikes pretty much weekly. I don't recall even our crazy fucker president Trump saying anything remotely close to that.
  • bitL 9y ago
    It's different if you have baby nukes you can't launch, and if you have MIRV ICBMs with mastered launch from submarines; i.e. one submarine capable of wiping out the whole west coast. There was recent noise that NK is testing (so far unsuccessfully) submarine launch for their new ICBMs; once they are successful, it stops being kindergarten stuff but a global issue.
    • throwasehasdwi 9y ago
      They have nukes and working ICBM's... It's not that hard to put the two together. Submarine launch is harder and the warheads must be smaller, but ICMB's are already considered unstoppable so it doesn't matter.
  • philipodonnell 9y ago
    Yeah, but they're always just threats, that's kind of the point for him. Its always for the audience at home. Prevailing wisdom seems to be that Kim treats nuclear weapons as an important deterrent from invasion, not a first-strike weapon. The US doesn't have much appetite for invasions atm, so the chances the missiles will ever be fired is pretty remote even if he does have them.
• malnourish 9y ago
  The question is will it be much of a war?
  • throwaway91111 9y ago
    It will be to South Korea. Millions would die.
    • gehwartzen 9y ago
      Which is why I think South Korea should ultimately be the one to decide if there should be a strike/war. The US is probably more protected based on distance and that the US has shown (granted provisionally) that it can shoot down an ICBM.
    • judgement_daze 9y ago
      I don't see that necessity. Certainly millions will die. Best to ensure all are North Koreans. A simultaneous strategic + tactical nuclear strike with the intent of wiping out North Korea and it's conventional and nuclear forces would prevent the huge losses for the South. Just keep our politicians out of the war. MacArthur was right; we should have defeated North Korea and we should have used nukes. Truman screwed up and was the first President to "kick the can down the road." There's nothing in North Korea except the nuclear weaponry that they have developed that is worth saving/protecting. Other than scouting and gaining control of their nuclear material, there's no reason to commit troops in North Korea. In the ghastly aftermath we should round up their nuclear material and leave everyone to die, instigating expeditions only occasionally to see if we missed anything. No occupation is necessary; no nation-building. Sometimes extreme measures are called for. Carthage was one example for Rome. Rome delayed too, and Carthage caused Rome great damage until Rome destroyed it. We should effectively "Salt the Earth." in North Korea. http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/carthage.html http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/carthage.html
      • throwaway91111 9y ago
        While the nuclear weapons are in flight, north korea could level Seoul. Furthermore the citizens in north korea have a right to not be summarily executed because they had shitty leaders.
• jonknee 9y ago
  The effort to isolate North Korea is mutual. They're not exactly itching to join the global community.