Will Trump Inc. drop bombs on North Korea?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
50,056
47,806
113
39
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
First, let me say the Adminstration is basically half rich CEOs and the other half military war hawks. The latter make me nervous.

Putting all of his bullshit aside for a minute, there is plenty of historical content that shows listening too much to the military advisor's can and will end up in disaster. JFK for example narrowly avoided thermonuclear warfare by not listening to the military advisor's who told him to nuke Cuba, immediately, in the early days of the Cuban missile crisis. In fact, they were openly belittling Kennedy, in the Whitehouse, insulting him for being "weak". Which we now know, if Kennedy did listen to them, the USSR would have immediately nuked the US. WWIII and perhaps we nuke ourselves to the stone age.

Similarly, when JFK first got into office, he did listen to the generals who told him of the brilliant plan, recently planned under Eisenhower, to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. It was a quick and easy plan they insisted which of course the Bay of Pigs ended in disaster and embarrassment, and worst of all escalated the cold war which only 15 months later led to the Cuban missile crisis and near thermonuclear war. Ironically, Chairman Nikita Khrushchev was a big fan of Kennedy and even helped Kennedy win the election, as the Russians much preferred Kennedy to defeat Nixon, Khrushchev was so excited that someone like Kennedy was to become president and replace the old minds and thought would work hard for peace between the two super powers.

What makes me nervous is how obviously susceptible Trump is, who seems to be easily influenced by strong personality type people and people he respects. He's constantly going back on his word, the most recent is supposedly changing his mind on NAFTA, which he called the worst deal ever, solely because Mexico and Canada called him and convinced him. Now imagine if Trump was being belittled by his military advisor's like Kennedy was. Would anyone doubt for a second that Trump would cave and "prove" how man he is to them?

The current, and very large military buildup near North Korea is being played out almost exclusively by the military. No doubt the bombing of Syria took little convincing to the man who said he wouldn't bomb Syria and heavily criticised Obama for military action. This is the man who has access to nukes.


::::::::::::
::::::::::::

With that said, there's lots of money in war and the military is going to always want to military. And North Korea is such an easy target. So was Syria for that matter. But there are two major factors at play - one, in part there is a "PR strategy" after all those fuck ups by his Adminstration, and himself of course, including the nonstop daily disasters with the Russia controversies, it's a good "PR" move to take this hard-nosed stance on Syria and North Korea. Already worked in the sense that even his "enemies" and "fake media" like CNN were praising him after the Syria strikes and praising his speech as a strong leader. For fuck sake it's disgusting watching these corporate media talking heads. It's almost comical how they are hand fed information by the Adminstration and "report" it without hesitation.

The second part is what's behind the bigger picture.

North Korea is still many years away from developing intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, so I'm often surprised to find people who think they already have this technology. Prof Siegfried Hecker former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory who visited North Korea's nuclear facilities frequently, over 100 times, says they are about 10+15 years away at the absolute best scenario for NK.

And sure, Kim Jong-un is crazy but Kim Jong-un enjoys being a dictator. He enjoys living a lavish lifestyle (while the rest of his country suffers) and telling his countrymen he is a god. He wants to hold onto that power as long as possible. If he had ICBMs capable of reaching​ the US, in his mind it ensures he will continue to stay in power. He's not going to want to attack other countries unprovoked, essentially committing suicide. So I never get that propaganda.

But anyways, General H. R. McMaster, said a couple weeks ago, “This is a rogue regime that is now a nuclear-capable regime. The president has asked [us] to be prepared to give him a full range of options to remove that threat to the American people and to our allies and partners in the region.”

It's a direct lie to say North Korea is a threat to Americans. As mentioned, they simply do not have the technology, they do not have ICBMs capable of reaching the US. It's reminiscent of the Weapons of Mass Destruction mantra during the Bush Administration, which of course we later learned (the ones that didn't already know) was a complete lie. It is true however to assume NK has short range capabilities and medium range (although the latter we simply do not know how well or "accurate" I guess you could say).

Further though, the Navy Times reported that “the Pentagon and US Pacific Command have been sharpening plans for military strikes on the North as an option should the administration want to pursue that action.”

The Navy Times also suggested that “an all-out regional conflict” would bring “the US and its allies head-to-head with not only North Korea, but perhaps with China”—that is, a conflict between the world’s two largest economies, both nuclear armed.

How's that for fear mongering? That is a little scary to think about, provoking all out war with China.

The bigger picture of course isn't North Korea. It isn't about their "advanced weapon technology". In fact, and in reality, North Korea's limited nuclear arsenal and limited weapon technology is the reason we do have a massive military forces in the region, which are not primarily directed against North Korea, but China. Trump is continuing and expanding the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” in a bid to ensure continued US dominance of the Asia Pacific region. If North Korea had half of the technology we claim they do, the build up wouldn't exist right now. This is about China much more than it is with NK. And now Russia as well.

There are reports of tend of thousands, even as high as 150,000 Chinese military moved to the border to prepare for "unforseen circumstances".

Whether or not that's totally accurate, the Chinese government is nervous about the prospect of US military action against NK triggering an all out war, in their own backyard. Now remember, in talks between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump, NK was one of the key topics. Trump delivered an ultimatum to Xi to force North Kore to accept US demands or face the prospect of US strikes on North Korea. And the fact that Trump authorised US strikes on Syria in the middle of his meetings with Xi underscored the threat.

China is put into a big dilemma. On one hand, they have opposed North Korean missile and nuclear tests, which provide the US with a pretext for its military build-up in North East Asia. On the other hand, it does not want a collapse of the Pyongyang regime that could lead to a pro US ally or puppet regime on its doorstep.

It's a very dangerous game that's being played be the super powers, a lot of pressure is being put on China and we have a susceptible, unpredictable president who has surrounded himself with military war hawks and people who only want to make money. Dangerous combination when the stakes are this high.
 

mouth_my_nuts

🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻🖕🏻
Feb 16, 2006
5,007
11,880
113
#4
It's a real possibility considering Trump can make that call without support. Congress can take funding away from military spending BUT that won't happen since the majority are republican and would support trumps decision.

What worries me , like you said, Trump takes a stance on something then completely changes his stance after a short time with limited new information ....that's scary.
 
May 13, 2002
50,056
47,806
113
39
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#5
It's a real possibility considering Trump can make that call without support. Congress can take funding away from military spending BUT that won't happen since the majority are republican and would support trumps decision.

What worries me , like you said, Trump takes a stance on something then completely changes his stance after a short time with limited new information ....that's scary.
We already know Trump is increasing spending on the military or "defense". His budget plan is going to pass without too much trouble. Military spending was astronomical under Obama and it's going to keep going up:

In FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion, about 54% of the fiscal year 2015 U.S. discretionary budget. For FY 2017, President Obama proposed the base budget of $523.9 billion, which includes an increase of $2.2 billion over the FY 2016 enacted budget of $521.7 billion. By 20 January 2017, when President Trump took office, annual military spending had reached its highest peak ever—$596 billion—representing three times the military spending of all other NATO countries combined.​

And of course everything else is getting cut, including education (with an increase in spending for private schools, charter schools and even Christian schools (with vouchers). Everything is to be privatized. Free market, baby! I should make a thread on what's going on in education, it's crazy with Betsy DeVos and what they are planning. To be fair though, Trump & DeVos are simply accelerating what Bush & Obama were doing.


But anyways, it is scary how quickly Trump changes his tune. And we already know he highly respects these military guys, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, James Mattis and John Kelley, they are going to have complete control essentially unless they blunder something early on and gives him reason to second guess them.
 
Last edited:
May 13, 2002
50,056
47,806
113
39
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#8
Also, you are a fool if you think Trump is changing his mind on things the way you describe it. There is more at play.
Examples being what exactly?

Trump is absolutely susceptible to certain types of people and he has already shown this as president. But the only real concern here of mine in this topic is that he is/will put too much trust or power with the military advisor's. There is a lot of history that shows this can be disastrous and Trump himself isn't much of a history buff, so the lessons of yesterday may be lost on him.

You asked a simple question, I gave an answer that it is a strategy that works for me. I am in no way apologetic about it and while I am not a Trump supporter, it will be very profitable for me, so let's do it.
Cool. "I hope so" doesn't really say anything but of course no one here is obligated to explain themselves.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,432
3,638
113
#9
First, let me say the Adminstration is basically half rich CEOs
I am very nervous about the possibility, but because of your statement above, I don't think the probability is high.

Yes war is profitable, but not thermonuclear war. Having never had one that is obviously speculation, but I think that were we to engage in open nuclear war that Trump and his circle of rich friends realize their life as they know it would cease to exist and many of them and/or their families would be killed. Those that weren't killed would not be living the carefree life they enjoy today.

I think that difference between the Trump and Kennedy situations is that the extent of the damage, fallout, nuclear winter, retaliatory strikes, etc. was not known at Kennedy's time. I think his advisors naively thought they could drop nukes with limited impact to them.

Today I think most people realize the potential damage and world changing effect of dropping even 1 nuke.

Having said all that, shitty time to be living in Seattle which would obviously be high on the target list for retaliation.

In conclusion that fact that it's 2017 and we are still balls deep in the us vs. them mentality is depressing/discouraging and doesn't give much hope for our ability to ever move past that. I am hoping for the discovery of aliens soon as I think that may be the only thing that could bring our species together.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,249
5,788
113
#10
i agree with you ^^ that war is profitable and insiders get rich on all wars and that nuclear war is different

if a nuke ever gets dropped again shit will hit the fan and the fallout will be bad
 
Aug 15, 2003
1,862
387
83
36
Of the SENIC CITY
#11
I Think There Will Be More Support In This One Than The 60's Had Or The Middle East Now A Days. N. Korea Is Capable Of Doing Some Crazy Shit Now Think About It 10 Years From Now. If A Nuke Gets Dropped I Bet It Won't Be From Our Side, But On Like Japan (Again) From N. Korea. The Only Thing That Gets Me Worried If Russia Or China Tries To Step In And Gets Trump Furious And He Tries To Get Into A War With That Side.
 
May 13, 2002
50,056
47,806
113
39
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#12
I am very nervous about the possibility, but because of your statement above, I don't think the probability is high.

Yes war is profitable, but not thermonuclear war. Having never had one that is obviously speculation, but I think that were we to engage in open nuclear war that Trump and his circle of rich friends realize their life as they know it would cease to exist and many of them and/or their families would be killed. Those that weren't killed would not be living the carefree life they enjoy today.

I think that difference between the Trump and Kennedy situations is that the extent of the damage, fallout, nuclear winter, retaliatory strikes, etc. was not known at Kennedy's time. I think his advisors naively thought they could drop nukes with limited impact to them.
Well no, actually it was well understood at the time. I think you may be thinking of under Eisenhower early on (the military wanting to nuke Russia) a lot was still to be learned, but by the 60s, they already had ten years of experience with thermonuclear bomb testing. The first US thermo nuke test was in 1952 and shortly after in 1954 was "Castle Bravo", 15 megatons, the largest U.S. bomb ever tested. The US tested a bunch of thermonuclear bombs from '52 to when Kennedy took office, as well as the Soviets testing their own, topping off with Tsar Bomba in early '61, 50 megatons and the largest bomb ever detonated in history. They had an understanding of Fallout, radiation poisoning and all of that.


Even more so leading up to Kennedy taking office was the debates regarding nuclear retaliation and nuclear warfare in general.

It was widely argued by scientists, most famously Robert Oppenheimer “father of the atomic bomb” , that thermonuclear warfare would be the end of the world, and who after the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, passionately and desperately pleaded with the leaders of the US, and the world, to never create a hydrogen bomb,as well as international arms control, and much of the great scientific minds agreed with Oppenheimer and signed a sort of treaty in opposition.

The the dangers were well known at the time. Probably more so than now since it was such a hot topic of serious debate. Even early on, shortly after Truman nuked Japan, the philosophical debates were at a high point and the dangers to the world, the end times, so much so that the debate reached the point of that of nuking the fuck out of Russia, and the US nearly did nuke Moscow and the largest cities in Russia shortly after the end of WWII as a preventive attack to prevent the Russians from developing their own bombs and in their minds "preventing" WWIII, which at the time was viewed by many, if not most, as inevitable. They also almost nuked the Soviets for being in Iran and threatened to nuke them in regards to East and West Germany all during the brief period of time when the Soviets were not yet a nuclear power.

It took Eisenhower to prevent nuking the Soviets, numerous times at the recommendation of the top military advisor's, and later Kennedy to prevent nuking Cuba/Russia, as the military was always the ones that wanted to use the nukes immediately. They were gungho, despite knowing the dangers.

The RAND Corporation had some of the most brilliant minds thinking of the nuclear questions, retaliatory strikes, and logical, mathematical strategies. Like Robert McNamara and his work with game theory for example. McNamara was a guy Kennedy brought in to his Adminstration as secretary of Defense, he brought in a lot of "new thinkers" like that. Prior, Eisenhower's policy was of "massive retaliation" which was the view by almost all of the top military people, whereas McNamara and Kennedy rejected that philosophy and sided in favor of a "flexible response strategy" that basically was that of non-nuclear warfare approach.

Up until then the official policy was if the Red Army were to attack West Germany, for example, the United States would respond by launching 3,500 weapons at civilian and industrial targets not only in Russia, but also in the rest of the Communist bloc. Literally hundreds of millions of Russians, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans would have died. Total annihilation.

So there were new radical ideas, for instance even if a major city in the US were to be nuked, it wouldn't​ be beneficial to immediately retaliate with nukes, as it would certainly lead to doom (both sides would keep nuking each other), and to come to that conclusion goes in direct conflict with military philosophy who couldn't dream of the scenario (not to retaliate with nukes after being nuked was unthinkable), which of course these new ideas were laughed at and considered weak by the military leaders. They took a lot of heat for having these kinds of philosophical outlooks at the time.

My point is, they absolutely knew of the dangers of thermonuclear war and understood just how high the stakes were. At no other point in history did we have so many of the world's greatest minds dedicated to answering the questions of thermonuclear warfare and facing total annihilation of mankind.


In conclusion that fact that it's 2017 and we are still balls deep in the us vs. them mentality is depressing/discouraging and doesn't give much hope for our ability to ever move past that. I am hoping for the discovery of aliens soon as I think that may be the only thing that could bring our species together.
And thus my struggle with the Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter.

I used to think we got passed the all out nuclear warfare window, that cooler heads prevailed and when push came to shove the powers that be put their egos aside and decided they wanted to live peacefully rather than potentially destroy the world but since then I've learned of just how fucking close we came to it, on numerous occasions and a couple times due completely to error. Once even, Boris fucking Yeltsin saved the entire world. The village idiot Yeltsin had the fate of mankind in his hands and it boiled down to how drunk he happened to be that day. Now we have a different kind of idiot with nuclear power at his hands with warhawks in his Adminstration who are currently readying themselves with "all out war" with China.

It's not that difficult to envision a scenario where a few decisions could lead to WWIII. You look at WWI and with how the world powers were all connected it seemed impossible at the time a world war could happen yet that's exactly what happened and then again only 20 years later and narrowly avoided a couple times not long after.




Side note - Early on, in the late 40s and early 50s there was a lot they didn't know, but the science proved much of it long before it became a reality. For example before the first nuclear bombs we're dropped, there were a small number, but very credible scientists who actually thought the atmosphere would catch fire and doom us right then and there the moment an A-bomb is dropped. That was in the early 40s when fission bombs and nuclear fusion were not well understood, but in any event Oppenheimer and Hans Bethe, using the most powerful IBM computer at the time debunked it in '42. The speed of the understanding of nuclear weapons was at such a rapid pace it's hard to put it into context. The world went from nuclear weapons as an unproven theory to worldwide known fact of reality to debating strategies to avoid apocalypse is almost mind boggling. There was an astonishing amount of much brain power used for nuclear weapon technology and philosophy it's crazy.


Oppenheimer's eery fucking quote after witnessing the first nuclear test:
I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.​
 
May 13, 2002
50,056
47,806
113
39
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#13
I Think There Will Be More Support In This One Than The 60's Had Or The Middle East Now A Days. N. Korea Is Capable Of Doing Some Crazy Shit Now Think About It 10 Years From Now. If A Nuke Gets Dropped I Bet It Won't Be From Our Side, But On Like Japan (Again) From N. Korea. The Only Thing That Gets Me Worried If Russia Or China Tries To Step In And Gets Trump Furious And He Tries To Get Into A War With That Side.
North Korea isn't really capable of doing shit right now, now to us anyways. The have short range missle technology to damage South Korea of course, and we're not even sure how accurate they would be attempting to attack Japan! In other words their weapons technology is garbage.

You know who else is a nuclear power who you'd think people would be just as worried about if not more in having nukes? Pakistan. Pakistan has a very advanced nuclear weapons program and has all sorts of nuclear weapons and methods to launch them.

Noth Korea wants nuclear weapons for the same reason Pakistan did - the were both isolated, felt threatened and wanted to protect themselves. That's how countries prevent being invaded. For example if Iraq was a nuclear power, they never would have been invaded. In fact, other than the US, all countries developed nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Only once have they been used offensively.

So of course North Korea is going to want nuclear technology.

But what you're worried about is one of my major points in my original post - China and Russia. The entire conflict with North Korea right now is really about China. This whole thing actually has little to do with North Korea (the US isn't threatened by them whatsoever), it's about the US expanding it's empire in the region which China was doing itself in recent years and the two super powers are colliding head to head as a result. It's quite interesting watching the politics behind it all and would make an awesome cable network TV show the problem is it's real and the stakes that are at play is all out war.

I guess I wasn't too clear in this thread but I believe war will be avoided with China (and Russia) so I don't want to sound like I'm convinced it's going to happen, it's just that I fear Trump may be putting too much power with the military and his military advisor's whom history has shown can often be reckless with their short-sighted offensove military goals.
 
Last edited:
Feb 8, 2006
3,249
5,788
113
#14
North Korea isn't really capable of doing shit right now, now to us anyways. The have short range missle technology to damage South Korea of course, and we're not even sure how accurate they would be attempting to attack Japan! In other words their weapons technology is garbage.

You know who else is a nuclear power who you'd think people would be just as worried about if not more in having nukes? Pakistan. Pakistan has a very advanced nuclear weapons program and has all sorts of nuclear weapons and methods to launch them.

Noth Korea wants nuclear weapons for the same reason Pakistan did - the were both isolated, felt threatened and wanted to protect themselves. That's how countries prevent being invaded. For example if Iraq was a nuclear power, they never would have been invaded. In fact, other than the US, all countries developed nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Only once have they been used offensively.

So of course North Korea is going to want nuclear technology.

But what you're worried about is one of my major points in my original post - China and Russia. The entire conflict with North Korea right now is really about China. This whole thing actually has little to do with North Korea (the US isn't threatened by them whatsoever), it's about the US expanding it's empire in the region which China was doing itself in recent years and the two super powers are colliding head to head as a result. It's quite interesting watching the politics behind it all and would make an awesome cable network TV show the problem is it's real and the stakes that are at play is all out war.

I guess I wasn't too clear in this thread but I believe war will be avoided with China (and Russia) so I don't want to sound like I'm convinced it's going to happen, it's just that I fear Trump may be putting too much power with the military and his military advisor's whom history has shown can often be reckless with their short-sighted offensove military goals.
proxy wars
 
May 7, 2013
9,801
14,191
113
33°
www.hoescantstopme.biz
#16
"I hope so" doesn't really say anything but of course no one here is obligated to explain themselves.
I hope so says I'm okay with it. I am okay with whomever we decide to target. I have shifted away from the fantasy world of imaginary peace to I'm going to get my piece no matter the cost. I don't care people's opinions about that and I definitely don't care about a so-called greater good. I live in the real world. The one that says cash is king and shoot first ask questions last. I do not care about 7 billion plus others. I only care about myself and those close to me- the ones that are there for me and me for them. I stand with none of you and say fucc your kumbaya bullshit. It may not be popular to say but it is real life and it is how this planet really works for humans so no I won't promote no fake shit.
 
Nov 24, 2003
6,432
3,638
113
#17
I hope so says I'm okay with it. I am okay with whomever we decide to target. I have shifted away from the fantasy world of imaginary peace to I'm going to get my piece no matter the cost. I don't care people's opinions about that and I definitely don't care about a so-called greater good. I live in the real world. The one that says cash is king and shoot first ask questions last. I do not care about 7 billion plus others. I only care about myself and those close to me- the ones that are there for me and me for them. I stand with none of you and say fucc your kumbaya bullshit. It may not be popular to say but it is real life and it is how this planet really works for humans so no I won't promote no fake shit.


:ermm:

2-0-Sixx @2-0-Sixx

Great Filter - Wikipedia
 
May 13, 2002
50,056
47,806
113
39
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#19
These statements are misleading, but fit your train of thought.
Ok, but it is still the primary reason why countries develope them. It is the ultimate bargaining tool.

You can nitpick that line of mine if you want and certainly you could argue the US used the atomic bombs "defensively" against Japan, to end the war rather than prolong it, and I'm fine with that. That's cool, that's the official reasoning behind it and for sake of argument I'll accept it.

There are plenty of historians however that argue dropping the a-bombs wasn't necessary, that Japan would have surrendered very soon anyways, after all they had already been defeated militarily by June 1945 and of course the Soviets broke their non-aggression treaty with Tokyo and Soviet troops began pouring into Manchuria, overwhelming Japanese forces right before Hiroshima, and we know for certain from intercepted cables the Japanese leaders for months knew they were defeated and were trying to work out the most favorable deals possible for themselves and end the war, so the atomic bombings werent really necessary by that point. But the Japanese were unbelievably cruel, just as nasty as the Nazis if not worse in many regards, so you won't find much sympathy from me as far as "military use to end the war" goes (for all the civilian casualties that's another story but I suppose Tokyo being bombed with non-nuclear bombs, basically back to the stonage, months prior was just as bad for the civilians).

But anyways, go get that money playboi, no point wasting​ time talking about history and shit when there is paper to be made.
 
May 13, 2002
50,056
47,806
113
39
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#20
I hope so says I'm okay with it. I am okay with whomever we decide to target. I have shifted away from the fantasy world of imaginary peace to I'm going to get my piece no matter the cost. I don't care people's opinions about that and I definitely don't care about a so-called greater good. I live in the real world. The one that says cash is king and shoot first ask questions last. I do not care about 7 billion plus others. I only care about myself and those close to me- the ones that are there for me and me for them. I stand with none of you and say fucc your kumbaya bullshit. It may not be popular to say but it is real life and it is how this planet really works for humans so no I won't promote no fake shit.
This is a bizarre response/rant since no one was even talking about kumbaya bullshit. One can still maintain an uber selfish outlook on life (get money, fucc everyone else) while at the same time discuss world events and try to have an understanding of world leaders motives, etc. There are plenty of rich people who do exactly that. But if you don't want to, cool, no one is forcing you, but why even post in the first place and then get all defensive when someone engaged in conversation with you? Weird behavior for an online forum.

Your post made me laugh though for another reason, I imagine thermonuclear warfare and total destruction of the world while some bloke in a business suite is still all about that money, trying to hustle survivors in the wasteland for worthless coin! Real life Parker Quinn.