Ground Invasion Only Way to Destroy North Korea’s Nuclear Arsenal, Pentagon Says

We do not count threats from 60 years ago ... made by someone who is now dead.

 

WW11 started soon after all the other wars.

 

lol. China won't be fu**ked though, no matter how many times you love saying it. Neither will russia.

What is best for america is seldom done these days. Unless america consists of a few rich families exclusively. Attacking NK is not in your best interests nor mine, for unlike our elites, we get incinerated. Or we starve to death. Knowing what is in your best interests and what is not, seems to be a hard problem these days. What is actually in our best interests is to leave NK alone, and not give them the reason to use nukes on us. After all they have tried hard to tell you that if we do not attack them, they would not attack us with nukes. They could not be anymore clear than that. We have the same deal with russia and china. If we do not attack them they will not destroy us. I think that is a fair deal. Anyone who has a problem with such a deal has issues. And it has kept the major adversaries from getting ww3 started. So it has worked out so well for us, china and russia. It has given them a sense of security, and us. It almost sounds like some of us do not want to be limited on who we can attack anytime we feel the urge. And having 2 nations which we cannot attack is 2 too many. What if it gets to where we cannot attack nor invade anyone? Not war monger anymore? Well ending wars is not in our interests, I reckon. For why spend so much on war machines and such, and not ever being able to use it? We might see a need to invest those trillions in america, and americans. Well now we sure cannot have that! For apparently we love war. If not, we would not have done so much of it since ww2.

 

NK had attacked SK and the US long before that. I think it is a mistake to imply moral equivalence to the US and NK. The 2 wars with Iraq seem to have been made possible more by The Bushes' limited capacity for strategic thinking than by a desire of conquest territory and economic exploitation. Stupid is as Stupid does.

The NORK leaders are not stupid, they are calculating and aggressive. They are giving Trump an IQ test right now. It will not be an easy.

 

Ha ha ha ha, and for access to North Korea's mineral wealth? Pass. Let the oligarchs go themselves.

 

It started when the 20 year armistice expired.

 

He's a failure already.

 

And sader is we all waved out flags and acted moncho till the bodies and injured started coming home.
I saw the worst site I'll ever see at a VA in Decatur Ga. in 1973. A kid in a wheelchair with no arms legs not even stumps!!!! Just a body and head he didn't look 10 yr old with most of his body missing. I'll never forget the look in that poor kids eyes long as i live. And thats not even saying the burned, and other injuries on that ward. I was taking a friend there to pick up his paper BAG FULL OF DRUGS. Ron ended up killing himself 10 years later after two tours and shot on both. Ron is the one who took me to that ward.
War is real to those involved.

 

I think a first strike would be very dangerous for the US. The recent performance of the USN in the region might tempt our potential strategic enemies, and the rest of our military has been too active for too long. The world knows to much about how we conduct warfare.

 

Yeah right! And Russia's going to allow American troops to go into N. Korea and be within 80 miles from Vladisvostok, when Russia's survival depends on it. The Generals in the Pentagon must be complete idiots. Maybe they think Trump will be able to convince Putin when they meet.

 

An easy solution - that would be a first. One can hope.

 

Not yet. Trump has been very effective against his enemies in the US, and a remarkable number of them overseas have been swept off the board since January.

If Trump is stupid how should we describe the all the "best and brightest" of our bipartisan political elite that Trump out maneuvered and beat with such ease?

 

The hundreds of thousands who have come back wounded since WW II have seldom been considered in these calculations.
But ordinary Americans have finally learned - the hard way - after decades of the same lesson repeated again and again.

 

Nothing has changed pard. Goldman Sachs is still a permanent fixture in the white house and our “elected” govt, the debt is being grown, seven endless wars of occupation for profit are still ongoing while another $80B per year over the next 10 years has been granted to the military/surveillance/industrial complex, half of american wage earners still drag home less than $30K per year, we’re being offerred another "opportunity" to further subsidize the aristocracy on the backs of the working and underclasses with this “tax cut, and if I’m not mistaken Don is still awaiting Nieto’s check for The Wall. I’m well aware that in our society partisanshithead bragging rights are more important than people and policy, but still, we are where we are.

Now, would it be any better with Hilary? Nope. It’s just that different folks would be attempting to claim she was “winning”, with equal lack of footing upon which to base that argument.

 

We could win all of them. But as you point out, other than Reagan & Bush, presidents refuse to wage war correctly since WW2. However, i give G.W. Bush credit for his rapid defeating of Afghanistan plus Iraq. Good job Bush.

Trump seems to be headed the same path that Ike took in WW2.

 

Yeah well, it used to take congress and a nation to go to war, now it just takes a collection of business interests.

 

IOW, you, like the rest of us, know that Trump is far smarter than his bipartisan political opposition.

Trump is not being blamed for the failures of the Congress and the courts. He just won one election - not a revolution.

 

This is almost certainly classic "Pentagon overstatement' like they did in the 1991 Gulf war when they recommended more than twice as many troops and equipment as they actually thought were needed.

It is meant to serve to dispel the inclination of a presidential administration to order an attack by making it much more difficult and dangerous than really anticipated.

There was an ongoing joke in the 1990s that the Pentagon in response to any possible contingency said

"The answer is 6 months and 500,000 troops. What is your question?"

 

The Bushes did not finish off the enemy and achieve peace, let alone a lasting peace.
Reagan saved the mujahadeen from being exterminated by the Communists. I am sure that seemed like a good idea at the time.
Hindsight delivers more clarity as time goes by.

 

We must arm the rest of Asia. Hitting the beaches is a waste of lives.

 

Actually it was a lot longer ago. Lincoln's Civil War was also about business interest. Carpetbaggers wanted the souths resources. And their were many Americans killed then too. I'm still wondering what got us into WW1.
I do know why we fought with The Barbary Pirates off the coast of Libya in the late 1700s though,they were taking our ships and kidnapping our people. Marine song ' Shores of Tripoli '.

 

I think it would be a massacre. We have drones and technology now so why do we have to send in troops?

 

Why send in anything? Send nukes to our friends in Asia and anyone who is afraid of China and NoKo.

Edit: Sure they will reverse engineer them and make more.

 

I was born ahead of the USA joining the jungle gym called WW2, but recall on radio, FDR bleating we must engage in war and win it.

Congress was unwilling to start wars, so FDR came up with a great plan so the Japanese would attack at Pearl Harbor plus the Philippines allowing him to proceed with his war. All it cost FDR to get into the war using our troops was for two not very important to the world ... islands. Imagine the Japanese hit some important targets?

We need honesty on the forum. We spend money like drunken sailors on this flawed health care situation and shun meeting our minimum defense of the USA. Kim stays angry all the time.

If he dies, things change a lot. Trump will last only his 2 terms of office.

 

Yeah look, I can agree with a lot of this, but this here?

" ... and shun meeting our minimum defense of the USA.."

No. There's your drunken sailor spending and it is nothing more than socialism and societal wealth extraction to benefit a bloviated corporate/military/surveillence/undustrial complex. NK is no threat to the US, corporate interests want at NK's mineral reserves.