North Korea says can test-launch ICBM at any time:

Because Jong is positively insane, that's why. Preemptive warfare IMO is justified when dealing with nuclear warheads. Kim Jong is NK's Donald Trump. Blowhard, believes in some US Imperialist propaganda, and has threatened his own neighbors in Asia. With each claim of the need of "food", they prolong the West while building their nuclear weapons.

Their game isn't new, and it's very predictable. Except to people in the US it seems. This is the exact same game all other violent regimes in the past have used for military buildups.

 

So you can't say anything that could or should have been done differently, but you criticise Obama for not having done it.

Yes, NK developed its nuclear and ICBM technology over the last 16 years, but here is a newsflash for you: the US president cannot unilaterally impose US policy on sovereign nations around the world. There are limits. Have you ever been involved in a negotiation? You can't force the other side to accept your position. The Bush and Obama administrations tried talking, but NK walked out of 6 party talks. They tried the carrot and the stick with sanctions and UN resolutions.

I don't see anything, short of a hot war that could have been done differently and I don't think anyone wanted to see the US bomb or invade NK. Unless you come up with some actual concrete suggestion that Obama should have done but failed to do, your criticism is unwarranted.

 

I believe it's that last portion of your statement that concerns folks the most. We need to be extremely careful about seeing to it that these devices don't end up in the hands of ISIS and/or others like them.

Yes, President Obama was willing to kick the proverbial can down the proverbial road, and unfortunately the can has grown even as it's rolled down the road...

 

So what exactly do you propose Obama should have done? Did Bush do any better than wag a stern finger? What about his predecessor? Anyone at all?
What would you do; provoke an unstable and belligerent dictator into actually launching a nuke attack?

 

An attack on North Korea could very possibly bring China into a shooting war-especially given that the Chinese wouldn't take too kindly, I'm sure, to nuclear plumes raining fallout over her citizens.

 

There is no 100% protection against nuclear attack; even if one missile got through it could flatten both LA and San Francisco, killing millions. Today's enormous missile yields make Hiroshima look like a firecracker in comparison.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/china-nuclear-strikes-against-los-angeles-2014-11

 

That's exactly why China must change her stance as well. The US will not posture a defensive position over an irrational actor. After what happened on 9-11-2001, that's no longer an acceptable position for the US to take. The longer North Korea rattles her nukes over us, the more North Korea requires a response by us.

It won't be nuclear, from everything I read, we can still win a tactical warfare with conventional forces. It's just the cleanup that our military officials said would be difficult.(As was the case in the ME.). But whereas the ME wars were not necessary, the INTL Community "biding time" has been only to the benefit of North Korea and to the threat of everyone involved.

The Chinese-North Korean connection, means that North Korea(and by extension China) can target anybody. That's a red line. Either China or North Korea change, or it will inevitably result in conflict(at least, if I was in charge.) The real fear I have, is that won't happen for another 12 years. 12 years of North Korea biding its time would change the situation even moreso.

North Korea to me, is what Iran was to the Israeli's. It is America's existential threat. The longer we wait, the more opportunity Kim Jong has. I think the INTL Community itself should respond to this unique threat. For all of America's warts, we signed the NPT, we committed to a world without nukes. I happen to admire Obama's Berlin speech. And I'd move us even closer to a world without nukes, closer collaboration with England and everyone else.

You know me on a political level, you know I'm not a neo-con. But I will fight, when it's deemed necessary to protect the national interests. Ideally, no one should have nukes. But if an antagonist power has nukes, that can threaten the whole world. It's not on the 'presumption' of the US that determines antagonism, but actual antagonism. We won't go on the "intelligence" thing, this is NK outright telling us.

I'm basically saying, I won't be the one who lets Poland 1939 happen again.

 

A Patriot is not capable of intercepting a warhead from an ICBM.

A THAAD or AEGIS with SM-6's could do it, but it would require there be one within a couple hundred km of the impact zone.

- - - Updated - - -

And exactly what was Obama supposed to do to prevent them from developing those missiles?

 

Nope. North Korea has been developing indigenous ballistic missile designs since the Reagan era.

 

My criticism is Obama focused on things like global warming and public restrooms and Gitmo and ignored NK and it's steady March towards a nuclear tipped ICBM. Now it's just another huge mess trump has inherited from or current failure of a president.

 

Sounds like you agree with the way Obama ignored this ever growing threat and now has left Trump and America with an insane little dictator on the cusp of being a nuclear power. If obama had spent as much time and energy on this issue as he has on so called carbon pollution and public restrooms we may not be on the verge of having to shoot down an NK ICBM test which may well trigger a new Korean war.

 

I'll repeat; what should Obama (and his predecessors whom you avoided mentioning), have done? It's fine to accuse someone, but I'm sure you'd like to share with the forum your opinion of how North Korea should be dealt with. Thanks in anticipation.

 

I agree and that's why we can't let NK get its ICBM up and running. If Reagan had got his way though we may well have a system in place that would have a very high likelihood of stopping an attack from a rogue nut job like Kim or from Iran who is slowly but surely becoming a nuclear power.

 

Sounds like you have no idea about the complexities of this situation, think you have knowledge you obviously lack, enjoy blaming people for things they did not do, and think our President is some kind of deity while hating him at the same time.

 

Sorry, but no system will ever be 100% effective. The immense projected cost of SDI along with a cost-benefit analysis showed that it would not have been worth the expense of an unproven and fundamentally unreliable system.
Furthermore no system such as space-based SDI could counter a submarine-launched, sub-space missile attack from short range.

 

Once again that's not my field of expertise but it would have been nice to see him focusing on that instead of on public restrooms and global warming. He ignored NK and now has dumped a much bigger mess than he inherited into Trump's lap. Trump may well have to deal with this now as it reaches critical mass and that's because of eight years of obama ignoring this threat.

 

Bush 'ignored' it for 8 years too. That's at least 16 years of' ignoring' North Korea's nuclear programme. What is your solution? https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

 

So what should Trump do now? He's going to have to do something since this has festered to the boiling point or do you think he should do like obama,just ignore it and hope nothing happens until he handsoff to the next president. You can only kick the can down the road so far until the can turns into a 50 gallon drum that can be kicked no farther and that maybe where we are as Obama does his hasty exit stage left.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it to much to ask for Obama to have spent as much time and energy on NK as he has on global warming? If he had we may well not be where we are today but he didn't even try.

 

Gitmo was one of his campaign promises that he has tried to keep. Whether you agree or disagree, he has done his best to keep a campaign promise.

I don't really think that he has "focused" on GW and certainly not public restrooms (does the White House even have a position on that?) but that doesn't mean he has ignored NK. He has built support to obtain at least one UN Security Council resolution condemning NK, has obtained sanctions (not just US, but from around the world) against North Korea.

The real problem is that Kim Jong-Un seems not to care about any of these things. He has not responded to sanctions or to pressure from China (although maybe they could put more pressure on him?). China sure as hell does not like him having nukes. China does not want a destabilising presence on its doorstep.

As far as I can see, the only thing that would have slowed Kim down was military strikes against the various facilities. A few problems with that approach, though. First, NK learned its lesson from the Israeli strike in Iran. NK facilities are buried deep underground. Second, it would risk involving China. Third, there would be a very real risk of NK launching a conventional attack on South Korea. Seoul would almost certainly be overwhelmed within a couple of days. That is not to say that NK might not be beaten back, but Seoul is very close to the border and NK has a huge conventional military. Finally, since they already had nukes (just not ICBMs) there was a real risk of NK using a nuclear strike - probably in SK; maybe targeting or near a US military base.

A military strike would have been very very risky.

But go on and hate Obama for this as well, even though you can't really identify anything he could have done differently.

 

When I show multiple examples of how Obama did not ignore North Korea, will you admit you were lying with your post?

 

One trait of liberals is the "it can't be done attitude" just like we couldn't defeat the Soviet Union and the lament of liberals from that era, " better red than dead". Conservatives have a different outlook which is "you never know until you try" and on NK Obama never tried.

 

Bush wasn't much better and as for the solution that's up to Trump now. This could get very ugly very fast as the can stops being kicked down the road.

 

What? He didn't even try? UN resolutions, sanctions, trying to get China to do more ... the list goes on. He tried. What makes you think he spent more time on GW than on NK?

Perhaps you think Obama should have tweeted "Won't happen!"

 

If you have something informative to add to the conversation I urge you to do so.

 

Unless you can identify something that he should have tried, it sounds pretty weak to say he didn't try.

He did not exactly display the "it can't be done" attitude when he faced conflicting advice from his own advisers about whether to launch the operation against bin Laden. He took the decision to go for it when some said it was too risky. But you will never give him credit for that.