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

If they're saying they can test-launch at any time, then they're already made.

 

Yes, and all but one of them have never used nuclear weapons in wartime, (or at all).

We have nukes, and so does France, by your reasoning we should be threatening France because even a vanishingly small possibility of nuclear annihilation is too much to tolerate.

Un is insane? How? He is an absolute dictator who lives in sybaritic luxury while his people starve around him and in order to keep them from killing him in quite justifiable rage he spends most of his time goading us into threatening him just in order to defend ourselves; thus he convinces his people that the West is out to get them and only he can save them. A truly evil bastard to be sure, but not crazy, unless a fox is also insane.

Preemptive nuclear war is the Great Spectre, the real terror that kept our children hiding under their desks at school throughout the 50's and 60's because a "preemptive first strike" is the only way a real nuclear war could ever actually come about. Even its DISCUSSION must be forbidden. Consider, the opponents engaged in the insanity of a MAD scenario are like two people in a room hip deep in gasoline, each threatening the other with a cigarette lighter. Now, what will happen if one becomes convinced the other is wearing a suit he believes to be fireproof?

 

I'm sure Trump will clean it up, as you say. "Won't happen!"

So Trump has spoken (or tweeted). Problem solved.

 

Do you see historic ally France posturing towards the US? No, I don't see that. I see North Korea posturing towards us. And though its discussion must be forbidden, with the airstrikes proposed for Syria, we would have went there, albeit with a different antagonist(Russia). But that being said, I would only use tactical measures against North Korea.

The point is not to get into a nuclear confrontation with NK, but to destroy NK's nuclear arsenal. To quote Hillary way back in 2003: "Disarm, or be disarmed." That's my position on the North Korean threat. And he's insane precisely because he has pointed nukes at our allies, at our shores and had a propaganda video claiming to blow up NY.

I'm not taking my chances with that nut. And if the situation worsens, I hope Trump has the courage to fire the damn trigger. If it gets there, it's China's fault for not making it clear to NK. We're not accepting these kind of threats.

 

Thanks to Bush 41 we at least have that but your contention that it CAN stop a limited nuclear strike instead of WILL is well put. It's possible that it can stop at least one or even some missiles but the system is full of holes and flaws at this point. It would have been nice to see Obama put emphasis on the development and strengthening of this as he let NK develop its nuclear capabilities. Instead his priorities were public restrooms and global warming.

 

The difference is, unlike Iraq in 2003, North Korea actually has WMDs and the ability to use them. Any attempt to militarily disarm North Korea will result in them retaliating against Japanese and South Korean cities with ballistic missiles with chemical agents at the very least. And they have enough missiles to launch saturation attacks.

 

No air defensive system in history has ever had a 100% success rate. Why would you expect that with our ABM system and why is it Obama's fault that your absurd standards that have no basis in reality aren't met?

Why do you keep lying about Obama when I've already proven you wrong? Is your argument so weak that lies are all you have?

 

In the case of North Korea I personally see no future for diplomacy or coercion being successful and eventual elimination of the rabid dog being employed as a solution and future warning. Even though assassination is taboo this may become the unfortunate option and certainly beats the alternative warfare.

 

all NK nuclear stuff are located at various place, for one its difficult to find all, 2nd if we attack them they will attack Skorea and Japan, including US base there, potential Guam too. hence military action is unlikely. NK want nuke as bargaining chip, it see how we treat Libya and Iraq those who without nuke, hence it want nuke to guarantee its safety.

- - - Updated - - -

there are bunch manic in NK, one will replace kim after he is gone.

 

It's a gamble, I recognize it's a gamble. It's also a gamble with us sitting there as a sitting duck. This is where Donald's "let's surprise them" comes into play. We can talk with the Japanese and South Koreans about a joint venture, and we can time it just right to kind of overwhelm them and maybe overtake them before they launch.

 

There is no way to do that. North Korea has too many missiles, too spread out, often in hardened camouflaged shelters.

They will get a significant portion of them in the air.

You really think the Japanese and South Koreans are going to agree to an unnecessary gamble that puts their citizens in unwarranted danger?

 

Trump has already hit upon the only viable solution to t N. Korean problem ...China. IMO, simply publicly declaring that the US / NATO have resolved that any N. Korean ICBM launch must be prevented / countered by Chinese defense. China posses the capabilities, and bears the responsibility to protect the global community from the regime it created, and sustains. China cannot be so naive as to think a nuclear attack launched by Pyongyang will not result in a counterstrike on Beijing. Let's just be really clear about consequences ...

 

That's just it, we're already(and they're already) in danger. This is a zero-sum game:

A: Try sanctions a billion times, hope it bites and that this time, they actually uphold the agreement.
B: Sit there on good faith, which we have no reason to have at this point and wait for the North Koreans to build their arsenal even more.
C: Take the risk, build the coalition and although with massive losses, we at least got rid of the NK Regime.

It's a zero-sum game of awful choices(Hillary's words on Syria) but I'd rather actually get rid of NK's regime/weapons, even if it costs me big time. And I'm sure our allies to the Pacific feel the same. While we can still do something, we should move.

 

How is it zero sum? North Korea cannot destroy us with nukes. They do not and will never have the ability to build enough to destroy us. We have enough to destroy them more than a hundred times over.

Why would they attack us?

Here's the problem with your plan: it won't cost you. America would sacrifice South Koreans and Japanese on the gamble that North Korea *might* one day use nuclear weapons (even though there is no evidence to support that assertion).

I guarantee you our allies do not feel the same about your "gamble".

 

This isn't only about missiles. You would expect NK to react to any military attack with a counter-attack with conventional forces into SK. They have a standing army of over a million. They may not be as technologically advanced as western armies but they have manpower.

Any military strike against NK would lead to a ground war. And I don't think the US wants to be involved in another ground war in Asia.

 

If they don't today, they will in a few years time. In fact, precisely for the reasons you laid out, the Japanese/South Koreans would want a bigger US response to North Korea. I can't believe you don't see how imminent this has become, with even US Officials citing the situation as critical. When it came to Iran, everyone went screaming. When it comes to an actual nuclear power that declared it WOULD in fact use that power, we want to pretend it doesn't exist.

Well, yes, we can do that. But we lose time and leverage with it, and we've already lost decades worth leading us to this moment today.

 

In that case, we might as well pull our own forces out of the DMZ. Look, this conflict is inevitable and became inevitable by North Korean posturing. Surrendering now, means surrendering the South and surrendering to their nuclear capabilities at any rate. It would be saying that aggression against others is okay. NK makes Crimea look like a cake walk.

We're not in the wrong here, we're not doing anything we shouldn't be doing. In fact, we're doing what should have been done before they attained a weapon in the first place. I'm treating NK exactly how Republicans treated Iran.

 

How is nuclear attack by North Korea imminent?

What do they gain by nuking anyone?

- - - Updated - - -

How is conflict with North Korea inevitable?

 

Im in the put a missile through his bedroom window one night camp myself.

 

I agree, the longer we procrastinate the worse the situation becomes

 

Ahh yes the Neville Chamberlain appeasement that worked so well in Europe.You can't make nice with evil despots, learn from history or repeat it.

 

How do we do this without telegraphing our actions?

Also, what if we miss?

 

And that is where Obama really dropped the ball on this. He viewed it as a side issue not nearly as important as transgender issues and global warming. The president sets the agenda of our country and Obama's agenda was way off target. Fortunately America woke up and saw this and denied Obama a third term by rejecting Hillary outright. I expect Trump to take on this problem and assemble experts in the field to formulate a plan of attack as he informs the world, not on my watch!

 

The South Korean idea of sending in a special team to assassinate little UN sounds more and more appealing. Screw China if they think they're going to interfere, too.

 

I think this whole North Korea getting ready to test ICBMs is just another example of why socialism and central planning simply doesn't work. While the rest of the world has already resolved the nuke threat in the 1980s. North Korea is still trying to produce its own nukes. North Korea is 35 years behind the rest of the world in most things including technology, communications, and of course global coheasion.