Like North Korea has a chance. It is more like taunting someone to strike, only to counter with absolute destruction. They will be nothing. People want to see NK wiped out + the Military industrial complex needs fuel. This seems inevitable with time.

Dad always said the best way to take down a buy bigger than you was to start with a quick stomp of your foot on one of theirs- ideally stomping your heel on their toes. If you're lucky you start by breaking one of their toes, but either way he said it's almost a gaurantee they will instinctively bend over in reaction to the foot stomp. That bend over might be real quick so be ready to have a fist, or ideally a knee, coming up to meet their face. If that doesn't work, run like hell.

Never tried, but I had the feeling he had experience to back his words.

if you're close enough to stomp on their foot and they know how to fight you won't even get the chance. i can see how this would work in high school though, no one knew how to fight properly in my high school

The context was high school, but even to your point this is also a catch-you-off-guard type move so you do it when you feel the fight about to happen. Say you're close up and getting into an argument. A quick foot stomp is definitely do-able if you're in the persons face.

Unfortunately it's more complicated than that. If any nuclear strike happens then everyone will have to deal with the fallout. It makes it easier on us if NK strikes first and ideally we would remove their government sans nuclear weapons (as it would incurr damage on our relationships with SK, China and Japan). But NK has been rumored to have received help from Russia in their nuclear program and lord knows we're in a proxy war with them, so anything can happen I guess.

I don't like being reminded of this truth. Funny how many people don't know about Pearl Harbor (or weren't aware).

[removed]

Removed. Rule 6.

After reading the 428 page Wohlstetter report, I honestly think there was too much data to soft through, and too few people cleared to do the sifting. Only a handful of people were authorized to view intelligence from HYPO and CAST. Intelligence was sent from the Pacific, to DC, then back to the Pacific in the most convoluted of ways, so as to limit the number of eyes viewing the raw products.

While I don't discount the possibility the attack was allowed to happen, I would also chalk this up to an enormous procedural failure. There's no way 4 or 5 people could have possibly gone through the amount of incoming information. The warning was 100% there in DC, but whether they were able to get to it in time is another story.

All that being said, dozens of war warnings were issued to Hawaii, which fostered a "cry wolf" syndrome. It's not like they weren't warned of imminent attack, but that they were warned too often to the point of growing to disregard warnings.

If you ever have the opportunity, I'd highly recommend checking out Roberta Wohlstetter's Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. It's a comprehensive report of who knew what, and when, leading up to the attack. It doesn't have all the answers, but it did lead me to believe the attack wasn't completely allowed by Washington, and that Washington knew when and where the attack would occur, or was any way involved in the planning.

A good example of something like that would be the USE Maddox and USS Turner-Joy in Vietnam, known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. That was an utter fabrication of conflict that Washington perpetrated with malice and forethought.

You know, in a way conspiracy theories are comforting. They say that somebody has control, and that the people in control are just controlling things in a bad way.

The scarier thought is that nobody is really in control, because the complexity of things is higher than the human brain was built to handle. This would mean that at the macro levels of government and economics, nobody is driving the train. The whole system just moves as it will, and occasionally individuals glimpse enough of the overall picture to observe that it isn't optimal, but nobody can do anything about it.

That's what the Pearl Harbor situation sounds like. The people in charge simply couldn't process the information because it was too complex. It may look like a conspiracy, but a conspiracy assumes a high level of competency. I think we see less and less competency as the overall complexity grows.

This is a fairly common rebuke to conspiracy theories; I feel like we all learn this one at school at some point so we have some comfortable generalization to disregard conspiracy theories and feel good about our governments.

But it's just that, a generalization.

Just because some people have accidents with pistols doesn't mean nobody was ever willfully shot with one, if you know what I mean.

You ask me, conspiracy theories being real is far scarier than them not being real. If they're real, and there is some kind of shadowy cabal controlling our destiny, there's no way we'll escape a dystopian future. If they're not real, perhaps science and technology have a chance of liberating us.

Yet, they were complex and complicit enough to create the situation? Stupid people really suck.

You're just demoralizing and redirecting the conversation.

It's the opinion of someone who took the time and did actual research. Take it however you will but that's not my goal. I explained the circumstances as I understand them, then offered a true example of what the previous commenter was insinuating, perpetrated years later, and even involving some of the same characters such as Dulles. You don't have to believe me but no part of that was meant to be demoralizing, and the "redirect" was a direct parallel to another example of a White House perpetrated false flag attack.

or 9/11

Funny how no one brings up that the same thing happened to Guam, and we were taken for like four years.

If you post about it, I'll definitely be there to check it out!

Ridiculous George Washington wasn't even alive during Pear Harbor.

Bamboozled again!

California gets nuked, Trump's polling goes up 20%

That's a lot of GDP to lose.

GDP

http://californiapolicycenter.org/californias-total-state-local-debt-totals-1-3-trillion/

Number 1 in Debt!

Number 1 in debt but their GDP doubles that and is 6th in the world. Reading your article it seems like we need their help in paying for Federal Debt. Their real state growth comes 7th and has helped the US stay where it is economically.

Not to mention it makes no goddamn sense. Kim Jung Un knows what will happen if he even presses the "fire nuke" button, the United States will level his country, every square inch, into a sheet of glass. He has NO reason to fire a nuke.

It's deterrence, extortion, and propaganda.

Deterrence keeps foreign powers out of his country, it gives him a big scary gun to brandish to make sure everyone listens when he speaks and no one thinks about invading him. You attack me, I attack you. There becomes no way to cleanly remove KJU from power.

Extortion. This nuclear threat becomes a way to continue to convince the world to give in to humanitarian aid to NK. It's free food and free water and free supplies for NK, which can be used to help people, or socked away for a rainy day (a war), or can be bought and sold on the black market for money. It's basically free GDP for NK.

Propaganda. This is the one that really matters. KJU has convinced, via his father and grandfather, the entire nation that he's the only thing protecting them from the horrible outside world. If they don't have nukes, if he isn't seen as proudly standing up to a bully, then they won't blindly obey him. He needs the threat, not the actual weapon.

A used nuke is worthless to him. He needs a bigger scarier weapon to wield his power. The war in NK won't be won with nukes, it will be lost with nukes, regardless of who fires first. The war in NK will be won with culture, convincing the NK people to defect and stop obeying. One day, someone in his government will organize a coup based on better relations with the enemies of the Kim Dynasty. We can't nuke our way to a safe Korean peninsula.

DC nuked and Trump's promise to drain the swamp made good!

Now THAT is what I call 4D chess.

NK will never launch a preemtive strike.

IT would be the end of their country, to what? Maybe hit the west coast? That nuke, if mounted on a warhead, would have to make it through 5+ of the most advanced missile defense shields on the planet. Then we would stomp them into the stone age.

I agree that logically it probably won't happen. What is the reasoning behind all the posturing, though? They obviously are pushing the US and SK right to the brink of taking preemptive action against them. None of it makes sense to me.

What is the reasoning behind all the posturing, though?

Propaganda for their own people. This might look like chaos but its all very calculated on the NK side.

They know they will never be able to do any meaningful damage to another country they rant on about, they know exactly how outpaced they are by other western powers. The rhetoric does two things, gives them sound bites to feed to their people and to a lesser extent the military and leadership and secondly to purposely not be taken seriously.

Its like the bully on the playground being the weakest person in the group, he talks a lot of ridiculous shit but we all know he is harmless. As soon as the threats become legitimate they start being taken seriously. If you give a speech about laying waste to an entire continent and raining down hell fire every person in the know realizes exactly how ridiculous that sounds and they get a pass for being that weird kid.

That was a really excellent analogy, thanks!

It is also worth noting thought that (In my opinion) NKs greatest threat is selling nuclear material and designs to people who shouldnt have them.

I know this is an unpopular opinion but this is one of the reasons the Iran deal Obama started is a very good move to neutering that avenue for NK.

If we know exactly what Iran has and exactly how they acquired it we pull the rug out from under any plans NK had to sell to them.

Pretty good analysis and I mostly agree. But at the same time, if NK does achieve the ability to nuke the US, I think the US will pre-emptively strike them.

It's like if that same harmless bully shows up with his dad's gun to school and starts loading it. Even if we know he's just going to wave it around to look tough, the stakes are too real to let him do it.

I think the US will pre-emptively strike them.

I dont think so, it would destabilize the region too much and piss off our allies in the area. We are talking China, SK and Japan at the very least taking pretty large hits to their economy as millions of refugees flood across the border.

Which in turn those allies will most likely try to reclaim those lost dollars by negatively affecting trade with America, jobs will be lost and economies will suffer.

It's like if that same harmless bully shows up with his dad's gun to school and starts loading it.

Thats a real honest threat though. NK cant project enough force to be dangerous. If they threw everything they had at SK alone they would be fucked into the stone age within 24 hours.

It would be more like the bully saying he is bring in his dad huge 90 caliber minigun to school that he totally has and shows up with a nerf gun from 1973.

if NK does achieve the ability to nuke the US, I think the US will pre-emptively strike them.

You're already passed that interstate exit a while ago buddy.

NK claims it has for a while, but does our military actually believe that?

They've been testing sub launched delivery vehicles, and have a pretty massive fleet of aging rusty but still viable diesel electrics. Even if their top range was 1,000 miles, they just need to get close enough in international waters.

That's provided they're not going the other route of putting one of their mobile long range vehicles on a freighter and hauling it out that way.

All in all, dear leader can't be but so big of any idiot to realize that in a shooting match, he'd lose. There's really zero incentive to act out in a first strike sense, and my gut tells me this is all msm fear given to create/pander support for another pricey military excursion since Syria didn't pan out as intended.

Remember what Trump said about "fire and fury"? That became NK propaganda. They now have evidence of the US openly threatening them, directly.

So now NK can turn to it's people and say, "This is why we need nuclear weapons"

The entire thing is about propaganda and Trump plays right into it with his empty threats and tough guy talk, unfortunately.

I agree that there's no way a nuke tipped missile makes it to US from NK....a nuke or dirty bomb detonated in a busy west coast harbor is way more plausible though.

Maybe... I again think you are underestimating how much defense we have in terms of finding problems before they are problems.

Do you really think that no one in our government has had that thought you just had? Do you think no one has tapped some of the best individuals for the job to find a solution to this potential "problem"?

I work for a company that ships stuff all over the world and its not as simple as just putting a nuke in a box and writing "San Fansisco USA" on the side.

That ship will be intercepted by Japan on the way who will scan it, it will be scanned again by America before it gets close to the coast and it will be completely vetted for nuclear material before it makes it into port.

No, obviously there is port security- your condescension is unwarranted and unproductive. But I remember NK was able to smuggle pallets of counterfeit 100s into the US, and China successfully gets a lot of legal and illegal (fentanyl) merchandise over here- so it seems possible. Certainly more plausible than NK getting an ICBM to successfully deliver on US territory.

Are counterfeit bills radioactive?

Im thinking you don't know what you're taking about...

Is every single shipping container scanned for radiation?

I'm thinking you're at least as ignorant as me on this subject. The "dirty bomb" threat is definitely something "experts" discuss, so it's not like I'm pulling this out of my ass....what's your point even? Do you really think it's THAT more likely that NK successfully launches an icbm that hits the US?

Is every single shipping container scanned for radiation?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Every container gets scanned, every single one. Do you really think no one else but you had this thought?

I'm thinking you're at least as ignorant as me on this subject. The "dirty bomb" threat is definitely something "experts" discuss, so it's not like I'm pulling this out of my ass....what's your point even?

Wow you mean the news is reporting an over exaggeration? I didn't think the news would fear monger.... That's is so unlike them.

Do you really think it's THAT more likely that NK successfully launches an icbm that hits the US?

Honestly they have a better chance of mailing it to the white house vs sending it by ICBM.

Seriously much smarter and capable people have put way more time into this than you or me. In what world do you think no one had the thought "But what if they send it by boat and blow up a major population center on the coast? Oh well no one will think of that so let's not worry about it"

"Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. Every container gets scanned, every single one."

Took me 2 minutes to prove your smug ass wrong: http://www.strtrade.com/news-publications-100-percent-scanning-cargo-containers-waiver-request-053116.html

All incoming containers were supposed to be scanned starting in 2012, but three successive waivers have been issued on that requirement, because it's a hard thing to do.

Also, I never said nobody has thought of this, so you're defending a strawman. All I said was that the shipping container delivery system seems more likely than the icbm, which you seem to agree with since you think it'd be easier for NK to mail a nuke to the WH than use an icbm, so really not sure why you're even debating me.

Nuked em'

On the other hand, if an invasion of N. Korea were to happen, who's to say they won't just say "Fuck it" and do it?

Thats why we wont make a preemptive strike either.

If the dictatorship is at risk they will lash out, the chances that nuke does any damage though is extremely minimal. Again there are missile defense systems that exist for that exact contingency.

It would also be a political nightmare in terms of a country frequently seen as modern colonial power invading yet another country and forcing them to use a nuke.

We would lose a ton of support in Asia and give our enemies lots of fodder to throw at the propaganda machine, whether we acted in the right or not.

It would also be a political nightmare

Who's long enough in office to care?

It would hurt our economy also so when they return to the public sector they wont knowingly hamstring their ability to make money.

China, Russia, SK, Japan and other SE Asian countries will be pissed if America decides to unilaterally destabalize half of a continent. These arent neutered middle eastern countries or countries in Africa where everything is already shit.

These are global powerhouse economies. You can bet that they will take out the potential loss in fucking with trade deals.

Everyone's saying that even if they have a miniaturized warhead, it won't survive reentry. Don't people realize that doesn't matter? A nuke exploding in the ionosphere would unleash a devastating EMP. Yeah, there wouldn't be the initial devastation but the apocalypse would follow nonetheless.

We've blown up nukes in high atmosphere before. It's not going to bring the apocolypse - www.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

No but but The point is that an American-allied nuclear retaliation would.

i wish they would secede or fall into the sea yesterday

Is there a non-partisan reason to hate California? I always see pithy comments about the west coast and it always just sounds like "Stupid libruls!"

Yes, materialism as a religion.

There's more to California than SoCal

I've never met a decent human being born or raised in California.

If war with North Korea starts, it will be catalyzed via a Pearl Harbor or via a Gulf of Tonkin.

Keep an eye out for a false flag event. England wanted to challenge the Spanish Armada to establish its naval dominance. They ran up a Spanish flag on one of their English ships and commenced attack on its own Navy. We've done it for pretty much every conflict over the last century. We will be going to war but we need to be the good guys so we will attack our own people to justify it to the masses.

You're absolutely right about Pearl Harbor.

You're wrong about N Korea. We are never going to war with N Korea. If N Korea shoots a rocket at the US, any of it's territories, or S Korea, we will nuke N Korea off the planet. This is how it's been for over 50 years now.

People keep saying this as if China and Russia wouldn't retaliate after the U.S. casually brings an immense amount of destruction and radiation right to their doorsteps. North Korea isn't some random island off of Hawaii than we can bomb at our leisure.

Source?

lol

you're gonna have to try a bit harder with that username yo

We're speaking hypothetically about M.A.D., not sure what you mean

If the USA were hit first there is nothing China or Russia can or would do.

We have the moral superiority and the world backing us if we get hit first.

Not that it matters, Kim would never ever hit America first.

It would be an automatic end to that country and the Kim dynasty.

I hear what you're saying and I'm not questioning whether the U.S. would technically have the moral high ground to launch a counter attack at that point.

I'm saying that everyone who thinks that we would get an immediate thumbs up from China and Russia to unleash an insane amount of nuclear radiation on their borders is kidding themselves. This is especially the case if, say, a military base in Guam is targeted by NK instead of San Francisco for example.

I'm saying that everyone who thinks that we would get an immediate thumbs up from China and Russia to unleash an insane amount of nuclear radiation on their borders is kidding themselves. China would insist that NK refugees be transferred first to SK, which has a contingency plan just in case this happens.

Im of the mind that we would never retaliate to a NK nuke with a nuke. If NK needs to go China would be one of the first countries to step up to bat and most likely put in place a regime friendly to Chinese interests.

You are right that they would never allow a western power to occupy a country they share a rather important border with.

China and Russia aren't going to go MAD for NK. China would immediately try to occupy NK though, and that could lead to conflict.

Didn't the admiral in charge of Pearl Harbor get radar reports of incoming airplanes and dismissed them because the technology was new? I remember reading that.

We must remember too that this North Korean crisis would not be what it is without Obama+Clinton's decision to remove Gaddafi in Libya.

In 2002, Gaddafi set an example by surrendering all his weapons of mass destruction, becoming the hero for a day in America's eyes.

By invading Libya under "humanitarian pretenses" and removing Gaddafi, America made a very symbolic statement that there is no protection to those who comply by become WMD-less. Instead, you are now vulnerable to the full force of the Western military and you will be defeated.

Is there any surprise North Korea isn't going to give up their WMD intentions?

Good point. And the same could also be said for Iraq and Syria who had both submitted to humiliating inspections. The Syria conquest isn't finished yet, but we all know it's a matter of time.

Well it turns out Syria didn't hand over all of its WMD's so not a great example.

Well it turns out Syria didn't hand over all of its WMD's so not a great example.

?

That's a subject of debate outside mainstream sources.

Syria still holds large stores of sarin gas, the entirety of the West believes this along with Trump.

It's not up for debate whatsoever, even if people don't want to believe Assad gassed his own people, Sarin was used, period.

Sarin gas is a WMD.

speak for yourself.

Again - that's completely unproven and a subject of real debate between the people giving us the news and the people actually on the ground in Syria. There are sources that put the sarin attacks on Libyan gas that was brought into Syria by "rebel" forces after the overthrow of Qadafi. It's worth being very skeptical of reports when - at the height of international awareness about the conflict - the seemingly sane Assad decided to gas his own people. Not a very strategic move and it only benefits the groups calling for regime change... Hmmmmm.

Assad did this in 2013, this isn't anything new.

And look at this 'insane' attack on his own people. Nothing came of it. Assad flexed his muscles and the West balked, it was calculated then and it was calculated now.

Just because a source goes against the international grain doesn't make it right.

Not at all. The entirety of the west does not believe it. Not even all of oyr leaders in govt.

Also Russia oversaw the hand over of their chemicals a few years ago after the first attack which they only ever saw evidence of being committed by the rebels, ground to ground using Sarin made in lw tech labs in other countries.

Most likely false flags committed by rebels to help justify the US entrance. There was no motive for Syria to use the chemical weapons.

Humiliating inspections? What is so humiliating about them?

Imagine the US being officially sanctioned by China. Then, in order to avoid being bombed or further sanctioned, we'd have to make perfectly available all possible military sites for inspections any time China saw fit. Even when we complied with the inspections, China would move the goal posts and make the conditions more difficult to meet. Ultimately, we'd learn that it was all a ruse to generate sympathy for a war against us in order to obtain the rights to our natural resources. That would be pretty humiliating from the viewpoint of a sovereign nation.

If I had gold, it would be yours.

The problem with your example, is that the de Rothschild klan (Hillary's handlers) don't care about rules or moving the goalposts, they have their grubby little fingers on the nuclear button, and play with counties and societies like tonka trucks.

Hillary and Obama are bit players. There's a photo of Obama waiting with his elbows on his knees outside Soror's door, for when Soros is ready for him.

Ok, I understand the point you are trying to make, you could have tried to use a better example though because there is no way in a million years that China would ever even think of sanctioning the US, they just rely on America too much for buying their goods. Doing that would basically be putting themselves in bankruptcy, I don't think they want that.

Don't forget that Iraq even agreed to comply with Bush's 'red line' and was still attacked anyways.

North Korea didn't get nukes until after W named them in Axis of Evil.

Rumsburg sold it to them I read somewhere recently. Sounds like premeditation.

How certain are you that North Korea even have these weapons of mass destruction? Have you ever spent even a few minutes challenging that narrative?

Not op but, I've been challenging this for days. There's no way they went from "no ICBM or miniaturized warheads until 2023" to "They could hit Alaska with a conventional warhead" to "They have a miniaturized nuclear warhead that fits on a working ICBM, which they also have and could hit LA, DC, NYC, or anywhere else with, right NOW!"

The current "theory" is that they have both but they need shielding for re-entry. How long until that happens too? The rest of it sure happened a lot faster than the "experts" that spend their entire lives figuring this out thought they could.

In 2002, Gaddafi set an example by surrendering all of his weapons of mass destruction, becoming the hero for a day in America's eyes.

Didn't Ukraine also surrender their Nuclear weapons only to be invaded by Russia? I don't think Obama/Clinton are the only reason people don't want to give up their weapons.

NK hating us and wanted to nuke us is because Bush Jr. came in and shut all the previous negotiations down and tried to be tough with them. SK had what they called the Sunshine Policy to improve relations between North and South. Bush bashed the policy too. So NK said screw you too we'll show you. They were playing hard through the 90s by kicking out the atomic agency inspectors, but they were still following the nuclear agreements to reduce their supply for a long time. Wasn't until Bush screwed everything up.

Also, the Rumsfield/ABB thing people keep mentioning was for a company to come into NK and replace their nuclear power with material that couldn't be easily made into weapons, and in return NK would get better power equipment. Besides the US, a half dozen other countries were part of the deal to supply the material through ABB. Why Rumsfield suddenly went anti-NK when he became part of Bush admin, I don't know and he literally has never talked about it last I read.

This is a compelling take if you don't know history

And your take is?

North Korea knows that WMDs are a deterrence to regime change.

Even worse is that Libya never has any form of WMDs to begin with.

Couldn't one argue that what's going on with the Iran Deal is even more relevant since that's happening today? Iran made a deal and by all accounts is sticking to it, and now the new administration wants to renege because they don't like it.

North Korea doesn't have nukes... or anything else. All the armament and war-making capability they have is Chinese made, and operated by China forces.

i've never learned about gaddafi surrendering wmd. wow. appreciate the info

I am 100% wondering if NK rabble rousing is a stint directed by China to move on to open conflict in the Pacific against the West.

The chess pieces all around the South China Sea have been falling into place over the past decades, with higher intensity after the US was weakened in the ME after Iraq/Syria.

Was the US weakened? Man power still the same, technology better... the only way you could consider them weakened is that they lost some of their moral superiority. There's no commies to fight, there's no concentration camps to save. So that's more of a moral issue.

I DO believe the US was weakened after Iraq, in the sense that our ME troops were stretched by what was going on in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, the refugee crisis, etc. etc. By the time the whole "red line" debacle in Syria happened, the US understood that we would LOSE if we engaged in a war with Syria/Iran/Russia/China.

I truly believe that China saw all of this (and the instability of the economy after the 2008 crisis) to ramp up their reach across the South China Sea, Africa, Latin America, etc. I believe the stage is set for the East (China/Iran/Russia mostly) to try to dethrone the hegemony of the US dollar. US dollar debt is one of the last bastions of power the West has over the developing world. The developing world already has set up their own IMF-type of institution behind China (the AIIB, good article here, in order to capitalize on the weakness of the US dollar as a reserve currency.

Ah, I thought you meant militarily they were weakened. When really it's more of a matter of China and Russia having been strengthened. Russia is a small country but China is massive and they have been fully industrialised and have caught up to the US finally.

True.

War has never been about morality, it's always been about military dominance.

If morality didn't matter you wouldn't need propaganda.

Propaganda is lies to justify a war but it is not the reason for war.

I think China gave them they miniature nukes.

That would lend credence as to why they are rubbing their nose in the India-Pakistan hotzone also.

The McCollum Memo was issued a year before Pearl Harbor and essentially outlined how they'd get Japan to attack our base in Hawaii so as to drum-up support for entering the war in Europe among the war-weary public

The McCollum memo contained an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore

B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies

C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek

D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore

E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient

F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands

G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil

H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire

But we're innocent victims of a sneak attack /s.

Churchill wanted the US to join in the war against Germany. FDR wanted it, too.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v14/v14n6p19_chamberlin.html

It worked brilliantly when dealing with world politics at this level.

Let the other most powerful countries in the world duke it out for a bit, sit back in your isolated country and build up a war machine.

When everyone is starting to show sign that the conflict is beginning to take its toll on all sides, sweep in and stomp the opposition.

They have destroyed infrastructure, exhausted resources and no more will to engage in warfare after that.

Then we return to our pristine country that hadnt received a single bit of damage and an economy that overpowers everyone else on the planet.

And having destroyed millions upon millions of lives and completely obliterated multiple sovereign nations, not to mention propped up a growing Communist threat...

Nah, that's anything but "brilliant" as far as I'm concerned.

It left us the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet for decades...

You can argue the legitimacy of such a move but you cant deny how well it worked to achieve the end goal of American superiority.

Take your feels out of geopolitics because everyone else already has.

What works for the rulers is often a horror for the people.

It works in 4x video games too

Gulf of Tonkin was also a proven lie that got us in Vietnam.

Archduke Ferdinand assassination, sinking of the Luisitania, 9/11, I see a deliberate plan behind wars. The Russian revolution is looking quite suspicious...

People need to read "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" by Robert Stinnett.

2400 people were sacrificed to enter WW2. Such evil & madness runs the world back then, as it does right now.

This is speculated to have happened on 9/11 too.

https://youtu.be/iEuJimaumW4?t=288

Tower 7

For once, I couldn't give a fuck what the US chooses to do in order to fucking destroy NK regime if not the entire north. Millions upon millions have suffered for far too long there and I just want it done. They should've been fucked a long time ago.

Lots of people in here talking about whether North Korea should be invaded or not, and I'm just wondering what's actually happening in backroom deals.

Plenty of people could probably not point go Germany on a map when the Nazi regime was in full force.. Does that negate the fact that something had to be done?

There's definitely conditioning to believe a war is necessary, but it's North Korea. It's just about the only war I'd get on board with since WWII. This isn't a frivolous conflict, this is just the kind of nation which pretty much everyone on the planet agrees is a mutual enemy.

Show me the death camps in America and I'll agree your comparison is in anyway relevant.

And prison is a death camp

No, it's not.

Corporate corrections of America was caught fighting prisoners to their death while they gambled on it.

Correct, the prison system is fucked, still not death camps.

idk if you should bother. you're arguing with a kid in the 5th grade

Why do you say that?

Two newspapers in Hawaii published warnings on Nov 30, 1941 warning people that the Japanese would attack the following weekend.

Station H brother/sister. That tells it all!

That's a cute sentence to post as a headline, but you know it's not that simple, and it almost never is, right?

North Korea is the perfect staging area to invade China by land. I suspect Kim is just a puppet anyhow, intended to give the US a reason to invade... then keep thousands of ground troops there. One obvious counter, by China/Russia, would be to invade pre-emptively... but then they get drawn into a war there.

No it didn't.

There aren't exactly any credible historians who believe that. Here's Robert Citino, one of the most respected military historians on it.

Pearl Harbor, 9/11... it's almost like a trend or something. I wonder where TPTB will let NK drop a nuke?

Good point. And the same could also be said for Iraq and Syria who had both submitted to humiliating inspections. The Syria conquest isn't finished yet, but we all know it's a matter of time.

North Korea didn't get nukes until after W named them in Axis of Evil.

In 2002, Gaddafi set an example by surrendering all of his weapons of mass destruction, becoming the hero for a day in America's eyes.

Didn't Ukraine also surrender their Nuclear weapons only to be invaded by Russia? I don't think Obama/Clinton are the only reason people don't want to give up their weapons.

NK hating us and wanted to nuke us is because Bush Jr. came in and shut all the previous negotiations down and tried to be tough with them. SK had what they called the Sunshine Policy to improve relations between North and South. Bush bashed the policy too. So NK said screw you too we'll show you. They were playing hard through the 90s by kicking out the atomic agency inspectors, but they were still following the nuclear agreements to reduce their supply for a long time. Wasn't until Bush screwed everything up.

Also, the Rumsfield/ABB thing people keep mentioning was for a company to come into NK and replace their nuclear power with material that couldn't be easily made into weapons, and in return NK would get better power equipment. Besides the US, a half dozen other countries were part of the deal to supply the material through ABB. Why Rumsfield suddenly went anti-NK when he became part of Bush admin, I don't know and he literally has never talked about it last I read.

This is a compelling take if you don't know history

North Korea knows that WMDs are a deterrence to regime change.

Even worse is that Libya never has any form of WMDs to begin with.

Couldn't one argue that what's going on with the Iran Deal is even more relevant since that's happening today? Iran made a deal and by all accounts is sticking to it, and now the new administration wants to renege because they don't like it.

North Korea doesn't have nukes... or anything else. All the armament and war-making capability they have is Chinese made, and operated by China forces.

i've never learned about gaddafi surrendering wmd. wow. appreciate the info