My solution to the NK problem

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-04, 11:59

Shoot anything down that gets airborne outside the land borders of North Korea. Anything. Military or civilian. Claim that the NK state has laid down the gauntlet and we have decided its best to protect ourselves and not take any chances. We can't be sure at this point anything airborne isn't a weapon intended on destroying the USA.

Announce to the world that we have decided to take NK seriously and at their word. The rhetoric has been to destroy America and NK has continued to take steps to deliver on the promise and continues to make threats that lead us to believe they will follow through. I can guarantee you if NK does follow through on any level with their threats whomever is president should be impeached for gross dereliction of duty. the writing was on the wall.

For the life of me i can't figure out why we aren't shooting down these test missiles that are over international waters. Is our defense missile system that inadequate or are we just standing by and watching?

by **NigelUno** 2017-09-05, 06:48

kingstonlake wrote:Shoot anything down that gets airborne outside the land borders of North Korea. Anything. Military or civilian. Claim that the NK state has laid down the gauntlet and we have decided its best to protect ourselves and not take any chances. We can't be sure at this point anything airborne isn't a weapon intended on destroying the USA.

Announce to the world that we have decided to take NK seriously and at their word. The rhetoric has been to destroy America and NK has continued to take steps to deliver on the promise and continues to make threats that lead us to believe they will follow through. I can guarantee you if NK does follow through on any level with their threats whomever is president should be impeached for gross dereliction of duty. the writing was on the wall.

For the life of me i can't figure out why we aren't shooting down these test missiles that are over international waters. Is our defense missile system that inadequate or are we just standing by and watching?

I think Trump's plan is Escalation and Threats. It doesn't seem to be working very well so far.

I'm a little surprised we let a missile fly over Japan.

Maybe we don't have faith that our missile defense systems actually work.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2017-09-05, 07:01

kingstonlake wrote:Shoot anything down that gets airborne outside the land borders of North Korea. Anything. Military or civilian. Claim that the NK state has laid down the gauntlet and we have decided its best to protect ourselves and not take any chances. We can't be sure at this point anything airborne isn't a weapon intended on destroying the USA.

Until reading this I never gave a thought to whether or not DPRK had a civilian airline. I guess I assumed they did not.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 07:36

Floyd Robertson wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:Shoot anything down that gets airborne outside the land borders of North Korea. Anything. Military or civilian. Claim that the NK state has laid down the gauntlet and we have decided its best to protect ourselves and not take any chances. We can't be sure at this point anything airborne isn't a weapon intended on destroying the USA.

Until reading this I never gave a thought to whether or not DPRK had a civilian airline. I guess I assumed they did not.

Should have been more clear. This includes any airline from any country. Anything that leaves land boarders and enters international Waters. Air travel to China over land is exempt.

by **NigelUno** 2017-09-05, 07:49

kingstonlake wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:

Until reading this I never gave a thought to whether or not DPRK had a civilian airline. I guess I assumed they did not.

Should have been more clear. This includes any airline from any country. Anything that leaves land boarders and enters international Waters. Air travel to China over land is exempt.

I thought we would be shooting down any missile they launched. I guess we're going to skip over that option.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-09-05, 08:06

maybe we should put the two toddlers that "lead" each country in a time out..

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 08:10

NigelUno wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

Should have been more clear. This includes any airline from any country. Anything that leaves land boarders and enters international Waters. Air travel to China over land is exempt.

I thought we would be shooting down any missile they launched. I guess we're going to skip over that option.

by **NigelUno** 2017-09-05, 08:21

kingstonlake wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

I thought we would be shooting down any missile they launched. I guess we're going to skip over that option.

I meant "we" as in what Trump/US is doing...or not doing.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 08:22

NigelUno wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

I meant "we" as in what Trump/US is doing...or not doing.

Oh ok. I see now. Lol

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 08:23

You're severely over estimating the threat North Korea poses to us. Not the first time I've had to point this out, won't be the last. The Un isn't a maniac. He isn't a terrorist. He is a rational actor. He wants these rockets to retain power to at least provide some reason to be reluctant about attacking them. Attacking us or our allies themselves leads to immediate destruction. He knows this because, again, he's not a terrorist looking exclusively to cause us harm.

If we started shooting down civilian aircraft because of this... well then now who is the dickhead lunatic on the world stage? No. That's a terrible terrible idea.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 08:41

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You're severely over estimating the threat North Korea poses to us. Not the first time I've had to point this out, won't be the last. The Un isn't a maniac. He isn't a terrorist. He is a rational actor. He wants these rockets to retain power to at least provide some reason to be reluctant about attacking them. Attacking us or our allies themselves leads to immediate destruction. He knows this because, again, he's not a terrorist looking exclusively to cause us harm.

If we started shooting down civilian aircraft because of this... well then now who is the dickhead lunatic on the world stage? No. That's a terrible terrible idea.

If he as rational as you say then he knows the US has no intentions of ever attacking NK. If he's as rational as you say then he knows he's playing Russian roulette by detonating hydrogen bombs and lobbing icbms over Japan. If He's as rational as you say then why are they attempting to mount deliverable nukes on misses. Is he's as rational as you say then why hasn't he rebuked his crazy father and joined the international community in sanity and improved the conditions of his people by stopping nuke production. This would ensure his legacy and longevity tenfold over playing a deadly game with the UN and rest of the world. I think you put way too much faith in his acting ability and "sanity".

by **NigelUno** 2017-09-05, 09:06

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You're severely over estimating the threat North Korea poses to us. Not the first time I've had to point this out, won't be the last. The Un isn't a maniac. He isn't a terrorist. He is a rational actor. He wants these rockets to retain power to at least provide some reason to be reluctant about attacking them. Attacking us or our allies themselves leads to immediate destruction. He knows this because, again, he's not a terrorist looking exclusively to cause us harm.

If we started shooting down civilian aircraft because of this... well then now who is the dickhead lunatic on the world stage? No. That's a terrible terrible idea.

If he as rational as you say then he knows the US has no intentions of ever attacking NK. If he's as rational as you say then he knows he's playing Russian roulette by detonating hydrogen bombs and lobbing icbms over Japan. If He's as rational as you say then why are they attempting to mount deliverable nukes on misses. Is he's as rational as you say then why hasn't he rebuked his crazy father and joined the international community in sanity and improved the conditions of his people by stopping nuke production. This would ensure his legacy and longevity tenfold over playing a deadly game with the UN and rest of the world. I think you put way too much faith in his acting ability and "sanity".

He seems to want to pick a fight with us. So far Trump is obliging him.

We must be pretty confident in our ability to shoot anything down that's headed towards the US. But, I thought we were protecting Japan also. We literally had no response to that missile (unless we have technology that's guiding the missiles once they're airborne).

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 09:35

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You're severely over estimating the threat North Korea poses to us. Not the first time I've had to point this out, won't be the last. The Un isn't a maniac. He isn't a terrorist. He is a rational actor. He wants these rockets to retain power to at least provide some reason to be reluctant about attacking them. Attacking us or our allies themselves leads to immediate destruction. He knows this because, again, he's not a terrorist looking exclusively to cause us harm.

If we started shooting down civilian aircraft because of this... well then now who is the dickhead lunatic on the world stage? No. That's a terrible terrible idea.

If he as rational as you say then he knows the US has no intentions of ever attacking NK. If he's as rational as you say then he knows he's playing Russian roulette by detonating hydrogen bombs and lobbing icbms over Japan. If He's as rational as you say then why are they attempting to mount deliverable nukes on misses. Is he's as rational as you say then why hasn't he rebuked his crazy father and joined the international community in sanity and improved the conditions of his people by stopping nuke production. This would ensure his legacy and longevity tenfold over playing a deadly game with the UN and rest of the world. I think you put way too much faith in his acting ability and "sanity".

If you could respond without saying if he's as rational as you say this time that'd be great because it makes your post unreadable.

Look, if you're god king in your own little place, are you going to cross the line that you know inevitably leads to your death? No. He doesn't "know we won't attack him" he knows we won't unless he does it first. If he does then he's fucked. Which is why he shouldn't do it first. He hasn't joined the international community because he's God king. He likes being God king. He doesn't want to lose that.

Killing civilians because you perceive an unreal threat is simply not an option. That's utter lunacy.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 09:48

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

If he as rational as you say then he knows the US has no intentions of ever attacking NK. If he's as rational as you say then he knows he's playing Russian roulette by detonating hydrogen bombs and lobbing icbms over Japan. If He's as rational as you say then why are they attempting to mount deliverable nukes on misses. Is he's as rational as you say then why hasn't he rebuked his crazy father and joined the international community in sanity and improved the conditions of his people by stopping nuke production. This would ensure his legacy and longevity tenfold over playing a deadly game with the UN and rest of the world. I think you put way too much faith in his acting ability and "sanity".
If you could respond without saying if he's as rational as you say this time that'd be great because it makes your post unreadable.

Look, if you're god king in your own little place, are you going to cross the line that you know inevitably leads to your death? No. He doesn't "know we won't attack him" he knows we won't unless he does it first. If he does then he's fucked. Which is why he shouldn't do it first. He hasn't joined the international community because he's God king. He likes being God king. He doesn't want to lose that.

Killing civilians because you perceive an unreal threat is simply not an option. That's utter lunacy.

You're really high maintenance.......

Remember Saddam Hussein?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 10:00

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
If you could respond without saying if he's as rational as you say this time that'd be great because it makes your post unreadable.

Look, if you're god king in your own little place, are you going to cross the line that you know inevitably leads to your death? No. He doesn't "know we won't attack him" he knows we won't unless he does it first. If he does then he's fucked. Which is why he shouldn't do it first. He hasn't joined the international community because he's God king. He likes being God king. He doesn't want to lose that.

Killing civilians because you perceive an unreal threat is simply not an option. That's utter lunacy.

You're really high maintenance.......

Remember Saddam Hussein?

I do.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 10:17

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

You're really high maintenance.......

Remember Saddam Hussein?
I do.

He dead

by **NigelUno** 2017-09-05, 10:58

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

If he as rational as you say then he knows the US has no intentions of ever attacking NK. If he's as rational as you say then he knows he's playing Russian roulette by detonating hydrogen bombs and lobbing icbms over Japan. If He's as rational as you say then why are they attempting to mount deliverable nukes on misses. Is he's as rational as you say then why hasn't he rebuked his crazy father and joined the international community in sanity and improved the conditions of his people by stopping nuke production. This would ensure his legacy and longevity tenfold over playing a deadly game with the UN and rest of the world. I think you put way too much faith in his acting ability and "sanity".
If you could respond without saying if he's as rational as you say this time that'd be great because it makes your post unreadable.

Look, if you're god king in your own little place, are you going to cross the line that you know inevitably leads to your death? No. He doesn't "know we won't attack him" he knows we won't unless he does it first. If he does then he's fucked. Which is why he shouldn't do it first. He hasn't joined the international community because he's God king. He likes being God king. He doesn't want to lose that.

Killing civilians because you perceive an unreal threat is simply not an option. That's utter lunacy.

Did you think he would launch a missile over Japan?

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-09-05, 11:24

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
If you could respond without saying if he's as rational as you say this time that'd be great because it makes your post unreadable.

Look, if you're god king in your own little place, are you going to cross the line that you know inevitably leads to your death? No. He doesn't "know we won't attack him" he knows we won't unless he does it first. If he does then he's fucked. Which is why he shouldn't do it first. He hasn't joined the international community because he's God king. He likes being God king. He doesn't want to lose that.

Killing civilians because you perceive an unreal threat is simply not an option. That's utter lunacy.

You're really high maintenance.......

Remember Saddam Hussein?

Saddam Hussein never had 1000's of missiles within 60 miles of a capital city of one of our allies and trading partners where over 9M people live with 150,000 US troops among them.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 11:30

NigelUno wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
If you could respond without saying if he's as rational as you say this time that'd be great because it makes your post unreadable.

Look, if you're god king in your own little place, are you going to cross the line that you know inevitably leads to your death? No. He doesn't "know we won't attack him" he knows we won't unless he does it first. If he does then he's fucked. Which is why he shouldn't do it first. He hasn't joined the international community because he's God king. He likes being God king. He doesn't want to lose that.

Killing civilians because you perceive an unreal threat is simply not an option. That's utter lunacy.

Did you think he would launch a missile over Japan?

I hadn't thought too hard about specifically how he would be passive aggressive nigel.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 11:32

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I do.

He dead

Sure is. And probably why this particular God king is being bombastic about threats. If he didn't pose a threat to the entire region would he still be around? He doesn't need to actually blow up a city to retain power. Just be a threat to.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-09-05, 11:39

the scary part is that Un is much smarter, more rational and well-reasoned than the sexual predator is.

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-09-05, 11:49

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the scary part is that Un is much smarter, more rational and well-reasoned than the sexual predator is.

That's not fair. Trump's only had almost 9 months trying to be a dictator while the Kim's have decades of family experience to draw from.

by **NigelUno** 2017-09-05, 12:55

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

Did you think he would launch a missile over Japan?
I hadn't thought too hard about specifically how he would be passive aggressive nigel.

I thought he was told not to launch missiles at our allies, or Fire and Fury ya da ya da. But he did, so he either found a loophole, is crazy, and/or is calling Trump's bluff.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 14:50

NigelUno wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I hadn't thought too hard about specifically how he would be passive aggressive nigel.

I thought he was told not to launch missiles at our allies, or Fire and Fury ya da ya da. But he did, so he either found a loophole, is crazy, and/or is calling Trump's bluff.

I don't think we should go to war with North Korea nigel regardless of what came blabbering out of the presidents vomit hole.

by **NigelUno** 2017-09-05, 15:01

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

I thought he was told not to launch missiles at our allies, or Fire and Fury ya da ya da. But he did, so he either found a loophole, is crazy, and/or is calling Trump's bluff.
I don't think we should go to war with North Korea nigel regardless of what came blabbering out of the presidents vomit hole.

What's the line into the sand though? Do we let him fly missiles toward Guam? Or near our bases in Japan? Or do we start knocking those things out of the sky?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 15:04

NigelUno wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I don't think we should go to war with North Korea nigel regardless of what came blabbering out of the presidents vomit hole.

What's the line into the sand though? Do we let him fly missiles toward Guam? Or near our bases in Japan? Or do we start knocking those things out of the sky?

I'm not sure nigel, this isnt the "Travis' plan for North Korea." I don't have a good answer, maybe there isn't one. Going to war over a single missile over Japan probably isn't a great answer though. Shooting down civilian jets certainly isn't.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 17:32

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

What's the line into the sand though? Do we let him fly missiles toward Guam? Or near our bases in Japan? Or do we start knocking those things out of the sky?
I'm not sure nigel, this isnt the "Travis' plan for North Korea." I don't have a good answer, maybe there isn't one. Going to war over a single missile over Japan probably isn't a great answer though. Shooting down civilian jets certainly isn't.

I doubt we'd have to shoot down a civilian jet. The idea is to isolate NK as much as possible. No one is willing to risk getting an airline shot down because this fool decides he wants to play with nukes and lib misses over our allies. It's a legit question. Do we continue to hope these icbms are unarmed as they fly over Japan and probably Guam soon. Because I can guarantee you if the day one comes that isn't, do you want to be in front of the nation making excuses why you ignored the threat? They're not words anymore. They're live missles.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 17:38

GRR Spartan wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

You're really high maintenance.......

Remember Saddam Hussein?

Saddam Hussein never had 1000's of missiles within 60 miles of a capital city of one of our allies and trading partners where over 9M people live with 150,000 US troops among them.

I think you're saying crazy NK guy is actually the greater threat than the mayor of Baghdad?

by **NigelUno** 2017-09-05, 18:41

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

What's the line into the sand though? Do we let him fly missiles toward Guam? Or near our bases in Japan? Or do we start knocking those things out of the sky?
I'm not sure nigel, this isnt the "Travis' plan for North Korea." I don't have a good answer, maybe there isn't one. Going to war over a single missile over Japan probably isn't a great answer though. Shooting down civilian jets certainly isn't.

We can shoot the missiles down without going to war though. I think.

I'm a little surprised we let one fly over Japan.

by **tGreenWay** 2017-09-05, 18:46

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I'm not sure nigel, this isnt the "Travis' plan for North Korea." I don't have a good answer, maybe there isn't one. Going to war over a single missile over Japan probably isn't a great answer though. Shooting down civilian jets certainly isn't.

I doubt we'd have to shoot down a civilian jet. The idea is to isolate NK as much as possible. No one is willing to risk getting an airline shot down because this fool decides he wants to play with nukes and lib misses over our allies. It's a legit question. Do we continue to hope these icbms are unarmed as they fly over Japan and probably Guam soon. Because I can guarantee you if the day one comes that isn't, do you want to be in front of the nation making excuses why you ignored the threat? They're not words anymore. They're live missles.

South Korea is saying the Norks are already prepping another ICBM, so you make a valid point. However, I'm fairly sure we have satellites which can tell if a missile has a radioactive payload on it, though I could be wrong.
As for shooting these missiles out of the sky, which is something that's been mentioned often in this thread, it's my understanding that our technology in that area still isn't where we want/need it to be.
Steve Bannon was right: We don't have a good plan for responding to Kim because one doesn't exist. Nukes should be eliminated from the discussion because of the massive loss of life. There are over 75 million people on the Korean Peninsula, and millions more in China, Russia, and the smaller Asian countries. Of course, Trump won't care about any of those people if it means he can nuke Kim. As I've been saying since before the election, Donnie's out of control narcissism is driving him to use nukes.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 18:53

tGreenWay wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

I doubt we'd have to shoot down a civilian jet. The idea is to isolate NK as much as possible. No one is willing to risk getting an airline shot down because this fool decides he wants to play with nukes and lib misses over our allies. It's a legit question. Do we continue to hope these icbms are unarmed as they fly over Japan and probably Guam soon. Because I can guarantee you if the day one comes that isn't, do you want to be in front of the nation making excuses why you ignored the threat? They're not words anymore. They're live missles.

South Korea is saying the Norks are already prepping another ICBM, so you make a valid point. However, I'm fairly sure we have satellites which can tell if a missile has a radioactive payload on it, though I could be wrong.
As for shooting these missiles out of the sky, which is something that's been mentioned often in this thread, it's my understanding that our technology in that area still isn't where we want/need it to be.
Steve Bannon was right: We don't have a good plan for responding to Kim because one doesn't exist. Nukes should be eliminated from the discussion because of the massive loss of life. There are over 75 million people on the Korean Peninsula, and millions more in China, Russia, and the smaller Asian countries. Of course, Trump won't care about any of those people if it means he can nuke Kim. As I've been saying since before the election, Donnie's out of control narcissism is driving him to use nukes.

I guess I just assumed we had the technology to shoot them down. That's kinda scary if we don't. Sounds like we're very vulnerable.

by **tGreenWay** 2017-09-05, 19:17

kingstonlake wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

South Korea is saying the Norks are already prepping another ICBM, so you make a valid point. However, I'm fairly sure we have satellites which can tell if a missile has a radioactive payload on it, though I could be wrong.
As for shooting these missiles out of the sky, which is something that's been mentioned often in this thread, it's my understanding that our technology in that area still isn't where we want/need it to be.
Steve Bannon was right: We don't have a good plan for responding to Kim because one doesn't exist. Nukes should be eliminated from the discussion because of the massive loss of life. There are over 75 million people on the Korean Peninsula, and millions more in China, Russia, and the smaller Asian countries. Of course, Trump won't care about any of those people if it means he can nuke Kim. As I've been saying since before the election, Donnie's out of control narcissism is driving him to use nukes.

I guess I just assumed we had the technology to shoot them down. That's kinda scary if we don't. Sounds like we're very vulnerable.

IIRC, it's better than it was when all we had were Patriot missiles, but yes, vulnerable is the reality. Especially so with this unstable POTUS.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 21:06

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I'm not sure nigel, this isnt the "Travis' plan for North Korea." I don't have a good answer, maybe there isn't one. Going to war over a single missile over Japan probably isn't a great answer though. Shooting down civilian jets certainly isn't.

I doubt we'd have to shoot down a civilian jet. The idea is to isolate NK as much as possible. No one is willing to risk getting an airline shot down because this fool decides he wants to play with nukes and lib misses over our allies. It's a legit question. Do we continue to hope these icbms are unarmed as they fly over Japan and probably Guam soon. Because I can guarantee you if the day one comes that isn't, do you want to be in front of the nation making excuses why you ignored the threat? They're not words anymore. They're live missles.

You're still thinking of him as a terrorist. Probably the media thing. There simply is no rational reason for him to do what you're suggesting. (Which, note, would involve protecting the China-North Korea border. I'm sure they'd love that.) when we're in a war with North Korea and maybe china, Seoul is destroyed anyway, and thousands of our service members are dying, do you want to be the one standing in front of the country explaining why you did such a maniacally stupid thing?

by **tGreenWay** 2017-09-05, 22:20

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

I doubt we'd have to shoot down a civilian jet. The idea is to isolate NK as much as possible. No one is willing to risk getting an airline shot down because this fool decides he wants to play with nukes and lib misses over our allies. It's a legit question. Do we continue to hope these icbms are unarmed as they fly over Japan and probably Guam soon. Because I can guarantee you if the day one comes that isn't, do you want to be in front of the nation making excuses why you ignored the threat? They're not words anymore. They're live missles.
You're still thinking of him as a terrorist. Probably the media thing. There simply is no rational reason for him to do what you're suggesting. (Which, note, would involve protecting the China-North Korea border. I'm sure they'd love that.) when we're in a war with North Korea and maybe china, Seoul is destroyed anyway, and thousands of our service members are dying, do you want to be the one standing in front of the country explaining why you did such a maniacally stupid thing?

You don't really believe Donnie would accept blame or admit to having been wrong, do you? That's just not who he is. He'll grab an excuse and run with it, blaming the failures on others along the way.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-05, 22:40

tGreenWay wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You're still thinking of him as a terrorist. Probably the media thing. There simply is no rational reason for him to do what you're suggesting. (Which, note, would involve protecting the China-North Korea border. I'm sure they'd love that.) when we're in a war with North Korea and maybe china, Seoul is destroyed anyway, and thousands of our service members are dying, do you want to be the one standing in front of the country explaining why you did such a maniacally stupid thing?

You don't really believe Donnie would accept blame or admit to having been wrong, do you? That's just not who he is. He'll grab an excuse and run with it, blaming the failures on others along the way.

I was just mimicking KL. Pretend we have a function president for a moment. And given that we don't, yolo who the fuck knows what we're going to do. Probably nothing. He, maybe, is starting to realize that taking actually meaningful action is well beyond his capabilities and this was all just a show that morons bought into. (*note, referencing daca, in which he passed the buck to congress then left the door open to doing nothing at all.)

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-05, 23:53

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

I doubt we'd have to shoot down a civilian jet. The idea is to isolate NK as much as possible. No one is willing to risk getting an airline shot down because this fool decides he wants to play with nukes and lib misses over our allies. It's a legit question. Do we continue to hope these icbms are unarmed as they fly over Japan and probably Guam soon. Because I can guarantee you if the day one comes that isn't, do you want to be in front of the nation making excuses why you ignored the threat? They're not words anymore. They're live missles.
You're still thinking of him as a terrorist. Probably the media thing. There simply is no rational reason for him to do what you're suggesting. (Which, note, would involve protecting the China-North Korea border. I'm sure they'd love that.) when we're in a war with North Korea and maybe china, Seoul is destroyed anyway, and thousands of our service members are dying, do you want to be the one standing in front of the country explaining why you did such a maniacally stupid thing?

I'm not thinking of him as a terrorist. You're characterizing my argument that way so that your point makes sense. You can play The Amateur psychiatrist game with the guy if you feel like it. I prefer to stick to what's actually happening on the ground and in the air.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-06, 00:07

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You're still thinking of him as a terrorist. Probably the media thing. There simply is no rational reason for him to do what you're suggesting. (Which, note, would involve protecting the China-North Korea border. I'm sure they'd love that.) when we're in a war with North Korea and maybe china, Seoul is destroyed anyway, and thousands of our service members are dying, do you want to be the one standing in front of the country explaining why you did such a maniacally stupid thing?

I'm not thinking of him as a terrorist. You're characterizing my argument that way so that your point makes sense. You can play The Amateur psychiatrist game with the guy if you feel like it. I prefer to stick to what's actually happening on the ground and in the air.

You want war. You're foolish. Fine. Wherever.

The problem is that you seem to be of the impression that he's going to do something with these weapons. (Which he could have already done.) Like an actual thing not just send a paper airplane over a country. He's not. It's deterrence. This is why I think you still think he's a terrorist madman and not a rational actor. Make people think twice before starting some crazy bullshit like shooting down airplanes that leave his space. Same reason we have 7000 of the fucking things.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-09-06, 00:26

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:

I'm not thinking of him as a terrorist. You're characterizing my argument that way so that your point makes sense. You can play The Amateur psychiatrist game with the guy if you feel like it. I prefer to stick to what's actually happening on the ground and in the air.
You want war. You're foolish. Fine. Wherever.

The problem is that you seem to be of the impression that he's going to do something with these weapons. (Which he could have already done.) Like an actual thing not just send a paper airplane over a country. He's not. It's deterrence. This is why I think you still think he's a terrorist madman and not a rational actor. Make people think twice before starting some crazy bullshit like shooting down airplanes that leave his space. Same reason we have 7000 of the fucking things.

I don't want war. I'm not the one lobbing missles all over the place and detonating hydrogen bombs. And I'm certainly not one to think it's smart to think I got this guy figured out and tell people he's bluffing, nevermind that icbm flying overhead.....

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-06, 00:36

kingstonlake wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
You want war. You're foolish. Fine. Wherever.

The problem is that you seem to be of the impression that he's going to do something with these weapons. (Which he could have already done.) Like an actual thing not just send a paper airplane over a country. He's not. It's deterrence. This is why I think you still think he's a terrorist madman and not a rational actor. Make people think twice before starting some crazy bullshit like shooting down airplanes that leave his space. Same reason we have 7000 of the fucking things.

I don't want war. I'm not the one lobbing missles all over the place and detonating hydrogen bombs. And I'm certainly not one to think it's smart to think I got this guy figured out and tell people he's bluffing, nevermind that icbm flying overhead.....

So you just want to do something that ensures massive loss of life instead of potentially not doing that. Sweet. Great call.

Look it's a tricky issue. For anyone to claim that they have a "solution" is just flat out silly, including message board posters. Your solution is a really bad idea, but there are tons of really bad ideas out there and no real good ones. Kissinger apparently has suggested offering the Chinese that we would pull out of the peninsula altogether for regime change and no weapons and all that. Their concern in the mess being A) us being right on their border and B) a refugee crisis on their border. 'A' being more prominent. That might just work. Of course millions of North Koreans would starve to death but hey whatever right who gives a shit?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-09-06, 00:38

Note- the Chinese agreeing to end this shit would ~~probably~~ (edit- maybe sorta) end this shit. But they won't do that for reasons noted above. As we most absolutely certainly wouldn't agree to if it was Mexico and China getting into a spat.

by Sponsored content