North Korea missile: US says it will use military force 'if we must'

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Let me see if I understand this correctly...

It's fine for the US to have the capability of hitting NK, which they do a thousand fold...

But it's not ok for NK to have the capability to strike back?



Someone will have to explain that logic to me.
Without the use of propaganda.

NK makes propaganda videos threatening to blow up the USA and their neighbors, doing nuclear tests and bunging missiles in every direction including Japan and the Philippines.

If they flew the missiles over their own country that would be one thing, but the combinations of videos and nuclear tests makes everyone nervous.

a reply to: Nothin

And I like your posts too, Nothin my friend.


I'll try and clear up the confusion...
My scenario was only applicable if NK were to in fact strike first.

If, as they keep saying, they will only retaliate...
Then I go back to my original point...

It's no ones business what weapons they have.

The first question that we should be asking is this: Are the citizens of the USA really wanting another armed conflict in another part of the world? And one that would be costly in the way of equipment and men to fight?

Consider this: NK big allies are both Russia and China and neither will stand for the USA launching an unprovoked armed conflict in their back yard. And make no mistake they would start shipping men and equipment to defend North Korea. Then the minor allies would also get involved and it would becomes a big mess for the USA, one that the country can neither afford or really want.

a reply to: sdcigarpig


Also, if we become involved in a major armed conflict, the Domestic agenda is shot all to hell. Defense industries and employees will roll in the dough, but you can kiss tax reform, infrastructure modernization, and other Trump promises good-bye. Hmmm... maybe that's why certain groups and MSM networks are so pro-war all of a sudden.

They should have deployed these back in the 50's and ended it then.

Nevermind. Inadvertent post.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Yes. Can see now how it relates back to one of your earlier posts in this thread, and then how the flow of the thread went-away from that direction without getting a response to your post, so you readjusted to the new direction of the thread.

(Did that just sound like the first-intermission, in-depth analysis, of the first period of a Hockey-game?)

How about we all just leave NK alone?
"I can't see you!"
Kim?
Kim who?

Under what circumstances does the President of the USA have to get clearance/approval from Congress before launching military action?

I recall George Bush's administration putting on a persuasive presentation about the danger that Iraq posed, before attacking that country.

originally posted by: carewemust
Under what circumstances does the President of the USA have to get clearance/approval from Congress before launching military action?

I recall George Bush's administration putting on a persuasive presentation about the danger that Iraq posed, before attacking that country.

None whatsoever. After action he must go to Congress to gain funding for a continued military action beyond 100 days.
The POTUS is commander in chief, not the hamstringed in chief that cannot act until it is too late.

Most POTUS were political minded, worrying about getting a second term. Trump don't seem like he gives a damn, if he has to do something he will.

a reply to: carewemust

Technically, he doesn't require permission. He's the Commander in Chief.

However, Congress does wield ultimate veto over that...the purse-strings.

I know some will throw the War Powers act out there, but no President, as far as I know, has ever recognized its authority over his actions. I've never liked it either, as the President should not have to go hat in hand to Congress. They already hold enormous power over the ability of the President to wield war-making power, should they choose to exercise it.

Something to remember - The original military authorization, both by the US and UN, remain in effect. The Korean war never ended, let alone a treaty being agreed to. All we have right now is a cease fire.

As for the war powers act last I checked every President who has had that thrown at them have stated its a constitutional violation as it restricts the authority of the commander in chief. If Congress wants to stop military action then they dont fund it.

As for assassinating leaders, yes technically a EO prevents it from occurring. However that EO does not apply to military leadership, and we saw strikes against Hussein as evidence of that. The Korean war is still in effect and lil kimmy is a legitimate military target as the grand marshal of their military.

a reply to: carewemust

Before one thinks that this is such a good idea, perhaps we all need to take a step back and think:

If we go to war with North Korea, the first thing that many would look at would be the major allies, China and Russia, as they both have a vested and strategic interest in North Korea for different reasons. China does not want North Korea embroiled in a conflict, cause then they would have to get involved, though it would be good for some other countries, like the Indonesia, Philippines, Australia, Taiwan, and many of the south east Asian countries, and India as well.

However it is not just the big allies that we would have to worry about, but also the smaller ones, and ones we would not expect. First there are the countries in Africa, while it may not seem significant, however, those would cause some problems for the USA and the western powers, especially if they try to get and control the Suez Canal, along with some strategic interest in the USA along with fuel and raw resources flowing their way, which is more likely.
Then there is the Middle East, how can we forget that, as much of the oil that the world consumes comes from the Middle East, and if they can swing oil producing countries to back them, well that would seriously affect the USA. And then there is in particular Iran. Iran could theoretically put a strangle hold on the straits there, and if it can get several other countries to join them, in this endeavor, they could cause an oil shortage to flow out, thus putting pressure on those other countries not to support the USA in its endeavor.

And then you come to the western hemisphere, Latin and South America. China has allies in some of these countries, how much damage could they do, or even harry the USA in the process, where our attention is divided in ways that we cannot even start to think about.

And don’t forget, that Putin is starting to express interest in Cuba, to put a military base on the island nation, which would drastically change the global power as well.

Ultimately this is going to be a dangerous game of high stakes poker that is going to happen.

To quote the movie War Games: The winning move is not to play.
China is going to let North Korea go only so far, will not intervene unless it crosses a line and starts the shooting war again, nor is it wanting US to be so heavily involved so close to the North Korean border, that much is clear, and as much as we would not want to see such, and as politically and ultimately foreign policy wise, inconvenient, would be to pull pack and reposition a majority of the US military troops closer to the southern part of the country if not reduce down the number of US troops there, along with being cautious about what is sold to the South Koreans, that is seen and not seen.

a reply to: carewemust


The prevailing wisdom is that if we "take out" another country's "leader" using a black ops targeted assassination program, other countries will decide its fair game on our leaders (or the leaders of our allies) too.

There is also a little bit of the ol' "good ol' boys" club thing here as well. Leaders universally do not want to be considered legitimate targets. They leave that to the poor.

a reply to: carewemust

A necessary distraction maybe?.. in any case not much to be done, NK has sanctions up the wazzoo already..a pre-emptive strike is probably the start of WW3.
Kim is a master troll at this point.

The issue is not only that they might nuke the U.S. (and although they probably would not, if Kim felt like he was about to be ousted from power.. he might, and without checks and balances, it's probably much easier for that country to launch nukes than others), but once they do have them, they can start acting with impunity in other ways. If you think it's a challenge and a danger to approach them now militarily, multiply that times 10 once they have nukes. Lots of options go out the window. The only time to deal with them is now, before they have nukes.

As for those asking why it's not ok for NK to have nukes - seriously? They agreed to not develop nukes, or the technology to deliver nukes. Because they sort of you know.. invaded South Korea, and have threatened them for quite a long time, and the U.S. since the war. It's also ridiculous to say they need them to defend against the U.S. Do you honestly think the U.S. will invade NK without provocation? I don't. They hardly need nuclear weapons to protect against the U.S., when the only reason they need nuclear weapons is because they keep threatening the U.S.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: yuppa

I am aware that those are not Law, per say. You do know that turnabout is fair play, right?

Careful what y'all wish for, you may get it.

Oh I know. Life is risk though so its cool with me.

If it flies, it dies.
We have the capability of knocking their firecrackers down before they ever launch.
I don't want to see innocent people die.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Let me see if I understand this correctly...

It's fine for the US to have the capability of hitting NK, which they do a thousand fold...

But it's not ok for NK to have the capability to strike back?



Someone will have to explain that logic to me.
Without the use of propaganda.

You do know that North Korea and the United States is still officially at war right? Typically countries that are war with each other consider each other enemies.

Would you want your enemy to acquire better weapons to kill you more efficiently?

Is that enough logic?

a reply to: Damiel sure he could he got plenty of reason to. this dictator keeps making threats and he is starving his people to fund his research into weapons development. we have more business striking him than syria. only reason we in syria is because saudis want us there.

a reply to: proteus33

A few posts ago, sdcigarpig posted the best summary of why Potus shouldn't,
and clearly highlights how hamstrung we are on NK...