A confidential Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence asessment has concluded that North Korea has miniaturized a nuclear warhead to make it capable of being launched by its ballistic missiles:
The analysis, completed last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency, comes on the heels of another intelligence assessment that sharply raises the official estimate for the total number of bombs in the communist country's atomic arsenal. The United States calculated last month that up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Some independent experts think the number is much smaller.
[...] Although more than a decade has passed since North Korea's first nuclear detonation, many analysts thought it would be years before the country's weapons scientists could design a compact warhead that could be delivered by missile to distant targets. But the new assessment, a summary document dated July 28, concludes that this critical milestone has been reached.
"The IC [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles," the assessment states, in an excerpt read to The Washington Post. Two U.S. officials familiar with the assessment verified its broad conclusions. It is not known whether the reclusive regime has successfully tested the smaller design, although North Korea officially claimed last year that it had done so.
Meanwhile, President Trump and Kim Jong Un have traded barbs:
President Donald Trump appears to have painted himself into a corner: He must now follow up on his pledge of hitting North Korea with "fire and fury," or he risks further blowing U.S. credibility.
Kim Jong-un's regime said late on Tuesday that it may strike Guam. That came shortly after Trump warned Pyongyang it would face "power, the likes of which this world has never seen before" if the renegade state continued to threaten the U.S.
"If the red line he drew today was 'North Korea cannot threaten the U.S. anymore,' that line was crossed within an hour of him making that statement," said John Delury, associate professor of Chinese studies at Seoul-based Yonsei University.
Related Stories
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40931775
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un reviewed plans to fire missiles towards the US Pacific territory of Guam but will hold off, state media said.
Although prepared for "the enveloping fire at Guam", the North said it would watch what "the foolish Yankees" do before taking a decision.
Last week's threat against Guam escalated the sharp rhetoric being exchanged between the two sides.
[...] The report on state news agency KCNA said Kim Jong-un "examined the plan for a long time" and discussed it with senior military officials.
The commander of North Korea's strategic force was now merely waiting for orders "after rounding off the preparations for the enveloping fire at Guam".
But, crucially, the report also said that Mr Kim would watch the US before making any decision, signalling an apparent deceleration in the provocative rhetoric.
Previously: North Korea Has Reportedly Miniaturized a Nuke, and is Threatening Guam
Japan's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) coalition has won big in the recent elections and may eventually push for changes in Japan's constitution, although such plans are tentative:
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's ruling bloc scored a big win in Sunday's election, bolstering his chance of becoming the nation's longest-serving premier and re-energizing his push to revise the pacifist constitution. Abe's Liberal Democratic Party-led (LDP) coalition won a combined 312 seats, keeping its two-thirds "super majority" in the 465-member lower house, local media said.
A hefty win raises the likelihood that Abe, who took office in December 2012, will secure a third three-year term as LDP leader next September and go on to become Japan's longest-serving premier. It also means his "Abenomics" growth strategy centered on the hyper-easy monetary policy will likely continue.
[...] The U.S.-drafted constitution's Article 9, if taken literally, bans the maintenance of armed forces. But Japanese governments have interpreted it to allow a military exclusively for self-defense. Backers of Abe's proposal to clarify the military's ambiguous status say it would codify the status quo. Critics fear it would allow an expanded role overseas for the military. Abe said he would not stick to a target he had floated of making the changes by 2020. "First, I want to deepen debate and have as many people as possible agree," he told a TV broadcaster. "We should put priority on that."
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reportedly benefited from tensions with North Korea and is likely to serve as Prime Minister until 2021:
The elections were a result of a risky move on Abe's part. He dissolved the lower house of parliament last month and called for fresh elections a year earlier than scheduled to "face a national crisis" in North Korea. It was a gamble, considering Abe's approval ratings over the past year have ranged from iffy to dismal. One Washington Post headline from the summer read "Japanese prime minister's poll numbers are so low they make Trump's look good." "Abe is personally not that popular of a guy," Hu said. "But after North Korean missiles flew over Japan two times this year, Abe's popularity shot back up."
Also at The Diplomat and Bloomberg. Japanese general election, 2017.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:46PM (22 children)
On the one hand, Trump couldn't give a shit about "US credibility". That much is obvious. On the other hand, he does give very much of a shit about his own image. If he feels that his own pride is on the line, then anything's possible.
On the other other hand, it's not like Trump is known for his consistency. He regularly contradicts himself and flips his position on a whim. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to see a tweet tomorrow morning saying that Kim is a smart cookie, a really great guy, and that the US media & courts could really take a lesson from their South Korean counterparts with regard to their government.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:54PM (4 children)
Make that North Korean. Oops.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:13PM (3 children)
Oh you shouldn't have owned up to the mistake! It was better when Trump couldn't tell the difference between the North and South.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:54PM
They wouldn't have voted Trump in in the first place :)
Fucking union pigdog, living off his daddy's wealth!
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday August 11 2017, @01:31AM (1 child)
Trust me, I know the difference. In South Korea they have many, many golf courses. I put my missiles on one of them. My THAAD missiles. Looking forward to teeing off there! In North Korea they have one course. They have Pyongyang Golf Course, and that's all. They eat the grass and the trees. No mowers on the fairway. It's incredible but it works! Beautiful fairway, beautiful grass on that one course they have. They need more courses. They have locations with great potential, but they need a developer. And the Trump Organization has what it takes. I am sitting in my office in Bedminster. I will be at my desk, pen in hand. I'm ready to make North Korea one of the world's great golfing destinations. And we can talk about the missiles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:07AM
I think I've worked out your secret code -- when you say you are going to send "fire and fury", what you really mean is that you are going to send Dennis Rodman back to N Korea again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:56PM (7 children)
Do you have anything besides adjectives?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:12PM (6 children)
Not sure what you mean. GP gave me some helpful prepositions, dull but necessary articles, informative nouns (couple proper ones too along with other decent, hard-working words that are pro-noun), a nice assortment of good, simple verbs, and even a few basic adverbs.
Was honestly disappointed. Didn't find quite enough flavorful adjectives for my particular taste.
(Score: 4, Funny) by JNCF on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:16PM (1 child)
Adjectives are useless.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:02PM
No, you are:
mammoth
giant
spotty
boundless
thoughtful
barbarous
languid
chunky
dizzy
unsightly
sore
fallacious
erserk
wealthy
chemical
utopian
waggish
cool
bright
dear
glib
standing
vacuous
precious
versed
disgusted
inconclusive
abounding
abashed
future
disillusioned
comfortable
descriptive
wandering
confused
satisfying
tenuous
chief
earthy
energetic
difficult
flashy
nine
shut
thundering
lavish
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:36PM (3 children)
I'm not happy unless I get at least two gerunds.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:10PM (2 children)
I'm partial to dangling participles, myself. They're the naughty bits of grammar.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Funny) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:25PM
I like the view when you tell 'em to turn over and you can look at their puns. Gets me going every time.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:11PM
Just don't end your sentence in a preposition, bastard. [youtube.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:24PM
Surely you mean on the gripping hand [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Interesting) by number6x on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:03PM (2 children)
Kim is a smart cookie, or at least North Korea is playing it pretty smart.
Does anyone remember "The Axis of Evil [wikipedia.org]"? There were three countries that made up this group Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
One of the three complied with all requests made by America. They let arms inspectors in. They shut down weapons programs. They went to the negotiating table. This one member of the Axis of Evil bent over backwards to please their former masters, the United States of America. What did the USA do in response? It invaded and overthrew the government in Operation Iraqi Freedom [wikipedia.org] in 2003.
North Korea saw Iraq complying with the requests of the US, and saw what this got Iraq in return. The United States taught North Korea, and every other rogue nation on Earth, that complying and working with the USA is a path to destruction. So North Korea does the opposite. The US has pretty much begged North Korea to come to the bargaining table [forbes.com]. We have made offers of assistance, and lifting of sanctions just for them to sit down and talk. Not really change anything, just to talk.
Acting tough with Iraq, when Iraq was bending over backwards to please us, backed the US into a corner back in 2003. If doing what the US asks you to do gets you invaded, why would any country at odds with the US comply with the US?
Trump is just stuck in the same corner we painted ourselves into back in 2003.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:03PM
> What did the USA do in response? It invaded...
Maybe. Not sure I'm going to accept your line of reasoning. I thought we went into Iraq because Bush-2 thought Saddam was after his Daddy. And for the oil.
No oil in N. Korea (maybe some coal--do you think Trump will be interested in non-USA coal??)
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:38PM
NK wants the US military the hell away from its borders. Until then, they face a threat that is much more real than the threat that the US supposedly faces by NK being able to deliver one missle to one US territory. As long as the US has no interest in negotiating this point, their gestures toward diplomacy are meaningless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:44PM (3 children)
Trump likes to negotiate from a strong position.
If you come to the table with: "Stop the threats or face hell fire, we're getting everyone on our side so we won't have any fear of retaliation." then you're in a MUCH better position to negotiate than if you come to the table with, "I really wish you'd stop threatening USA, how can we get you to stop?"
All the pundits are morons who haven't read any of Trump's books.
(Score: 5, Funny) by janrinok on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:49PM
I bought one of Trump's books from a second-hand stall - but the previous owner had already coloured it in.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:06PM
> All the pundits are morons who haven't read any of Trump's books.
Just so we are clear on this, Trump hasn't read Trumps book(s) either -- see,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all [newyorker.com]
For the tell-all by the ghostwriter.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday August 11 2017, @12:41AM
If Mr. Trump thinks antagonising China is going to help his negotiating position with North Korea, then he understands the situation about as well as I thought he did.
No real surprises there then.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 11 2017, @03:11AM
So, scary as this sounds, I might foresee it playing like this: N Korea actually is insane/delusional enough to think that nuking Guam will improve its standing in the international community. Trump seems like just the guy to take the political hit for nuking N Korea's nuclear weapons manufacturing centers. Even if they're in hardened underground bunkers, glassing over the entrances and exits and making a 20km radius around them glow hard enough to require heavy shielding to enter/exit will certainly slow down progress inside. Then both sides will have gotten it out of their systems, the world can condemn the US for ever electing Trump, we can replace him with a fuzzy bunny in 2020 and get on with life?
It might even be enough to trigger a revolution in N Korea that would ultimately benefit their people greatly by ending global economic sanctions... sucks to be near the glow-zone, but that's actually a tiny part of the country, much less important to the (remaining) people than free trade with the world.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:19PM (19 children)
We have to let them draw first blood. Then extermination will be fully justified. I hope Trump has the guts to follow through.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:36PM (10 children)
-1, Flamebait? Please! More politically correct bullshit that will be our downfall. These assholes declared was on the US. We should bomb them now, but letting them fire the first shot makes it more justifiable and easier to sell to the public. I say we eliminate the threat! I hope Trump feels the same. He will be a hero if he does the right thing, and all the vets from the previous war won't have died in vain. Let's fight for victory for a change!
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:07PM (8 children)
You are pretty fucking cavalier about "letting them draw first blood". So you'd happily let Kim wipe out Guam just so you can feel better about stroking your nuclear rage-boner? If it's so damned important and "political correctness" means so little to you, why not save a bunch of american lives and strike first?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:14PM
I hate to say it, but the other AC absolutely right - an attack on American soil historically does absolute wonders for getting the general public to accept military action. Trump attacking first would be a significantly worse move politically.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:09PM (2 children)
why not save a bunch of american lives and strike first?
I would prefer that, but sometimes sacrifices must be made for good public relations. We don't want the whole world turning against us. And besides, we have over 7.5 billion people on the planet. So what if we lose 3 or 4 billion? Personally, I would prefer to get rid of about 5 or 6. We just need to spare Europe (the white countries in the north) and the U.S. That would give the rest of us some breathing room.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:40PM (1 child)
Personally, I would prefer to get rid of about 5 or 6.
You do realize the odds you are giving yourself here. Not a great chance that you would be in the remaining 1.5-2.5, and even then you might wish you were part of the 5/6.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:57PM
No, like I said, you spare the U.S. and white Europe. The rest are animals, turn 'em into shark bait... We'll all be better off.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:50PM (3 children)
The Norks' first atomic detonation was a fizzle.
It barely registered on seismographs.
The yield was so small that there was some thought that the Norks had amassed a stockpile of conventional explosives and set that off all at once as a propaganda exercise.
The USA's first gun-type uranium fission weapon was also a dud.
(The concept is so "simple" that they didn't bother to test the mechanism.)
They expected 19kt and the misfire over Hiroshima yielded 9kt.
USA's "explosive lens" tests for the plutonium implosion weapon failed multiple times before they got that working right.
The USA's first plutonium weapon was the size of a Volkswagen and weighted 5 tons.
The Norks are still at this level of development (and don't have the resources USA put into nuclear development in 1945).
Them having something that works and can be fitted to a missile at this point seems highly unlikely.
The Norks aren't known for the quality of their manufacturing.
Them getting something that works first time, every time is a long shot.
The Norks "intercontinental" ballistic missile traveled 400 miles at an altitude so low that nobody knew about it until the Norks announced it.
(Note here that 400 miles isn't even "intermediate-range".)
Every one of USA.gov's ballistic missile submarines has 24 missile tubes, with each missile carrying 4 independently-targetable nuclear warheads.
One sub can take out 96 city-sized targets.
USA has 14 of these weapons systems with 12 of them on station at any given time. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [aps.org]
You can bet that 2 of those are currently off North Korea.
The Axis of Evil speech and its consequences have already been mentioned in the (meta)thread.
All of this stuff is saber rattling--with USA.gov being by far the prime exponent of that.
If USA strikes first (AKA "The Bush Doctrine", a cowardly meme), it loses what credibility it has as a "peacekeeper".
That will also incur great loses to one or more of USA.gov's allies in that region.
If the Norks fire the first round, that nation ceases to exist within the hour.
What we have here is what's called a Mexican Standoff also called a Balance of Terror.
For the latest version, you can thank Dubya (that great military genius--sometimes referred to as The Deserter-in-Chief) yet again.
Trump (who took 4 student deferments from military service during USA's engagement in Vietnam, followed by a medical exemption for "bone spurs"--which have never seemed to affect his lifestyle--and could be called The Draft-Dodger-in-Chief, never having served) is now very cavalier about warfare and is further pushing unwarranted aggression.
The greatest threat to world peace since September 2, 1945 has been USA.gov.
The greatest practitioner of terrorism on the planet is USA.gov.
The Narcissist-in-Chief and his "hair" trigger has made things even worse.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:57PM (2 children)
Idiot. Hiroshima was 15kt, slam bang center of expected yield. Even if it HAD been only 50% of expected, that's far from a fizzle. A fizzle is less than 1%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @12:03AM (1 child)
Thanks for giving us USA.gov's propaganda version.
Everything that was released about the bomb was misinformation, from the fact that murdering tens of thousand of children was necessary in order to end the war, right on to the tech details.
If you're still repeating the discredited MacArthur-era swill, it simply shows how gullible and willing to accept the official line you are.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday August 12 2017, @02:57PM
The most reliable source should be the scientists who knew that they would be shitting on their own research lawn if they fudged the figures, and they've said 15+/-3 kt.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:30PM
Go back to the hospital McCain, we are tired of your boomer warmongering.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:42PM
They've tried diplomatic channels, sanctions, and now threats. Maybe we should get to the heart of the matter and block N.K. imports of twinkies so fat-fingered Kim can get out of his sugar rush.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:50PM (4 children)
Blood?
I see Trump and Kim as peas in a pod -- both the result of a coddled childhood with rich, powerful fathers.
Why not put the two of them in the ring to fight, sumo style?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:11PM (3 children)
That would turn gay really quick, which would result in liberals no longer being allowed to hate them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:33PM
Based on how things have gone down so far, I see it as much more likely the left would turn on LGBT before they accepted Trump.
My reason for believing this is CNN having articles about how paid maternity leave was bad for women just after Ivanka said it was one of her fathers goals.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:52PM (1 child)
Arrange that sumo between Kim and Trump and I promise not to hate Trump - 't's a small price to pay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:21PM
Yeah, in that match up, I'd probably root for Trump too...
But not otherwise (unless another equally implausible situation).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:39PM (1 child)
Exactly. First the false flag, then the "counter" attack.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:17PM
I'm okay with a 'false 'flag'. Just make sure it works. It's strictly a PR matter. Otherwise go for the first strike and get it over with. It needs to be done. In the grand scheme, Korea is pretty worthless to the species. Nobody will miss them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AndyTheAbsurd on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:13PM (6 children)
There's no bad result for Trump (as Trump sees it). Let's take a look at the possibilities:
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:35PM (3 children)
- Kim doesn't fire his test missile but continues to prod Trump until Trump does something rash. The situation continues to escalate until some kind of hostile incident occurs between US and China / China, and suddenly all Trump's big talk about the size of his weapons looks a lot less impressive.
In a way, you are are right: In Trump's eyes there is never a bad result for Trump, he just rebrands his failures as successes and blunders on regardless. As usual, the bad results will be borne by other people - in this case, the potentially millions of people who could be killed in a war.
If you really want to know how it will all play out, keep an eye on Trump's investments in Seoul. I believe he has some buildings there. If you suddenly see them sporting "for sale" signs, you know shit's about to get real.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
Another way to know is that the US military allows personnel stationed in Seoul to bring their families along. If the families head home, the generals think it's going down.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:10PM
At face value, you are correct.
OTOH, evacuation of dependents would be seen as provocative if in fact we seek peace, and as telegraphing the punch if we opt for war.
Since boots on the Korean ground is a military liability anyway (too few, and pre-registered by plentiful NK arty), pulling back everything to the Aleutians, Japan and Okinawa would solve the problem since any war is going to be primarily remote-fought on our side.
A pull-back would be a PR plus (except in SK) as a show of non-belligerence.
My forecast: nobody is going to do anything different. More tests, more exercises, more media posturing. That's all.
So much for arm-chair Realpolitk for today.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 11 2017, @04:39PM
Weapon-wise, the US still has China ridiculously out-gunned. The problem is: economics. China can make the US economy hurt, bad, if they choose to, all without firing a single shot.
Actually, all-out war with China is very unlikely to be initiated or encouraged by China, since that might justify seizure of Chinese holdings inside the US.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:37PM
Trump's basic response to any opposition from anybody, for any reason, is to find ways to hurt them until they comply with his demands. So his reaction to Kim Jong Un is completely 100% predictable, because it would not occur to him to do anything else.
Kim Jong Un, for his side in all this, is not being stupid or crazy, although he may still lose:
1. If he does not present a serious threat to the US or at least its allies, then he's likely to end up like Saddam Hussein or Qaddafi: Hiding in a hole until somebody finds him and kills him. This is why he got nukes in the first place.
2. He probably figures that Trump would be fine with Seoul or Tokyo being nuked, so he needed to be able to threaten the US directly if he wants to survive. Hence his efforts to make sure his missiles can hit targets in Guam and Alaska, the closest US territories to his country.
3. If the US does not present a serious threat to NK, then his people will begin to ask why they put up with the oppressive NK government, and that will lead to a revolution that will not end well for Kim. So occasional American bluster is good for Kim.
4. If the various generals around him think that either (1) or (2) are not being well-managed by Kim, then they'll move to replace him, because their lives are very directly tied to Kim's. One reason he had his half-brother killed was that he wanted to eliminate a credible alternative claimant to his job should his generals start thinking along these lines.
I think there's a chance that if the military received an order for a first-strike nuclear launch on NK, they wouldn't follow it. They'd probably find something in their manuals and rulebooks to save themselves from court-martial if they did so.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:52PM
Except that conventional weapons that North Korea has can reach millions of people in South Korea and China. Nailing an ally in dealing with the North would be just as bad or worse than hitting Guam.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:35PM (26 children)
I find it somewhat odd that in the current reporting of the incident Trump is still painted as the insane one, not Kim even tho he has been trying to blackmail the world for decades and his father before him. Someone, Trump, has finally called the NK-nuke-for-aid-bluff for what it is and decided to be done with this bullshit once and for all. There is no point in being diplomatic about it. He flat out told it like it is, this would be one of the most one sided wars ever and all that would be left might be one smoldering crater of a nation. One could argue that Mattis was just following the President with his comments, perhaps he just put it someone more diplomatic. But the essence of it was the same - try something and we'll annihilate you.
There probably are no bad outcomes for Trump in this scenario, as AndyTheAbsurd (3958) already noted in his comment. There are just win-scenarios for him in this case. Even if Lil'Kim would suicide himself and his nation by nuking Guam.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:58PM (6 children)
You make good points. The NK situation is not and never has been an easy one and it's not fair to blame Trump for not fixing it. I'm not sure anyone could fix it. The two possible paths seem to be indefinite appeasement or mass killings.
None of this doesn't make Trump any less insane, of course.
Kim isn't insane, or at least not in the same way. He is despotic, ruthless, shrewd, and apparently very good at playing these very dangerous games of brinkmanship. In those terms I think Trump is massively outclassed - I wouldn't call Kim an evil chessmaster (that title is reserved for Putin) but there is no way that Trump is even in the same league. The fact that Trump prefers to surround himself with buddies, sycophants, family members and war-hungry white supremacists while distrusting experts in foreign policy doesn't help matters either.
I think the political reality is that even if Kim did something to justify Trump was flattening Pyongyang, the millions of lives that would inevitably be lost[1] would always, fairly or unfairly, be heaped on Trump's shoulders. People tend to forget about the circumstances of decisions and just look at the results. After all, they will reason, plenty of other presidents managed to get serve their terms without triggering the NK landmine, why couldn't Don the Dealmaker even make through a single year?
[1] Seoul would almost certainly be destroyed as well, and then of course there are potential wider conflicts involving China, Japan...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:25PM (5 children)
"wider conflicts" -- let's remember that China has a defense treaty with North Korea that *requires* them to go to war on their behalf if they're attacked.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:21PM (3 children)
And the United States has a defense treaty with NATO that requires its members to go to war if any of them is attacked. I think China would work pretty hard to find a loophole in the agreement to get themselves out of the pact with NK.
On another level, China and the US are on a collision course. Better for the US to have that happen sooner rather than later. The US has nuclear subs that can put an end to Chinese civilization in 15 minutes, but that edge won't last forever.
All of which is to say that Kim is playing a very dangerous game for a lot of people, and will result in East Asia becoming a smoking crater.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:39PM (1 child)
It was just over a week ago that scenario made the news, and apparently people are shocked to find out that Commanders are going to obey the President, even if it is Trump.
http://news.sky.com/story/us-admiral-ready-for-nuclear-attack-on-china-if-ordered-by-donald-trump-10963873 [sky.com]
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 11 2017, @03:45AM
Any military officer who answered "No, I won't follow orders" would very shortly be out of a job, even if just because maintaining the credibility of a nuclear option is necessary.
Doesn't tell you what they would actually do if ordered to murder millions of NK civilians.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 12 2017, @05:44PM
You might be right if the attack is against Guam itself, but maybe not if NK fires missiles tests into the seas around Guam as long as they land outside territorial waters. You are most certainly wrong if NK decides to start shelling SK. The USA as a nation is not under attack if they suffer casualties in SK. However, there are other military alliances in the region to which some European nations are signatories, but NATO as a bloc is not one of them.
All bets are off if the US starts the conflict - NATO is a defensive bloc and it has no obligation to follow the US into war in such a case. Some, or even all, NATO nations might choose to support the US but that is a national decision and nothing at all to do with existing NATO agreements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:22PM
I think strategic planners know this. China is keenly aware that the US boomers in the Pacific can be repositioned and alerted for a possible low-trajectory counterforce strike that would neuter China's rather small arsenal with very little warning.
China is not prepared, or obligated, to commit suicide for Kim's sake.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:01PM (1 child)
I find it somewhat odd that in the current reporting of the incident Trump is still painted as the insane one, not Kim even tho he has been trying to blackmail the world for decades and his father before him
Because we expect the leader of north korea to the be the insane one. We expect the 'leader of the free world' to be statesmanlike. We used to anyway.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:19PM
This is just usual stuff that has been going on pretty much my whole life, I'm not sure why you think this is new?
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/world/clinton-s-warning-irks-north-korea.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:30PM (5 children)
No, it wouldn't leave one smoldering crater of a nation. You seem to be operating on the mistaken impression that it's possible for the US to annihilate NK without causing major problems for its 3 immediate neighbors: US allies SK and Japan, and China. SK and Japan would probably lose millions of people to radiation poisoning and other side-effects of the war. Plus any weapons NK has that aren't aimed at the US are aimed at SK and Japan, so odds are Seoul and Tokyo don't exist anymore either. As for China, they would at a minimum start an economic blockade against the US which would ruin the supply chain of most US hard goods businesses as well as the US government's ability to borrow money.
So at a minimum, 1 crater plus a couple of other death zones, plus a US population desperate for things they can't produce anymore and now can't import.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:24PM
Not operating under that impression at all. A war in the area would be a disaster, for all involved and possible the area at large and I have no doubts about that. NK isn't going to just roll over and die. What I do believe Trump has done is to tell Kim that he ain't getting one more dollar and any threats of hostile actions on his part is going to be met with equal hostile actions. He put the ball back in Kims court, Kim then responded that his attack plans for Guam would be ready by the middle of August. So now we wait.
It won't change fact tho that this would be a very one sided conflict, not that NK wouldn't be able to strike back at all or inflict serious damage. They quite clearly would, but it is an un-winnable war for them. They might dig down and dig in but there only victory would be at best a draw for them. The smoldering crater could be achieved with non-nuclear options, so it doesn't have to be the glowing death cloud of radiation -- even tho I would operate under the assumption that when NK is about to lose they'll go down in a mushroom-cloud.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:56PM (3 children)
NK is weird. Its not like north vs south dakota. I used to work with a SK dude and verified my data today via wikipedia.
"In the good old days" back when cigarette smoke and leaded gas were good for you, "we" did about 100 above ground nuke tests, sometimes multiple tests per year. It'll piss people off but it won't really hurt anything too much to drop a couple bombs. So we get a free pass on say half dozen targets. The problem is there's not much to hit in NK...
We've also done a lot of work on reliable delivery vehicles. We could make an unholy mess with high yield ground penetrators but we'd probably air burst from as high an altitude as possible causing near zilch fallout (well, zero compared to a ground strike)
NK also takes the city-state thing to its logical conclusion. Pyongyang is 10 times as large as every other city in the country, maybe the top 15, top 20 added together. NK IS Pyongyang surrounded by starving peasant farmers. It is a state that surrounds a city, as in city-state. So in classic "Trump Style" turning NK into glass for all practical purposes means one bomb on Pyongyang and its all over. NK is kinda like New York State and I'm not just talking political or economic policy. There's one big city and a bunch of farmers and thats about it. Its Illinois like. Not like CA or the midwest in general. 99.999% of the land mass is impoverished farms not worth nuking, and one big city. There's really only one strategic target and its Pyongyang. There's a couple stationary military targets, maybe better hit with conventional weapons.
The reason why China hasn't blockaded us already is they kinda like our money and our bonds and stuff. A close analogy would be as if the Russians took over the Crimea, which they did. Starting a trade war with the USA would be an interesting way to experience China's own great depression. It isn't gonna happen. At most there will be a lot of bluster.
NK has no strategic value to anyone other than as a buffer zone to invading China along the lines of the purpose of eastern europe during the cold war. Russia has no deep seated love of Poland, they just want a speed bump for next time Germany invades and Poland happens to be the name of that speed bump. My guess is a deal would be made with the Chinese like we promise not to support reunification so they get to keep a nice buffer, in fact they can have the entire freaking country as a province if they want AFTER we drop a nuke. Its not going to be a Cuban missile crisis event.
The prevailing winds in NK are from the east to the northwest kinda stagnant. The only way Japan is getting fallout is taking the long way around or momentary weird patterns. Kinda like if Chicago got nuked it would require unimaginably weird weather patterns to get fallout on Minneapolis, its just not happening. I wouldn't go fishing in the Yellow Sea anytime soon (thats the sea between NK and China). Folks in Liaoning are gonna be pissed off... not so much Japan and SK.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:42PM (2 children)
Also, we have large weapons that can be deployed is relatively high-altitude (relative to a ground burst), which significantly reduces the fallout products. The ground gets hammered with a shockwave that is unsurvivable for normal structures, but it doesn't get to be a significant part of the fireball the way it would with a ground burst or near-ground burst.
Also also, we have MOABs [wikipedia.org], which are non-nuclear, just a bit of a percentage point or so of yield by comparison, (11 ton of TNT-equivalant), but still seriously annoying [youtube.com] to those they are dropped upon. A one-mile blast radius isn't something that allows for just ducking.
I wouldn't feel all that confident of seeing tomorrow if I were in NK anywhere near a military center (or anywhere near where Dear Leader is located) right now. KJI is playing brinksman, and Trump is drooling and ranting as per usual. If he says go, I expect the military will do just that.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday August 11 2017, @09:03AM (1 child)
If by 'a percentage point or so of[sic]' you mean 'yields of a fraction of a percentage point', you are correct. The bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima had a yield the equivalent of 15 kilotons of TNT, i.e. over 1,400 times that of a MOAB. Strategic nuclear weapons have yields in the MT range, with Tsar Bomba (the largest ever detonated, though in a test detonation with 50% of its maximum) is rated at 100MT.
The smallest nuclear artillery weapons ever made are around 72 ton equivalent and go up to around 1 kiloton, but most tactical nukes are in the 1-100 kiloton range. MOAB is under a sixth the power of the smallest nuke ever detonated and under 1% of the power of most of the weapons classified as 'tactical' (i.e. small).
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday August 11 2017, @02:34PM
You misquoted; while your [sic] is technically correct, it is incomplete and does not accurately convey my meaning. What I said was, with new emphasis:
So you're saying exactly what I was saying. I was simply pointing out that 11t of TNT is still going to ruin the day of just about any target, so there's little or no actual need to go nuclear. More yield is required only for a significantly hardened target.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:48PM (1 child)
>this would be one of the most one sided wars ever
The estimates of allied casualties in a conventional war are horrifying. The North Koreans learned all about US air power over fifty years ago and have been digging in ever since. Digging them out would be bloody and horrible, and Seoul would be in ruins before NK artillery could be neutralized.
If you're thinking of the next step up in horror, the difference between one sided and tolerable looms large. I'm in ICBM range myself. Watching the burning ashes fall and wondering if I'm about to start retching and dying, I would take very little comfort in knowing that Kim Jong Un had become the Glorious Leader of Glorious Glowing Glass. I would also spare a thought for the 24 million human beings in the path of US retaliation. How would you feel with four Holocausts on your conscience?
I like the idea of flooding the country with free world radio broadcasts. There's also a lawyer who knows the financial crimes laws who thinks it possible to cut off most of their hard currency access. After Banco Delta Asia the DPRK government was apparently seriously scared.
(Score: 1) by justinb_76 on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:08PM
"How would you feel with four Holocausts on your conscience?"
and exactly which holocaust are you referring to? The Holodomor? al-Nakbah? Armenian Genocide? Amalekite Genocide? Rhine Meadow death camps?
I know you really meant the '6 gorillion' one, but let's face it - Shlomo's story has got more holes than a brick of Emmentaler...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:57PM (6 children)
You, and others, are dramatically underestimating the challenge of combat. We've lost thousands of soldiers in Iraq to guerrilla forces that are literally using WW2 era rifles and home made explosives. And their entire forces are a minuscule fraction of what North Korea has. Literally 30% [wikipedia.org] of North Korea's population is part of their military. Think about that. 1 out of 3 people in that country are active or reserve military that likely are armed, or have access to arms, and have military training. There would indeed be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Start mass bombing civilians and you may inflict some casualties but you also live up to every bit of propaganda and galvanize the entire nation against you.
Russia and China also border North Korea. They're not going to sit passively by while the US sets up a puppet government and military installations on their border. I think invading North Korea would likely be our biggest disaster since Vietnam. For that matter, I think many people don't really understand this. We lost Vietnam unambiguously. In the Korean War we attempted to invade North Korea and lost there unambiguously. War isn't just about who has the bigger budget. What exactly is the plan for winning a war in a country where you have a large armed population that hates you, vast area of terrain favorable for guerrilla warfare, a government that is likely well prepared for aerial onslaught. Oh yeah, and they have nukes. Unlike Iraq where we lied through our teeth about it, I doubt we're going to be anxious to have any meaningful land forces in a nation that would be happy to use those nukes.
Finally, aside from the war - there are also other issues. If the US preemptively attacks North Korea and North Korea retaliates by striking our close ally South Korea, the blame for that lays in large part with Trump. It would likely be the largest loss of life in any single attack. And in any case it is something that we risk unifying the entire world against us for. A country willing to knowingly initiate a conflict knowing completely well that it would likely lead to the first modern nuclear war is an enormous risk to the safety and stability of this entire planet. There would be severe international consequences for this action.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:54PM
And you seem to be completely ignorant about the true nature of war. [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:37PM (4 children)
Unambiguously? Uh, no. The U.N. task force took most of North Korea; the only reason they got driven back to the 38th parallel was China intervening.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:26PM (3 children)
Right:
- Phase 1: US+South Korea vs North Korea. We get crushed.
- Phase 2: UN + US + South Korea vs North Korea. We do well.
- Phase 3: UN + US + South Korea vs North Korea + limited Chinese force. We get pushed back.
- Phase 4: More or less a stalemate.
This in no way goes against what I stated. That our attempt to try to invade North Korea was a disaster is not ambiguous. Now, like then, invading North Korea will all but certainly provoke a response from China and Russia. Though really it might not even be necessary. Arguably one of the main reasons we were able to hold on was because of complete air superiority. We leveled North Korea who had no real reinforcement or defense against air assaults. That was more than 6 decades ago, and is no longer the case. And their military has greatly expanded since then as well. War against North Korea is something I think not even Trump would realistically consider. There's no realistic and clear path to victory. It would also be a direct threat to China and Russia.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:45PM (1 child)
There were equally dire predictions about how difficult it was going to be to expel Saddam from Kuwait. Nope. Turns out a modern, well-trained multi-disciplinary military like the US's can run circles around the largest of 3rd world armies. In fact it was that little example that put China on its rushed force modernization path.
There was an equally dire prediction about Afghanistan after 9/11: "The Graveyard of Empiresssss!!!!" OMG the Mujaheddin totally kicked the Russians' ass it will be slaughter for America oh dear oh dear oh dear. Nope. Easy pickings. The only reason it's been difficult is because we've wanted to occupy the place. If you don't want to occupy the place, only crush it utterly and leave it to somebody else to pick up the pieces, you're not really gonna take a lot of casualties by bombing people like the Mujaheddin from the air.
North Korea has a lot of artillery. America has lots of bombs and lots of planes NK's air defense won't even see coming. Sub-launched missiles can clobber a country that is conveniently surrounded by water. Even without nuclear weapons NK would be reduced to rubble quickly. If there's no China willing to weigh in with human wave attacks against SK, there just isn't a whole lot any of them, China, Russia, or NK could do against American forces. Not to mention that it would be incredibly stupid of China to risk open war with America before it's good and ready to do that, just to save a wackjob basket case like NK. They'd take more economic damage from disrupting the trade status quo than they ever gain from being NK's pal.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:45AM
Iraq is actually a good example. Modern Iraq. Except:
- Increase the population density of Iraq by about 400%.
- Increase the number of civilians with military training by about 3000%.
- Change the terrain to one that is infinitely better for guerrilla warfare.
- Change the covert supporting countries from backwards impoverished Islamic nations to Russia and China.
- Vastly increase aerial defenses.
The only reason Korean war was a stale mate instead of a complete victory for North Korea was air superiority. 6 decades ago we were able to destroy North Korea by air. Thanks to defector accounts US intelligence has learned of underground bunkers and shelters that number in the thousands. This includes completely underground military bases that even go beneath mountains and are designed to shelter enter cities in case of emergencies. You'll mostly destroy civilians with arbitrary bombings ensuring the country is more galvanized and unified than ever before. They get 24/7 propaganda of the western devil who in turn responds by preemptively murdering their civilians. That's going to turn out great...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday August 11 2017, @02:47PM
You obviously need a better dictionary. Phases 2 and 4 make it clearly not unambiguous.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:33PM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 11 2017, @03:14AM
Kim and his predecessors have been insane for decades, business as usual.
Trump is a whole new level of crazy for the US, though maybe not for the superpowers - Russia has had Trump levels of crazy off and on for a while now.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:31PM (4 children)
North Korea is a nearly impossible intelligence target. We know shockingly little about what goes on there.
How, then, could the intelligence community be so certain about the most intimate details of the most closely guarded military program there?
The report is from un-named sources. Are those sources even part of the DPRK analysis team, or is this a political leak of alternative facts to "busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels"?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:38PM
There may be covert means of gathering the intelligence, such as covert acoustic devices. :^)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:29PM
Buy more interceptors!
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:07PM
Actually, its from one of our eighteen or so intel agencies and the other seventeen or so disagree or consider it classified so won't comment. And no one else on the planet thinks its the case.
The odds of this being true are not much better than the "Russians hacked da election" narrative, which is also pretty comical.
My guess is the whole thing is made up diplomatic signalling. Toss out an idea see what happens.
sixty nukes is a lot of material. It took a lot of time and money for the USA (and presumably the USSR) to get that much. The only way they're getting that much is a donor, kinda like Israel's nukes.
Possibly someone messed up and they have 60 bunkers (can't hit them all simultaneously and be completely certain) or 60 delivery vehicles etc. As a MAD deterrent if I were a mad dictator I would totally ship 60 missiles with 54 lead weight duds and 6 real ones. If you have one base with one bunker thats getting the cruise missile treatment like tomorrow morning, why even bother building it. If you have 6 bombs in 6 launchers at 6 sites you're getting the simultaneous attack treatment, again why even bother building it. If you have 60 targets, well, nobody is crazy enough to attack you first. So I am pretty sure they got 60 nuke sites, almost entirely filled with fake warheads. If you're feeling REALLY lucky you might try to hit all 60, but what if you only get 58 and one of the two remaining launches on Hawaii or whatever? My gut level guess is they have 6 warheads with 50:50 odds of any given one working, and about 54 identical decoys. If their security is any good, there's no one human on the planet who knows where all six MAD deterrents are at any given time, party line will be all 60 are live.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:21PM
I don't think that's necessarily so. The uncle of a girl I dated once worked at a listening station in Taegu. They could hear handheld radio traffic north of the DMZ. If there's any communication that is happening electronically or anything that can be seen from a satellite, they know about it. Also, it's pretty possible that in a country like NK they would have a pretty good idea where Kim is at any time because it's not a place where scads and scads of billionaires gad about in limousine motorcades. Yes, they could try a fake out and transport him around in a non-descript taxi, but then again there aren't scads and scads of taxis or regular cars moving around. Mathematically it just seems pretty feasible to find the right pattern for traffic that matches where the guy is known to have been and when he was there. That's how I'd do it, but I'm sure there are far more tricks up the sleeves of the various intelligence agencies to nail down his whereabouts.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:52PM (3 children)
Thanks Obama for sitting on your ass for 8 years while the little fatty (following the big fatty) was building an ICBM and nuke. Maybe you shouldn't have tried to appease Russia by not deploying missile shield you useless fucking coward.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:12PM
Ahh yes, trump points us towards a nuclear war so its Obama's fault.
Keep it classy trumpites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:23PM (1 child)
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/04/06/1722245 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:17PM
it only has to work once.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @06:50PM (6 children)
Trump knows China won't do squat if we hit NK.
China knows we keep 3 missile subs on patrol in the Pacific. Each carries 24 missiles, with 5-7 warheads each. At minimum, that's about 360 warheads ready to go. The boats can be moved in close undetected and the missiles can be fired on a low-trajectory flight path that gives very little early warning.
China has no credible blue-water ASW capability. None.
China only has about 250-280 active strategic missiles. We know where they are. They know we know.
China is not dumb. They know any serious intervention is begging for a counter-force preemptive strike.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:28PM (1 child)
You are an idiot of the highest order. But! You help me realize why the US has fucked up so badly, too many of your buddies in charge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:54PM
Care to specify a time frame, or was that just a generic buttjurt?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:01AM (1 child)
Are you even a real person?? If so you lost your common sense, conscience, heart, and brain. Best start looking for them, or find some stem cell researchers willing to try radical therapies.
No you can't have a regular therapist, you are too far gone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:17AM
Any facts to refute my assertion?
I thought not.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday August 11 2017, @04:34AM (1 child)
China will be all over UN. The USA will be declared a rogue state, subjected to economic sanctions; the USD will cease to be the international currency. China can impose a good deal of these sanctions singlehandedly even, without the approval of the UN - but the approval *will* come because everyone will be scared of the madman who rules the USA. With overnight cessation of international trade the US economy collapses within weeks, maybe months, and the first signs of internal instability start appearing. Meanwhile, China becomes the leader of the world for the small price of having a couple provinces slightly contaminated by the fallout.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:11AM
The UN??? Seriously? ROFL
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:00PM
"The happier your enemy is, the more he has to lose."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:18PM (1 child)
Remember, Iraq had "verifiable" weapons of mass destruuction. Colin Powell even said so in front of the UN, and had the drawings of systems that proved it.
This sounds like a rather ham-fisted statement of causis belli dT may want to have if he decides to tell Congress about an "immediate clear and present danger" before actually doing something first, and thus get his Congressional assent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:31AM
Please please PLEASE find a new phrase, "casus belli" is getting to be way over used these days.
(Score: 1) by ACE209 on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:24PM
That's exactly the rhetoric you would want to avoid.
"Fire and Fury" isn't good for credibility anyways.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:27AM
If NK nukes Guam then when he pushes the button in retaliation Trump's one-liner should be "I came here to kick as and chew bubble gum, but I'm all out of Guam."