Trump Warns of Possible 'Major, Major Conflict' With North Korea

[Bethere]

Scary stuff.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-could-land-major-major-conflict-n-korea-trump-n752296

Trump suggested that a more troublesome showdown could be in the offing. "There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely," the president said in the Oval Office interview, which was scheduled ahead of his 100th day in office, which comes on Saturday (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/president-trumps-first-100-days).

[FindersKeepers]

Trump doesn't use optimal terms to express the state of our world.

I certainly hope we are able to avoid a "major, major" conflict. "Absolutely." But, I also think the press could back off a bit on making fun of him while reporting the news. It's condescending.

I also hope we have some very bright military minds involved in the monitoring of this issue. Obama once said that the pressure to act in certain ways was extremely strong on the President.

Trump needs advisors that can lead him to differentiate between real threats and chest-pounding.

[donttread]

Scary stuff.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-could-land-major-major-conflict-n-korea-trump-n752296

Trump suggested that a more troublesome showdown could be in the offing. "There is a chance that we could end up having a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely," the president said in the Oval Office interview, which was scheduled ahead of his 100th day in office, which comes on Saturday (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/president-trumps-first-100-days).

Somebody break Webster's defintion of "war" out. We're going to need it. Again. The global military industrial complex , is alwys yelling "feed me Seymour!"

[Peter1469]

North Korea with ICBM tech, combined with its nukes, is unacceptable.

So a major, major conflict is coming. Here is what it may look like:

Here's how a preemptive strike on North Korea would go down (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-preemptive-strike-north-korea-2017-3)

Military action against North Korea wouldn't be pretty. Civilians in South Korea, and possibly Japan, and US forces stationed in the Pacific would be likely to die in the undertaking no matter how smoothly things went.

In short, it's not a decision any US commander in chief would make lightly.


But the US would have to choose between a full-scale destruction of North Korea's nuclear facilities and ground forces or a quicker attack on only the most important nuclear facilities. The second option would focus more on crippling North Korea's nuclear program and destroying key threats to the US and its allies.


Since a full-scale attack could lead to "mission creep that could pull the US into a longterm conflict in East Asia," according to Tack of Stratfor, the US would most likely focus on a quick, surgical strike that would wipe out the bulk of North Korea's nuclear forces.

The best tools the US could use against North Korea would be stealth aircraft like the F-22 and the B-2 bomber, Tack said.


The US would gradually position submarines, Navy ships, and stealth aircraft at bases near North Korea in ways that avoid provoking the Hermit Kingdom's suspicions.


Then, when the time is right, bombers would rip across the sky and ships would let loose with an awesome volley of firepower. The US already has considerable combat capability amassed in the region (http://www.businessinsider.com/f-22-nuclear-submarine-to-south-korea-2017-2).


"Suddenly you'd read on the news that the US has conducted these airstrikes," Tack said.

Read the entire article at the link.

[donttread]

North Korea with ICBM tech, combined with its nukes, is unacceptable.

So a major, major conflict is coming. Here is what it may look like:

Here's how a preemptive strike on North Korea would go down (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-preemptive-strike-north-korea-2017-3)




Read the entire article at the link.

Why? when was the last time a war looked like what the "experts " said it would look like? So if this article is estimating that much civilian death, you can bet it'll be worse.
He hasn't used his weapons locally, he's not going to use them globally unless provoked with eminent personal death.

[Peter1469]

Why? when was the last time a war looked like what the "experts " said it would look like? So if this article is estimating that much civilian death, you can bet it'll be worse.
He hasn't used his weapons locally, he's not going to use them globally unless provoked with eminent personal death.
A nuclear tipped ICBM hitting a major US city is not a risk any American president is willing to take.

NK won't be allowed the opportunity. That, I think, is a fact. I would imagine that there are some covert efforts underway to avoid the scenario outlined in the article that I linked to.

[Bethere]

Why? when was the last time a war looked like what the "experts " said it would look like? So if this article is estimating that much civilian death, you can bet it'll be worse.
He hasn't used his weapons locally, he's not going to use them globally unless provoked with eminent personal death.
The article says that nk artillery is essentially too weenie to truly imperil Seoul, that we would bear the brunt of the casualties because our people are by the dmz.

[Peter1469]

The article says that nk artillery is essentially too weenie to truly imperil Seoul, that we would bear the brunt of the casualties because our people are by the dmz.

30,000 give or take.

[Bethere]

A nuclear tipped ICBM hitting a major US city is not a risk any American president is willing to take.

NK won't be allowed the opportunity. That, I think, is a fact. I would imagine that there are some covert efforts underway to avoid the scenario outlined in the article that I linked to.

Also that's the reality of our missile defense. We're pretty good with scuds and the like, but those icbms ask a whole lot of questions that we've never been able to answer.

[Bo-4]

Somebody break Webster's defintion of "war" out. We're going to need it. Again. The global military industrial complex , is alwys yelling "feed me Seymour!"

Great analogy that ^

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/ce/cec2a9217e2ee21f01abc6ae2d41b910264bd545610339ad2d bd06631e163d45.jpg

[Bo-4]

North Korea with ICBM tech, combined with its nukes, is unacceptable.

So a major, major conflict is coming. Here is what it may look like:

Here's how a preemptive strike on North Korea would go down (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-preemptive-strike-north-korea-2017-3)

Read the entire article at the link.

Your articled downplays danger to Seoul bigly:

But as the graphic below shows, most North Korean artillery can't reach Seoul, the South Korean capital. Additionally, Seoul has significant underground bunkers and infrastructure to quickly shield its citizens, though some measure of damage to the city would be unavoidable.

Nonsense - they are moving artillery into place as Trump thumps his chest. Thousands if not tens of thousands would die in Seoul.

Bad idea Pete .. BAD idea

[Casper]

The article says that nk artillery is essentially too weenie to truly imperil Seoul, that we would bear the brunt of the casualties because our people are by the dmz.
Actually the NK have huge rail guns all over their southern border that can hit Soul and many other targets, so like it or not they would take a major pounding and there would be considerable lose of life. Secondly, the Americans are not a major force on the DMZ, the ROK Army guards the vast majority of it, yes, Americans would die if a conflict started but the vast majority of causalities would be Koreans. Has anyone asked the South Koreans if they want to fight another war or that there is reason to do so now? I doubt it. As for an actual war, the SK would win, so long as China stays out of the conflict, of which there is no guarantee, but the initial phases would be extremely costly to both sides.

[Casper]

A nuclear tipped ICBM hitting a major US city is not a risk any American president is willing to take.

NK won't be allowed the opportunity. That, I think, is a fact. I would imagine that there are some covert efforts underway to avoid the scenario outlined in the article that I linked to.
Correct.

The Best answer is for China to deal with their buddies, make a deal, isn't that what Trump is supposed to be good at? Why endanger the People of South Korea or American lives when the best scenario can avoid that completely.

[donttread]

A nuclear tipped ICBM hitting a major US city is not a risk any American president is willing to take.

NK won't be allowed the opportunity. That, I think, is a fact. I would imagine that there are some covert efforts underway to avoid the scenario outlined in the article that I linked to.

Well no one except us ever has used a Nuke . What if we miss one with our first strike?

[Captain Obvious]

If O'bammy and Herman Munster were still in charge they would have given lil Kim 10 billion dollars and the technology for long-range missiles.

Because they both have the same objective.

[Peter1469]

Well no one except us ever has used a Nuke . What if we miss one with our first strike?

I expect the strike would be crippling. See the link provided above.

[Ransom]

Your articled downplays danger to Seoul bigly:

But as the graphic below shows, most North Korean artillery can't reach Seoul, the South Korean capital. Additionally, Seoul has significant underground bunkers and infrastructure to quickly shield its citizens, though some measure of damage to the city would be unavoidable.

Nonsense - they are moving artillery into place as Trump thumps his chest. Thousands if not tens of thousands would die in Seoul.

Bad idea Pete .. BAD idea
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30608179

It's true. When Obama was playing war games, moving carriers in and out of Korean waters, rattling swords and supporting movies with themes of assassinating the Korean Leader, Bo-4 was equally "Bad idea, BAD idea."

He's consistently opposed such offense measures and threats to Korea, he was most vociferous during Obama's terms as well. Tell em, Bo.


In a statement issued on Saturday, North Korea's NDC spokesman denounced the US for screening the "dishonest and reactionary movie hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK [North Korea] and agitating terrorism".
President Obama, the statement said, "is the chief culprit who forced the Sony Pictures Entertainment to indiscriminately distribute the movie", blackmailing cinemas in the US.
It added: "Obama always goes reckless in words and deeds like a monkey in a tropical forest."
The NDC also accused Washington of "groundlessly linking the unheard of hacking at the Sony Pictures Entertainment to the DPRK".