Jump to content


Photo

Because Trump 2.0


  • Please log in to reply
12427 replies to this topic

#21 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0221 AM

Strong talk towards the NORKS designed to cow them seems appropriate. Soft talk invites attack.

What attacks?

Oh, I don't know, being nice about cutting trees down. Border crossing incidents. At what point does acts of war foment war?
  • 0

#22 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0225 AM

Phone call between Trump and the Governor of Guam.

 

DHATcNKXYAELjGa.jpg

 

 


  • 0

#23 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,751 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0228 AM

 

Strong talk towards the NORKS designed to cow them seems appropriate. Soft talk invites attack.

What attacks?

 

covert ops, sinking patrol ships, artillery strikes


  • 0

#24 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0241 AM

So, DZ, you seem to be big on what Trump is doing wrong. How would you handle NK?
  • 0

#25 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0257 AM

 

 

So, DZ, you seem to be big on what Trump is doing wrong. How would you handle NK? 

 

Not playing into Kim's escalation games, for a start. There's no need for the President of the United States to use the same language as the dictator of North Korea, so, scrap that "fire and fury" bullshit, because Kim is currently laughing his ass off about all the hysteria.

 

Instead, put out a press release that Guam is part of the United States, that it is the policy of the United States that any nuclear threat to its territory is subject to an immediate counter strike, and that the US military is prepared to defend its citizens. End of discussion. 


  • 0

#26 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0304 AM

So, if the Norks fire a missile towards an ally or possession? You ignore it?

Edited by rmgill, 12 August 2017 - 0305 AM.

  • 0

#27 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0313 AM

 

 

So, if the Norks fire a missile towards an ally or possession? You ignore it?

 

Sure. They've been firing missiles into the Pacific for the last 20 years now, crying for attention.

 

As I said, stop playing their game, and let deterrence handle it.


  • 0

#28 toysoldier

toysoldier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami is a beatiful city
  • Interests:Sci-fi, history, gameplay

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0625 AM

what deterrence? what deterred them from what? what deterred them from getting a nuke? what deterred them from putting it on a rocket? Gee, everybody is so hellbent on letting friggin dictators have their way. No scalashun! muh deterrence!
  • 0

#29 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,431 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0628 AM

 

 

Strong talk towards the NORKS designed to cow them seems appropriate. Soft talk invites attack.

What attacks?

Oh, I don't know, being nice about cutting trees down. Border crossing incidents. At what point does acts of war foment war?

 

I see, so an incident that took place 40 years ago is grounds for a redemptive nuclear strike now?  I now understand why you so ardently support the Nutcase in Chief.


Edited by DKTanker, 12 August 2017 - 0628 AM.

  • 0

#30 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0632 AM

 

 

what deterrence? what deterred them from what? what deterred them from getting a nuke? what deterred them from putting it on a rocket? Gee, everybody is so hellbent on letting friggin dictators have their way. No scalashun! muh deterrence! 

 

So, what would you suggest?

 

BTW, deterrence is the thing that kept you from being vaporized by Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons so far.


  • 0

#31 toysoldier

toysoldier

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Miami is a beatiful city
  • Interests:Sci-fi, history, gameplay

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0649 AM

 
 what deterrence? what deterred them from what? what deterred them from getting a nuke? what deterred them from putting it on a rocket? Gee, everybody is so hellbent on letting friggin dictators have their way. No scalashun! muh deterrence! 

 
So, what would you suggest?
 
BTW, deterrence is the thing that kept you from being vaporized by Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons so far.

Harsh talk is a diplomatic weapon as good as any other. It worked for Castro, so.
And yeah, deterrence is a Soviet Union, PRC level policy. If the USA has to start using that tool on a friggin nutcase dictator whose country is defined by looking wholly dark from space, pray to your God if you have it because the pussying has enveloped a once manly nation and no good can come from that.
  • 0

#32 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0829 AM

Are the north koreans really led by nutcases? Never underestimate the enemy. It is an actually pretty reasonable course of action to acquire nuclear weapons to be safe from an american invasion. From ther perspective nuclear weapons to safeguard the existence of the democratic people's republic makes a lot of sense.


  • 0

#33 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0831 AM

And yeah, deterrence is a Soviet Union, PRC level policy. If the USA has to start using that tool on a friggin nutcase dictator whose country is defined by looking wholly dark from space, pray to your God if you have it because the pussying has enveloped a once manly nation and no good can come from that.

That's bullshit. None of this is new.

Learn about the history of the Chinese nuclear program and US efforts to stop it at the beginning of the 60s. You had the same reasoning back then like today, "nutcase", "crazy", "unpredictable", "deterrence won't work against them".

Edited by Der Zeitgeist, 12 August 2017 - 0833 AM.

  • 0

#34 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0941 AM

 

And yeah, deterrence is a Soviet Union, PRC level policy. If the USA has to start using that tool on a friggin nutcase dictator whose country is defined by looking wholly dark from space, pray to your God if you have it because the pussying has enveloped a once manly nation and no good can come from that.

That's bullshit. None of this is new.

Learn about the history of the Chinese nuclear program and US efforts to stop it at the beginning of the 60s. You had the same reasoning back then like today, "nutcase", "crazy", "unpredictable", "deterrence won't work against them".

 

 

Sometimes an argument is supported because there is a precedent for what the arguments says. But the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not one of those things that should be supported or accepted because of there being a precedent. For each country that has nuclear weapons requires a whole system of professionals and scientists for the proper care and handling of the nuclear arsenal. And the special kind of diplomatic relations would need to be giving in order to ensure that the arsenal does not fall into the wrong hands, either from the regime collapsing in the future at some point, or exported for geopolitical reasons. There's too much uncertainty and risk that goes way beyond calculation and control.

 

There is also a precedent for keeping the number of countries with nuclear weapons limited, such as Libya, Iraq, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine. Even the ROK was looking into them at some point and KSA might still be teasing the idea. And Japan borders quite close to becoming nuclear power. Why should the Kim dynasty get special pardoning for becoming a nuclear power? If North Korea is successful, then it would embolden Iran, and risk a whole chain reaction of demand in other countries to become a nuclear power.

 

And to the complaints about Trump's use of words, does it really matter that much in this situation? Would Obama or Clinton inspire more confidence in this situation?


Edited by JasonJ, 12 August 2017 - 0941 AM.

  • 0

#35 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,306 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0942 AM

The harsh talk just pretty much fortifies the NK position that they need Nukes. 

 

Ignore their threats as bluster, open negotations, offer them a sweet trade deal and in a generation the problem will take care of its self. 


  • 0

#36 Paul G.

Paul G.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,306 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0942 AM

Dupe...

 

Why play into their hands by giving the regime the enemy they need to legitimize themselves.


Edited by Paul G., 12 August 2017 - 0945 AM.

  • 0

#37 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,407 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:doko yarou
  • Interests:sleeping

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0955 AM

The harsh talk just pretty much fortifies the NK position that they need Nukes. 

 

Ignore their threats as bluster, open negotations, offer them a sweet trade deal and in a generation the problem will take care of its self.

Dupe...

 

Why play into their hands by giving the regime the enemy they need to legitimize themselves.

 

They have legitimized it to themselves for the whole past 25 years and already have fortified their position to continue development, regardless of soft talk or hard talk this year. And all the sunshine policies failed to stop it.


  • 0

#38 Cinaruco

Cinaruco

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,856 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Becoming a helicopter pilot for the Pinochet administration

Posted 12 August 2017 - 1103 AM

Strong talk towards the NORKS designed to cow them seems appropriate. Soft talk invites attack.

What attacks?

Oh, I don't know, being nice about cutting trees down. Border crossing incidents. At what point does acts of war foment war?
I see, so an incident that took place 40 years ago is grounds for a redemptive nuclear strike now?  I now understand why you so ardently support the Nutcase in Chief.

During the Obama tenure they sank a ROK warship and shelled territories.

Do people hate Trump that much that they would actually criticize him for giving them some tough talk?
  • 0

#39 Cinaruco

Cinaruco

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,856 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Becoming a helicopter pilot for the Pinochet administration

Posted 12 August 2017 - 1108 AM

 
 
what deterrence? what deterred them from what? what deterred them from getting a nuke? what deterred them from putting it on a rocket? Gee, everybody is so hellbent on letting friggin dictators have their way. No scalashun! muh deterrence! 

 
So, what would you suggest?
 
BTW, deterrence is the thing that kept you from being vaporized by Russian and Chinese nuclear weapons so far.

And they from our arsenal... the only reason the Soviets backed off from Cuba was because Kennedy went full madman against Krushev.

If you hate Trump special much that you would critisize him over a third worlder armed with an ICBM at a time when the physical integrity of the UScould be at risk, seek help.
  • 0

#40 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,701 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 12 August 2017 - 1121 AM

Are the north koreans really led by nutcases? Never underestimate the enemy. It is an actually pretty reasonable course of action to acquire nuclear weapons to be safe from an american invasion. From ther perspective nuclear weapons to safeguard the existence of the democratic people's republic makes a lot of sense.

 

The other way round makes more sense. If they hadn't nukes and long range missiles the USA would not have to worry about NK. Just another p... poor third world country one can ignore. And as far as deterrance in concerned, well over one million south Koreans live within range of 1950's 130mm and 152mm towed artillery guns. NK doesn't need more than SRBM and CW to be safe.

 

PS: Even if we assume NK is rational and wants the nukes and missiles because they think they need them for deterrance, there is still the matter that they sell the technology to Iran. And IOM that country is lead by religious nutcases times ten, the regime is unstable and the country is busy destabilizing an already instable region. 

 

If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.

http://www.globalsec...11214-text.html


Edited by Markus Becker, 12 August 2017 - 1129 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users