North Korea Mega Thread

[Beet]

There was a UN security council resolution condemning North Korea that had the support of the other 14 members, including China, but it was Russia who vetoed. Scapegoating Russia for everything has consequences.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/asia/russia-un-veto-north-korea/index.html

At least Russia is urging serious negotiation with North Korea along with sanctions, that is more reasonable than the current "no talks until North Korea agrees to denuclearize first" administration policy, to be frank.

[Beet]

There was a UN security council resolution condemning North Korea that had the support of the other 14 members, including China, but it was Russia who vetoed. Scapegoating Russia for everything has consequences.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/19/asia/russia-un-veto-north-korea/index.html

At least Russia is urging serious negotiation with North Korea along with sanctions, that is more reasonable than the current "no talks until North Korea agrees to denuclearize first" administration policy, to be frank.

How so?  That's the only thing we really want and we know we're not going to get it.  This is all show on all parts at this point.  Pursuing North Korean talks is about as productive as pursuing a Middle East peace deal at this point.

There are other things that could be useful, simply opening contact would be useful. Ronald Reagan once said of the Soviet Union, we do not mistrust each other because we are armed, we are armed because we mistrust each other. Gaining information on their political goals, and maybe eventually moving towards arms control talks, is not out of the question.

[Beet]

"There is a military option to destroy North Korea's (missile) program and North Korea itself," Graham said on NBC's "Today" show. "If there's going to be a war to stop them, it will be over there. If thousands die, they're going to die over there, they're not going to die here and (President Donald Trump) told me that to my face."
He continued: "I'm saying (military options are) inevitable if North Korea continues."
But, he added, "You can stop North Korea militarily or diplomatically. I prefer the diplomatic approach."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/01/politics/lindsey-graham-north-korea-donald-trump-white-house/index.html

Goodness gracious. There has been no serious effort at getting North Korea to stop. Bilateral talks have never been offered, let alone suspension-for-suspension, let alone serious sanctions on Russia and China to get them to reverse course, or dismantling North Korea's overseas networks. If they're going to start a potentially nuclear war, and claim that they want to exhaust other options, there are plenty of options that haven't even been tried.

The choice isn't between thousands dying over there and thousands dying over here. The choice is between starting a war in which thousands die, which potentially spirals into World War III, and not doing so.

[Beet]

"There is a military option to destroy North Korea's (missile) program and North Korea itself," Graham said on NBC's "Today" show. "If there's going to be a war to stop them, it will be over there. If thousands die, they're going to die over there, they're not going to die here and (President Donald Trump) told me that to my face."
He continued: "I'm saying (military options are) inevitable if North Korea continues."
But, he added, "You can stop North Korea militarily or diplomatically. I prefer the diplomatic approach."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/01/politics/lindsey-graham-north-korea-donald-trump-white-house/index.html

Goodness gracious. There has been no serious effort at getting North Korea to stop. Bilateral talks have never been offered, let alone suspension-for-suspension, let alone serious sanctions on Russia and China to get them to reverse course, or dismantling North Korea's overseas networks. If they're going to start a potentially nuclear war, and claim that they want to exhaust other options, there are plenty of options that haven't even been tried.

The choice isn't between thousands dying over there and thousands dying over here. The choice is between starting a war in which thousands die, which potentially spirals into World War III, and not doing so.

They are refusing talks with the South. http://www.atimes.com/article/north-korea-rejecting-talks-south-korea/ So in all likelihood, they would refuse to talk with the US.

It's conventional wisdom that they refuse talks with the South to delegitimize the government in the South, and have always sought direct talks with the U.S. instead. It's well possible they could refuse, but it's absurd to say you tried diplomacy when you didn't even offer talks before getting what you wanted beforehand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would NK budge, though? Trump hasn't changed a thing of Obama's policy, other than issue more threats, that's the thing. What exactly, has he done, in the past 8 months, to change North Korea's calculus? He's gotten China to stop coal imports from North Korea for several months, even though overall trade is up 10%. Other than that, he's only continued the policy of "strategic patience" despite claiming otherwise. Nothing he's done on the diplomatic front could have expected to have a serious chance at success. He's just waiting for more tests before saying that war is justified rather than making a real effort to stop their program otherwise. Not that I think a war would be a good idea in any case.

I have to think if Iraq had 16+ nuclear-tipped ICBMs and was within miles of metropolitan areas of tens of millions of people, even the insane zealouts under Rumsfeld wouldn't have cavalierly gone in.

[Beet]

Beet, what more would you want Trump to do, capitulate? The offer to suspend the nuclear testing program in exchange for suspending exercises with North Korea is worthless. It doesn't accomplish any U.S. goal and the North would be able to end it at will, whenver they're ready to do more tests.

What exactly is "capitulation", Ernest? Capitulation would be allowing the North to overrun the South and unify Korea under its rule. Suspending exercises costs nothing, not even a single cent, nor does offering to talk. Is merely talking with them so horrific that getting major cities nuked is preferable to it? I don't understand that reasoning.

As for what "more" do I want Trump to do, I've already listed four things he could easily do. What he's done so far is worse than nothing, by the way.

[Beet]

Beet, what more would you want Trump to do, capitulate? The offer to suspend the nuclear testing program in exchange for suspending exercises with North Korea is worthless. It doesn't accomplish any U.S. goal and the North would be able to end it at will, whenver they're ready to do more tests.

What exactly is "capitulation", Ernest? Capitulation would be allowing the North to overrun the South and unify Korea under its rule. Suspending exercises costs nothing, not even a single cent, nor does offering to talk. Is merely talking with them so horrific that getting major cities nuked is preferable to it? I don't understand that reasoning.

I don't understand your reasoning that refusing to go along with Kim III's propaganda offensive must inevitably lead to a military offensive. Suspending exercises gains nothing and gives Kim the ability to boast he forced the United States to back down. The Trump Administration has far too few people at State to waste them in meaningless (to us, tho not Kim) talks that won't go anywhere.

I'm just going along with what the administration is telegraphing. Of course stalemate doesn't have to lead to a military offensive- we could settle into a long term doctrine of deterrence. But it if a military offensive is down the line, then direct talks are preferable.

Once a war starts, it's not going to stop escalating until it becomes a regime change war. A regime change war won't stop until the North's forces along the Yalu river must be destroyed. At that point China will have a strategic imperative to intervene. It'll either drag us directly into a war with China, or create a militaristic mentality that leads to war with China in a couple years. A war with China won't be quick either- deep strikes into Chinese territory will have to continue until they abandon their no-first-use policy. At that point there will either be a nuclear exchange or they will do enough damage to us that internment will be the least of some of our problems. If New York City is destroyed I'll be sent to the gas chamber.

At some point people will have to stand up and say no to Trump and the militarists. If sanity can't prevail on a matter of nuclear war there is no limit.

[Beet]

The Security Council has approved the US-proposed sanctions by unanimous vote.

Wow. This is a very strong step by the Security Council, that will hurt the North Korean regime badly without being militarily threatening. If Trump continues to whine about China (or Russia) on North Korea after this, he's going to look terrible.

We'll see if China and Russia enforce it, or not. That's the real test.

Anyway, sanctions are good, but talks are also necessary. Given how far they are, it's not likely Kim Jong Un is just going to wake up and decide to give up all his nukes one day. The administration stance of "no talks unless they agree to this," which should be a long term goal, is just pigheaded at this point.

[Beet]

So given all this, I think we're in a situation where it's not really in anyone's national self-interest to rock the boat; the big wild card here is Kim, and whether he'd be foolish enough to cross a red-line.  I think the answer is obviously no; he's not stupid, and he knows that at some point he'll cross a line that makes war inevitable, and it's curtains for him when that happens.  I think the bigger problem and the bigger risk is miscalculation.  Kim wants to tiptoe as close as he can to the red-line without going over, and the big risk is that he may not know exactly where that line is or believe he can push it a little more than he really can.

The only thing that Kim could do to make war inevitable is to launch one himself. Since, as you say, Kim wants to survive, so I'm not worried about him doing that. I'm more worried about us starting a war that we think we "have to", or have talked ourselves into believing there is "no choice", when in fact there is, and always was.

As far as red lines, I'm glad you brought this up, because it's an area where Trump has really shot himself in the balls, and of all the mistakes he's made on North Korea policy in his brief time, one of the worst. By tweeting that a North Korean ICBM would "never happen", and unequivocally stating that he would deal with it, only for it to indeed happen several months later, rips a giant hole in his own credibility. Then later, he tweets that China "tried" to help, but it "didn't work out", literally hours before a Chinese delegation came to Washington to discuss the North Korean issue-- a tweet that was promptly ignored. This is the problem of trying to conduct crisis diplomacy over Twitter, something our forebears who lived through WWII, even Kennedy's generation, would have accurately perceived as a national security threat. The North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, accurately see all of Trump's statements and posturing that turned out to be false, and concludes he has no credibility. And worst of all perhaps, it's not just Trump. Not long ago, Joseph Dunford, head of the JSC, said that a war with North Korea would be "horrific", but that a North Korean capability to reach Denver with a missle would be "unimaginable." Just weeks later, North Korea did indeed launch a missile with the capability to reach Denver and other US cities, although it was later reported the reentry mechanism probably doesn't work. But for a day or so, the world (and perhaps North Korea) believed they did have the capability, and quite obviously, I do not think many people you ask would have considered the launching of the missile itself to be an event worse than a "horrific" war unlike anything since WWII as General Dunford was talking about. Then there is the movement for US aircraft carriers to Korea, the equivalent of muscle flexing, but no more than that.

In short, we have shot our credibility up, down, left, and right. We've made so many heated threats, bluffs, and rhetoric, that it's like the boy who cried wolf at this point. When, and if, our threats become real, it'll be that much harder for Kim to know, and it'll increase the chances of precisely what you said-- miscalculation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I gave my reasoning for how it could escalate to such a point. I find it funny that when the Democrats were asking people to listen to the CIA/NSA, e.g., our own government entities, that Russia had hacked us, we were accused of risking "World War 3" with Russia, and "nukes", but suggesting that what everyone has admitted could be the worst war in 70 years (against one nuclear power, and at the doorstep of another) might escalate into a nuclear exchange, is always called too "dramatic" or pessimistic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Entering North Korea to ensure their own sphere of influence precisely to prevent us from having full control over North Korea isn't entering the war "on our side", it's entering the war to limit our power... precisely what they did during the Korean War. It's not like WW2 were the USSR was attacked by Nazi Germany. China would have no beef with North Korea in this case, it would be entering to shore up its own interests and possibly that of the North Korean resistance. The two countries' armed forces would have fundamentally opposite interests. And to think that there would be no attacks on each other-- either intentional or unintentional, in such a heated war with so many troops everywhere, is absurdly cavalier. The moment one country's forces mistakenly down another's planes or shoot at the other's infantry companies, the demand for response from the other would be urgent and immediate, leading to war.

[Beet]

Anyway, I don't really see Kim as a "wild card" in this scenario; what he is going to do is so predictable it can basically be summed up in one sentence. With no change in outside policy, he is going to continue to do missile and all sorts of tests just as he has for the past five years but he will not use them offensively. If we want him to do less we need to engage him in direct talks.

The North Koreans, United States, and China were all at the ASEAN summit yesterday. The Chinese Foreign Minister and North Koreans held talks. Tillerson didn't. Why? We continue to adhere to this notion that we won't talk with the North Koreans, even at lower levels, unless they first agree to abandon their entire nuclear program. This flies against the concept of "face", which is extremely important in Korean culture. Kim has at this point invested so much in his nuclear and missile programs (which started at the end of his father's regime), that unilaterally giving it up now would be nothing but a climbdown so humiliating that he would risk losing respect and control over his own regime. Hence he's being forced into two very bad options-- either continue his tests, and risk war, thus losing his power, or back down, and risk losing so much respect that his regime loses legitimacy or he's overthrown in a coup. Only through talks, e.g. diplomacy, can he be given a real out and there be two-sided mutual deescalation over time, which could eventually lead to his abandoning his nuclear program. It's absurd how the administration keeps saying "all options are on the table," but the only option that could lead to a real solution without war--diplomacy-- isn't really on the table. It's time to put all options on the table for real.

[Beet]

Anyway, I don't really see Kim as a "wild card" in this scenario; what he is going to do is so predictable it can basically be summed up in one sentence. With no change in outside policy, he is going to continue to do missile and all sorts of tests just as he has for the past five years but he will not use them offensively. If we want him to do less we need to engage him in direct talks.

The North Koreans, United States, and China were all at the ASEAN summit yesterday. The Chinese Foreign Minister and North Koreans held talks. Tillerson didn't. Why? We continue to adhere to this notion that we won't talk with the North Koreans, even at lower levels, unless they first agree to abandon their entire nuclear program. This flies against the concept of "face", which is extremely important in Korean culture. Kim has at this point invested so much in his nuclear and missile programs (which started at the end of his father's regime), that unilaterally giving it up now would be nothing but a climbdown so humiliating that he would risk losing respect and control over his own regime. Hence he's being forced into two very bad options-- either continue his tests, and risk war, thus losing his power, or back down, and risk losing so much respect that his regime loses legitimacy or he's overthrown in a coup. Only through talks, e.g. diplomacy, can he be given a real out and there be two-sided mutual deescalation over time, which could eventually lead to his abandoning his nuclear program. It's absurd how the administration keeps saying "all options are on the table," but the only option that could lead to a real solution without war--diplomacy-- isn't really on the table. It's time to put all options on the table for real.

You have therefore
decided to adopt a weak and losing position. There will be peace in our time', said Chamberlain when he returned from his meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938. as a
nation compared to other nations we are a mass of cowards.

Okay, if North Korea snuffs out a sovereign country within 6 months of such talks beginning, I would admit I'm wrong.

Beet, why do you assume that face is a uniquely East Asian concept. At this stage, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from even low-level talks with the North Koreans that cannot be gained from China and North Korea having a serious talk. Not only that but nothing can be gained without Chinese involvement. Now, if the Chinese can manage to produce something more tangible than direct talks with North Korea, it would then be time to reconsider.

But are the Chinese putting their full effort into talks? They have only peripheral interest in North Korea's weapons programs, as, for better or worse, they don't feel threatened by them. From their point of view, they're doing us a favor, and not all domestic factions inside China support this. We're going to have to watch them closely to see if the latest round of sanctions are enforced.

One immediate gain we could have with direct talks, is that it would increase trust. Even talks that clearly outline each side's position could get us a better idea of the North's goals than just reading propaganda statements. After all, it's not just the level of arms that constitutes the North Korean threat. Six other countries have even greater nuclear and missile capabilities, but we aren't worried about them. The nonexistent level of relations and communication, and trust, between the two sides is a part of the threat to. If we can reduce those, we can reduce the threat.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which, of course, would be an utter disaster, and reason enough not to start a war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We aren't enemies with North Korea either, in the sense that we aren't at war, but we're already talking about launching a war against them that even we admit may well lead to a nuclear strike. So obviously, not yet being enemies with China doesn't mean anything. We've just had a president who got elected by attacking China from the stump and from the debate stage every chance he gets. I don't see cooler heads prevailing at all. Remember, Steve Bannon, Trump's senior advisor, already predicted war with China within five years before the Korean crisis went into high gear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems to be a fundamentally Western conceit, that the Chinese value economic ties and trade somehow more than or equally to what they perceive as basic elements of their security. If that were really the case, they would not have moved aggressively in the SCS, the Senkakus, Doklam, and any number of potential flashpoints that damage their trade prospects with the countries they are standing off against. In their minds, national security comes first, and on the strategic front, nothing has changed since WWII.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if we don't even know what our own red-line is, how the hell is Kim Jong Un supposed to know? This is absurd. But the problem I was talking about, if you think through carefully what I said, has nothing to do with the above. It's that because we've made so many conflicting statements setting out what appears to be red-lines, even if one is decided upon, our ability to communicate it under this administration has been irreparably damaged.

[Beet]

When I said Kim was a "wild card," I didn't mean in the sense that his intent and motivations are completely unpredictable and like a roll of the dice.  What I meant is that Kim is sorta in the driver's seat in the current situation- it is in every other party's interest (including NK, for that matter) to maintain the status quo, and their actions will start from that premise; i.e. not rocking the boat and just letting things continue as they are, perhaps even indefinitely.  If there is a person that sparks this tinderbox, it will be Kim.

Well, a "wild card" doesn't means someone who's in the driver's seat. At the risk of being pedantic, Harper Collins says defines "wild card" as: "If you refer to someone or something as a wild card in a particular situation, you mean that they cause uncertainty because you do not know how they will behave." I merely pointed out that we do know how Kim will behave, assuming no change in policy on our part. So if your meaning is that, then you are incorrect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how this makes him a "wild card". First of all, as I pointed out, the term "wild card" means we don't know how he will behave, but without change in our own policy, we have a very good idea of how he will behave, so the phrase is simply incorrect. Second, as you admitted already, we don't even know what our own red-line is. We haven't decided. The ultimate outcome of this decision is unknown. So it seems that the true wild card is not Kim Jong Un, but the United States. It's the United States' behavior that is unpredictable, and it's the United States' signals that are contradictory.

If a war starts, it won't just be because of a "miscalculation," it'll also be because someone started it. As we agreed, it's not going to be North Korea, so it's going to be us. In that sense, we, not North Korea, are in the driver's seat when it comes to the war question. In many ways, that's good news, because it means nuclear war can be avoided if we make a choice that is entirely within our own power. All it takes is the will to make that choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And they now have ICBMs, as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The U.S. agreed to suspend joint exercises in 1994-1996. If we were willing to agree to it then, why not now? As for a withdrawal of our position in SK, numerous publications already have people advocating for it. The U.S. has no strategic interest in what goes on in the Korean peninsula outside the North Korean issue, so there is no reason for troops to be there if North Korea is no longer a threat. The South Koreans may not want us there, either.

Given that we're talking about potential nuclear war, the real insanity at the heart of this question is why some Americans think that thousands, if not millions of people dying in nuclear incineration or getting blown apart by artillery shells is somehow better than, say, temporarily pausing a set of military drills. If anything, it's the proposals for war that should be more of a "non-starter."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Muammar Gadhafi ruled Libya for 40 years... then one day, there was a domestic uprising against his rule, NATO intervened on the side of the rebels, and he was dragged out of a hole in the desert, beaten, and sodomized on a bayonet, all on public tape. This made a deep impression even on Vladimir Putin, who is in charge of nearly 2,000 strategically operational nuclear warheads. That is what Kim Jong Un would be risking for himself if he went the "Deng Xiaoping" route, and he knows that. He believes, with reason, that he has to guarantee his own security and that of his state, before turning his full attention to economic development.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are many diplomatic proposals that have been out there for years, such as offering security guarantees, signing a peace treaty, lifting sanctions, and so on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no war going on, and not a single bullet has been fired, so how can we already have crossed the point of no return? The idea that the point of no return for WW1 was before 1914 simply ignores the fact that political decisions were made in 1914 to start the war, and had those decisions not been made -- for instance, Nicholas not ordering a general mobilization -- the war could have been averted. War is not inevitable. It is the result, every step of the way, of conscious choices by free actors, and those actors have to take responsibility for those choices.

[Beet]

The North Korean Foreign Minister has rationalized their nuclear program as defensive:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://asia.nikkei.com/print/article/284567

He also promised not to use nuclear weapons against any country that did not "join the U.S." in military actions against it.

[Beet]

Meanwhile, South Korean President Moon Jae-In has said his country could never accept a hot war:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/north-korea-sanctions/536082/

[Beet]

China testing ship-based missiles in a show of force demo today https://news.vice.com/story/now-china-is-testing-missiles-off-the-korean-peninsula

Good sign.

SCMP has multiple interpretations of this. Some say it's meant to deter both NK and the US.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2105832/china-fires-warning-array-navy-drills-korean-peninsula

[Beet]

China testing ship-based missiles in a show of force demo today https://news.vice.com/story/now-china-is-testing-missiles-off-the-korean-peninsula

Good sign.

SCMP has multiple interpretations of this. Some say it's meant to deter both NK and the US.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2105832/china-fires-warning-array-navy-drills-korean-peninsula

It's geared to NK. This little PRC task force knows it wouldn't fare well or long against a USN CSG. Odds are less for the US in shallower waters in prox to China but that is a different story.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, as the Chinese claim they can take out a US aircraft carrier:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/china-tests-new-guided-missile-in-bohai-sea/articleshow/58598767.cms

They have also conducted drills in the area in response to THAAD.

[Beet]

Here is the actual statement (specifically, considering an "enveloping fire" in the areas around Guam to send a "warning signal")-

https://twitter.com/passantino/status/895043437367410688/photo/1

[Beet]

An intelligence estimate says that North Korea could have "up to 60" nuclear warheads. To me that says they don't even know for sure how many nukes North Korea has. So how could they all be taken out? And how do we know one won't get "lost" and be sold on the black market if the regime is collapsing?

The point is, this is an extremely dangerous situation and shouldn't be handled by emotions. As the more powerful party, we need to be the adults, and decisively deescalate the situation while strengthening our deterrent capabilities. Limiting military exercises would do a great deal to deescalate while costing nothing in terms of capabilities.

[Beet]

They wouldn't strike Guam itself, but the statement said they would consider hitting the waters around Guam as a warning. That's also a crucial distinction that's not being made in a lot of the reporting. The point is we're currently in a cycle of escalation and it's something that has to be broken.

[Beet]

For all we know, someone could be feeding them technology. But the public doesn't know. We can only speculate. All we have to go by is the end result.

[Beet]

There is zero evidence that North Korea would ever do anything like launch a suicidal attack on the US. That's the bottom line. Outside of the heavy alarmism here, most of the world is not that worried--including the Russians, Chinese, and the Japanese and South Koreans who have lived under the North Korea threat for years and decades. North Korea continues to accept 100,000 tourists a year, including thousands of (non-US) Western tourists, the vast majority of whom go in and out with no incident; it continues to build hotels and try to develop its economy, and conducts $2-$3 billion in trade, and has relations with most world countries. To listen to some people here, you'd think none of this exists and the whole country consists only of their nonsensical propaganda and nuclear program. Every indication is that this is a government that wants to live and even grow in a semi-normal fashion. What would really help is to recognize that Jacobin American's post above illustrates that the cost of war is too high and ratchet down the threats while not giving them anything either.

[Beet]

What we do know is that the KPA gets extremely antsy over the military exercises- more than anything else we do- which they perceive as offensive in nature, and the ramping up of these exercises is considered extremely provocative. The more these are ramped up, the more brinksmanship they will engage in.

[Beet]

Supposedly North Korea is thinking about striking Guam, can't imagine they're really that stupid.

I believe that it would just be the waters around Guam

That would be a go ahead, make my day moment. If Kim launches anywhere near Guam, it would be considered an attack on the US and force a retaliatory strike. Don't forget, the EEZ is 200 miles out so that would limit Kim's targeting to a precise window outside of that to incur less of a chance of a US response. At this point, Kim is punching the hornet's nest.

You're a madman. Kim has hit within Japan's EEZ many times. Should Japan have launched retaliatory strikes?

[Beet]

Supposedly North Korea is thinking about striking Guam, can't imagine they're really that stupid.

I believe that it would just be the waters around Guam

That would be a go ahead, make my day moment. If Kim launches anywhere near Guam, it would be considered an attack on the US and force a retaliatory strike. Don't forget, the EEZ is 200 miles out so that would limit Kim's targeting to a precise window outside of that to incur less of a chance of a US response. At this point, Kim is punching the hornet's nest.

You're a madman. Kim has hit within Japan's EEZ many times. Should Japan have launched retaliatory strikes?

I'm not mad, just used to working with the military and can understand the response. What do you think the US response to a launch on Guam would be? Oh let's just issue a demarche, sanction more? Japan didn't hit them because it is following the US's lead and has less military capability to do so. They are increasingly worried about this and have sought to even change their constitution to boost their military. Abe called an emergency action meeting after the latest one landed in their EEZ so I am sure the option or discussion of it came up.

Sure you are mad. What you are advocating is mad. If a splashdown within the EEZ is considered an attack, then Japan has been attacked, and the US Japan mutual defense treaty would then be activated. Japan obviously didn't do anything because it would be mad to start a war that could get Tokyo nuked over a missile landing in the EEZ. Further, Kim has no reason to think such a launch would result in retaliation due to the Japan precedent.

[Beet]

Supposedly North Korea is thinking about striking Guam, can't imagine they're really that stupid.

I believe that it would just be the waters around Guam

That would be a go ahead, make my day moment. If Kim launches anywhere near Guam, it would be considered an attack on the US and force a retaliatory strike. Don't forget, the EEZ is 200 miles out so that would limit Kim's targeting to a precise window outside of that to incur less of a chance of a US response. At this point, Kim is punching the hornet's nest.

You're a madman. Kim has hit within Japan's EEZ many times. Should Japan have launched retaliatory strikes?

I'm not mad, just used to working with the military and can understand the response. What do you think the US response to a launch on Guam would be? Oh let's just issue a demarche, sanction more? Japan didn't hit them because it is following the US's lead and has less military capability to do so. They are increasingly worried about this and have sought to even change their constitution to boost their military. Abe called an emergency action meeting after the latest one landed in their EEZ so I am sure the option or discussion of it came up.

Sure you are mad. What you are advocating is mad. If a splashdown within the EEZ is considered an attack, then Japan has been attacked, and the US Japan mutual defense treaty would then be activated. Japan obviously didn't do anything because it would be mad to start a war that could get Tokyo nuked over a missile landing in the EEZ. Further, Kim has no reason to think such a launch would result in retaliation due to the Japan precedent.

It's not that I'm advocating it, per se, it's what I think may happen with all of the hawks surrounding Trump. I am still IRR until 2020 so if war does happen, believe me, I could very well be recalled to AD, and have family and friends still in. Understand that I am not saying bomb them all at all opportunities like the chickenhawks do, but I really do think that a missile landing anywhere near Guam, even in the EEZ, would provide Trump an opening for war. If it actually hit the base(s), it's a done deal for war. Kim is a factor that is completely unpredictable. He may ignore this latest review for the Guam plan or actually order it and go short, who knows?

If what you're saying is true, then Trump is Dr. Strangelove levels of hawkishness. There has been no nuclear war in 72 years, and he gets in and in this case, starts one in less than a year. Of course jfern and half the people who were hysterical about bombing Syria have nothing to say. They were worried about Hillary Clinton starting wars.