Politics It's Getting Close to the Point of Nuking North Korea

[fortyofforty]

7 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

I think to be fair, you should at least answer one question before you demand an answer to anything else.

 

Thus far, you've posted not a single concise, accurate, factual thing in this entire thread. You simply make generic nonsensical, nonfactual generalities and then pretend you've offered some sort of realistic answer to the proposed problem.

 

I.e. I'd move everyone south. With buses.

 

 

America's position on what we would do in retaliation for use of a WMD on us or our allies is quite clear. I don't really think anyone needs me to say, we'd retaliate with the full capability of our military if they hit us with a WMD.

 

 

But there, I've answered what I would do if they used a WMD.

 

 

 

 

Now would you expound with some realistic options of how we would relocate more than 10 million people, where they would go, and how we would feed them/how SK could continue to operate an economy, since that seems to be your proposed plan of action to clear the area prior to going live with the 4th largest military in the world.

Seriously?  I've answered a slew of your endless questions, and you dance around and complain about having to answer one.

Concretely, what would you do if they possibly supplied a WMD to a terrorist group, that used it against us?  Are you willing to kill millions of Koreans because of what ISIS does?  What would you do about one missile launched into the south?  One artillery shell?

Those need answers.  Go ahead, if you can.  I doubt it, though, based on your previous shuck and jive.

[AK_Stick]

You haven’t answered a single question. 

 

You have repeatedly made impossible claims, of which devildog and myself pointed out several factual shortcomings. But you yet to propose a single feesible answer. 

[fortyofforty]

Not so easy when you're put on the spot, is it?  Your nonsensical answer isn't good enough.

So, concretely, what would you do if North Korea possibly supplied a WMD to ISIS that used it against us or one of our allies?  Put Iran in the middle of the transaction, if it makes things easier for you to answer.  So, are you willing to kill millions of Koreans because of what ISIS does?

[fortyofforty]

Add another wrinkle.  What would you do if NK launched a missile carrying a conventional warhead?  Just one.  One explosion.  Minor damage.  Nobody killed.  Launched at South Korea, or Japan, or Hawaii?  Are you still willing to kill millions of Koreans over one missile?  You.  Not "the government" copout answer.  You.

[AK_Stick]

I’ve already answered with America’s policy on retaliation in case of a WMD. 

If that’s not good enough clarification of our stance I’m not sure what you need  

Are  you going to answer with some actual feesible COA’s or is “to the south” in your mind a realistic answer?

Edited January 3, 2018 by AK_Stick

[AK_Stick]

2 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Add another wrinkle.  What would you do if NK launched a missile carrying a conventional warhead?  Just one.  One explosion.  Minor damage.  Nobody killed.  Launched at South Korea, or Japan, or Hawaii?  Are you still willing to kill millions of Koreans over one missile?  You.  Not "the government" copout answer.  You.

NK firing a missile at Japan is not the immediate retaliatory obligation of the United States. 

 

Firing a ICBM missile at Hawaii would be a bad idea. Our response would be in the air before we found out it was a conventional warhead. Plus, we have a GMD system. NK does not. 

[fortyofforty]

Just now, AK_Stick said:

NK firing a missile at Japan is not the immediate retaliatory obligation of the United States. 

 

Firing a ICBM missile at Hawaii would be a bad idea. Our response would be in the air before we found out it was a conventional warhead. Plus, we have a GMD system. NK does not. 

I thought you said our "allies" were included in your dream of massive retaliation.  Now you're backpeddling.

You are willing to kill millions of Koreans over one missile fired at Hawaii, then, even if it lands in the water off the coast without exploding?

[fortyofforty]

5 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

I’ve already answered with America’s policy on retaliation in case of a WMD. 

If that’s not good enough clarification of our stance I’m not sure what you need  

Are  you going to answer with some actual feesible COA’s or is “to the south” in your mind a realistic answer?

True, you blathered on about the government's policy.  I am asking you.  Unless you are a government spokesman, you needn't speak for the government.

[fortyofforty]

Let me give it a try.

It is the government's policy not to allow a nuclear armed North Korea.  It is the government's policy not to allow North Korea to develop missiles that can strike the United States with nuclear warheads.

Yes, that's about it.  That's how your answers work.  This is pretty easy.

[AK_Stick]

1 minute ago, fortyofforty said:

True, you blathered on about the government's policy.  I am asking you.  Unless you are a government spokesman, you needn't speak for the government.

My position is not based on personal feelings. But rather facts. 

 

Our position is is quite clear. I don’t understand why that’s so hard to understand. 

[AK_Stick]

Just now, fortyofforty said:

Let me give it a try.

It is the government's policy not to allow a nuclear armed North Korea.  It is the government's policy not to allow North Korea to develop missiles that can strike the United States with nuclear warheads.

Yes, that's about it.  That's how your answers work.  This is pretty easy.

 

Incorrect.

They’re already nuclear armed. 

They have a weapon that can hit mainland USA.

 

Again your position is not factually supported. 

[fortyofforty]

5 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

My position is not based on personal feelings. But rather facts. 

 

Our position is is quite clear. I don’t understand why that’s so hard to understand. 

Yep.  I've stated it above.  Do you agree?  You, personally.  Massive retaliation if NK develops nuclear weapons, as our clearly stated national policy?  Based on facts, of course.

[fortyofforty]

5 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

 

Incorrect.

They’re already nuclear armed. 

They have a weapon that can hit mainland USA.

 

Again your position is not factually supported. 

Incorrect.  Our stated government policy is that it is not acceptable for North Korea to have nuclear weapons.  The fact that they have them is irrelevant to our stated government policy.  The policy is what it is.  Unless the policy is mutable, in which case the policy for massive retaliation for a single missile launch might also be mutable and your entire position melts away under the harsh light of reality.

Do some research.  Check your facts.  Then, get back to me.

[AK_Stick]

Just now, fortyofforty said:

Yep.  I've stated it above.  Do you agree?  You, personally.  Massive retaliation if NK develops nuclear weapons, as our clearly stated national policy?  Based on facts, of course.

That’s not our national policy......

 

Do you understand what a fact is? You get that it has to be true to be a fact right?

[fortyofforty]

So, let's try it one last time.  Trust me, I know it's hard to collect facts and data and put them into a concrete plan of action, but give it a try for once.

Would you kill millions of Koreans if ISIS uses a WMD against America or one of our allies that we think was provided by North Korea?

[AK_Stick]

1 minute ago, fortyofforty said:

Incorrect.  Our stated government policy is that it is not acceptable for North Korea to have nuclear weapons.  The fact that they have them is irrelevant to our stated government policy.  The policy is what it is.  Unless the policy is mutable, in which case the policy for massive retaliation for a single missile launch might also be mutable and your entire position melts away under the harsh light of reality.

Do some research.  Check your facts.  Then, get back to me.

I don’t think you know what the words you’re using mean...

[fortyofforty]

1 minute ago, AK_Stick said:

That’s not our national policy......

 

Do you understand what a fact is? You get that it has to be true to be a fact right?

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

The United States has insisted for decades that it will never accept a nuclear-armed North Korea — but now some national security experts say it's time to rethink that stance.

[fortyofforty]

Just now, AK_Stick said:

I don’t think you know what the words you’re using mean...

One last chance for you to answer my simple question, then I'm done with you.  You refuse to answer because, quite simply, it reveals the lack of depth of your understanding of the situation as it exists.  So, one more time, give it a try.

[AK_Stick]

3 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

The United States has insisted for decades that it will never accept a nuclear-armed North Korea — but now some national security experts say it's time to rethink that stance.

Specifically where does that say we’re going to use massive retaliation to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons?

 

despite what political pro might claim, the fact is they’ve had nukes for a long time. And we haven’t used massive retaliation to take them away, so it’s obviously not our national policy.....

Edited January 3, 2018 by AK_Stick

[fortyofforty]

2 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

Specifically where does that say we’re going to use massive retaliation to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons?

Now you're being silly.  Do you at least admit it is our government's policy not to allow a nuclear armed North Korea?  Another simple question.  Yes.  No.  No more shuck and jive.  Yes.  No.

[fortyofforty]

Since AK_Stick is unable to answer the simple question I posed, I present it to the more honest and intelligent forum members.

Would you be willing to kill millions of Koreans if we believe North Korea supplied a WMD to a terrorist group that used it against us or our allies?  How about if NK worked with Iran to develop such a weapon that ended up in the hands of terrorists?  How about if it was a "dirty bomb" and not a true nuclear weapon?  How many Koreans would you be willing to see killed, if any?

[fortyofforty]

Government policy on a nuclear free North Korea, back in 2016:

U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping reaffirmed their commitment to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula as they held their last meeting on the sidelines of a regional summit, the White House said.

[AK_Stick]

 

Attempting to peacefully achieve denuclearization in the penenisula is not the policy you claimed......

Edited January 3, 2018 by AK_Stick

[fortyofforty]

The official policy of the United States government is that North Korea will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Period.  Exactly as I stated.  I appreciate that English is not your native language, so I will cut you some slack in terms of reading comprehension.  However, the fact remains just as I stated and you are once again wrong.  Shuck and jive.  Shuck and jive.

[fortyofforty]

54 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Let me give it a try.

It is the government's policy not to allow a nuclear armed North Korea.  It is the government's policy not to allow North Korea to develop missiles that can strike the United States with nuclear warheads.

Yes, that's about it.  That's how your answers work.  This is pretty easy.

 

24 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

 

Attempting to peacefully achieve denuclearization in the penenisula is not the policy you claimed......

Very revealing.  Very, very revealing.  And, I'm done.  I'll let the above statements speak for themselves since continuing is a waste of my time.