Kim Jong Un
#61
Account Closed
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: Kim Jong Un
The rhetoric coming from America is 'pose a realistic threat to America or her allies, you can expect a world of hurt'. I can't help thinking that Obama wouldn't be getting labelled a warmonger, rather haled as a wonderfully strong president.
#62
Re: Kim Jong Un
The rhetoric coming out of the US is a bit worrying. Nikki Haley claiming that NK is "begging for war" is over-ratcheting. if there is to be an attack against NK, surely it is SK (and probably Japan) that have the final word, and not the USA. Especially with the clown at the helm.
#63
Account Closed
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 0
Re: Kim Jong Un
I would reiterate however, that I still think that this has the stench of orchestration all over it. Be interesting to see how we've all been ****ed over while we've been obsessing over this.
Last edited by scrubbedexpat098; Sep 4th 2017 at 10:30 pm.
#64
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,996
Re: Kim Jong Un
All any of us know about North Korea and its rulers is what the Western main-stream media tells us - and we should remember that it was the MSM organs that persuaded the Western powers to invade and occupy the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Saddam's WMDs, and all that... Also, not only don't we genuinely know what's driving the NK bombast, we (most of us) don't know anything about Korean history and its collective generations-long hatred and resentment of Japan. There's nothing at all "mad" about that. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable for Korea to want to smack Japan in the face for past oppression and atrocities, and Kim and his cabal may well have a lot of Chinese sympathy in that regard. Most Chinese have probably never forgiven Japan for its atrocities in the 1930s.
Taking those factors into account, Korea's atomic bombs are much more likely to be aimed at Japan than at the USA - at least to begin with. If you Google "William Engdahl Korea" you will find a thoughtful essay on this general topic by a generally well-respected commentator on international affairs.
Taking those factors into account, Korea's atomic bombs are much more likely to be aimed at Japan than at the USA - at least to begin with. If you Google "William Engdahl Korea" you will find a thoughtful essay on this general topic by a generally well-respected commentator on international affairs.
#65
Re: Kim Jong Un
All any of us know about North Korea and its rulers is what the Western main-stream media tells us - and we should remember that it was the MSM organs that persuaded the Western powers to invade and occupy the countries of the Middle East and North Africa. Saddam's WMDs, and all that... Also, not only don't we genuinely know what's driving the NK bombast, we (most of us) don't know anything about Korean history and its collective generations-long hatred and resentment of Japan. There's nothing at all "mad" about that. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable for Korea to want to smack Japan in the face for past oppression and atrocities, and Kim and his cabal may well have a lot of Chinese sympathy in that regard. Most Chinese have probably never forgiven Japan for its atrocities in the 1930s.
Taking those factors into account, Korea's atomic bombs are much more likely to be aimed at Japan than at the USA - at least to begin with. If you Google "William Engdahl Korea" you will find a thoughtful essay on this general topic by a generally well-respected commentator on international affairs.
Taking those factors into account, Korea's atomic bombs are much more likely to be aimed at Japan than at the USA - at least to begin with. If you Google "William Engdahl Korea" you will find a thoughtful essay on this general topic by a generally well-respected commentator on international affairs.
#66
Re: Kim Jong Un
What I don't understand in Kim's drive to gain nuclear weapons is that he is not under threat. China doesn't appear to have any hostility towards NK or Kim, and indeed have an appeasement policy so far. SK isn't about to make any serious provocation, and that only leaves the US as a potential threat. But even for the US, NK would not be on the radar for regime change if they were not pursuing nuclear weapons. Kim seems to be his own worst enemy.
#67
Re: Kim Jong Un
What I don't understand in Kim's drive to gain nuclear weapons is that he is not under threat. China doesn't appear to have any hostility towards NK or Kim, and indeed have an appeasement policy so far. SK isn't about to make any serious provocation, and that only leaves the US as a potential threat. But even for the US, NK would not be on the radar for regime change if they were not pursuing nuclear weapons. Kim seems to be his own worst enemy.
Plus he can sell them to those with money, ISIS say, and proliferate around the world.
I can't see any way out of this without military action. It's not possible to wait much longer, and no diplomacy is going to deal with the threat. You physically have to level the R&D centres and kill the scientists (or the military hierarchy). And as things stand, that best achieved by leveling the place with missiles and bombs before they can react - a large scale preemptive strike.
#68
Re: Kim Jong Un
Yeah, my only thought is 'small man' syndrome. He wants a bunch of nukes on a bunch of ICBMs so that he can strut around saying "you must give me this, or else" and dictating to others.
Plus he can sell them to those with money, ISIS say, and proliferate around the world.
I can't see any way out of this without military action. It's not possible to wait much longer, and no diplomacy is going to deal with the threat. You physically have to level the R&D centres and kill the scientists (or the military hierarchy). And as things stand, that best achieved by leveling the place with missiles and bombs before they can react - a large scale preemptive strike.
Plus he can sell them to those with money, ISIS say, and proliferate around the world.
I can't see any way out of this without military action. It's not possible to wait much longer, and no diplomacy is going to deal with the threat. You physically have to level the R&D centres and kill the scientists (or the military hierarchy). And as things stand, that best achieved by leveling the place with missiles and bombs before they can react - a large scale preemptive strike.
But if you do that the thousands of artillery pieces that he has ranged along the SK border unleash hell on Seoul. There is enough artillery to flatten the SK capital from a couple of phone calls. You would need to include all of those artillery positions in your pre-emptive strike as well, which makes it an order of magnitude more difficult to conduct a military strike.
S
#69
Re: Kim Jong Un
But if you do that the thousands of artillery pieces that he has ranged along the SK border unleash hell on Seoul. There is enough artillery to flatten the SK capital from a couple of phone calls. You would need to include all of those artillery positions in your pre-emptive strike as well, which makes it an order of magnitude more difficult to conduct a military strike.
S
S
#70
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2012
Location: Cayman Islands
Posts: 4,996
Re: Kim Jong Un
We do have some idea of what's going on in NK. Western journalists are there, and the missiles and bombs can be seen and measured. NK is quite happy to release their video propaganda as well. I think it's more likely that NK is intent on developing a nuclear deterent, though how they are going about it is bewildering.
#71
Re: Kim Jong Un
But if you do that the thousands of artillery pieces that he has ranged along the SK border unleash hell on Seoul. There is enough artillery to flatten the SK capital from a couple of phone calls. You would need to include all of those artillery positions in your pre-emptive strike as well, which makes it an order of magnitude more difficult to conduct a military strike.
#72
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,900
Re: Kim Jong Un
Well I doubt it too, I am just saying that morally, they should have the call.
What I don't understand in Kim's drive to gain nuclear weapons is that he is not under threat. China doesn't appear to have any hostility towards NK or Kim, and indeed have an appeasement policy so far. SK isn't about to make any serious provocation, and that only leaves the US as a potential threat. But even for the US, NK would not be on the radar for regime change if they were not pursuing nuclear weapons. Kim seems to be his own worst enemy.
What I don't understand in Kim's drive to gain nuclear weapons is that he is not under threat. China doesn't appear to have any hostility towards NK or Kim, and indeed have an appeasement policy so far. SK isn't about to make any serious provocation, and that only leaves the US as a potential threat. But even for the US, NK would not be on the radar for regime change if they were not pursuing nuclear weapons. Kim seems to be his own worst enemy.
Last edited by carcajou; Sep 6th 2017 at 1:06 am.
#73
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,900
Re: Kim Jong Un
Well, but the Western journalists have their own agendas, and I expect they work in concert with the US's intelligence agencies. As for the bewilderment factor - I think each side is a bit bewildered by the other: the US wonders why NK is shouting its head off, and NK wonders why the US is shouting its head off. I very much doubt that NK will actually start a war; I wish I could have as much doubt about the USA.
Every Western leader in history has tried to manipulate the press; I think this generation of reporters is unique in that they openly want to be manipulated.
#74
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: bute
Posts: 9,740
Re: Kim Jong Un
A quick review of the last few years in the Middle East and elsewhere night convince anyone that it would be folly to put any trust in the West. Kim;s paranoia is simply a rational fear of those nutters in Washington !
#75
Re: Kim Jong Un
Looks like another, smaller, nuke test by NK.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthqua...ati7#executive
Either that, or something collapsed.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthqua...ati7#executive
Either that, or something collapsed.