Could Trump Reignite the Korean War?

[skyeagle409]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...aft-carrier-kim-jong-un-nuclear-a7674781.html

Not sure how dangerous this move is by Trump in sending a strike fleet to the Korean Perpendicular, but it seems to have a number of people in the know rather worried about how North Korea will react.

I don't see a war coming anytime soon. However, I have a feeling that something will eventually happen, but I don't see World War III as a result. I know of incidents that drove the world to within seconds of a full blown nuclear war and most people are totally unaware of what occurred. People went to their '9-to-5' jobs not knowing what was occurring behind closed doors regarding the 1962 missile crisis, multiple incidents in 1983 and another incident in 1995.

There was yet another incident where a Soviet submarine did a "Crazy Ivan" on an American sub, which resulted in the loss of the Soviet sub along with its crew. If there is a war on the Korean peninsula, I expert the two Koreans to merge in the South's favor.

 

[TraneWreck]

The day you fear is on the wrong track and headed for you, irrespective of the occupant of the Oval Office...

There were nuclear missiles 90 miles off our coast housed in a hostile country with the backing of a superpower, and war was forestalled. Nothing is inevitable.

Now, if Trump had been president then....

 

[blutoski]

I would have thought that even the most disinformed and simple-minded would have noticed that NK does have nukes, and does keep launching bigger and better missiles.

Nukes that could easily be buried in tunnels under Seoul, or stacked in cargo containers in San Francisco bay.

Americans don't have to be directly killed by a NK conflict... my AAPL shares will do quite nicely if Samsung is taken out of the picture, but not sure about the NASDAQ in general. That's a lot of Americans' pensions.

 

[Toontown]

There were nuclear missiles 90 miles off our coast housed in a hostile country with the backing of a superpower, and war was forestalled. Nothing is inevitable.

Now, if Trump had been president then....

I understand your concern. Trump has been tested for psychopathy, and his score wasn't encouraging. But as you say, nothing is inevitable. Trump's advisors may have prevailed on him to do exactly as Kennedy did.

I'm not too concerned about the little strike on that Syrian airfield. Most of the civilized part of the world actually supports that. It was mostly symbolic, and very measured. the Russians were forewarned and did not try to shoot the missiles down.

And U.S. carriers have visited NK's neighborhood before. That's nothing new. If military action against NK was coming, I'm pretty sure more than one carrier would be headed that way.

 

[Toontown]

Nukes that could easily be buried in tunnels under Seoul, or stacked in cargo containers in San Francisco bay.

Americans don't have to be directly killed by a NK conflict... my AAPL shares will do quite nicely if Samsung is taken out of the picture, but not sure about the NASDAQ in general. That's a lot of Americans' pensions.

Well, those nightmares are hardly going to become more mellow with age, are they.

If you were trying to convince Trump to take preemptive action, you might just about have him convinced.

 

[applecorped]

If it brings Mash back I'm for it

 

[skyeagle409]

If military action against NK was coming, I'm pretty sure more than one carrier would be headed that way.

I agree. Having three or more carriers in the area would raise the temperature a bit.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm not too concerned about the little strike on that Syrian airfield. Most of the civilized part of the world actually supports that. It was mostly symbolic, and very measured. the Russians were forewarned and did not try to shoot the missiles down.

What worries me about that strike is not the strike, itself, that was mostly pointless dick waving. It really changed nothing - good or bad.

What worries me is the decision making process. Spend years saying a strike on Syria was a bad idea, oh no, pictures of dead kids (first 100,000 pictures of dead Syrian children means nothing), now we bomb.

What happens if he gets some photos of starving NK kids?

I also think his "advisors" are the people at any moment who tell him what he wants to hear.

 

[NoahFence]

I agree. Having three or more carriers in the area would raise the temperature a bit.

The group will be parked well within range of the missiles NK shoots. I'd rather not see 30,000 sailors within range of a madman's nukes.

(Can any navy folk tell me how close that guess was? 30,000 for 3 battle groups?)

 

[Mark F]

This is the time of year where North Korea does its annual provocation.

 

[Toontown]

The group will be parked well within range of the missiles NK shoots. I'd rather not see 30,000 sailors within range of a madman's nukes.

(Can any navy folk tell me how close that guess was? 30,000 for 3 battle groups?)

Not to worry. The intel says NK is still a couple of years away from having a miniaturized nuke they can mount on a missile.

But in a few years the entire U.S. West coast will be permanently in missile range. So there is no time like the present to park battle groups in missile range.

 

[Crunkus]

What worries me is the decision making process. Spend years saying a strike on Syria was a bad idea, oh no, pictures of dead kids (first 100,000 pictures of dead Syrian children means nothing), now we bomb.

Alternative decision making process:

Too many questions about Russians. I'm nobody's pet. Hate when they say that. I'll show them. Hmm...Russians don't want us bombing Syria, let's bomb Syria once. I'll call Putin first, it'll be fine, he knows how these things work. Why should I say we did it....hey...I remember something about dead kids in that last meeting. Didn't think much of it at the time...hey, were they talking about Syria? I think they were...heard something about kids on Fox and Friends. Yes? Perfect. Someone get Vladimir on the phone.

 

[logger]

China also has a big interest in 60% of the NK population not flooding into their country the moment an active war starts.

We are tip-toeing right up to the edge of something insane, and half this dumb country just loves the tough-guy brinkmanship. It's terrifying.

Oh what to do? Be a pussy like Obama, or be a tough guy like Trump. So *********** terrifying!

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't see a war coming anytime soon. However, I have a feeling that something will eventually happen ...

It can't carry on like this forever, of course, but it can for a good while if nobody wants it to collapse on their watch.

 

[CapelDodger]

What worries me about that strike is not the strike, itself, that was mostly pointless dick waving. It really changed nothing - good or bad.

What worries me is the decision making process. Spend years saying a strike on Syria was a bad idea, oh no, pictures of dead kids (first 100,000 pictures of dead Syrian children means nothing), now we bomb.

My alternative reading is that this was about doing something Obama didn't, and will never do now since Trump beat him in the election and the crowd and is President now and he's not. And Trump did something. Strongly.

What happens if he gets some photos of starving NK kids?

"Beautiful" babies, remember? And where's the Obama connection?

I also think his "advisors" are the people at any moment who tell him what he wants to hear.

Not long ago Spicer described some disgraced individuals as "hangers-on" and it struck me that hangers-on is all that Trump brings to the building. That and family.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Oh what to do? Be a pussy like Obama, or be a tough guy like Trump. So *********** terrifying!

So a choice between a president that takes a comprehensive plan of attack to congress for approval after their bitching about Presidents acting without their approval followed by working with the Russians to get a deal to remove Syria's Chemical Weapons without firing a shot when Congress refused to even vote on the attack plan, vs a blind strike that did limited damage, had no actual plan behind it, and was done without asking for permission and sanction from Congress.

Why am I not surprised that you favour the unapproved, unplanned, cowboy approach?

 

[McHrozni]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...aft-carrier-kim-jong-un-nuclear-a7674781.html

Not sure how dangerous this move is by Trump in sending a strike fleet to the Korean Perpendicular, but it seems to have a number of people in the know rather worried about how North Korea will react.

No.

Not because he isn't crazy or evil enough, but because the antics coming from North Korea have long since passed the point where they carry essentially all the blame for any reigniting that might happen.

McHrozni

 

[ponderingturtle]

There were nuclear missiles 90 miles off our coast housed in a hostile country with the backing of a superpower, and war was forestalled. Nothing is inevitable.

Now, if Trump had been president then....

Yea but that was really only one guy Vasili Arkhipov. If he agreed with the captain they would have used nuclear torpedoes on the american fleet.

 

[3point14]

There were nuclear missiles 90 miles off our coast housed in a hostile country with the backing of a superpower, and war was forestalled. Nothing is inevitable.

Now, if Trump had been president then....

Indeed.

Roughly the same thing happened to the Russians a couple of years beforehand and there was no war then either.

 

[Spindrift]

NK has several missile issues.
1) Current range cannot hit USA mainland.
2) They don't have a small enough nuke for an ICBM.
3) Their guidance isn't that accurate.

Even if NK surmounts all those issue and launches a nuke at the US, they have to know it's suicide. They don't have enough firepower to dent our retaliation capabilities and if they hit the US mainland I think we would retaliate disproportionately.