Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Farmer77

North Korean Defector Says Trump Played

113 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tatetopa
On 3/9/2019 at 7:19 AM, Big Jim said:

This could lead to Trump reminding Kim why he should be negotiating with us.  Our button is still bigger.

No offense to you Big Jim, many people have said this, but I find it worrisome.  A lot of people in North Korea would probably like to see the end of the Kim dynasty. 

Most leaders treat this like a chess game in which all  citizens are merely pawns to some sort of government be it a dictatorship or constitutional republic.   "So what, you destroy a million Japanese, so what?.  Go ahead and take out LA.    I will nuke you back to the stone age."

"So what we are already in the stone age, go ahead kill half the population.  More food for the survivors."

I would prefer a different approach, and in this instance the president is not exploring a new approach.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Big Jim
2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

No offense to you Big Jim, many people have said this, but I find it worrisome.  A lot of people in North Korea would probably like to see the end of the Kim dynasty. 

Most leaders treat this like a chess game in which all  citizens are merely pawns to some sort of government be it a dictatorship or constitutional republic.   "So what, you destroy a million Japanese, so what?.  Go ahead and take out LA.    I will nuke you back to the stone age."

"So what we are already in the stone age, go ahead kill half the population.  More food for the survivors."

I would prefer a different approach, and in this instance the president is not exploring a new approach.

Like I said in post #96, this doesn't have to go nuclear.  No one but military personnel need be harmed.  The Button, as I see it, is not just the nuclear option but our entire military capabilities.  So ours is indeed bigger than Kim's.  At the first hint of any nuclearization or aggression from N.K. we can quickly take out all of the sites from which such aggression can be originated.  There will be few, if any, changes for the Korean population as a whole but it will set Kim back on his heels and show him that peace is the only way to survive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
14 hours ago, Timothy said:

It doesn’t say he wasn’t in the room either...

Kim doesn’t seem that smart, his education and publicised actions considered. I’m sure that many people have needed to tell him what to say in some circumstances too.

The defector in question was a diplomat in the London Embassy, so it can be assumed that he was not in the room during the first round of talks between Trump and Kim.  He may, in fact, have been out of the country for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 hour ago, Big Jim said:

Like I said in post #96, this doesn't have to go nuclear.  No one but military personnel need be harmed.  The Button, as I see it, is not just the nuclear option but our entire military capabilities.  So ours is indeed bigger than Kim's.  At the first hint of any nuclearization or aggression from N.K. we can quickly take out all of the sites from which such aggression can be originated.  There will be few, if any, changes for the Korean population as a whole but it will set Kim back on his heels and show him that peace is the only way to survive.

One out of every three North Korean is in the military and North Korea also practices conscription.  It is quite literally a military/police state.  You would have to target and kill them all.  One of my uncles fought in the Korean war and we failed to conquer them then, do you really believe that we have a better chance now that they are entrenched and have nukes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor Witness
16 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

One out of every three North Korean is in the military and North Korea also practices conscription.  It is quite literally a military/police state.  You would have to target and kill them all.  One of my uncles fought in the Korean war and we failed to conquer them then, do you really believe that we have a better chance now that they are entrenched and have nukes?

They don’t have tactical nuclear weapons, which is what we would have to use. It’s the only place on earth I think it would be warranted.

It’s also time, because I suspect that any impeachment proceedings would lead to a destabilization of the peninsula. 

We forget that Trump’s main weapon against impeachment, is his ability to simply stand down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

One out of every three North Korean is in the military and North Korea also practices conscription.  It is quite literally a military/police state.  You would have to target and kill them all.  One of my uncles fought in the Korean war and we failed to conquer them then, do you really believe that we have a better chance now that they are entrenched and have nukes?

We don't target military personnel specifically, just the hardware.  If we take out the missile launching capabilities then his threat to the rest of the world is eliminated.  The casualties I envision would only be those who are posted at those sites.  We're not trying to save N.K. from itself, just to stop it from being a threat to others.  Whether they join the community of nations or remain isolated and starving is up to them, or Kim, as the case may be.  One step at a time.  If we don't disarm them the rest of it may not matter anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
12 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

We don't target military personnel specifically, just the hardware.  If we take out the missile launching capabilities then his threat to the rest of the world is eliminated.  The casualties I envision would only be those who are posted at those sites.  We're not trying to save N.K. from itself, just to stop it from being a threat to others.  Whether they join the community of nations or remain isolated and starving is up to them, or Kim, as the case may be.  One step at a time.  If we don't disarm them the rest of it may not matter anyway.

That's incorrect.  His threat to the world sits in his conventional weaponry and the effects it will have on the global economy and supply chain.  The US simply can't destroy all these sites before they can kill millions: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-korea-artillery_us_58f631a4e4b0b9e9848eb990

The nukes are taking it to the next level, but the previous level is still effective. 

The US struggled for decades trying to beat people in the desert.  We just don't have what it takes to beat people in granite bunkers in the mountains with 70 years to prepare in the manner of hours that is needed to prevent them from flattening people and infrastructure.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
5 hours ago, Big Jim said:

The defector in question was a diplomat in the London Embassy, so it can be assumed that he was not in the room during the first round of talks between Trump and Kim.  He may, in fact, have been out of the country for years.

Yes but my point is that we don't know. It ain't great to make arguments based on assumptions. Hopefully we'll hear some more details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

That's incorrect.  His threat to the world sits in his conventional weaponry and the effects it will have on the global economy and supply chain.  The US simply can't destroy all these sites before they can kill millions: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-korea-artillery_us_58f631a4e4b0b9e9848eb990

The nukes are taking it to the next level, but the previous level is still effective. 

The US struggled for decades trying to beat people in the desert.  We just don't have what it takes to beat people in granite bunkers in the mountains with 70 years to prepare in the manner of hours that is needed to prevent them from flattening people and infrastructure.

 

I think that was more due to political reasons than military inadequacy.  I am probably terribly naïve about both warfare and politics, but common sense tells me that when an army with tanks and jets faces an army with camels and swords, it should be over in a week or less.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vlad the Mighty
3 hours ago, Big Jim said:

I think that was more due to political reasons than military inadequacy

In that every single President who sent them into said deserts was an idiot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

In that every single President who sent them into said deserts was an idiot?

That could be, but that's not what I'm saying.  I'm allowing for the possibility that we don't have all the information and that these things are more complicated behind the scenes than I can imagine.  There is one specific case where I thought G. W. Bush and his advisors were being incredibly stupid.  It was when they thought Hussein had WMDs.  As soon as we invaded I knew he didn't have any because he didn't use them.   The whole "he moved them to Syria" scenario seemed to me to make as much sense as someone hearing a burglar in the house and taking your gun out of the drawer and throwing it out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
6 hours ago, Big Jim said:

I think that was more due to political reasons than military inadequacy.  I am probably terribly naïve about both warfare and politics, but common sense tells me that when an army with tanks and jets faces an army with camels and swords, it should be over in a week or less.  

Something tells me you never were a military man.  War is the ultimate form of debate.  When you resort to it, you are trying to kill/hurt your opponent into submission.  A million tanks will never win if they can't bend the will of the people with camels and swords.  The US is at a disadvantage at this, which is why I think we haven't been successful in our endeavors for the bulk of our military interventions.  Our government is bi-polar and we lose interest every election cycle, these events don't directly effect our population on a continuing basis, and most don't even care enough to find the country in question on a map.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Something tells me you never were a military man.  War is the ultimate form of debate.  When you resort to it, you are trying to kill/hurt your opponent into submission.  A million tanks will never win if they can't bend the will of the people with camels and swords.  The US is at a disadvantage at this, which is why I think we haven't been successful in our endeavors for the bulk of our military interventions.  Our government is bi-polar and we lose interest every election cycle, these events don't directly effect our population on a continuing basis, and most don't even care enough to find the country in question on a map.

You're right.  I guess I will never understand.  I thought the aim of war was to eliminate the enemy, not to bend their will, with the choice of whether to surrender or die being theirs alone.  But when the forces involved are millennia apart in terms of armaments, the more advanced side should only need the will to win to be victorious.  We lacked the will and the only reason can be politics.  There's no sense in getting into a war that you don't want to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.