A can that prior administrations (starting with the Truman Administration) have kicked down the road comes to rest once and for all at the steps of the White House.
We can hope that we do not need the military option, but if it comes to that Shooter is certain that Trump will do what is right and required.
And that the unsupporters will miss no opportunity to criticize whatever it is that Trump decides.

 

Please stop talking in the third tense
It's childish

 

In negotiating the future of North Korea we should state that our goal is a unified, democratic Korea without nuclear weapons or foreign troops. The North Korean Workers' Party would still exist, but it would be required to compete democratically with other parties on terms of legal and political equality.

Kim Jong Un would not like that. Nevertheless, many people would. This would put him on the defensive. The Chinese would be uncomfortable with a democratic Korea. People would start to ask embarrassing questions, like, "When are you guys going to have democratic elections?" Nevertheless, they would prefer the outcome I have described to the present situation.

Democracy is not for everyone. In countries where the average IQ is less than 85 the best we can hope for is the benevolent paternalism of enlightened despotism. Nevertheless, in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan the Oriental people have demonstrated that they are able to maintain viable democracies.

 

We should not give a bunny fart if Korea unifies or remains two separate nations. Not our business. South Korea is an ally, we need to remember our obligation is to South Korea only.

 

Beating on your chest as you chant, "USA! USA!" won't solve this problem.

We need to come up with a solution that most of the world likes, and which is acceptable to China.

 

China is part of the problem and is unwilling or unable to become part of the solution.

 

Well then we will just have to live with it. China entered to Korean War to keep from facing American troops on the other side of the Yalu River.

Just because we spend over five hundred billions dollars on our military every year does not mean that we can force other countries to do what we want them to do.

 

Are you suggesting that Trump should do like all the previous administrations and let things be for the most part with regards to North Korea and let future generations handle the problem started on 25 June 1950....

Only problem I see with that is, North Korea will continue to develop nuclear weapons as well as delivery systems and in the end will most likely export the technology to other countries that are hostile to the US as well...

It kind of reminds me of a quote from WWII by Sir Winston S. Churchill....




“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

 

CS natureboy,

The time to "fight for right" without bloodshed was when the North Korean atomic bomb project was in its infancy. For that we needed at least the clandestine go ahead of Communist China. We needed to assure the Chinese that we had no intention of occupying North Korea.

When Iraq and Syria were beginning to develop atomic bombs Israel bombed areas where they were developing the atomic bombs. That is the way to do it. That was the time to do it.

It is far too late to do that with North Korea. A first strike on North Korea will result in hundreds of thousands of South Korean deaths. If we use atomic bombs in our first strike Chinese will be killed too. This will probably result in a war with China. There is a good chance that a first strike will not be completely sucessful until North Korea sends at least one ICBM loaded with an H bomb to a city in the United States. There is a better chance that the North Koreans will nuke Seoul and Tokyo.

We have no choice but deterrence. Deterrence worked with the Soviet Union. Eventually the Soviet Union fell. That is likely to happen to North Korea. The government there is not sustainable.

A final point I will make is that military action against North Korea would be prohibitively expensive. If that is what you advocate, do you still advocate the GOP plan to cut taxes for the rich?

In North Korea as elsewhere the United States cannot give orders to other countries and expect obedience. We must accept realities we do not like. We should attempt to win the good opinion of most of the world. George W. Bush lost the good opinion of most of the world. Barack Obama gained it again. Donald Trump has lost it again.

 

Where to begin................
The US kicked the North Korean thing down the road, and it appears that it has come to rest with President Trump to deal with.
Since 1950 US policy has been to watch and contain. This gave North Korea, with the help and blessing of Russia and China, the opportunity to develop it's nuclear program. The fat fucker kept saying his program was only for peaceful use, you know, so his people would have light to read his words by, and the Obama administration decided that had to be true, cause otherwise, we'd have had to do something.
Every administration from Truman forward tried placating, containing, or threatening North Korea. North Korea took our money, gave us lip service, and continued to build it's weapons and deliver systems.

World opinion cannot and should not dictate our foreign policy. The world does not always have the same goals and objectives that the United States does.

War with North Korea is not a good plan. Getting nuclear weapons out of the fat fucks control has to be the goal, however that can be obtained. If China and Russia want to help, so much the better.

If they don't, we can strongly suggest they take a seat while we deal with this mad dog.

Oh, and by the way, Obama didn't "regain" the good opinion of the rest of the world. He sold us out and made us laughing stock. The Iran nuclear deal is one such reason. The worst kept secret in intelligence circles is that Iran has had nuclear weapons ............ at least 2 and probably as many as 16 ............ since shortly after the breakup of the U.S.S.R.

For Obama to "negotiate" a deal to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran's hands some 25 years after the fact is a joke on gullible Americans and the rest of the world is laughing.

Trump may do worse, only time will tell. One thing is certain; no one but the Fat Fuck in North Korea is willing to test Trump. And that works for Shooter.

 

The U.S. does not have any other option. They have to deal with North Korea. It is either deal with it let North Korea become the ruler over America.
We just don't have any other choice. Weak presidents have put us in a position where there are no other options.
We have asked for help from other countries. The other countries are thinking the U.S. will do like they always have, act like they do not know what is happening.
When it comes down to it, no other country is going to be willing to gamble the welfare of their own country to save rocket man. There just isn't any reason to do so.
The U.S. has the fire power to completely destroy North Korea before they know what has happened.
That will have to be done. There is no other choice.

 

Pew Research Center JUNE 29, 2016

As he nears the end of his presidency, Barack Obama continues to enjoy a broad degree of international popularity. A new Pew Research Center survey conducted in 10 European nations, four major Asia-Pacific countries, Canada and the United States finds that half or more of those polled in 15 of 16 countries express confidence in the American leader.

Although he has not been universally praised by global publics throughout his two terms in office, previous Pew Research Center surveys have found higher international ratings for Obama than for his predecessor, George W. Bush. During the Bush era, opposition to U.S. foreign policy and rising anti-Americanism were widespread in many regions of the world, but Obama’s election in November 2008 led to a significant improvement in America’s global image. The shift was especially dramatic in Western Europe, where assessments of Bush were grim, but subsequent views of Obama have been remarkably positive.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29...nt-and-u-s-seen-favorably-in-europe-and-asia/

 

North Korea is beginning tests on mounting anthrax onto intercontinental ballistic missiles that would strike the U.S., a report said on Wednesday just two days after the White House’s U.S. National Security Strategy stated Kim Jong Un is pursuing chemical and biological weapons.

The Hermit Kingdom is beginning experiments to test out if anthrax can endure immense heat and pressure it will have to endure when loaded into an ICBM and launched toward the earth’s atmosphere, Japan’s Asahi newspaper reported, citing an unidentified person connected to South Korea’s intelligence services.

“North Korea has started experiments such as heat and pressure equipment to prevent anthrax from dying even at a high temperature of over 7,000 degrees generated at the time of ICBM's re-entry into the atmosphere,” the report stated. “In part, there is unconfirmed information that it has already succeeded in such experiments.”

 

In the early 1990's American Intelligence learned that Iranian agents were "visiting" nuclear installations, in particular, in Kazakhstan. This news attracted their attention, and the CIA proceeded to investigate further.

The CIA determined that Kazakhstan, which had a significant portion of the Soviet arsenal and is predominately Muslim, was courted by Muslim Iran with offers of hundreds of millions of dollars for the bomb. They confirmed that three nuclear warheads were missing. This was corroborated by Russian Gen. Victor Samoilov, who handled the disarmament issues for the general staff. He admitted that the three were missing from Kazakhstan.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/27/iran-already-has-nuclear-weapons/

Meanwhile, Paul Muenstermann, then vice president of the German Federal Intelligence Service, said Iran had received two of the three nuclear warheads and medium-range nuclear delivery systems from Kazakhstan. It also was reported that Iran had purchased four 152 mm nuclear shells from the former Soviet Union, which were reportedly stolen and sold by former Red Army officers. This has never been verified.

Remember also that in 2008 Russian officials stated that when comparing documents in transferring nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia, there was a discrepancy of 250 nuclear weapons. Some of this discrepancy was later fixed, but Russia has never been able to account for all of the weapons that were once located in Kazakhstan. Former Russian national security advisor Alexandr Lebed also stated at a conference in Japan in 1997 that as many as 100 "Suitcase bombs" were missing and believed to have ended up in Chechnya. Lebed was fired by Putin and has since stopped talking publicly about missing bombs.

Mathew Nasuti, a former U.S. Air Force captain who was an adviser to one of its provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq, said that in March 2008, during a briefing on Iran at the State Department, the department’s Middle East expert told the group that it was “common knowledge” that Iran had acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet republics.

Full disclosure; Mr. Nasuti is somewhat of a "colorful figure" and has sued the Government several times, all of them appearing to be frivolous in nature. He even sued the entire State Department and then Secretary of State Kerry when he was fired as a contract advisor for Mid East affairs. That said, his account of the briefing carries enough detail to be given some serious consideration.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an experienced intelligence officer (over 30 years) and recipient of a Bronze Star, has claimed publicly several times that Iran posesses at least two nuclear weapons obtained from Russia in the 1990's. For those not familiar with Lt. Col. Shaffer, look up "Able Danger". When the Iran Nuclear deal was first publicized, Lt. Col. Shaffer claimed that the money released to Iran would in fact be used in part to fund North Korea's nuclear program. Lt. Col. Shaffer was soundly criticized by his former boss, John Kerry for his statements.

Ironic that in the two years since the Iran Nuclear deal was finalized, North Korea has found the resources to accelerate it's nuclear program.

 

The fact that South Korea and Japan voted against the US at the UN is enough pull out all help and let them fail.

Don’t need to give money to turncoats.

 

You know what, I'm getting to the point where I think if South Korea doesn't know who their friends are then fuck them.

Perhaps it's time to pull all 28,000 US troops out of South Korea, end all military aid and tell them to work it out on their own.
Just think about how much tax payer money this would save.

I would also like to see a high tariff on all South Korean cars imported or made in the US.

Same way with Japan. Time to start closing our military bases there and use that tax payer money here in the US where it belongs!

 

Well, that would be a typical US response; just walk away and leave our former allies hanging.
Like with Iran.
We propped up a corrupt, evil dictatorship for most of 40 years, then just looked the other way.
And today we have a nuclear Iran.

If we leave North Korea and Japan hanging like that we can be sure North Korea will take action.
Not our problem?
Our problem.

Find another solution.

 

This is a difficult question to answer because new materials and alloys are being created all the time, and the material with the highest melting point now could change as new compounds are synthesized. Currently the record-holder is tantalum hafnium carbide (Ta4HfC5), a refractory compound with a melting point of 4488 K (4215 °C, 7619 °F). By mixing together various metals to create alloys, even higher melting points can be achieved. Materials with such exceptional physical properties are sometimes referred to as superalloys.


The chemical element with the highest melting point is carbon, at 4300–4700 K(4027–4427 °C, 7280–8000 °F). The second highest melting point of the chemical elements is tungsten, at 3695 K (3422 °C, 6192 °F), which is why it is used as a filament for light bulbs. Sometimes tungsten is called the element with the highest melting point because carbon does not actually melt under atmospheric pressure, rather it sublimates (transitions directly from a solid to a gas) at 4000 K (3727 °C, 6740 °F).​