Senators Told North Korea "Urgent National Security Threat", US Military Prepared To Act

Tyler Durden's picture

The Senate took part in a rare White House briefing on Wednesday to hear what senior leaders described as "an urgent national security threat" posed by North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. As FreeBeacon reports, the hour-long secret session for all senators was held at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House, and included a brief appearance from President Trump who made short, introductory remarks. Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also took part in the session. His presence is an indication that military options for dealing with North Korea likely were discussed.

Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) told MSNBC the meeting was "very consequential" and included discussion of North Korea's shift from liquid to solid fuel missiles, and improving nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. Barrasso said he favors increasing sanctions, including sanctions on China.

 

Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.) called the session "very clear-eyed, sober and serious."

 

Coons told MSNBC the administration is working to avoid a conflict and "making it clear to China how serious we are about preventing North Korea from developing the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead by ICBM against the United States or one of our key allies, and that there are real efforts being made to avoid a misunderstanding or miscalculation because I do think this is a very dangerous circumstance and situation."

Following President Trump's North Korea briefing, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats have issued a joint statement making it very clear where America goes next...

Past efforts have failed to halt North Korea's unlawful weapons programs and nuclear and ballistic missile tests. With each provocation, North Korea jeopardizes stability in Northeast Asia and poses a growing threat to our allies and the U.S. homeland.

 

North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons is an urgent national security threat and top foreign policy priority. Upon assuming office, President Trump ordered a thorough review of U.S. policy pertaining to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).

 

Today, along with Chainnan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford, we briefed members of Congress on the review. The president's approach aims to pressure North Korea into dismantling its nuclear, ballistic missile, and proliferation programs by tightening economic anctions and pursuing diplomatic measures with our allies and regional partners.

 

We are engaging responsible members of the international community to increase pressure on he DPRK in order to convince the regime to de-escalate and return to the path of dialogue. We will maintain our close coordination and cooperation with our allies, especially the Republic of Korea and Japan, as we work together to preserve stability and prosperity in the region.

 

The United States seeks stability and the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. We remain open to negotiations towards that goal. However, we remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies.

The administration recently completed a review of North Korea policy. New policies under consideration are imposing so-called secondary sanctions on North Korea that would be designed to cut off supplies of missile and nuclear goods from places such as China and Russia.

But the statement above certainly does not leave too much room for any more 'sabre-rattling' from Korea. Having sent a carrier group (or 2 or 3), ported a nuclear Sub, and test-fired its nuclear missiles; America appears to have shown its 'stick'...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
svayambhu108's picture

Pump the swamp... Trump = neocon++ 

svayambhu108's picture

After a nuclear strike Samsung becomes Swansong... and the US has a lot to lose, maybe this is the only way for hat expensive POS iPhone to become again relevant 

Kotzbomber747's picture

Urgent ey? Remember all the 'WW3 could happen any moment' drama just before Easter?

Max Hunter's picture

Indeed... but you have to admit, things have progressed.. 

pods's picture

Yeah, at this point that madman could do anything. They just announced yesterday they were going to test an ICBM and did it last night.

pods

swmnguy's picture

Which "madman" are you talking about?

The whole world is lousy with next-Hitlers; it's impossible to keep track.

Big Twinkie's picture

I think we'd do a lot better with another Hitler.  Especially one who had the benefit of learning from the last one's mistakes in underestimating the ruthlessness of the enemy and overestimating the loyalty of his generals.

HRClinton's picture

Bullish for stocks.

Long GS and MIC stocks. Short RE in LA, SF and Seattle, as West Coast cities at risk. Therefore, long RE in Portland as safe haven.

caconhma's picture

Forget about N. Korea. This is the neocons game against China.

So far, Xi has shown his weakness in dealing with Trump. If Chinese clearly stated that they would not tolerate any US intervention into North Korea then it was the end of the story but Xi is trying to negotiate God knows what. So far, he reminds me Qaddafi who did not finished too well.

If Chinese are not stupid they must understand that a direct confrontation of the USA and China is inevitable. However, Chinese leaders are just Communist Party bureaucrats with the peasant upbringing who lack any strategic thinking. This was the Hitler downfall when he tried to negotiate a deal with Britain regardless of total futility of all his efforts.

Note the Putin is also a major loser in this game. US took over Ukraine, shot down a Russian military plane in Syria, used cruse missiles against Russian's airfield in Syria and Putin swallowed all this shit. Yes, Putin has nukes but there are very serious doubt he will ever use them. No wonder that Trump's puppeteers see no reasons even to arrange Trump-Putin official meeting.

HRClinton's picture

If we do preempt NK with a Super Duper Bigly Preemptive attack, then...

all they can do is to attack SK. Which Silicon Valley wants, to kill Samsung, LG and a hotbed of high tech startups.

Alternatively, China could seize the opportunity, take over NK, and thus move its border to SK.

Tax reform plus war economy equals economic boom in US.  Debts won't matter, and the Dollar Show will go on.

RedDwarf's picture

"Pump the swamp... Trump = neocon++ "

North Korea has made repeated threats, is violent and oppressive to the extreme against it's own people, and has nuclear weapons, and soon will have the means to deliver said weapons.  On what grounds do you consider going after North Korea to be a bad idea?  Why do you think it is a good idea to allow the North Koreans to have a nuclear arsenal?

swmnguy's picture

I'm sorry, for a moment I thought you were talking about Israel.  Except you didn't mention invading their neighbors, which North Korea doesn't do every couple years.

RedDwarf's picture

North Korea has threatened us and our allies with nukes, and is close to being able to make good on that threat.  Why are you bringing up Israel within this very different context?

NiggaPleeze's picture

First of all, Israel has threatened US and Europe with nukes.  Bing "Sampson Option".  https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Israel/Samson_Option

Second of all, US engaged in a war against N. Korea and almost totally destroyed it; and at one point, openly contemplated using nuclear weapons against N. Korea.  Since then the US has adamantly refused to sign a peace treaty with N. Korea, instead posting tens of thousands of troops near the N. Korea border and regularly engaging in massive war games close to N. Korea.  On top of that US has for years imposed debilitating sanctions against N. Korea.  Despite all that, in 1994 N. Korea agreed to scuttle its nuclear program under a deal reached with President Clinton.  However George Bush junior ripped that deal to shreds, and him and his neo-con warmongers called N. Korea part of the "axis of evil" (along with Iraq and Iran), and then proceeded to destroy Iraq and kill its leadership.   Hmmmm.

So tell me, if the tables were reversed, and some powerful nuclear-armed country had bombed the US to the stone age (due to US being engaged in a civil war) and threatened nuclear war against the US, then permanently placed 1 million troops on the US border and regularly engaged in massive war games on the US border, in addition to imposing massive sanctions against US that prevented US access to oil, food, electronics and other items, and then again threatened to destroy the US and "decapitate" its leadership, do you think the US might react?  Huh?  Do you, you gargantuan American war-crime supporting supremacist?   Have you heard of the word "empathy" (putting your self in the other guys' shoes?)

LA_Goldbug's picture

Excellent explanation of how this has been played out over the years since WW II.

I will try to say it even more succinctly, "US Empire wants to maintain a foothold in Asia.". Sort of like a bully hanging outside the school waiting for his victim. He's not hurting anyone until that is he starts to follow you as you go home.

RedDwarf's picture

"First of all, Israel has threatened US and Europe with nukes." 

Yes, and because Israel has nukes the world has to live with their bullshit.  I never took Israel's side on anything, yet you keep pretending I have.  NK will become Israel II if we let them get nukes.

"Second of all, US engaged in a war against N. Korea and almost totally destroyed it...Since then the US has adamantly refused to sign a peace treaty with N. Korea...Despite all that, in 1994 N. Korea agreed to scuttle its nuclear program under a deal reached with President Clinton.  However George Bush junior ripped that deal to shreds,.."

Yep, NeoCon controlled foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster that has helped create all of the current problems and misery.  I already granted this.

"So tell me, if the tables were reversed, and some powerful nuclear-armed country had bombed the US to the stone age"

Sure, any country in that position will try to acquire the security of nukes.  It's the natural and obvious reaction.  However America did not tell NK to enslave and brutalize it's own people.  They decided to become one giant concentration camp.  That being said, if America had a sane non-interventionist foreign policy the world would be a FAR better place.  NK however has reached that critical point where it doesn't matter how they got there or who is to blame for them getting there.  They can't be allowed to have nukes given their rhetoric.  Now, I'd support and in fact prefer a peace treaty if it leads to that outcome.  However I'll support military intervention if it leads to that outcome.  This is a forced play, even if brought about by bad decisions.  Unlike Libya, Iraq, and other interventions based upon lies of WMDs, this one is not based upon a lie.  NK is about to get them and shows every sign they will then use them.

LA_Goldbug's picture

See if you can pars out the "true intent" of the Israeli in this video. He is using the rabbinic logic of "Anything can be explained away if it is what I want."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuU_KY_4vz8

Nexus789's picture

Same questions could be asked about the US and Israel. 

RedDwarf's picture

We are still formally AT WAR with Korea.  Korea has threatened South Korea, Japan, and the USA with nuclear attack and eventually will have the means to make said threats credible.  So while I agree Israel is not our friend, these situations are not the identical.  What is going on in the Middle Eastern theatre, and what is going on with North Korea, cannot be conflated.

Or do you think it's a good idea to let North Korea become a major nuclear power?  If so, please defend how that is sane.

NiggaPleeze's picture

It's not a good idea to let US remain a major nuclear power (and indeed it is a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).  Nor is it a good idea to let the US develop bioligical, nanotech and other weapons of mass destruction.  But do you think some foreign power should bomb the US to smithereens for doing so? 

Indeed, biological weapons are a far bigger threat than nuclear ones.  Should the US bomb to smithereens any other country with the capability of developing a bio-weapon (basically every country on Earth)?

How about this:  propose a peace treaty with N. Korea, drop all sanctions, engage in diplomatic relations, all in return for disarming, with a security guarantee from US, Russia and China.  Oh, but noooooooooo!, that's too peaceful!  Neo-cons like you would never approve!

RedDwarf's picture

"It's not a good idea to let US remain a major nuclear power"

Nuclear weapons disarmament cannot be unilateral.

"Nor is it a good idea to let the US develop bioligical, nanotech and other weapons of mass destruction."

See, I would have said it's not a good idea to let ANYONE develop those things, but I'm against the weapons of mass destruction, not just filled with anti-USA bias like you seem to be.

"But do you think some foreign power should bomb the US to smithereens for doing so?"

Since that would trigger the end of most life on the Northern Hemisphere, I'll be against that.  Look, so long as we have authoritarian regimes (which ALL governments fundamentally are), we'll have WMDs.  It doesn't matter if it's the USA or NK, the State IS War.  ALL political power comes from the barrel of a gun.  So we'll never see an end to the threat of these weapons until we socially evolve away from using violence as the central organizing system of society.

"How about this:  propose a peace treaty with N. Korea, drop all sanctions, engage in diplomatic relations, all in return for disarming, with a security guarantee from US, Russia and China."

Fat chance NK would agree, but sure, so long as it could be verified they were not developing nuclear weapons and they stopped threatening to bomb Japan and S Korea et al I'd be for it.  Their regime would still suck balls, but so long as they are not threatening to nuke millions of people I'd leave them be.

"Oh, but noooooooooo!, that's too peaceful!  Neo-cons like you would never approve!"

I'm Anarcho-Capitalist and about as anti-NeoCon as possible.  Oh, but noooooooooo!  Zealots like you can only see the in-group and out-group.  To you anyone who does not agree 100% with you must be a 'NeoCon'.  People like you who strawman others through gross collectivism do far more damage than good to the causes you claim to support.

NiggaPleeze's picture

Nuclear weapons disarmament cannot be unilateral.

I see, according to that logic (at least, if we take out the US exceptionalist/supremacist component), N. Korea has no reason whatsoever to scuttle its nuclear weapons program.  But yet you demand that it does.  I guess that leaves the exceptionalist/supremacist component (Anarcho-Capitalist my arse, globalist imperialist, more like it).

not just filled with anti-USA bias like you seem to be.

Not biased, just not an US supremacist warmonger/destroyer like you.  I judge US purely on its actions and crimes.

So we'll never see an end to the threat of these weapons until we socially evolve away from using violence as the central organizing system of society.

But yet rather that promote a peace treaty between US and N. Korea, I constantly see you on here advocating preemptive, illegal war.  Hmmmmm.  No computez.  Though in this post, to your credit, you seem to have reversed course.

By the way, Japan, S. Korea, and US also constantly threaten N. Korea, not just with words, but with deeds (permanent troops, war-like sanctions, massive military maneouvers, etc.).  Perhaps if the US, S. Korea and Japan stopped constantly provoking and "punishing" N. Korea, and signed a peace treaty and engaged with them (like US engaged with Maoist China), their saber rattling (in essence, "we will defend ourselves adamantly if you attack us!") will end?

Zealots like you can only see the in-group and out-group.

Not true, I've just seen you agitating for illegal preemptive war in every post of your's I've read, while claiming to be conservative.  That's close enough to neo-con for me.  But hopefully your change in course will stick and you will move toward promoting peace, harmony and trade instead of war and conquest.

RedDwarf's picture

Me:  "Nuclear weapons disarmament cannot be unilateral."

You:  "I see, according to that logic (at least, if we take out the US exceptionalist/supremacist component), N. Korea has no reason whatsoever to scuttle its nuclear weapons program.  But yet you demand that it does.  I guess that leaves the exceptionalist/supremacist component (Anarcho-Capitalist my arse, globalist imperialist, more like it)."

LOL.  You are a moron.  If someone is building a weapon and has stated an intent to use it against you, then you can either let them build it and kill you with it, or you can stop them.  Now, we can argue about how America's previous actions have helped breed this problem, but that does not change the facts on the ground.  WMD's are weapons to slaughter innocent people by the millions of billions.  Do you understand that you creten?  NK is threatening to commit wholesale murder of civilians.  America on the other hand has not actaully been doing much other than sanctions against NK.  So yes, this is an an extension of the self defense clause of the non-aggression principle to deal with the NK leadership and nuclear program.  So fuck you and your strawman bullshit.

"Not biased, just not an US supremacist warmonger/destroyer like you."

NK is the ONE case where I argue for the possiblity of military intervention being justified.  I am against ALL other current interventions.  We should not be in the Middle East at all.  You have just proved my earlier point about how you are a zealot who can only see in-group and out-group.  Everyone who is for ANY military invervention ANYWHERE for ANY REASON is a NeoCon in your eyes.  You are simple to the point of stupid.

"But yet rather that promote a peace treaty between US and N. Korea, I constantly see you on here advocating preemptive, illegal war."

It's not illegal or preemptive.  First off North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, not the other way around.  Secondly America actually officially went to war.  All totally legal and above board.  We are currently under and armstice with NK.  A peace treaty was never signed, we are still legally at war.  In fact, of all the conflicts America is currently engaged in, almost all of which ARE illegal and improper, North Korea is the ONE FUCKING EXCEPTION.  But you're too ignorant of history and the current state of affairs and what it means that the NK is threatening to use nukes to understand that.

Oh, and in case you missed it, China has ammassed like 150K troops on NK's border.  It's not America being a lone cowboy here.  The world is getting tired of NK's shit.  Except for lunatics like you who think they are just innocent victims.  As for peace, sure I would agree to that.  I'm not saying I agree with America's policy decisions that have led us up to this point.  However we are now at this point and NK is now on the verge of getting nukes and effective missile tech.  Right or wrong on how we got here doesn't enter into it now.

"Not true, I've just seen you agitating for illegal preemptive war in every post of your's I've read, while claiming to be conservative."

Oh Bullshit.  First off I'm not conservative nor ever claimed to be.  That you say that means you already conflate different shit that you don't understand.  Secondly I've stated I'm against ALL OTHER INTERVENTIONS.  You just don't like to listen.  If I agree that intervention is acceptable in NK, that means I'm for all interventions.  Even though I'm against all other current interventions.  We're fighting in what, 7 different undeclared illegal wars?  That is insane.  If you truly had read my other posts like you claim, but I know you are lying, then you would have seen that I said our foreign policy is a dumpster fire.  However you have in fact proven my point once again about your zealotry.  You have to lie about what I actually say and stand for because it's all your zealoty allows you to understand.

NiggaPleeze's picture

You are a moron .... you creten .... fuck you and your strawman bullshit .... You are simple to the point of stupid .... lunatics like you .... You have to lie ....

What to say about a string of ad hominem attacks by an imperialist warmonger?  Well, let's take a look at some of your non ad-hominem comments ....

If someone is building a weapon and has stated an intent to use it against you, then you can either let them build it and kill you with it, or you can stop them.

So, the US has threatened to use nuclear weapons against N. Korea, and has deployed nuclear weapons to S. Korea to use against N. Korea.  So, according to your logic, your US supremacism and jingoism aside, N. Korea can stop the US.  Got it.

WMD's are weapons to slaughter innocent people by the millions of billions.

Exactly, which is why N. Korea was understandably perturbed that the US maintained nuclear weapons on S. Korean territory.  The US being the country with not only the world's largest or second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, but the only country to have ever used them, and against civilians no less.  And which has threatened to use them against numerous other countries (at least China, Vietnam and N, Korea).

America on the other hand has not actaully been doing much other than sanctions against NK.

You mean aside from destroying the country in the 1950s, threatening it with nuclear attacks, constantly condemning it and threatening it?  And those sanctions are quite belligerent.  If some country were doing those things to the US, US would have long used nuclear weapons to destroy them.  Heck, US used nuclear weapons against Japan which wasn't even a threat to the mainland (much less having bombed the US to smithereens, or blockaded the US).

First off North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, not the other way around.

And the Union invaded the Confederate States (Fort Sumter was in the middle of the Confederate States so the South had every right to remove the enemy troops that adamantly refused to leave).  Do you think that would have justified Great Britian bombing the North to smithereens?  Korea was a single country until artificially divided by the Imperial Powers after WW II and the civil war was meant to re-unite it.  None of US' business.

Secondly America actually officially went to war.  All totally legal and above board.

Actually you are wrong again.  US obtained UN authorization (which only worked because the USSR was boycotting the UN at the time, but certainly it was well known that the USSR opposed the resolution but on a technicality - the boycott - the warmongers won the day) but Truman did not seek the consent of Congress.  Since the Constitution seems to be unknown to you, let me paste the relevant text from Art. I, Sec. 8:  "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water".  (Oh yeah - but I'm ignorant of history, lol!)

China has ammassed like 150K troops on NK's border

As claimed by one article in S. Korean newspaper Chosun (and slavishly copied by the Western media) - do you even know anything about Chosun before you drink their Kool-aid?  Because both China and Russia have denied moving troops to the N. Korean border (and there is reportedly no evidence of it). 

If you truly had read my other posts like you claim, but I know you are lying, then you would have seen that I said our foreign policy is a dumpster fire.

I never claimed to have read each of your posts, in fact you quoted me before penning your asinine non-sequitor:  "in every post of your's I've read".  Never claimed to have read all your posts, nor is such a task realistic on ZH.

Face it, you are a frothing-at-the-mouth statist war monger.  You love the US to use statist power and coercion to crush independent nations and if they dare yell back that they will not submit, you want to crush them even harder.  A true statist bully.  Now do your homework and read up on the Agreed Framework and how the US unilaterally crushed it, placing N. Korea into the Axis of Evil (i.e., the list of countries to be destroyed).

RedDwarf's picture

"What to say about a string of ad hominem"

They aren't ad-homs.  They are insults.  Google the difference.

"So, the US has threatened to use nuclear weapons against N. Korea, and has deployed nuclear weapons to S. Korea to use against N. Korea.  So, according to your logic, your US supremacism and jingoism aside, N. Korea can stop the US.  Got it."

NK started the war and never surrendered.  I agree US foreign policy should have been different after the armstice, but to say this is all on America is silly.  Ditto to claim I'm a US supremacist when I have not argued for such things.  Again you prove your inability to think in anything other than binary terms.

"Exactly, which is why N. Korea was understandably perturbed that the US maintained nuclear weapons on S. Korean territory."

Oh, I agree on this front.  NK's push for nukes is largely a result of terrible US foreign policy.  But I already granted that.

"You mean aside from destroying the country in the 1950s,"

Yes, after they invaded.  Look, you keep trying to claim NK is nothing but an innocent victim here.

"And the Union invaded the Confederate States (Fort Sumter was in the middle of the Confederate States so the South had every right to remove the enemy troops that adamantly refused to leave). "

The Union was wrong to invade the Confederate states.  NK was wrong to invade SK.

"Korea was a single country until artificially divided by the Imperial Powers after WW II and the civil war was meant to re-unite it.  None of US' business."

I agree.  What I keep saying and that you REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND is that it DOES NOT MATTER AT THIS POINT WHERE FAULT LIES.  NK is ruled by paranoid psychopaths, even if we made them that way, and they can't be allowed to have nukes.  It's a FORCED PLAY.  I would prefer a diplomatic solution to prevent that, but yes if it takes military intervention then that's what it takes.  Unlike most other interventions based on lies and bullshit, nukes are in fact actual WMDs and NK will use them if they get them.

Me:  "Secondly America actually officially went to war.  All totally legal and above board."

You"  "Actually you are wrong again."

I will have to give you this one.  I was wrong in that Congress did not declare war.  The initial action since an ally was invaded was justified, but Congress had plenty of time after that to make the war official or call it off.  So I'll retract the claim, everything after the first few days of conflictis illegal since Congress did not officially declare war.

Me:  "China has ammassed like 150K troops on NK's border"

You:  "As claimed by one article in S. Korean newspaper Chosun (and slavishly copied by the Western media)"

Possible.  I'm not there, it could be propaganda.  Ditto the other way.

"Face it, you are a frothing-at-the-mouth statist war monger."

Well, except I would prefer a diplomatic solution.  But sure, call me whatever names you like.

"You love the US to use statist power and coercion to crush independent nations and if they dare yell back that they will not submit, you want to crush them even harder."

Nice strawman again.  I only care about NK because they are about to get nukes.  That's not 'yelling'.  That's an existential threat.  I'm not for intervention in any other place we are currently intervening in.  You can't help but box me into a pigeon hole that is comfortable for you.

"A true statist bully.  Now do your homework and read up on the Agreed Framework and how the US unilaterally crushed it, placing N. Korea into the Axis of Evil (i.e., the list of countries to be destroyed)."

Sure, America helped create the problem of NK threat.  What else is new?  The only difference here is that NK is about to get nukes.  That's it.  It's a forced play.

You conflate me saying military intervention in NK may have to happen as a necessity with support with all of the terrible decisions that led up to this point.  You conflate it also meaning I'm a statist warmonger who must support all US actions everywhere and US exceptionalism.  None of that is true, but it seems you can never grasp or accept it.


NiggaPleeze's picture

They aren't ad-homs.  They are insults.  Google the difference.

I am very familiar with the term as well as countless other logical fallacies.  Ad hominem is "a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself".  I.e., attacking the speaker rather than the argument.  Insults, particularly ones based on intelligence, are a form of ad hominem.

NK started the war and never surrendered.

Once again you deflect by bringing up an irrelevant diversion when I point out your blatant hypcorisy and double-standards.  Your claim was if a country is threatened it can defend itself.  Now you are diverting because it is obvoius N. Korea is defneding itself from US threats (using words only, unlike US' sanctions, massing troops on N. Korea's borders, sending nukes to S. Korea, etc., etc.).

"You mean aside from destroying the country in the 1950s,"

Yes, after they invaded.

They didn't invade the US.  They tried to re-unite with half of their country that had been cut off from them by the US.  It's none of the US' business how the Koreans govern themselves.

NK is ruled by paranoid psychopaths

Rather that is true of the US.  N. Korea isn't the one fighting countless wars across the globe, funding terrorists everywhere, and bullying/murdering/destroying without remorse or contrition.  That's all the US.  No wonder N. Korea is afraid and yells a lot to prevent its own destruction!

Unlike most other interventions based on lies and bullshit, nukes are in fact actual WMDs and NK will use them if they get them.

They already have them.  Estimates are about 12 nukes twice the power of the Hiroshima bomb.  So if they were as paranoid and psychotic as you claim, they would have leveled Tokyo, Seoul and US military bases by now.  Maybe you should question the constant war propaganda coming out of the US media rather than project US warmongering and lunacy to N. Korea.

That's not 'yelling'.  That's an existential threat

You just don't get it.  They HAVE nukes and have not used them.  What they are "yelling" about is as follows:  If you attack us, we will attack you back hard.  Something akin to the US policy of MAD - US' public policy of willingness to destroy the planet if it is attacked. Maybe they say it more often but US would likely say it more often too if it were faced with imminent attack, like N. Korea is.

So if N. Korea deserves to be de-nuked by force, than this goes 1,000 times more so for the US.  But I don't see you advocating on here for the invasion and destruction of the US.  Hmmmm.  What was I writing about hypocrisy and double-standards?

It's a forced play.

No, it isn't.  How about US stops threatning N. Korea, removes sanctions, removes troops from S. Korea, signs a peace treaty?  It's only a "forced play" in your US supremacist statist warmonger mind set.

You conflate it also meaning I'm a statist warmonger who must support all US actions everywhere and US exceptionalism.

Another case of misattribution.  You are a statist warmongerer with regard to N. Korea.  Did you know if you murder only one person, you are still a murderer?  I didn't accuse you of being a serial statist warmongerer, just so you can grasp the distinction.

RedDwarf's picture

An Ad-Hominem is a logical fallacy based upon attacking the person and not the argument.  I did insult you as you have insulted me, however I never said "you are an idiot so your arguments are wrong".  I did address your statements.

"Your claim was if a country is threatened it can defend itself."

Yes, that is my claim.

"Now you are diverting because it is obvoius N. Korea is defneding itself from US threats (using words only, unlike US' sanctions, massing troops on N. Korea's borders, sending nukes to S. Korea, etc., etc.)."

Umm, yes NK is defending itself.  They have that right.  How they are going to defend themselves by their statements is to begin nuking whole cities.  That cannot be allowed to come to pass.  It's like I say I'm against child abuse but still think a serial killer should be stopped and you're arguing but the serial killer was abused as a child so it's hypocritical to stop him.

Now, NK does not have ICBM's yet, nor much in the way of deliverable nukes yet.  If I somehow had any power or authority I would push for a diplomatic solution.  Everyone takes a few deep breaths, lift sanctions, they agree no nukes, the whole nine yards.  That would obviously be the best solution.  In fact this approach would have meant eventual conversion of NK away from Communism had it been done decades ago.  However, what I am saying is that between the following three scenarios, I'll take 2 over 1, but I'd prefer 3.

1.  NK develops ICBMs, uses them, triggering global thermonuclear war, billions die including everyone in NK.

2.  USA destroys NK's facilities, stopping them from getting nukes.  Global tensions rise.  Maybe we still get global thermonuclear war with China, but unlikely.

3.  USA and NK work out a deal that preserves NK sovereignity, ends the sanctions, and lets them get on with their lives, but guarantees they don't get nukes.

"They didn't invade the US.  They tried to re-unite with half of their country that had been cut off from them by the US"

Yet I think had South Korea tried to invade North Korea you'd be arguing Imperialism, not that South Korea was trying to reunify.  I would support South Korea if they voted to rejoin North Korea and make Kim Jong Un their overlord.  I don't support the the initial forced split due to the Cold War.  However that split is real now, no chance South Koreans want to be ruled by Kim Jong Un.

"They already have them.  Estimates are about 12 nukes twice..."

Yes, yes, I thought it was clear I was talking about modern nukes + modern missile delivery systems.  They are not yet a full nuclear power in the modern sense, they are on the verge of it.  It's why a solution will be needed soon.

"You just don't get it.  They HAVE nukes and have not used them."

No, I get it.  However all they could do is strike Japan and S. Korea, and they have not refined their nukes to the modern types.  They are on the cusp I believe of overcoming those issues.  Then they become a major modern nuclear power.  At that point I believe the odds of global thermonuclear war increases dramatically.  That ends most life in the Northern Hemisphere.  Now, you think it won't go down that way, you think NK is actually sane.  I'm not fully closed to that argument, I hope you're right in fact and that I'm wrong.  What I care about is not having global thermonuclear war.

"No, it isn't.  How about US stops threatning N. Korea, removes sanctions, removes troops from S. Korea, signs a peace treaty?  It's only a "forced play" in your US supremacist statist warmonger mind set."

Umm, I said I'd prefer that approach but that I do not think NK would go for it.  They would at this point think it a ruse or refuse to truly end their nuke program.  But I'd still try that approach first of course so long as it could be done fast enough that it was not just them buying time.  At a certain point it does becomea forced play if they refuse, but yes I agree that offer should be given in good faith first.  Unfortunately the NeoCons are not going to do that.

"You are a statist warmongerer with regard to N. Korea.  Did you know if you murder only one person, you are still a murderer?  I didn't accuse you of being a serial statist warmongerer, just so you can grasp the distinction."

If the aggression was once sided like you claim, then I'd be a warmonger.  NK does not have clean hands on this, never has.  Nor do I ascribe to war being the only or preferred option, but it is rapidly becoming the only option.  I agree that 'warmongering' foreign policy by the USA bred this situation.  However at a certain point once the threat become imminent and severe the morality of how you got there ceases to matter.  It just becomes survival at that point.  Morality is how you avoid the law of the jungle / negative sum game scenarios.  Once you're in that law of the jungle scenario, morality ceases to apply.  I had no say nor did I support the current situation, but I and you for that matter can die if it goes wrong.

Now, if you're right and NK is in fact willing to bargain in good faith, and if I could somehow make the NeoCons that are in charge of everything change course and bargain in good faith, yes I'd do that.

LA_Goldbug's picture

"Fat chance NK would agree,"

IF you are open minded read AND VERIFY this,

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46874.htm

LA_Goldbug's picture

Remind them also of the back tracking on nuclear treaties by the US thanks to Bush Jr. administration and others.

The US war machine does not want deescalation of military tension in the world. Period. Since Clinton administration this has not happened.

Koba the Dread's picture

Perhaps everything you think you know about North Korea is a propagandist lie. Maybe, huh? Is yours anything more than a faith-based belief based in the religion of American Supremacy? If you can concede that you personally don't have any empirical knowledge of North Korea, perhaps it is quite different than everything you have heard and read.

Me? I don't know anything about North Korea. I've seen it from near Seoul, at the DMZ. But I personally know almost nothing about North Korea. Odds are close to certainty that most people are like me. If so, why is North Korea's nuclear arsenal any more frightening than India's, or Pakistan's, or the US's nuclear arsenal.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

 

against it's own people

Lamest. Excuse. Ever.

and has nuclear weapons, and soon will have the means to deliver said weapons.

Ah, the cowardice of US citizen propaganda...

On what grounds do you consider going after North Korea to be a bad idea?

A city of 25 million people with massive amounts of artillery aimed at it and ready to fire.

Why do you think it is a good idea to allow the North Koreans to have a nuclear arsenal?

Why do you think it's a good idea for the US to reject diplomacy? US behavior has driven NK to develop nuclear weapons, nothing else.

RedDwarf's picture

Right, the US forced NK to become a Communist Dictatorship.  Please.

You know, it's obvious that America has been mostly in the wrong in the previous several decades.  America's foreign policy has been a dumpster fire.  We have spread misery and destroyed democracy and freedom in many places and lied about it with propaganda.  I get it and agree with that sentiment.  However you're insane and just as propagandized to believe the opposite.  That America is responsible for all the bad in the world.

North Korea is fucked.  In the end at this point it does not even matter if America caused it.  What matters now is that North Korea is run by violent psychopaths and they are about to become a serious threat to the world.  Or maybe you think it's normal to murder family members with anti-aircraft guns, or maybe you think that is all propaganda and North Korea is some Utopia.  You're a fool if you do.

So yes, I'm able to hold nuanced opinions unlike yourself and other zealots on ZH.  I can be against the NeoCons and warmongering in the Middle East, but still for preventing NK from becoming a nuclear power.

bruno_the's picture

What matters now is that North Korea is run by violent psychopaths and they are about to become a serious threat to the world.

Say what?

How are they a serious threat to the world again. With their banking system or military budget...

Oh they are not part of the Central banks of the world.

Rothschild & Co is a global and family-controlled group. We provide M&A, strategy and financing advice, as well as investment and wealth management solutions to large institutions, families, individuals and governments, worldwide.

RedDwarf's picture

Ah sure.  Since NK is not part of the Western banking cartel, they have to go.  It's all part of the plan.  (((They))) probably gas-lamped Kim Jong Un into doing things like executing people with anti-aircraft batteries, building huge concentration camps, and controlling his people in an absolute totalitarian way.  He's really a nice guy being controlled by the Reptilians since All Things in the Western sphere are Bad, All Things opposed are Good.

whatsupdoc's picture

NK needs to fight only against the US for the sake of everyone.

Just sink the carrier and the fleet then nuke the west coast USA.

It is the US intention to create a nuclear particulate future for the region to interrupt trade. The GDP of a number of very influential countries will be very badly affected if there is a limited nuclear exchange in the region that draws in a number of nations.

So. Don't allow the US to imperil your own nations guys!

It is true however that the NK regime needs to be gently removed... but not by the US and their gunboat diplomacy.

RedDwarf's picture

NK psychos need to be removed gently and humanely, but only after America's West Coast is nuked first.  What an enlightened and rational person you are.

Davidduke2000's picture

the problem with these idiots is Russia could send them to meet their maker on a moonless night. 

lucitanian's picture

And China:

The Coming War on China - Chinese Subtitles

Entourage's picture

I am starting to notice a pattern of unfounded fearmongering being used to get us into wars.

Max Hunter's picture

I'm thinking, definately maybe.. 

swmnguy's picture

Don't rush to judgment.  Wait 'til all the facts are in.

Davidduke2000's picture

Colin Powell  was at the senators meeting with trump to show the evidence about Kim he even brought in his famous vial. 

pods's picture

Did he borrow Bibi's bomb picture?  That works well with children.

pods

RagaMuffin's picture

Full tilt, full circle, mine the NK harbors.....\s

me or you's picture

It looks like someone is chicken out.

pods's picture

This is coming from a country that JUST tested an ICBM last night.

Dripping hypocrisy is my favorite kind.

pods

rejected's picture

American diplomacy:

WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!

WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!

WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!

WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!

WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!

WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR! WAR!