Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 15:48:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 12:24:26 GMT -5
You will be in a better position to negotiate once you actually have nuclear weapons. Unless outright attacked, they will have their nuclear weapons. Always wondered what they would do with them. I don’t think they would launch any unless they get an extreme hard liner at the top that makes a stupid decision. I do think they would become even more supportive of Hezbollah and other groups in the region that would then rattle the saber even more. It would also put pressure on Saudi Arabia to develop their own and Israel might actually admit they have them.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2019 13:38:09 GMT -5
You will be in a better position to negotiate once you actually have nuclear weapons. Unless outright attacked, they will have their nuclear weapons. Always wondered what they would do with them. I figure they will do the same thing that the United States has done with theirs.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 1, 2019 13:42:31 GMT -5
Unless outright attacked, they will have their nuclear weapons. Always wondered what they would do with them. I don’t think they would launch any unless they get an extreme hard liner at the top that makes a stupid decision. I do think they would become even more supportive of Hezbollah and other groups in the region that would then rattle the saber even more. It would also put pressure on Saudi Arabia to develop their own and Israel might actually admit they have them. Interesting how this parallels my response that they would use them the same way the US does. Only the names of groups and nations are different.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jul 1, 2019 14:38:00 GMT -5
Wasn't the debate some time back that Trump was going to get us all killed by getting into a war with NK. So what is wrong with Trump meeting with Kim at the DMZ?
As Fareed Zakaria suggested...the man is angling for the "Noble Peace Prize".... Nothing wrong there as long as he keeps most of the sanctions on the country , unless they , the North, loosen up regarding missile development....Nucs information...less threats on neighbors...Shooting missiles over Japan does not, IMHO make one a good friendly neighbor..
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jul 1, 2019 14:43:41 GMT -5
Unless outright attacked, they will have their nuclear weapons. Always wondered what they would do with them. I don’t think they would launch any unless they get an extreme hard liner at the top that makes a stupid decision. I do think they would become even more supportive of Hezbollah and other groups in the region that would then rattle the saber even more. It would also put pressure on Saudi Arabia to develop their own and Israel might actually admit they have them. Regarding Israel, no reason to admit they have them...it's known they have about 200 or so...Partly since a Israeli Nuclear scientist some years ago admitted they do..believe he was sent to Prison for a while... There are many countries who are capable of manufacturing such weapons but have decided not to...South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Singapore come to mind..have the expertise and the financials available and I am sure many more... Problem I have, with the Donald as POTUS and his belief and doings of "America First", I wonder if our, USA, promising to use these weapons if our allies are attacked by them is still really in force as far as his willingness to protect these allies that he has been dissing for the past three years... I personally doubt it and don't believe him if he would claim to still use them if needed, [his record of truthful sayings in doubt in my opinion] am thinking some of those mentioned countries might be rethinking their stance in acquiring such weapons , for their own protection and deterrence...and the proliferation of more countries joining this club is not a good one IMHO...even if they are democracies... ocracies...
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jul 1, 2019 23:10:53 GMT -5
The one thing that I think, Kim is weaseling for is money,,
Trying to weasel money, like NK has done before,, I don't think Trump will give him any money. So we will go thru another one of Kim's tantrums! when that does not work then he will try friendly again.
Trump already gave up joint military maneuvers with SK to Kim and got nothing for it. Will you be ok with it if he gives up some of the sanctions against NK and gets nothing for that in return, too? Just so Trump can continue to claim to be big buddies with Kim?
Look at how much money Trump saved us there,, Millions and Millions!!!! not having to do all those military maneuvers!!
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Jul 1, 2019 23:16:55 GMT -5
Another frequent criticism of the Sunday DMZ meeting was the reported $2 million the U.S. agreed to pay North Korea to cover Warmbier's hospital bills during his incarceration. "Ex-State Dept official confirmed Trump approved $2M to be paid to N Korea for Otto Warmbier's release," tweeted noted Trump critic Scott Dworkin. "So, Trump paid $2M to N Korean Gov't for Warmbier, while in a coma that was caused by the N Koreans, then lied about it. This SHOULD end his presidency. It's grotesque." oh and no bodies from the Korean war came home either.
North Korean officials did not show up to meet US officials to discuss returning the remains of US soldiers killed in the Korean War on Thursday, and it's essentially a slap in the face to President Donald Trump.
When Trump made history by meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore in June under the stated aim of denuclearizing the rogue state, Trump didn't get many concrete promises out of Pyongyang.
But one thing Kim agreed to in writing was "recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified."
But North Korea did not immediately repatriate any bodies. By blowing off the meeting, as South Korea's Yonhap News reported, North Korea has shown it can be difficult even over symbolic gestures of kindness. he has gotten NOTHING in return for making NK a recognized nuclear power. NOTHING.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 2, 2019 11:13:32 GMT -5
Another frequent criticism of the Sunday DMZ meeting was the reported $2 million the U.S. agreed to pay North Korea to cover Warmbier's hospital bills during his incarceration. "Ex-State Dept official confirmed Trump approved $2M to be paid to N Korea for Otto Warmbier's release," tweeted noted Trump critic Scott Dworkin. "So, Trump paid $2M to N Korean Gov't for Warmbier, while in a coma that was caused by the N Koreans, then lied about it. This SHOULD end his presidency. It's grotesque." oh and no bodies from the Korean war came home either.
North Korean officials did not show up to meet US officials to discuss returning the remains of US soldiers killed in the Korean War on Thursday, and it's essentially a slap in the face to President Donald Trump.
When Trump made history by meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore in June under the stated aim of denuclearizing the rogue state, Trump didn't get many concrete promises out of Pyongyang.
But one thing Kim agreed to in writing was "recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified."
But North Korea did not immediately repatriate any bodies. By blowing off the meeting, as South Korea's Yonhap News reported, North Korea has shown it can be difficult even over symbolic gestures of kindness. he has gotten NOTHING in return for making NK a recognized nuclear power. NOTHING.
how do you know, steff? he might have got some hooker time and some $$ for his work.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 15:48:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 12:02:21 GMT -5
Unless outright attacked, they will have their nuclear weapons. Always wondered what they would do with them. I figure they will do the same thing that the United States has done with theirs. Weapon of last resort.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2019 12:51:41 GMT -5
I figure they will do the same thing that the United States has done with theirs. Weapon of last resort.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 15:48:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 13:01:55 GMT -5
I don’t think they would launch any unless they get an extreme hard liner at the top that makes a stupid decision. I do think they would become even more supportive of Hezbollah and other groups in the region that would then rattle the saber even more. It would also put pressure on Saudi Arabia to develop their own and Israel might actually admit they have them. Regarding Israel, no reason to admit they have them...it's known they have about 200 or so...Partly since a Israeli Nuclear scientist some years ago admitted they do..believe he was sent to Prison for a while... There are many countries who are capable of manufacturing such weapons but have decided not to...South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Singapore come to mind..have the expertise and the financials available and I am sure many more... Problem I have, with the Donald as POTUS and his belief and doings of "America First", I wonder if our, USA, promising to use these weapons if our allies are attacked by them is still really in force as far as his willingness to protect these allies that he has been dissing for the past three years... I personally doubt it and don't believe him if he would claim to still use them if needed, [his record of truthful sayings in doubt in my opinion] am thinking some of those mentioned countries might be rethinking their stance in acquiring such weapons , for their own protection and deterrence...and the proliferation of more countries joining this club is not a good one IMHO...even if they are democracies... ocracies... Has the US ever stated that it would use nuclear weapons in defense only ?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 2, 2019 14:32:17 GMT -5
Regarding Israel, no reason to admit they have them...it's known they have about 200 or so...Partly since a Israeli Nuclear scientist some years ago admitted they do..believe he was sent to Prison for a while... There are many countries who are capable of manufacturing such weapons but have decided not to...South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Singapore come to mind..have the expertise and the financials available and I am sure many more... Problem I have, with the Donald as POTUS and his belief and doings of "America First", I wonder if our, USA, promising to use these weapons if our allies are attacked by them is still really in force as far as his willingness to protect these allies that he has been dissing for the past three years... I personally doubt it and don't believe him if he would claim to still use them if needed, [his record of truthful sayings in doubt in my opinion] am thinking some of those mentioned countries might be rethinking their stance in acquiring such weapons , for their own protection and deterrence...and the proliferation of more countries joining this club is not a good one IMHO...even if they are democracies... ocracies... Has the US ever stated that it would use nuclear weapons in defense only ? ‘No First Use’ and Nuclear Weapons
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 15:48:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 13:04:23 GMT -5
I knew that the US never declared a NFU posture. I only wanted to know if Dezi knew this, by asking the prompting question. I personally hope we never take that as an official position. We don't need one more hurdle of regulation to be concerned with, in a possible emergency defense decision. ICBM's move quickly in all directions.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 3, 2019 13:41:45 GMT -5
I knew that the US never declared a NFU posture. I only wanted to know if Dezi knew this, by asking the prompting question. I personally hope we never take that as an official position. We don't need one more hurdle of regulation to be concerned with, in a possible emergency defense decision. ICBM's move quickly in all directions. The issue I have is the US having the policy that they will use them if they determine it is appropriate and there are countries that should not have them because they would use them when they determine it is appropriate.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 3, 2019 14:24:32 GMT -5
The nuclear codes are in the hands of a dumbass who doesn't know the difference between John Bolton and Michael Bolton. That's very reassuring.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 15:48:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2019 9:27:07 GMT -5
I knew that the US never declared a NFU posture. I only wanted to know if Dezi knew this, by asking the prompting question. I personally hope we never take that as an official position. We don't need one more hurdle of regulation to be concerned with, in a possible emergency defense decision. ICBM's move quickly in all directions. The issue I have is the US having the policy that they will use them if they determine it is appropriate and there are countries that should not have them because they would use them when they determine it is appropriate. The ability to kill ourselves on a large scale is unsettling at times.
|
|