Mattis to NK: "cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime" - Polidicks

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/mattis-pentagon-north-korea/index.html[/url] [QUOTE]Washington (CNN)US Defense Secretary James Mattis issued a dramatic ultimatum to North Korea on Wednesday to "cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and destruction of its people" -- strong words that come just one day after President Donald Trump warned that the US could unleash "fire and fury" on Pyongyang. "The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons," Mattis said in a written statement, adding that the "regime's actions will continue to be grossly overmatched by ours and would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates."[/QUOTE] mad dog shitposting at nk

I can appreciate the necessity to push back when you are threatened and after Donald Trump's comments it was inevitable that the defense secretary would need to make a stern statement. NK knows it needs nuclear weapons to prevent regime change. They aren't looking to match the US in any capacity. The threat to Guam yesterday was most likely NK posturing that as long as it has nuclear capabilities US threats are as empty as NK threats save for the US actually devoting itself to a full on invasion of the country. Which won't happen unless NK actually does something beyond threats.

So is North Korea not an imminent threat or is it? Make up your mind U.S government. This makes it sound like Trump is just dick waving and the government is covering for it.

Trump: I basically said we'd nuke North Korea and now Tillerson is shitting his pants trying to calm everyone down. Mattis: Hold my beer.

At the End it says It initiates, We aren't going to start the war guys.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52555773]At the End it says It initiates, We aren't going to start the war guys.[/QUOTE] We're certainly not going to attack unprovoked. But we're also most likely not going to wait for something to get airborne before we try to stop it. Especially if it is something as serious as a nuclear warhead.

Dont piss off the warrior monk.

I feel like everyone is saying different things at the same time.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52555781]We're certainly not going to attack unprovoked. But we're also most likely not going to wait for something to get airborne before we try to stop it. Especially if it is something as serious as a nuclear warhead.[/QUOTE] I think the biggest risk here is either NK or the US mistaking the other for preparing an actual move of aggression and responding preemptively, thereby re-igniting the war despite neither side themselves having that intention originally.

I wonder if this is close to how people felt before the Cuban missile crisis, when bombs could fly any minute and everyone was building panic bunkers. Thanks Trump, we really are back in the 50s!

The chances of Trump starting a war with North Korea (restarting a war? continuing a war?) are small but they are larger than the chances of North Korea attacking Guam. They (DPRK leadership) know it would be a death sentence in the name of a tiny territorial island in the Pacific.

[QUOTE][B]"The United States is on the same page, whether it's the White House, the State Department, we're speaking with one voice,"[/B] Nauert said.[/QUOTE] Uhhhhhhhhh, you sure about that buddy? Sure doesn't feel that way with all the contradictory statements coming out.

Somehow I have a feeling that [I]iffff[/I] NK threw a missile or two at anybody and [I]anybody got hurt or God forbid killed[/I] that the navy would 'test' the accuracy of their new railgun at Kim Jong Yum's bedroom window.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52555832]I wonder if this is close to how people felt before the Cuban missile crisis, when bombs could fly any minute and everyone was building panic bunkers. Thanks Trump, we really are back in the 50s![/QUOTE] I doubt it; the USSR was a foe that could actually ensure Mutually Assured Destruction, if a nuclear exchange had occurred. While NK can, even with a few warheads (presuming countermeasures fail to defeat them), kill an unfathomable amount of people, they cannot come anywhere close destroying the US.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52555832]I wonder if this is close to how people felt before the Cuban missile crisis, when bombs could fly any minute and everyone was building panic bunkers. Thanks Trump, we really are back in the 50s![/QUOTE] This is an entirely different situation to the Cuban missile crisis.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52555832]I wonder if this is close to how people felt before the Cuban missile crisis, when bombs could fly any minute and everyone was building panic bunkers. Thanks Trump, we really are back in the 50s![/QUOTE] NK doesnt have 1% the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet union

[QUOTE=Atlascore;52556019]NK doesn't need it a Cold War level arsenal to irreparably damage the US. If they hit our ten largest cities the US economy would collapse. Really that applies to most countries, the massive centralized cities we've built has many civilization frighteningly vulnerable.[/QUOTE] I hate to say citation needed on a claim like that, but claiming the US economy would collapse is a pretty bold claim to make. So... Citation needed

[QUOTE=Atlascore;52556050]... Do I really need to spell this out? We're talking about thousands killed, millions of people displaced, and tens maybe even hundreds of billions of dollars in assets lost. Not to mention that such an event would destabilize the world economy, further compounding the problem.[/QUOTE] Yes, you do. Preferably without your numbers that you are making up for emotional appeal. I'm well aware that metropolitan area + nuke = bad, but you should be able to back up something as huge as "economic collapse".

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52556029]I hate to say citation needed on a claim like that, but claiming the US economy would collapse is a pretty bold claim to make. So... Citation needed[/QUOTE] The ten largest cities start with Manhattan and Los Angeles, but you would only need to hit one on that list to cause dramatic damage. If LA we're hit, or San Francisco which isn't even in the top 10, you would see an immediate chunk of business, technology, air traffic, et cetera all paralyzed perhaps indefinitely. If somehow they managed to shamble a warhead all the way to Manhattan, you'd take out the financial heart of the nation, wiping out the NYSE, and millions of lives in one moment. The money it would take to rebuild a major city would be immense alone, but the cost from disrupted businesses, a massive refugee crisis, a whole wealth of medical work that would be needed, all of this would be damning to the economy, an economy still not even on sure footing.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52556029]I hate to say citation needed on a claim like that, but claiming the US economy would collapse is a pretty bold claim to make. So... Citation needed[/QUOTE] I don't think there's any one or even small set of citations deemed reputable enough that's actually taken the time to compile data and figures to showcase this, but I think it's kinda common sense that in the event of total destruction of our ten largest cities, the infrastructure that would be destroyed that's relied on in a wide array of economic departments would be absolutely devastating on our overall economy, beyond a recoverable state.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;52556137]:speechless: You have no idea how many people live in these cities, nor how colossal the economic value of these places are, do you? NYC alone has over twenty million inhabitants and a GDP measured in [B]trillions.[/B][/QUOTE] The economic (as well as literal) fallout would be quite fucked, but I'm sure the whole world economy wouldn't cease to function completely. NY stock exchange might be a big loss, but I'd think we could take least 3-4 of the world's major cities turned to craters and a few hundred millions of people vaporized before we get to the point where humanity as a whole would be set back centuries. Everything is interconnected but not literally centralized. EDIT: Nuking key connection nodes in the global Internet infrastructure on the other hand would probably do the most damage to the western world

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;52555865]Somehow I have a feeling that [I]iffff[/I] NK threw a missile or two at anybody and [I]anybody got hurt or God forbid killed[/I] that the navy would 'test' the accuracy of their new railgun at Kim Jong Yum's bedroom window.[/QUOTE] IIRC they canceled that project. Said it was a money-dump.

Consider what would happen if they nuked SF and took out Google, Amazon, Stripe, Facebook, and other tech giants. Consider that Amazon is responsible for hosting an absurd amount of the Internet. Then consider that we depend on the Internet to function as a society. Taking out San Francisco alone would [i]completely fuck us.[/i] Taking out 9 other major cities? The damage would be irreparable.

The states should be working on their anti-icbm technology. If the US can stop a nuke before making its impact then NK will not have a leg to posture on. America can just say "We'll shoot your shit out of the air, you can't nuke anybody."

Why do we need a NK thread every week? It's just click-bait fear mongering. US won't attack because it'll ruin all of their relations in the area. NK won't attack because it'll end their regime.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52555832]I wonder if this is close to how people felt before the Cuban missile crisis, when bombs could fly any minute and everyone was building panic bunkers. Thanks Trump, we really are back in the 50s![/QUOTE] It's all a part of Making America Great Again™

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;52556292]Yeah, it's called THAAD and it will never have a 100% success rate. Want to take a 10% chance millions die? What about 2%? I'd rather not.[/QUOTE] Well what's worse? A 10%/2% chance of a missile hitting its mark or a 100% chance of a missile hitting its mark?

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52558520]Well what's worse? A 10%/2% chance of a missile hitting its mark or a 100% chance of a missile hitting its mark?[/QUOTE] We very likely have anti-icbm capabilities. That doesn't mean you should count on them.

[media]https://twitter.com/AFP/status/895782488769003524[/media] Looks like we can rest somewhat easier for a little while.

[QUOTE=BlindSniper17;52559767][media]https://twitter.com/AFP/status/895782488769003524[/media] Looks like we can rest somewhat easier for a little while.[/QUOTE] Untill Trump Fucks up again. Look: I know it's going to be hard but I'm hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. The Worst isn't WWIII But the reinstatement of the draft.