White House Exploring Options to Counter North Korean Threat: Including Military Action - Polidicks

[quote]An internal White House review of strategy on North Korea includes the possibility of military force or regime change to blunt the country’s nuclear-weapons threat, people familiar with the process said, a prospect that has some U.S. allies in the region on edge.[/quote] [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/white-house-explores-options-including-use-military-force-to-counter-north-korean-threat.html[/url] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Don't editorialize article titles." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

So much for the non-interventionism I guess

If the norks know they're going to lose then they're going to use what nukes they have to fuck over both the invading force and South Korea. Does trump not understand the concept of nuclear deterrence?

In all seriousness, if NK does really develop a considerable nuclear arsenal, action of *some* sort will be needed to sabotage their capabilities. They're not a rational actor on the world stage, and could do some serious damage. Then again, the USA under Trump is no more a rational actor on the world stage, considering all the relationships and agreements he's ruining, so it'd be a double standard.

It's from Fox News, so is it real news that's leaked, or is it fake news?

No matter what, dealing with North Korea will cause an explosion in the illegal arms industry, as well as an explosion in methamphetamine trafficking.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51896589]In all seriousness, if NK does really develop a considerable nuclear arsenal, action of *some* sort will be needed. They're not a rational actor on the world stage, and could do some serious damage. Then again, the USA under Trump is no more a rational actor on the world stage, considering all the relationships and agreements he's ruining, so it'd be a double standard.[/QUOTE] The problem with this is what action could you actually take? The norks don't really have any foreign trade we can disrupt and invading a nuclear armed state who is within easy striking distance of our two most important allies in the Pacific is not an option for obvious reasons.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51896593]It's from Fox News, so is it real news that's leaked, or is it fake news?[/QUOTE] To Fox's audience, this would make the white house look good, so probably real. [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Kyle902;51896601]The problem with this is what action could you actually take? The norks don't really have any foreign trade we can disrupt and invading a nuclear armed state who is within easy striking distance of our two most important allies in the Pacific is not an option for obvious reasons.[/QUOTE] Also true. I'm not really sure. If an assassination could not be traced back to the USA, that might work.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51896608] Also true. I'm not really sure. If an assassination could not be traced back to the USA, that might work.[/QUOTE] Well this only works if you can kill Kim Jong-un before he can groom a successor. Even if you manage it theres a chance one of his generals will claim inheritance and essentially start a succession crisis straight out of the medieval days, but with nukes.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51896585]If the norks know they're going to lose then they're going to use what nukes they have to fuck over both the invading force and South Korea. Does trump not understand the concept of nuclear deterrence?[/QUOTE] If Kim feels the end is nigh there's a good chance he will use nuclear weapons preemptively. While I don't trust emperor Cheeto there are still a lot of intelligent and level headed people at the pentagon advising him, including Mattis who wouldn't want to put service members in harms way unless absolutely necessary and wouldn't allow a move like this otherwise. Granted the article is a bit clickbaity by nature as military force is usually on the table anyway there's no indication that it's seriously being considered as a probable course of action. However if we had viable absolutely irrefutable proof/intel that North Korea was about to collapse, to prevent the preemptive use of their nuclear weapons and to prevent the possibility of their proliferation during a regime collapse a first strike would be completely necessary.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;51896585]If the norks know they're going to lose then they're going to use what nukes they have to fuck over both the invading force and South Korea. Does trump not understand the concept of nuclear deterrence?[/QUOTE] Good News is The North koreans don't have the capablilities to put the nukes on the ICBMs still.

"Includes the possibility of" is not fucking "considering", what kind of clickbait title is this. I'm sure all white house policies regarding non-NATO problematic nations "include the possibility of military action", be it North Korea or fucking Venezuela. This is fearmongering garbage. [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] "people familiar with the process said" such as Ima Source and Natta Lyer [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] Like honest to god, Judas, could you have edited this title any harder? [quote][B]Fake Title[/B]: White House considering military action against North Korea [b]Real Title[/b]:White House explores options, including use of military force, to counter North Korean threat[/quote]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51896737] Like honest to god, Judas, could you have edited this title any harder?[/QUOTE] Do you honestly expect something different from him?

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51896737]"Includes the possibility of" is not fucking "considering", what kind of clickbait title is this.[/QUOTE] Yes it is? [quote] Fake Title: White House considering military action against North Korea Real Title:White House explores options, including use of military force, to counter North Korean threat[/quote] They have the same meaning, only the first one had to be shorter for our title limit (if that's still around).

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51896921]Yes it is? They have the same meaning, only the first one had to be shorter for our title limit (if that's still around).[/QUOTE] The first paints an entirely different picture where they're actively considering rolling up into Pyongyang and wrecking house as an independent idea, though.

[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;51896921] They have the same meaning, only the first one had to be shorter for our title limit (if that's still around).[/QUOTE] "Explores options, including use of military force" is not the same as "considering" good lord

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51896945]"Explores options, including use of military force" is not the same as "considering" good lord[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Considering adverb informal adverb: considering 1. taking everything into account.[/QUOTE] I'm generally against editorializing article headlines but if it was changed to the one Fox News used it wouldn't be much different. [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51896737] I'm sure all white house policies regarding non-NATO problematic nations "include the possibility of military action", be it North Korea or fucking Venezuela. [/QUOTE] The problem is this is just an assumption, one that I personally don't think holds much credence. I'd be far more willing to assume that the White House has plans for military options in North Korea than Venezuela, whom serves no real threat at all to America or NATO/the west generally. [editline]1st March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;51896930]The first paints an entirely different picture where they're actively considering rolling up into Pyongyang and wrecking house as an independent idea, though.[/QUOTE] I don't see how the second doesn't paint that picture with "including use of military force".

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;51896945]"Explores options, including use of military force" is not the same as "considering" good lord[/QUOTE] What if I said "White House considers options, including use of military force, to counter North Korean threat"

ya sure lets get involved in a 3rd war which will cause an enourmous humanitarian crisis and put us in shooting distance of china, nothing about this statement is remotely alarming...

[QUOTE]Since then, Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland consulted with other officials to address North Korea's fresh series of provocations. In the meeting, held about two weeks ago, the officials discussed the possibility of a plan "outside the mainstream," the Journal reported. According to the Journal, McFarland requested for all options in order to completely overhaul American policy toward North Korea — including for the US to recognize North Korea as a nuclear state and the possibility of a direct military conflict. The proposals, which are [B]now being vetted prior to Trump's review[/B], would certainly be met with worry from China, a long-time North Korean ally, who recently responded with an export ban against North Korea's coal industry.[/QUOTE] These only being vetted now. [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-north-korea-military-2017-3"]http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-north-korea-military-2017-3[/URL] aka Mattis and Trump haven't seen this yet.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;51897167]What if I said "White House considers options, including use of military force, to counter North Korean threat"[/QUOTE] Then it gives the picture that military force is note the sole option it is looking at. When the title says "White House considering using military force", it implies that it has settled on that sole option when in reality it is one of many that have not yet been selected. It's twisting the truth, may as well call it propaganda.

Quit talkin' about the title. Dude has been banned, because his editorialized title was misleading. It implied a much more specific intent on military engagement than the article actually portrays. He can appeal his ban in the RC if he so chooses. The rest of you have nothin' to do with it, so kindly get this show back on the road and keep your comments focused on the subject of the article.

North Korea might have the capacity to produce nuclear tests, but I really question if they're even remotely capable of using such weapons offensively. I always presumed one of the reasons they love trying to tunnel under the DMZ so much is so they could literally wheel it to the target, as otherwise they lack the capability to deliver by aircraft or missile.

[QUOTE=xagnu;51898084]North Korea might have the capacity to produce nuclear tests, but I really question if they're even remotely capable of using such weapons offensively. I always presumed one of the reasons they love trying to tunnel under the DMZ so much is so they could literally wheel it to the target, as otherwise they lack the capability to deliver by aircraft or missile.[/QUOTE] It's very well known that they are unable to deliver it via aircraft. The North Korean Air Force still employs propeller-driven monoplanes as short range bombers as far as I know.