This looks very, very bad. U.S. May Launch Strike If North Korea Reaches For Nuclear Trigger

[braces_for_impact]

The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.

Bolding mine.

Trump feeling all too macho due to latest military endeavors?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366

What bothers me is that the article says we could preemptively strike if NK does another nuclear test. Not a nuclear strike, which is a given.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Egad! WTF?! They aren't serious right? That could make the result of The Bay of Pigs look like Normandy.

You can't bluff like this, your dick falls off if you pull back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[braces_for_impact]

It seems obvious that Trump has ceded responsibility and authority to his military advisors, between Syria, the MOAB, and this. The thing is, under normal circumstances, I would probably think that a very strong civilian oversight by the President is necessary, but with Cheeto? I thought perhaps it might be a good idea with Mcasters and Mattis the voices of professionalism and reason in this administration. I would think that congressional authority in this situation is damn necessary.

 

[Will Wiley]

A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences

Which leaves the DPRK. I am no mind-reader and no psychologist, but I ask myself the following question: what is worse – if the Americans fail to really scare Kim Jong-un or if they successfully do? I don’t have the answer, but considering the past behavior of the DPRK leaders I would strongly suggest that both scaring them and failing to scare them are very dangerous options. The notion of “scare” should not be included in any policies dealing with the DPRK. But instead of that, the dummies in DC are now leaking a story (whether true or not) that the US intelligence agencies have finalized plans to, I kid you not, “eliminate Kim Jong-un“. And just to make sure that the message gets through, the latest US harpy at the UNSC threatens the DPRK with war.

Have they all really gone totally insane in Washington DC?

Do I really need to explain here why war with the DPRK is a terrible idea, even if it had no nuclear weapons?

Conclusion: what happens next?

Simply reply: I don’t know. But let me explain why I don’t know. In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume that everybody involved was what we called a “rational actor”. The Soviets sure where. As where the Americans. Then, starting with Obama more and more often I had to question that assumption as the US engaged in what appeared to be crazy and self-defeating actions. You tell me – how does deterrence work on a person with no self-preservation instinct (whether as a result of infinite imperial hubris garden variety petty arrogance, crass ignorance or plain stupidity)? I don’t know. To answer that question a what is needed is not a military analyst, but some kind of shrink specializing in delusional and suicidal types.

Some readers might think that this is hyperbole. I assure you that this is not. I am dead serious. Not only do I find the Trump administration “not agreement capable”, I find it completely detached from reality. Delusional in other words. You think Kim Jong-un with nukes is bad? What about Obama or Trump with nukes? Ain’t they much, much scarier?

So what can the world do?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea

Trump feeling all too macho due to latest military endeavors?

Not necessarily.
Saying the 'US is prepared' could be nothing more than the fact we have identified NK as a possible hostile, so we've got a plan in place to strike.
We have a plan to invade.
We have a plan for conventional weapons.
We have a plan for nuclear weapons.

We have plenty of plans. We have whole offices that do nothing but call up plans and make sure they're up to date, balancing our assets and identifying their targets and sorting our war options by:

They shoot first, and it comes as a surprise
they shoot first, but we watched them build up
We shoot first because we see their build up and want to defang the cobra
We shoot first because SURPRISE!

So it could be that someone asked a person in uniform, 'If Korea does X, are we prepared?' And they said 'Yessir, we have a plan for that eventuality, and it was updated on the xth of January.'

It COULD be that Trump commanded, 'plans on my desk by 0300, so I can tweet about our huge huge bombs...' But the fact that we're 'prepared' may mean nothing more than a script.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Yes, I realize there are any number of strategies on the table for all kinds of possible contingencies. Nevertheless I think it's dangerous to in this situation to have one ready to go for a premptive strike in the case of a nuclear test.

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nevertheless I think it's dangerous to in this situation to have one ready to go for a premptive strike in the case of a nuclear test.

I think it would be irresponsible to not have a plan ready before we need it. Then we get half-assed and desperate responses with missing assets.


IDEALLY there would be a great deal of discussion about the exact trip points which will trigger which options and who retains firm authority for implementation. My fear is that different parts of the military and their oversight have different ideas about when we'd implement which plan after which threshold is met. Considering the circus this administration is, that's the worrisome part. Everyone's done just enough planning to know who they're going to point the finger at if it goes pear shaped...

 

[untermensche]

Exactly by what authority does the US get to tell other nations what they can test?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Exactly by what authority does the US get to tell other nations what they can test?

Authority that comes from might.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nevertheless I think it's dangerous to in this situation to have one ready to go for a premptive strike in the case of a nuclear test.

I think it would be irresponsible to not have a plan ready before we need it. Then we get half-assed and desperate responses with missing assets.

I thought that was the MO of the military.

IDEALLY there would be a great deal of discussion about the exact trip points which will trigger which options and who retains firm authority for implementation. My fear is that different parts of the military and their oversight have different ideas about when we'd implement which plan after which threshold is met. Considering the circus this administration is, that's the worrisome part. Everyone's done just enough planning to know who they're going to point the finger at if it goes pear shaped...

Ultimately, the US can NOT act against North Korea unilaterally. The US needs South Korea's approval, if nothing else, and China nodding in the affirmative would be very wise.

Right now, Trump isn't saying the right things and the military is showing a bit of bravado. The Syrian strike didn't mean much, the MOAB strike was needed to help give Afghanistan troops a bit more spine back, but North Korea is an explosive charge. Striking at North Korea is not the same thing and Trump has shown no indication he understands nuance.

 

[beero1000]

I think it would be irresponsible to not have a plan ready before we need it. Then we get half-assed and desperate responses with missing assets.

I thought that was the MO of the military.

IDEALLY there would be a great deal of discussion about the exact trip points which will trigger which options and who retains firm authority for implementation. My fear is that different parts of the military and their oversight have different ideas about when we'd implement which plan after which threshold is met. Considering the circus this administration is, that's the worrisome part. Everyone's done just enough planning to know who they're going to point the finger at if it goes pear shaped...

Ultimately, the US can NOT act against North Korea unilaterally. The US needs South Korea's approval, if nothing else, and China nodding in the affirmative would be very wise.

Right now, Trump isn't saying the right things and the military is showing a bit of bravado. The Syrian strike didn't mean much, the MOAB strike was needed to help give Afghanistan troops a bit more spine back, but North Korea is an explosive charge. Striking at North Korea is not the same thing and Trump has shown no indication he understands nuance.

Given the current political attitude of "Damn the conventions, full speed ahead", I'm not sure saying that the US can't do something is wise, unless they literally cannot do it. The military will strike at NK if Trump orders them to strike at NK and we'll all have to deal with the (hopefully figurative) fallout afterwards.

 

[LordKiran]

Exactly by what authority does the US get to tell other nations what they can test?

Authority that comes from might.

"The authority of the sword" sounds much more poetic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Given the current political attitude of "Damn the conventions, full speed ahead", I'm not sure saying that the US can't do something is wise, unless they literally cannot do it.

Understood.

Ultimately, the US should NOT act against North Korea unilaterally. The US needs South Korea's approval, if nothing else, and China nodding in the affirmative would be very wise. To do otherwise could very well haunt our history for a century.

The military will strike at NK if Trump orders them to strike at NK and we'll all have to deal with the (hopefully figurative) fallout afterwards.

That is the trouble. South Korea is a bit closer, so it isn't "we'll", "South Korea" will have to deal with the fallout, and it doesn't need to be nuclear to be a disaster of horrific proportions.

 

[beero1000]

Understood.

Ultimately, the US should NOT act against North Korea unilaterally. The US needs South Korea's approval, if nothing else, and China nodding in the affirmative would be very wise. To do otherwise could very well haunt our history for a century.

The military will strike at NK if Trump orders them to strike at NK and we'll all have to deal with the (hopefully figurative) fallout afterwards.

That is the trouble. South Korea is a bit closer, so it isn't "we'll", "South Korea" will have to deal with the fallout, and it doesn't need to be nuclear to be a disaster of horrific proportions.

Oh, I agree with you. I'm just not sure Trump gives a shit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Understood.

Ultimately, the US should NOT act against North Korea unilaterally. The US needs South Korea's approval, if nothing else, and China nodding in the affirmative would be very wise. To do otherwise could very well haunt our history for a century.

That is the trouble. South Korea is a bit closer, so it isn't "we'll", "South Korea" will have to deal with the fallout, and it doesn't need to be nuclear to be a disaster of horrific proportions.

Oh, I agree with you. I'm just not sure Trump gives a shit.

We can conclude that he clearly lacks the brain capacity to either want to care or have the intelligence to understand the issues and risks at hand.

This could just be a great deal of posturing. But North Korea is going to test that weapon, unless China can pull off a Patriots 4th quarter miracle.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Is Trump acting crazy enough to force China to twist arms and stop the test?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Among all other things, CNN is reporting that VP Pence is heading to South Korea on Saturday. The timing is interesting because the birthday of Kim Il Sung, the origin of the North Korean clusterfuck, is Saturday.

The theory is that a nuclear test would take place on the same day as the 105th anniversary of Kim Il Sung. Pence being in South Korea implies to me, that only the dumbest idiot would send the VP to a war zone. This implies there is no intention to attack North Korea.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Pence being in South Korea implies to me, that only the dumbest idiot would send the VP to a war zone. This implies there is no intention to attack North Korea.

I think Pence is the perfect choice to send to a war zone.
If he gets hurt, we haven't really lost anyone important from government function, but he is (was) of high enough nominal rank that we have an excuse to rattle the big saber and go all drugged-up-monkey on North Korea.
If they fire the nuke, and Pence doesn't get hurt, we can choose to claim that they acted irresponsibly and endangered a high ranking US Official, hand me the big saber.

At least, that seems like a logic Trump would find appealing...

 

[Treedbear]

...
At least, that seems like a logic Trump would find appealing...

I think Trump's logic says that if he makes like he's about to attack NK and the military surrenders immediately then his legacy will surpass Reagan's. He might think KJI's bluster is all bluff.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pence being in South Korea implies to me, that only the dumbest idiot would send the VP to a war zone. This implies there is no intention to attack North Korea.

I think Pence is the perfect choice to send to a war zone.
If he gets hurt, we haven't really lost anyone important from government function, but he is (was) of high enough nominal rank that we have an excuse to rattle the big saber and go all drugged-up-monkey on North Korea.
If they fire the nuke, and Pence doesn't get hurt, we can choose to claim that they acted irresponsibly and endangered a high ranking US Official, hand me the big saber.

At least, that seems like a logic Trump would find appealing...

Couldn't Pence have taken Betsy DeVos... and maybe most of the Cabinet with him?