Hijinx
Well-Known Member
If we cut loose in N. Korea, they will not be invading S. Korea with anything other than Refugees.
North Korea will be met with "Fire and fury, like the world has never seen"
- Thread starter PsyOps
- Start date
If we cut loose in N. Korea, they will not be invading S. Korea with anything other than Refugees.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
What do you base that on?
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Oh: Probably because I saw the destruction 2 bombs made to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
2 small bombs as compared to today's nukes.
Now multiply that by about 10 times and tell me how an Army of N. Koreans might establish themselves afterward to invade anyone.
Especially if the bombs take out the little sh1thead who started it and is their leader.
I see a lot of burned radiated and crippled going to S. Korea as refugees. Not an Army of what is left after the bombs hit.
Last edited:
hotbikermama40
New Member
and as an added deterrent, not that one is needed, all those pesky American military troops will be there, too - our annual exercises have been a boil on Kim's ass for years
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure V and I are talking about conventional weaponry. If we go in with nukes all bets are off. He could completely fry SK and maybe a bunch of other countries.
Trump is not going to go in with nukes. That would cause way too many global diplomacy problems. And besides that, we don't really need them.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
If we get nuked all bets are off. Tit for tat.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Let me get this straight... you claim NORK will (most certainly) invade SOUK and you have nothing to base that on; yet when someone claims NORK will not invade SOUK you want to know what they base that on?
I think it's a good possibility if we use military force on NORK, they might launch some sort of military assault on SOUK, but it would be pretty limited since they will have to respond to our bombings. We have very specific targets that will get hit that will limit their capabilities. An invasion is nearly impossible. If you've ever seen the DMZ (which I have), it's a miles-wide swath (a real no-mans-land) that is heavily protected on both sides. Getting troops across that DMZ is a logistical impossibility.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Which lends concern to his rhetoric. The worst "fire and fury" this world has ever seen in military action was WWII Japan. Trump anted this up. Either he's just blustering to sound scary, or he's being serious; which means he has to be talking nukes. And his comments came from if NORK only made more threats; not even if NORK used a nuke. So, I honestly have no idea what he means by "they will be met with fire and fury, like the world has never seen".
We're not going to get nuked. The talk shows are playing it up for ratings, but Fat Kid knows the consequences of making a nuclear attack anywhere, let alone a US territory. Trump is actually calling his bluff, not the other way around.
Kid: I want this and if you don't give it to me I'm going to throw a fit and break all your things!
Parent: If you do that, I will beat your ever lovin' ass.
Kid: I mean it! I will!
Parent: And I will beat your ass.
Kid: I'm doing it! I'm getting ready!
Parent: I, too, am ready...
Kid: I hate you!
Parent: I hate you right back, you little ####.
Kid: WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!
Crazy permissive parent: OMG, did you just say you hate your child???? You horrible person!!!!!
Un is right about at the :kicksrocks: stage. He's pitching a fit because in the past we've sent him money to shut him up. Trump doesn't appear to be willing to do that, for which I'm thankful. When you're a hermit regime and don't have any friends, you are not a credible threat because you're nothing more than a tool and everybody knows it.
He's blustering to sound scary. And apparently it's working because the Left is scared ####less. NOT of the threat from NK, but because Daddy used mean language.
Relax.
What does that even mean?
PsyOps
Pixelated
He's blustering to sound scary. And apparently it's working because the Left is scared ####less. NOT of the threat from NK, but because Daddy used mean language.
Relax.
I'd like to think Trump's rhetoric was directed at NORK and not the left in this country. Obama drew a red line in the sand on Syria and failed to follow through when Syria crossed that red line. Trump stated that "North Korea had better not make anymore threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury..." His statement wasn't "If North Korea decided to use any of their arsenal..." He stated that if North Korea made anymore threats... North Korea has since made several threats, and I see no fire and fury.
I don't want bluster and scary just to scare the left in this country. I don't want bluster and scary, only to see it not followed through. I don't want any more false lines in the sand. If you're not going to follow through with tour rhetoric, then don't say it. Trump made a really bold statement I believe he never really meant. This is no different than Obama. I thought he was elected to change all of this nonsense.
Trump's rhetoric is directed at Kim Jong-Un. That the Left is peeing their Underoos and running for their coloring books is just a bonus.
I have no problem with Trump exchanging bombastic threats with Kimbo. If nobody follows through on their nuclear threats, that's A-OK with me. And if you want to think this makes him "no different" than Obama, rock on with your bad self.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Then we can't criticize Obama for not following through with his 'line in the sand' bit. What's the point of saying it if you're noting willing to back it up?
Meh, don't care. What I do care about is our president cutting them a check to reward them for threatening us. If Trump does that, I will happily criticize the hell out of him. But even so, there is still an awful lot to differentiate him from Obama.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Their nuclear threat is the direct consequence of appeasement starting with the Clintons. They wanted to build nuclear reactors FAR in excess of their electrical need and it was obvious why they wanted it. And the Clintons obliged. Everyone since has tossed them a few bones every time North Korea threw a little tantrum. Now it's a big problem, and no one wants to deal with it.
What will happen to reluctant China should North Korea have - an *accident*? (Which they probably will). North Korea is freakin' dirt poor. They only serve as a buffer between China and the West, and it's pointless. They need to slap their little friend stupid.
I think the problem might be that you took the President's extemporaneous remarks as his literal position.
The President knows that unless Congress declares war or provides him with specific statutory authority, he can only respond to an attack and cannot act simply upon threats. Do you honestly believe that he doesn't know the law?
The meaning I got from what he said was that if the NORKs act upon their threats (like Syria did when Obama drew the line), not just kept making them, that they would face Hell's fury.