Sen. Graham: N. Korea ‘Miscalculating President Trump,’ Will Destroy N. Korea If Necessary
I am very ambivalent about our leaders making these kinds of statements.On one hand, I would like us to rain fire on Kim.
On the other hand, the people of North Korea do not deserve to be punished for their leaders insanity. And the people of South Korea, and the people of Japan would likely suffer very terribly also.
If we were to rain fire on North Korea, obviously this could lead to a wider war, maybe involving China and Russia.
Do we want that?
Or perhaps, simply setting a post-WWII precedent of a major power using nukes would be enough to give license to Russia, China, Israel, India, England, and/or Pakistan to use nukes in the future.
Once the genie is out of the bottle and all ...
The use of nukes to end WWII was one thing. The world did not truly understand the gravity at that point.
But in the aftermath of their use the world pondered the horrific reality of nuclear warfare. And since then, nukes have not been used. This is the first time in history that mankind has been able to refrain from using the full extent of it's power, one enemy against another, for any protracted period of time.
If we were now to resort to nuclear warfare, I am afraid it would change the way we see ourselves and each other. Trust might be lost. The sense that we could work together might be lost. The diplomatic stages of diffusion might be lost.
Then again, it might not. The opposite might happen.
We might find that the small-time tyrants, like the Ayatollah Khameini, and Kim Jong Un, and others like them, would not be so quick to provoke. In fact, they might go suddenly silent and circumspect. They may even become helpful.
Imagine that.
We really don't know.
The use of Nukes may give us a new understanding of the idea of a Singularity Event Horizon. We really can not know what would happen once we past through that veil of bitter enmity. All the rules would be changed. It would be a different world.
And honestly, while I very obviously love bluster, I don't like it when our leaders make grave threats of this nature. One threat is enough. Past that, you are cheapening your words. You are making a fool of yourself, and of the people you represent.
Trump and Graham, and every other politician who has uttered these kinds of Blood-up-to-your-knees kinds of threats, are doing us all a disservice.
Get on with it. Do something, or shut the fuck up.
Please.
This is the first time in history that mankind has been able to refrain from using the full extent of it's power, one enemy against another, for any protracted period of time.
ReplyDeleteNo nuclear power has its government's continuity threatened since.
Only one nuclear power has really continued to come under direct attack since breaking out ..... Israel.
Even there no nation state's army has broached it's borders since, the region's non-state actors are not afraid to lob projectiles towards Tel-Aviv. If they ever achieve their dreams about pushing the Hebrews into the sea ...... I suspect our Muslim problem would be over quickly.
I think there's room for a demonstrative hydrogen test 100 miles over Kim's House.
It is interesting how this particular weapon has remained sheathed for so long. Historical pioneers in sole possession of advanced weaponry were always eager to use them to their advantage at the earliest possible excuse to. ...... I guess we fell into that category as well..... But had the moral compass to shelf them afterwards.
Not sure the late arrivals to the club have such a moral compass.
Maybe increased proliferation will herald the arrival of perpetual world peace.
.... I doubt that.
I'd say the odds are there will be a nuclear exchange this century. And that religiously motivated non-state actors will be involved..... on one end or the other.
Yeah, I agree.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am not sure that I agree with your assertion that no nuclear power has had it's continuity threatened.
The Soviet Union certainly lost it's continuity. But I assume you have some knowledgeable justification for what you said.
You know more about history than I do.
You say: "On the other hand, the people of North Korea do not deserve to be punished for their leaders insanity."
ReplyDeleteBut what would the ethical position be if it's a choice between them or us?
I do not anticipate a nuclear confrontation. We have enough conventional weapons to deal with NK. Nuclear never crossed my mind.
Perhaps.
ReplyDeleteI didn't feel like spending a lot of words on this, but some of the possibilities includ
1) us using conventionals - and then having NORK go nuke first
2) us using conventionals and finding they won't do the job because NORK has thing embedded deep deep underground, so we decide we need to use Nuclear bunker busters
3) us destroying NORK, while NORK is busy firing everything it has except nukes, at south korea, only to have China panic and fire off nukes at us, or at Japan - or maybe Russia
People do not think the same when millions are being killed.
As to the question, if it is them or us - OF COURSE, THEM.
OT:
ReplyDeletehttps://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/11/30/november-30th-2017-presidential-politics-trump-administration-day-315/comment-page-1/#comment-4665405
Many have questioned Obama’s traveling to China and India for talks at conferences.
There are other motivations and that is embedded with the group that sponsored his (closed session, and highly paid talk) and the Globalist agenda of the sponsoring institution.
See here for details: (comment with links explain ...follow above link for the rest)
Obama is traveling OCONUS because he is toxic to his own party. He is not on any alpha precedence list here for any event - unless it involves immature childhood brains.
ReplyDelete