The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2018 AFPTrump to Kim: 'My nuclear button is bigger,' as talks dismissed
UNITED NATIONS©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2018 AFP
101 Comments
Login to comment
utorsa
Correction
Population of North Korea in 1950 according to the United States Census Bureau:
Exact figure cited: 9.47114 million
utorsa
I think you missed the point. Multiple figures cited by a conspiracy theorist are not convincing. Here is the background on your source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
The United States Census Bureau estimates that the Population of North Korea was approximately 9.5 million in 1950. (The exact figure cited being 9.4714 Million) 20% of that figure is approximately 1.9 million.
Exactly. In any context the murder of 1.9 million people is a staggering figure.
You cited a conspiracy theorist for your proclaimed median. You're welcome to find it believable. That LeMay's figure is a "boast" is your opinion.
That it's a "boast" is your opinion. That it counts all Koreans does not lessen the gravity of the killings.
Again, your opinion. We're discussing the death toll and casualties of all Koreans.
I think you missed the point - Often the word "perhaps" is used when reporting massive death tolls. It is a slippery slope to Holocaust denial.
A source easily available to anyone with a web connection including the Irish Times journalist.
I think you missed the point - No one can say with exact certainty how many people were killed in the Holocaust. The same is true in Korea.
You missed the point here too - no one on this thread is arguing about the origins of WW2. It's irrelevant to this thread.
That's hardly a thorough analysis of the conflict's beginnings now is it?http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/
The point was your using of "has been" which implies that America was continually and regularly doing it - which they were not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang
Here are some more in addition to the others I have already mentioned:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/world/asia/korean-war-history.html
http://www.calvin.edu/news/2001-02/korea.htm?dotcmsredir=1
Towards a Victimology of State Crime - Google Books
Specific quote from the above cited book:
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=r7UoDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT172&lpg=PT172&dq=bruce+cumings+korea+death+million&source=bl&ots=awKJfpjlD4&sig=xHLTe8U-9hVKVqk3v5q-rsvJ5m4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuvpn50sXYAhUFOrwKHVRfATE4ChDoAQgsMAE#v=onepage&q=bruce%20cumings%20korea%20death%20million&f=false
http://apjjf.org/-Marilyn-Young/3125/article.html
So far, most reliable sources and estimates put the American military causing Korean deaths numbering around 2-3 million, not 1-1.5 million
Moderator
Back on topic please.
lostrune2
Hmmm.... couldn't find much on that neither, but that's why having multiple sources helps. Nevertheless, none of those different sources and estimates are close to 3 million
That's why we're citing multiple sources - isn't that what we're doing, so we don't rely on just one
Context please - "only 1.8 million" as in relation to your 3 million. 1.8 million is definitely a lot of people, but that's still not even close to 3 million
The median cited earlier was about 1.3 million. So LeMay's 20% is even closer to the cited median than the 3 million you proclaim, so the median is more believable, even taking LeMay's boast
Also, people's estimates of total deaths in the Korean War range from 3.5 million to 4.5 million, with 2.5 million to 3 million of those being North Korean soldiers and civilians, like this for example:
http://www.kwvdm.org/war.php?p=statistic
A 3 million death by the US would mean, taking out the North Korean soldiers count, that nearly 100% of civilian deaths would be by the US alone. That does't sound logical, especially with North Korea and then when later China joined in too with mass soldiers fighting.
And furthermore, LeMay's boast counts all Koreans. So he's counting not just civilians but North Korean soldiers too - which doesn't make sense. North Korean soldiers were intended to be killed in their battles against the UN allies - why put them together with civilians. One is intentional; the other isn't
I think you missed the point - the point wasn't that the US was responsible for many deaths. The point was by saying "perhaps," the one being quoted was guessing by how much, particularly when the one quoted didn't cite a source
Yes, that's your source (which the Irish Times article didn't cite, btw)
The 3 million was not about the Holocaust - the 3 million number was about the Korean deaths we're discussing
You missed the point here too - I wasn't arguing about the origins of WW2. In fact, I'm referring to the opposite - that Nazi Germany did begin WW2, just like North Korea did begin the Korean War - no arguments there
Again, you missed the point here too. The point was not that America wasn't responsible for the invasion - they were. The point was your using of "has been" which implies that America was continually and regularly doing it - which they were not.
So no, America was not "America has been occupying and invading Korea since 1871" as you said. America attacked Korea in 1971 - but America has not been occupying and invading Korea since 1871 - that's a big difference
Cool, that's a source from you I can read. Any other sources? After all, multiple sources help so that we don't rely on one
So far, most sources and estimates put the North Korean and civilian deaths around 1-1.5 million, not 3 million
utorsa
Your article is from the Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy theories. The author, Mr. Chossudovsky is a notorious conspiracy theorist. The figures he cites are poorly referenced. What is Nahm93? Any ideas.....
Figures cited from a conspiracy website are not convincing.
Actually, that breakdown has been cited in other reputable publications too.
What other publications besides Britannica? The "reputable" historian Allan R. Millet is the only source for your casualty "breakdown". Your initial wikipedia link cites Millet's Encyclopedia Britannica article. However, Millet has relied on unnamed/unreferenced "U.S. and South Korean" sources for North Korean casualties while citing unnamed/unreferenced "South Korean" sources for South Korean casualties. Somewhat dishonest or merely poor scholarship?
(Btw, I note you have tried to avoid the the previous post regarding Millet, but that's a major point, so I put it back in.)
Student-learning website Shmoop has other estimates:
Hardly a definitive history as it only relies on one historian's estimates for their figures.
Exactly, even LeMay admitted to murdering a staggering 1.8 million people. To call it "only 1.8 million" is quite astonishing.
An amateurish website focusing on "comic book and superhero history" does not inspire confidence at all. Additionally, there are no citations.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633
Demonstrably false. Here are the article's 3 consecutive paragraphs verbatim:
"Many of these atrocities refer to what Blaine Harden, author and former Washington Post reporter, recently called a “long, leisurely and merciless” US bombing campaign: well over half a million tons of bombs dropped, napalm and chemical weapons deployed, cities levelled.
“Although the ferocity of the bombing was recognised as racist and unjustified elsewhere in the world,” says Harden, for many Americans it was just another conflict in a distant and poorly understood country, he concludes. Not for nothing is it called the forgotten war.
The result was perhaps three million dead and, the museum recalls, the first US armistice in history signed without a victory. In three years of fighting a single major city changed hands: Kaesong, which is now the last vestige of a once hopeful détente with the South."
Source with citation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang
No one can say with exact certainty how many people were killed in the Holocaust. Often the word "perhaps" is used. It is a slippery slope to Holocaust denial.
Straw man. No one on this thread is arguing about the origins of WW2.
https://www.thehistoryvault.co.uk/the-american-invasion-of-korea-nope-not-the-one-in-the-1950s-the-one-in-1871/
Your own words are most appropriate here:
No, no, whatever the justification, as long as negotiations could have avoided the hostilities, the invader is responsible. Like in a battle of verbal arguments, whoever throws the first punch violated one's personal space.
This one isn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang
wtfjapan
technology that we export, food, produce, overall military might, Russia is one of the few countries thats could close its borders tomorrow and continue to feed its population supply all its own energy needs, supply it own mineral resources etc can continue to function without any outside assistance, like to see the US try and do that. LOL
wtfjapan
In terms of money, influence, aid we send, patents we create, technology that we export, food, produce, overall military might, financial markets, yeah, we pretty much are. all that tech and money hasnt stopped Russia taking over Syria Crimea,Gerogia doesnt need a massive military when its only got it borders to worry about. As WW2 has taught us you dont need the highest tech weapons to beat superior military . Russian can annihilate the US just as well as the US can do Russia, yes it most certainly is a superpower can and does handle anything the US throws at it.
lostrune2
Actually, that breakdown has been cited in other reputable publications too.
How about the Encyclopedia Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War
https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/99/72799-004-37459A7C.gif
Battle casualties of the Korean War (1950-53)
North Korea
600,000 Civilian dead and missing
406,000 Military killed and missing
1,500,000 Military wounded
Student-learning website Shmoop has other estimates:
https://www.shmoop.com/korean-war/statistics.html
Population of North Korea in 1950: 9 million [even using LeMay's 20% killed - 20% of 9 million is only 1.8 million]
Population of South Korea in 1950: 21 million
Estimated strength of the North Korean army in 1950: 135,000 men
Estimated strength of the South Korean army in 1950: 95,000 men
Estimated number of Chinese and North Koreans killed in the Korean War: 1,500,000 [that's even combined with China]
This research aid website has it even breakdown country-by-country:
https://www.historyguy.com/korean_war_casualties_and_statistics.htm
North Korea - Dead 215,000-350,000 - Wounded 303,000 - MIA/POW 300,000 - Total over 900,000
Or how about a compilation of multiple sources side-by-side:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/know-the-facts-north-korea-lost-close-to-30-of-its-population-as-a-result-of-us-bombings-in-the-1950s/22131
North Korea:
NoKo Military
130,000 KIA (Pentagon: ¼ “KWM”)
294,151 (Nahm93)
214,899 KIA + 101,680 MIA (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter, citing [“highly suspect”] Defense Dept. est.) [=316,579]
316,579 (COWP)
350,000 (Rummel)
520,000 (Small & Singer, FAS)
* * [MEDIAN: 316,579]
NoKo Civilian
406,000 killed + 680,000 missing (Nahm93)
Up to 1,000,000 (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter)
1,185,000 (Rummel)
* *[MEDIAN: 1,000,000]
NoKo Military + Civilian
500,000 (Britannica)
700,000 (Dictionary of 20C World History)
926,000 (Compton’s)
1,316,579 (Wallechinsky; Clodfelter)
1,380,151 (Nahm93)
1,535,000 (Rummel)
* *[MEDIAN: 1,316,579]
So that's a multiple different sources and estimates - none close to 3 million North Korean deaths (Also: soldier deaths should be separate from civilian deaths since soldiers fight with expectations they could die - lumping both soldiers and civilians deaths together is not very useful). It's not unheard of that yet an U.S. General was embellishing their power, especially in the middle of conflicts.
No, it doesn't. Here's the article's paragraph verbatim:
"The result was perhaps three million dead and, the museum recalls, the first US armistice in history signed without a victory. In three years of fighting a single major city changed hands: Kaesong, which is now the last vestige of a once hopeful détente with the South."
Perhaps? With no source cited? Perhaps?
Perhaps less than 3 million died. Perhaps not all 3 million was the result of US bombs. Perhaps anything is possible; after all, it's perhaps.
And Hitler didn't start WW2 because Germany was pushed to the brink by the unfair Treaty of Versailles.
No, no, whatever the justification, as long as negotiations could have avoided the hostilities, the invader is responsible. Like in a battle of verbal arguments, whoever throws the first punch violated one's personal space.
That's one incident. That's like saying America has been occupying and invading Japan since 1853 when Commodore Perry threatened them with black war ships. No, no, "has been" implies continued regular activities. One incident does not imply "has been" - rather that's another embellishment. Even your article states that Korea closed out America's failure:
"The Americans expected that this would force the Koreans to the negotiating table. However the Koreans had the last laugh. Despite being humiliated militarily, they not only did not apologise, they refused to speak to any member of the US government for the next two years and maintained its isolationist policy (only thawing a little to Japanese trade)."
Can't read it - it's behind a subscription wall
Simon Foston
Mr. NoidallToday 02:12 pm JST
It sounds a bit like you think America should've bombed everyone to smitherines.
cleo
He'll be lobbing them at the US definitely, maybe also South Korea and Japan, following provocation by Trump. Why would that make the 'socialist democratic' countries of Europe cry for protection?
Oh yeah for sure....
...a major problem being the inability to see the conflict between despising 'the moral high ground' in one breath and giving thanks to the (presumably) omniscient, omnipotent, turn-the-other-cheek, love-thy-neighbour-as-thyself god in whom the US trusts in the next breath.
Number one in citizen incarceration rates: economic inequality: gun ownership per capita: military spending; capacity to elect morons to the top office while telling themselves it's democracy.
Thirty-first in life expectancy; fifth in under-five mortality rate.
Toasted Heretic
Nah, you're pretty much a third world country these days, due to the greed and lack of vision from both your Dems and Repubs.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-developing-nation-regressing-economy-poverty-donald-trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html
You have to rely on dodgy partners like Saudi Arabia whilst you wasted billions on the folly of wars, pointless prohibition of marijuana and making people homeless. Whilst all the time rewarding the rich and big corporations.
No wonder Kim laughs at the US.
bass4funk
In terms of money, influence, aid we send, patents we create, technology that we export, food, produce, overall military might, financial markets, yeah, we pretty much are.
wtfjapan
the US does have the most and biggest nuclear weapons; wrong again, Russia has slightly more nukes at around 7000, had around 40000 during the peak of the cold war, 7000 more than the US. Soviets had the largest ever Nuclear bomb (Tsar) at 100MT but reduced to 50MT to reduce fallout. See America isnt the only superpower as they continue to pretend they are.
wtfjapan
'My nuclear button is bigger,' but oh how small your hands are Mr Trump
Jerry Alan Carroll
Trump is actually a good president, but he needs to learn that you don't compare d*ck sizes and you don't need to take credit for everything. he should just shut up and do his job. His MAGA site should do the speaking for him.
ZENJI
Trump to Kim. My brain is smaller than yours. So take that.
utorsa
@lostrune2
Correction:
The "reputable" historian Allan R. Millet is the source for your casualty "breakdown". However, he has relied on unnamed/unreferenced "U.S. and South Korean" sources for North Korean casualties while citing unnamed/unreferenced South Korean sources for South Korean casualties. Somewhat dishonest or merely poor scholarship?
Taewoo Kim's three million figure appears more reliable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14672715.2012.711980
utorsa
@lostrune2
Approximately 3 million deaths in Korea were the results of US bombs. Here is a wikipedia link with supporting references cited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Pyongyang
Sorry, but no reputable historian has cited your exact "breakdown". Your linked wikipedia article's casualty figures include no supporting references.
Air Force general Curtis LeMay, head of the strategic air command during the Korean War, estimated that the American campaign killed 20 per cent of the Korean population. (Btw, I note that you deleted the part where I wrote about Curtis LeMay, but that's a major plot point, so I put it back in.)
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633
Demonstrably false. The article states that 3 million deaths were the result of US bombs.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/
Additionally, America has been occupying and invading Korea since 1871...
https://www.thehistoryvault.co.uk/the-american-invasion-of-korea-nope-not-the-one-in-the-1950s-the-one-in-1871/
Simon Foston
smithinjapanJan. 3 09:01 pm JST
Like we should all ignore the rantings and ravings of Trump's online supporters here and on other sites. There are intelligent conservatives with intelligent things to say, but if there are any here they're keeping quiet. An "Ignore" function would be the best thing for the rest, it's certainly not worth spending any time or effort in engaging in any sort of discourse with them.
Strangerland
There have been a few volleys fired. As can be clearly seen, it did not lead to a full-on attack, and when all was said and done, the Kim's retained power. That would not happen if they launched a full scale attack, which they clearly know. What I said still stands.
As long as by 'being prepared', you don't mean starting the conflict. Getting ready for it's potential only makes sense. But once Trump starts it, he makes America the bad guy he is trying to frame N. Korea as.
extanker
So you are ok with a leader who has proven time and time again that he has no problem using violence against his own people, as long as he doesn't do anything to anyone else, but are worried about an elected leader who makes bad speeches. That doesn't seem strange to you?
You are making a lot of assumptions about Kim's intentions, all the while forgetting that the Kim regimes have actually attacked South Korea on multiple occasions in the past. I really hope you are right, but I'm not going to deny that we need to be prepared for the chance that you are wrong.
arrestpaul
Kim Jong-Uno chose to threatened the world with the "nuclear button" that is constantly on his table.
Trump responded in kind. In language that even a deranged bully like Kim Jong-Uno could understand. A U.S. SELF-DEFENSE response can completely destroy Kimmy and his whole play army.
The U.S. does have a larger nuclear arsenal, AND it does work. As long as Kim doesn't START a nuclear war, he should live to a very old age.
Strangerland
Not really. Questions have been raised about Trump's mental capacity, and there are plenty of questions as to whether he is in the midst of early-onset Alzheimer's.
Not really. Un kills them - nothing happens. Un attacks anyone, his country gets destroyed, and more importantly to him, he loses power. He's not going to attack anyone unless attacked... Which brings us back to Trump, who's ego is bigger than his logic center, and may very well attack.
Not at all. Un is a third-generation dictator, and wants to retain power. War will relieve him of power. Trump on the other hand will likely be able to retain power IF he starts a war (Americans don't like to change presidents mid-war). Look at their motivations - only one of them benefits if there is a war.
extanker
So we're down to 'My dad can beat up your dad' now? This is why I was happy to have been leaving the country during the election. Both sides of the political spectrum are obnoxious children.
A literal madman has his hands on nuclear weapons and no one on the left or the right can admit that their own great leaders aren't perfect. Trump's a loon. Obama was weak on foreign policy. Everyone before Trump was weak on North Korea and the result stands before you. We wouldn't be where we are now if one single president had bothered to say 'No, bad Kim. Go to your room.' decades ago.
plasticmonkey
This kind of talk gives Trump supporters a collective chubby.
Many of us on the left feel that way about Trump, lol. And anyway our group is bigger than your group, and our dads are way stronger than your dads.
wtfjapan
Cuba was briefly a nuclear power. you mean the Soviets were the nuclear power with their weapons in Cuba, NK has its own nukes without any foreign powers permission to keep them , big difference.
extanker
So you find this an action of a sane leader? This is just one of the many clearly homocidal actions Kim Jung Un has taken during his reign, and you don't find the fact that he murders the subordinates who disappoint him a little worrisome when he suddenly has access to functioning weapons of mass destruction?
Kim has clearly demonstrated his penchant for violence with murder and assassinations, while Trump makes stupid midnight Tweets. Anyone who claims they are more worried about what Trump will do more than what Kim Jung Un will do is in denial or delusional.
mukashiyokatta
US: "It's very simple -- it is OK for our country to have nuclear weapons, but it is not OK for your country to have them. See?"
NK: You're not very bright, are you?"
ThePBot
They if they're having dialogue again, despite whatever motives Kim has, it's still much better than threatening or fighting. The Trump administration seem to not like this, I wonder why?
By the way, I don't think Trump's little fingers can handle that big button of his.
ArtistAtLarge
Who knew Kim and Trump would be a hit comedy team?!
lostrune2
(Btw, nice of ya to delete the part where I wrote that North Korea started the Korean War by invading South Korea, but that's a major plot point, so I put it back in)
Anyways, that article mentions that 3 million deaths - but it didn't say that all 3 million was the result of the US bombs
Here's another link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_in_the_Korean_War
It mentions that 3 million deaths too, but here's the breakdown:
600k civilians + 406k soldiers = 1.06 million North Korean deaths
3 million - 1.06 million = 1.94 million deaths on the UN/South Korea/US side
So NK killed more South Koreans than UN/SK/USA killed North Koreans (and 406k of those are NK soldiers, so that's fair game on the battlefields)
HonestDictator
Trump's still showing off how much of an idiot he is. Thanks again 'Murica for having the people being represented by an ass.
I don't think capitulation is needed in this situation, but a much wiser hardline approach is needed than, "Mine's is bigger than yours...."
mmwkdw
Wondering when Kim will now shows us a picture of his button alongside an opened tape-measure, just to show us how big it is... and then what Trump will do next.
bass4funk
But the South Koreans should fall for the ploy of Kim?
smithinjapan
BurningBush: "I hope SK and NK simply ignore this hysterical little girl."
Well, I have to admit I never thought I'd hear you calling Trump a hysterical little girl, but there you go. THat's progress! And yes, here's hoping they ignore Trump's ranting and maniacal ravings.
bass4funk
1001 times better than that Susan Rice and the best part is, not only does she look better, but she doesn’t have to lie either.
utorsa
America: the only country that has mass murdered civilians with nuclear weapons. Twice. As well as bombing innocent civilians throughout Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. The United States has also killed many of its own citizens through nuclear testing.
https://qz.com/1163140/us-nuclear-tests-killed-american-civilians-on-a-scale-comparable-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/
The U.S. bombing campaign in Korea killed approximately 3 million Koreans. Air Force general Curtis LeMay, head of the strategic air command during the Korean War, estimated that the American campaign killed 20 per cent of the Korean population.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633
garypen
Almost 100% of the time. Why?
garypen
The majority of US voters voted for Trump's opponent.
So, don't blame an entire country for the thin-skinned pachyderm currently occupying the White House.
He's already broken a ton of porcelain in the US that will take years to repair. Hopefully, it appears we can begin in November of 2018.
Tommy Jones
Incorrect. The Director of National Intelligence comes to these conclusions, not the Secretary of Defense.
katsu78
Hah! Me, two days ago:
Today, Trump says:
We don't have rational foreign policy, we have a President who is terrified that the world isn't impressed by the size and power of his "button".
What a total buttonhead!
starpunk
My ego and big mouth are bigger than yours. 2 arrogant 5th grade level bullies.
starpunk
Nikki is a loudmouth shrew.
starpunk
Is Nikki trying to show cleavage with that pullover gap? Either way, she always has that maniacal haughty look on her face. She's a Trump puppet and a hysterical shrieker, unworthy to be the ambassador for anything.
bass4funk
They already do pretty much. They just need to improve their reentry guidance systems on the rocket. Where were you a few months ago? I don' think the Pentagon would be worrying if you were right and by the way, Trump doesn't come to these conclusions, his secretary of defense does.
No, the greatest threat right now in the world is that little guy on the North side of South Korea and a very, very good reason to be concerned. Personally, I could care less what the world thinks, I'll follow the warnings of the Pentagon and go from there.
bjohnson23
NK strategy:
“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” hmmm, sounds familiar over the last 25 yrs and more so during the recent admin in NK. 1 am, 3am 5 am missile testing etc, fly overs Japan by NK, yet talk and talk, sanctions and sanctions, now more talk with SK, sure keep talking but on the flip side, they still continue to build build build meaning, stalling for time.
China/Russia Strategy working with NK:
“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”
Hence the division in Okinawa, the Japan SK alliance using the comfort woman angle etc...does it all make sense now?
pacint
Reminds me of 'Genesis - Land of Confusion'.
Big button, small button same in the end = human suffering and more.
starpunk
I am sick and tired of that blabbering oaf making up this fuzz. If NK had the bomb WE WOULD KNOW IT. We have satellites that would show all we need to know. A test would be done. That's how we learned that China, India and Pakistan have the Bomb. I am sick to death of all this hysteria. The greatest enemy to the world today is Donald Trump, and he is a satellite to the whims of Vladimir Putin.
TorafusuTorasan
We got a bonafied poet in our midst. Fox News is like the tide refilling the swamp in the moonlight! LOL
nanotechnology
In 1961 during the Cuban Missile crisis, in one-week tense period, 1/3 of the 31,000 US nuclear warhead was alway in the air ready to go the USSR and 100 going to China. Some were just even handled by Sergeant. Nobody knows how many in the submarine and in Europe ready to be launched. The only instruction is that if and only if there is single nuclear detonation from the USSR.
It was so fortunate the the commander of the USSR submarine did not fire the nuclear torpedo towards the US Navy ASW ships hunting her.
LESSON of the STORY or Lesson to Kim Jung Un ..... never threatened the United States. She is the only one who actually used nuclear.... almost tempted to use it again in 1954 Bien Dien Phu Vietnam, 1968 in the Battle of Khe San Vietnam and in Iraq, had Saddam used Chemical Weapons.
Tamarama
Of att the people who should have any control over nuclear weapons, these two would be right down there on my list.
And yet, here we are.
Tommy Jones
John: That was some funny stuff!
JohnDigsJapan
And something else of his must be smaller, thus the need to over-compensate at every turn.
Nan Ferra
LOL...the whole mine is bigger than your routine is hilarious!
Strangerland
Nothing wrong with an opposing view if it sticks to the truth, but Fox "News" reporters lie all the time, and spread propaganda that the president uses as the source of his policies.
And what's with your sudden change of tactics. You have gone on repeatedly about how you hate the MSM, and now you are suddenly defending the MSM. Talk about inconsistency.
lostrune2
What millions of Koreans?
Are ya talking about the Korean War.............. that North Korea started by invading South Korea?
Strangerland
This has been shown to you to be wrong on all counts, backed with numbers. Yet you keep parroting out this same propaganda every time.
Now if you wan to talk reality, right now your country looks weak due to an inept leader. He has shown that American cannot and will not keep its word or promises. Both your enemies AND allies are laughing at you and your choice for a leader. And most of the world has lost hope in the US, and is now creating treaties and agreements that bypass the country.
So the things you claim about the last leadership have not only been proven to be wrong, the things you are claiming are actually happening with the current president.
Tommy Jones
Califirnia is still the premier economic powerhouse of the US and smashes any conservative state economically. The articles you cited do nothing to refute that.
It would behoove some people to stay on point when attempting to argue, lest they want to be looked at as unsophisticated.
goldorak
The main issue with Nikki Haley is that she is a bull in a china shop, not a diplomat let alone a 'peace maker'. She also appears to lack cultural sensitivity and doesn't have a coherent or realistic worldview either. The kind of person who thinks adding fuel to the fire is ALWAYS better than listening & temporising. In other words she doesn't belong at a UN peace talks table.
She should run a penitentiary in Alabama or Texas instead.
bass4funk
Oh, you are most definitely right about that, the last thing that the north would ever do is give up their nuclear program and to be honest, I don't think the Chinese would encourage such a move truth be told.
Interesting, the SK caught two boats that were exporting oil to the North, if this keeps up and they can can the majority of these illegal sanctioned boats, what will the Chinese say or do?
Eppee
Right, although I think it's more probable than NK giving up its weapon program. As Putin stated, NK will eat grass before giving up on its program. Understandable if they want to keep their sovereignty.
NK is an atomic power now, let's face it and accept it. The only solution is to reduce, control the blockade that currently only starves the population and limit NK's economical growth.
Strangerland
Please show me where that is the accepted definition of 'insane enough to do it'.
Tommy Jones
Thats a nice piece of propaganda from Fox, but simply not correct. Bin Laden and drone strikes.
It also does nothing to refute the assertion that the last republican president and the current one are undermining the US' position in the world through the cowboy approach.
Chima would allow this to happen because it would be a country it has sole influence over. Chiba would never allow reunification under the ROK because that would be a US ally. I'm sure that's what you meant though, correct?
bass4funk
Our reputation in many countries as a weak nation throughout the last 8 years was taking deep root and making us look like weak, spineless and especially a country that cannot and will not keep it's word or promises and leading from behind, our enemies laughed at us, taunted us and our closest friends lost hope. The only thing that the Democrats can do and will do is capitulate to any adversary and will never back up diplomacy through strength.
North and South Korea under the Kim dynasty will never unify, let's cut through the BS and get out of fantasy land, it won't happen, China won't allow that to happen. Nice dream, but that's all that it is, a dream.
Wallace Fred
Like I said, democrats or republicans, that can was still drop kicked downhill. In my opinion anyone with more than two grey cells to tub together should be able to bring sense to this situation. No matter party affiliation.
NZ2011
Pacint, how could it be unified though, surely South Koreans don't want to live under NKs rule, and NK isn't going to give up their dear leader. Just a question I don't have an answer.
I again don't know the right path but hope desperately that things clam down.
There is another issue as well, to be a little selfish from Japans point of view, NK provides a barrier between China, Russia and US allied South Korea, for NK to ever consider giving up its weapons, and I would say thats highly questionable, they would demand all US interests out of South Korea.
If this happened it would have to align a unified Korea more closely with China.
This would leave Japan dependent on a foreign nation for its security with ever decreasing interests in the area, and far more powerful neighbors, who haven't always been so fond of Japan.
Japan would then have a very difficult choice to make, try to keep the US alliance, change the constitution to arm itself, or try to make new alliances with China and or Russia. All of these have huge problems.
Goodlucktoyou
I thought Clinton was scary, but she is far worst.
pacint
If unification does happen it will be tough more so than the German unification .
But I think it can work without outside pressure/expectations.
Tommy Jones
F. Wallace: That is the best alternative, but I'm not certain how realistic it is.
It should be noted that Clinton had inspectors on the ground. They were booted after Bush II labeled the DPRK part of the "Axis of Evil."
It's telling how the last republican president and the current one are diminishing the US' standing in the world because they are taking the "we are the strongest nation on earth so everyone should do what we say" approach. We'll need another sophisticated democrat to undo the harm.
PTownsend
I think the majority of Koreans want to see their country re-unified. Those who do will find ways to agree on all issues, political and economic. For decades after the Korean War South Korea was also led by brutal leaders with zero regard for freedom and human rights.
If the majority of Koreans want re-unification, the US, Russia and China need to stand aside.
Toasted Heretic
Scoff at talks and sabre rattle instead. Great thinking.
Perhaps the US could ban all its nuclear weapons, if they are going to insist the DPRK does.
Eppee
Come on, let's be honest, it has nothing to do with any of that, and nobody cares about it except a couple of NGO ...
Wallace Fred
Thanks Tommy. In all honesty, seeing as several administrations kicked the can down the road, logical option now is quid pro quo dialogue. If the world can work with nuclear pakistan, it can do the same with NK.
Tommy Jones
Here is a question I posed that was never answered:
Where did you live in lead-the-nation California, and when did you move? Also, where in California did you live? That State of Zombies smashes any crazy, clearly corrupt kleptocratic con state economically. The numbers don't lie.
bass4funk
It would be nice, but the reality is, it won't fly. Never has and never will. The North and South will never see eye to eye on issues such as freedom or human rights and Kim's ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, we've been through this time and time again, these talks will fall and fail as well.
You have a lot of faith and faith is good, but we're talking about Kim.
Tommy Jones
F. Wallace: It is heart wrenching that innocent people suffer in the DPRK. That said, what are the other less harmful, but realistic options for addressing this situation?
Tommy Jones
This seems out of character for you, Super.
You know that the reason the DPRK acquired nukes was as a deterrent to perceived US aggression. If the US sends more heavy weapons to the area, the DPRK will simply continue on its current path. China would probably accelerate its weapons programs.
I'm not convinced China is sending fuel to the DPRK. Certainly companies from China are, but I doubt the government is complicit.
Tommy Jones
Pacint:
Agreed. Strange times when the the DPRK is the consistent, stable party and the US is unpredictable. Many would say the unpredictability is a benefit, but that seems to be just an excuse for lack of know-how. Unpredictability impedes movement forward on issues.
Cuba was never a nuclear power. It had nuclear weapons on its soil, but those were always under the control of the USSR. So no, there was never a loose genie that was put back in its bottle.
The DPRK is a nuclear power. That is the reality. Feel free to not accept reality, but it does nothing to address the issue of how to move forward.
Wallace Fred
So your solution is to let the masses freeze and starve without fuel? How in any sane world would that reduce animosity?
Accept or not, the genies already in the stratosphere. If pakistan can be accepted despite not being a signatory to the iaea, so can NK.
pacint
Why hasn't it happened yet?
Cuba and NK are different scenarios.
Midnight Sun Tribe
Cuba was briefly a nuclear power... And that genii got put back in the bottle. So, there is no need to "accept the reality" of a nuclear North Korea.
extanker
Please show me when Trump has fired a staff member by killing them with an anti-aircraft gun.
Or assasinated a family member with nerve agent.
Or sentenced a CNN anchor's entire family to hard labor for publicly criticizing him.
Trump is a whacko for sure, but when compared to Kim, he suddenly seems a lot less so.
Strangerland
A year and a half ago, I would have laughed at the idea that this quote could be taken seriously. Now it's reality. What a mess.
pacint
Tommy.
I hardly post on US politics, etc discussions. Tired of the mud-slinging from all sides.
But you are right NK is a nuclear power now, accept it and move forward.
That genie don't go back in the bottle.
To be honest looking at the last year I got to shake my head at the USA, NK been way more controlled and consistent.
US is the thin-skinned pachyderm in the porcelain shop.
Tommy Jones
It does not matter whether the US will accept a nuclear armed DPRK bevause it is already the reality. For the US to not accept that the DPRK is a nuclear power is for the US to deny reality.
Strangerland
So has Trump.
CrazyJoe
It looks as though "rocket man" has outsmarted the orange deal maker. Who knew diplomacy was so difficult.
SuperLib
Whatever Trump is doing isn't working. I can understand his desire for his base to blame others, but that won't solve anything, either.
China will continue to prop up NK until it's not in their bests interests to do so. The US should just keep moving heavy weapons into the area until China starts to take notice. If they don't like it....tough. They shouldn't be sending fuel to them.
Russia is a different story. They will also help NK but Trump is so desperate to be on good terms with Russia that Trump won't speak out against them. The only way we can really be on good terms with Russia is to let them have their way so Trump will have to balance letting Putin do what he wants while still trying to find a solution to the NK problem.
extanker
Because Kim Jung Un has shown that he is insane enough to actually use them.
kurisupisu
Why is it acceptable for the US to have killed millions of Koreans and to have nuclear weapons whereas it is not for North Korea?
Surely, the 'reckless regime' is the US?
CrazyJoe
It would be fantastic if NK and SK can get to the bargaining table and come to a peaceful resolution. I am a little skeptical of Kim's motives but hopefully they're not malicious.