War with N. Korea?

[TheMastersSon]

IMO with as many boogeymen that our Pentagon have fabricated to justify their own paychecks for the last 70 years, imo NK and specifically the Jong-un regime is a rare example of a real one. Although as always, we've largely created it ourselves. NK is not threatening us because they're suddenly bored and have nothing better to do, it's because our country is engaged in the same "foreign policy" with their country as Iraq: first starve, then invade. That they apparently see no future for themselves or their country is not Jong-un's fault, it's ours imo. As mentioned I'm far more concerned about their desperation combined with Jong-un's raging stupidity than I am about their weapons. They may be able to make a dent at best before their entire country is vaporized. Edited November 5, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

Our policy on NK hasn't changed in 70 years, and so far as I know, we have no intentions of invading..... else we would have long ago. There have been several occasions that have presented a golden opportunity to invade while there were internal issues, but, we haven't. (no oil in NK, what would be the point of invading.....) We really don't have the resources, or the will, to start yet another war. That would pretty much spell death for the current administration. On the other hand, if we are reacting to an aggressive act, that might be a different story.

[TheMastersSon]

Results don't matter. Logic doesn't matter. Popular will doesn't matter.

 

Pentagon budgets matter. Congressional corruption and graft matter. Paying billions and trillions of dollars every year, for the last 70 years, to countless thousands of Americans who do nothing productive matters. The major portion of our WMD problems in NK and elsewhere around the world are a direct result of and response to our own arsenals. So the logical and in fact only solution to the problem is for us to admit the absurdity of trying to keep eight billion people perpetually separated into WMD haves and have-nots. As if these same 70 years aren't enough evidence for these claims.

 

My parting shot in this thread is that imo the root cause and problem is our own country's current runaway defense machine and their financial providers in our government. Ask any U.S. senator about it and you'll get a 20 minute speech about national security and job protection. Meanwhile CATO is recommending we cut military spending in half, "in order to keep our country safe". Here's an explanation:

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-should-cut-military-spending-half

 

Does anyone suppose it's coincidental that the more we've spent on defense throughout our history, the less secure we've been?

 

I have nothing against employment when it's necessary. As a taxpayer I'd rather not pay for employment when it's unnecessary, and easily 90% of what we've been paying for every year for the last 70 is simply holdover from WWII. E.g. our Pentagon still has a presence in 102 countries, even though 80% of this presence no longer protects ANY U.S. interest. Etc. Utterly mind-boggling amounts of absolute waste, and any attempt to reduce this waste automatically makes one a friend of our enemies and soft on terrorism.

 

As for WMDs, in today's world these weapons are usefel only as suicide triggers. They are therefore as utterly pointless and useless in NK as anywhere else. The two choices are to realize this or not. Anyone with a public library or internet connection can build a WMD, therefore what really does matter is malicious intent and not possession or capability. It's why Jong-un's stupidity and temper tantrums scare me a lot more than his weapons. But again imo logic dictates that we'll be straddled with playing (or pretending to play) global WMD traffic cops as long as we don't fix our problem first, and push for the only practical solution to the problem: global bans on these weapons. I wonder if our president is willing to admit that even as a possibility.

Edited November 7, 2017 by TheMastersSon