Its time for North Korean regime change.

[ChristineM]

Yet another missile launched over Japan.

If our despot/tyrant friend Kimmy ding dong keeps this up, he's not going to be in charge of North Korea much longer.

North Korea’s Threat Pushes Japan to Reassess Its Might and Rights



What do you think the best course of action would be in dealing with North Korea?

I don't think this is going to go down well. Lets see.

Revolution and terrorism has shown that regime change by force does not to work,

I'm afraid NK is Americas baby, more then 60 years ago America fathered what NK is today.

Probably much too late but perhaps if the US moved to show contrition, maybe the hated Mr Un would be more forgiving.

 

[esmith]

My post wasn't about who attacked first. (Each side mounted attacks.)
It's about history which would influence NK's perception of things.

True, but North Korea has been belligerent for a very long time.

 

[Revoltingest]

True, but North Korea has been belligerent for a very long time.

True, but I didn't see that as a factor in their reasoning a need for nuclear weapons.

Are we talking about the same thing?
FYI, I'm not defending them or justifying their actions...just
looking at significant differences which the USA would see
between them & the mid-east regarding our military adventurism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What do you think the best course of action would be in dealing with North Korea?

Remember how so horribly things got when the US militarily involved itself to such an extent in places like Iraq.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

True, but North Korea has been belligerent for a very long time.

They're like your neighbor's dog that barks at everything that moves from behind a fence, but is in all reality harmless and isn't really in a position to do anything more than bark. And strategically it isn't smart or sound for NK to do more than bark, because actually biting America is suicide, and they aren't dumb enough for that to be lost on them.

 

[esmith]

True, but I didn't see that as a factor in their reasoning a need for nuclear weapons.

Are we talking about the same thing?
FYI, I'm not defending them or justifying their actions...just
looking at significant differences which the USA would see
between them & the mid-east regarding our military adventurism.

North Korea started their nuclear weapons program around the 1989 time frame.
The US military actions in the mid-east was in 1990 to "kick" Iraq out of Kuwait. I really don't see this as a "trigger" for North Korea. However, going after Libya's nuclear program in 1986 could have been a "signal' to North Korea.
My contention is that North Korea's leadership was and is paranoid. Also North Korea had to be bailed out of the Korean War by China, in my opinion this is probably one of the major reasons North Korea embarked on a nuclear weapons program, and the militarization of North Korea...They want to prove that they can be the masters of their own fate.
I really don't think that the US's policies throughout the world is the major reason for their actions, just a "building block". Of course just my simple conjecture without a lot of knowledge

 

[columbus]

I really don't think that the US's policies throughout the world is the major reason for their actions, just a "building block". Of course just my simple conjecture without a lot of knowledge

But there is a lot of knowledge available on the subject.
The USA has been the "sole remaining Superpower" since before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We threatened North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, but not Saudi Arabia. We made an Islamic nuclear power, Pakistan, an ally when it suited us. We support nasty tyrannical governments when it's good for business, and lie about others when it's handy.
We didn't do it singlehandedly, but we are the single biggest influence and driver of the current world situation. From our corporate power to our media power to our military power, that's been the case for decades.

Pretending that this is all new and inexplicable is a sign of profound ignorance.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

President George Walker Bush put North Korea on the "Axis of Evil", and started attacking and invading the other two .
The two that got attacked had no nukes. Kim's father did have nukes and he died peacefully in bed, passing his power on to his son.
Those are basic historical facts.

Bush started this, not Kim.
Tom

Might want to check your history:

North Korea and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

 

[esmith]

But there is a lot of knowledge available on the subject.
The USA has been the "sole remaining Superpower" since before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We threatened North Korea, along with Iran and Iraq, but not Saudi Arabia. We made an Islamic nuclear power, Pakistan, an ally when it suited us. We support nasty tyrannical governments when it's good for business, and lie about others when it's handy.
We didn't do it singlehandedly, but we are the single biggest influence and driver of the current world situation. From our corporate power to our media power to our military power, that's been the case for decades.

Pretending that this is all new and inexplicable is a sign of profound ignorance.
Tom

I say that the U.S. did contribute to North Korea's desire for WMD but I disagree with you that this was the only reason. Unlike you I don't blame one person or policy.
So therefore one making an assumption without knowing North Korea's reason or reasons, just assuming they know is a sign of profound ignorance.

 

[columbus]

Might want to check your history:

North Korea and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia

Which thing that I actually posted was incorrect?
Of course, there's more to the story. I would say that Mao's China fathered the North Korean regime, myself. Not the USA.
We fathered Saudi Wahabism, and Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, but not North Korea.

We did, however, threaten three governments specifically. The one with a nuke is doing just fine. Iraq is chaos and Iran is still under attack. But I fully expect Iran to demonstrate their nukes at the point in time that is most advantageous to them. It worked for North Korea.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I say that the U.S. did contribute to North Korea's desire for WMD but I disagree with you that this was the only reason.

Which is why I posted, "We didn't do it singlehandedly ".
It was a "Coalition of the Willing ". Just like Iraq.
Tom

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We don't have a good record at fixing broken countries.
The cost of getting rid of KJU isn't worth our cost.

Especially if the Chinese choose to get involved.

 

[BSM1]

Which thing that I actually posted was incorrect?
Of course, there's more to the story. I would say that Mao's China fathered the North Korean regime, myself. Not the USA.
We fathered Saudi Wahabism, and Saddam Hussein's tyrannical regime, but not North Korea.

We did, however, threaten three governments specifically. The one with a nuke is doing just fine. Iraq is chaos and Iran is still under attack. But I fully expect Iran to demonstrate their nukes at the point in time that is most advantageous to them. It worked for North Korea.
Tom

Th NK Nuclear arrogance started way before the Bush administration. Truman should have let MacArthur obliterate NK when he had the chance. So if anyone is to blame it's Truman.

 

[columbus]

Th NK Nuclear arrogance started way before the Bush administration. Truman should have let MacArthur obliterate NK when he had the chance. So if anyone is to blame it's Truman.

Truman was a Christian. Let's blame Jesus.

Tom

 

[columbus]

Especially if the Chinese choose to get involved.

I think that the Chinese are likelier to make it expensive for us by not getting involved.
The biggest problem I have with @Laika plan is that it doesn't put much Chinese skin in the game. China has more to lose than we do. They need stability. A failed nation, long time ally, on their border would be a huge disaster for them.
I think that the best thing we could do is put pressure on the Chinese by squeezing their business interests with the USA. Make them bring Kim into the 21st century instead of doing it for them.
The political problem with that is that USA corporate interests oppose pressuring the Chinese government for anything. Bad for business. Trump is unlikely to do anything "bad for business", even if it involves getting the USA into another stupid war. Possibility of nukes won't matter to him. He is not an unknown quantity. He is not any different now than he ever was.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

Truman was a Christian. Let's blame Jesus.

Tom

And a Democrat...

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I think that the Chinese are likelier to make it expensive for us by not getting involved.
The biggest problem I have with @Laika plan is that it doesn't put much Chinese skin in the game. China has more to lose than we do. They need stability. A failed nation, long time ally, on their border would be a huge disaster for them.
I think that the best thing we could do is put pressure on the Chinese by squeezing their business interests with the USA. Make them bring Kim into the 21st century instead of doing it for them.
The political problem with that is that USA corporate interests oppose pressuring the Chinese government for anything. Bad for business. Trump is unlikely to do anything "bad for business", even if it involves getting the USA into another stupid war. Possibility of nukes won't matter to him. He is not an unknown quantity. He is not any different now than he ever was.
Tom

Isn't China one of the largest holders of American national debt as well? Though I suppose if they call to collect it in response to American belligerence this would risk a domino effect that would see the global debt economy collapse.

 

[columbus]

And a Democrat...

I hate those people. Only thing worse is Republicans.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Isn't China one of the largest holders of American national debt as well? Though I suppose if they call to collect it in response to American belligerence this would risk a domino effect that would see the global debt economy collapse.

Yes.
But have you ever heard, "If you owe the bank $10, they own you. If you owe the bank $1 billion you own the bank"?
This is all lots more complicated than simple economic policy.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Especially if the Chinese choose to get involved.

Aye, that could be a really really big conflict.
And boy, would their economy tank more than ours!