The Hill: Trump intensifies rhetoric against North Korea
President Trump on Wednesday ratcheted up his rhetoric against North Korea, pointing to the strength of the U.S. nuclear arsenal one day after warning Pyongyang of "fire and fury" if it continued its threats.
Trump said in a series of tweets that he hoped that the "power" of the U.S. nuclear arsenal would never have to be used.
He added that "there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world."
Read more ....
More News On President Trump Intensifying His Rhetoric Against North Korea
White House: Trump spoke to advisers before 'fire and fury' comment -- The Hill
Trump says North Korea will be met with 'fire and fury' if it threatens U.S. -- Reuters
Trump, North Korea trade escalating threats of fire -- AP
Donald Trump: North Korea faces 'fire and fury' if threat persists -- DW
Donald Trump threatens North Korea with 'fire and fury', prompting threat to attack Guam -- ABC News Online
10 comments:
The president said that the first thing he did was upgrade etc our nuke system and it is much better than before. That seems an awful fast bit of workmanship on that huge collection in the short time Trump has been (from time to time) in the White House. More bluster and more bragging
why are you such a pussy fred?
Sure beats the pacifist ligjtweight we had the past 8 years. It's also a laugh to see/hear lefties lose their urine over all this.
I piss therefore i am...why hang out in bar room toilets?
Despite my views I have to be intellectually honest here and agree with Fred. Knowing the speed the government moves at, I highly doubt much has been done yet on the nuclear systems. If anything has been recently completed it would have been started under Bush or Obama.
Props to the Trump team for getting the sanctions passed. I am curious what deals were worked out with China and Russia. Hopefully it was basically just taking the heat off them and not giving them too much. But we probably won't know for a while. Then again with all the leaks...
Candidate Trump had taken a look at the lack of maintenance of the nuclear arsenal, lack of upgrades, substandard training, and low morale of the personnel responsible for nuclear arsenal. He had asked, to paraphrase, "will it even work." Candidate Trump was right when he observed this and he was right to ask that question.
At the time he made this observation and asked the question, he was roundly and thoroughly criticized by numerous so called "experts" pointing out how wrong he was. A number of these critics stated that if Russia could trade its nuclear forces for America's that they would do so.
As I had made many of the same observations that POTUS made when he was a candidate since long before he even thought about being a candidate, I pretty much dismissed the critics. Furthermore US officials so routinely overestimate our capabilities while underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries. As such, their claims could be dismissed or so I thought.
As with broken clocks, some are right twice a day. As such, just because someone has a poor track record does not mean they will ALWAYS be wrong.
IF the situation with the nuclear arsenal was as candidate Trump pointed out, correctly I think, there is no way he could have possibly upgraded this in such a short time. Now IF his critics were largely right, while unlikely certainly possible, then perhaps the arsenal needed only some tweaking to make it viable along with a greater emphasis on training and maintenance and perhaps a major difference could have been seen in such a short time.
With that said and with how the US government moves this claim made by POTUS seems rather wild and preposterous.
Now with that said getting sanctions passed and getting China and Russia to go along with them is absolutely amazing. I to wonder what kind of deals were made to get them to go along. What kind of, if any, caveats did China and Russia attach to their agreement. If the caveats are to much, then the fact that they signed on may be meaningless. Otherwise having signed on it is going to be very difficult if not impossible for them to reverse course.
To assume that anytime since 1945 that the US Nuclear Arsenal was in anyway sub par is a very wrong position to take. The Military is very adept in conning the people into ponying up more money using the fear tactic, the US military is a very capable force and anyone that messes with them will get a sever ass kicking. Little Kim might have some success initially especially along the border area, but in the long run the rubble will jump and he will lose badly. But it will be a bloody mess.
TWN,
In your last two sentences I think you are largely spot on. North Korea appears to have even lost the support of China and Russia with regards tot the sanctions. I agree that any conflict will be a "bloody mess." Furthermore the "bloody mess" is unlikely to be limited to the Korean Peninsula.
Now as for the nuclear arsenal, we cannot "know" unless we carry out actual tests and we further cannot "know" unless/until they are used in an actual combat situation. With this said, very respectfully, inferences can be made. There have been a number of reports about lack of training, discipline, and morale among the nuclear forces. Furthermore several officers have complained about being assigned to this task with one female officer going as far as to say that her career was essentially ruined because of the "nuclear stink" associated with her position. Any of these things are easily googled. Furthermore additional reports have suggested the facilities for the land based ICBMs have not been properly maintained and in some cases were starting to rust. This combined with the other problems throughout the force would, again very respectfully, make it reasonable for an outsider coming in to ask "is this going to work if we need it?" As such, candidate Trump took a very reasonable position here that may not be wrong.
The military does seem adept at spending money and getting money, however, much of this on useless gadgets that aren't going to help against any kind of real military force. Examples are air craft carriers that are more aptly known as "floating death traps" for the personnel on them. When it comes to investing in things like proper armor for the troops that might actually make a difference history indicates a poor job is often done. As I have explained, how much money a country spends on its military is about like time of possession in American football. While not unimportant military spending like time of possession in US football is the least important stat. Unfortunately the pundits spend waaaay to much time on this.
As forb being very capable, we can only "know" when it runs up against a force the caliber of North Korea. Given the tendencies of US officials/pundits to overestimate our power while underestimating adversaries, a prudent assumption is NK is extremely capable. As for the "ass kicking" it may go the other way, POTUS may find out he is shooting blanks if/when the actual shooting war starts. I hope and pray not. As stated, given the easily googled examples I mention, it would not be unreasonable to ask if the nuclear arsenal is subpar.
As I recall, when candidate Trump raised these very legitimate concerns, he was attacked and attacked viciously from all sides. Now IF the pundits/"experts" were essentially correct and perhaps some upgrades to training and some routine maintenance along with fresh leadership were all that was really needed then perhaps DJT could have really improved the force in such a short time. Essentially this looks like ridiculous bluster on the part of POTUS.
I must be a pussy too, because that was my first question. What has he actually done with our nuclear arsenal in his short tenure? According to the internet, not much if anything.
Post a Comment