[North Korea] The Dear Loser comes into his own.

[Holman]

How about the suffering of the North Korean people? Do they matter?

No. They don't. Not in the way you mean anyway. Or is America back to policing the world again? Because I gotta say, America's credibility in this area is at an all time low.

So under no circumstances do we have a policy of humanitarian intervention. Millions can starve and suffer under this regime and we do nothing?

I'm sympathetic to the cause of stopping both dictators and starvation, but how would we do this?

Would we have a plan ready and in place to feed those millions the hour we crossed the DMZ? Yes, life sucks for the North Koreans, but it will suck even more if we destroy what little economy and food networks are in place and then discover that we can't get a replacement system running for six months. A whole lotta millions will starve in that time. South Korea can't take them, and that's even if Seoul is still standing.

More than anything else, Iraq proved that we have no idea what we're doing when it comes to regime change. The provisional government's very first official action was to demobilize the Iraqi military; with the stroke of a pen we humiliated a hundred thousand trained soldiers and put them out on the street, and then we acted surprised when the insurrection swelled with experienced, resentful fighters.

But even then we didn't have starvation because Iraq had a functioning economy and plenty of oil to attract interested parties. What does NK have?

This was on Bush/Cheney's watch. I don't think anyone expects the current administration to act with greater forethought and competence.

[Zarathud]

Trump can't clean up Puerto Rico after a hurricane. The idea of Trump winning an unwinnable war and then fixing North Korea's humanitarian disaster is laughable.

Trump wants an easy military win so he can be a "war President." That's all.

[GreenGoo]

We say we won't allow him to have nuclear missiles capable of striking us and he says he will make them no matter what we do to stop him.

What else could happen?

So you're saying industry and technology suffer during a war? Is that right? Going to war will stop them from developing weapons that they've explicitly said they are developing to deter the American threat. So doing what they've claimed you were always a moment away from doing will actually stop them from trying to "defend" themselves?

Has there ever been a geopolitical situation where you thought anything but going to war was the right way to handle it? Because you seem to think kicking peoples' asses solves all problems.

[GreenGoo]

This was on Bush/Cheney's watch. I don't think anyone expects the current administration to act with greater forethought and competence.

I know this will sound rude, because, well, it is, but America is not competent enough to go around the world rescuing everyone from themselves.

You shouldn't go to war with NK as a humanitarian effort because you suck at anything that doesn't involve bullets coming out of guns. ESPECIALLY with your current administration, who have made it clear that facts are irrelevant.

Attempting to solve problems while ignoring facts is what all the most skilled troubleshooters do.

[Moliere]

This was on Bush/Cheney's watch. I don't think anyone expects the current administration to act with greater forethought and competence.

I know this will sound rude, because, well, it is, but America is not competent enough to go around the world rescuing everyone from themselves.

You shouldn't go to war with NK as a humanitarian effort because you suck at anything that doesn't involve bullets coming out of guns. ESPECIALLY with your current administration, who have made it clear that facts are irrelevant.

Attempting to solve problems while ignoring facts is what all the most skilled troubleshooters do.

What is Canada's solution to N.K. besides hope the radiation cloud from the nukes don't float north?

[Paingod]

What is Canada's solution to N.K. besides hope the radiation cloud from the nukes don't float north?

Might as well ask what a tree's plan is to deal with the vacuum of space. They don't have a hand in this as far as I can tell.

[Max Peck]

This was on Bush/Cheney's watch. I don't think anyone expects the current administration to act with greater forethought and competence.

I know this will sound rude, because, well, it is, but America is not competent enough to go around the world rescuing everyone from themselves.

You shouldn't go to war with NK as a humanitarian effort because you suck at anything that doesn't involve bullets coming out of guns. ESPECIALLY with your current administration, who have made it clear that facts are irrelevant.

Attempting to solve problems while ignoring facts is what all the most skilled troubleshooters do.

What is Canada's solution to N.K. besides hope the radiation cloud from the nukes don't float north?

Diplomacy?

A diplomatic solution to the North Korea nuclear crisis is both "essential and possible" and countries in the region see Canada as having an "important voice" on the issue, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Monday.

Speaking before the Toronto Global Forum, Freeland said North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear tests are "hugely concerning."

"It's one [issue] that has particular relevance to Canada given the missile threat that North Korea is posing and given our geography," Freeland said.

Depending on the target, a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile targetting at the U.S. could pass over Canadian territory, or could target Canada itself.

"We, as Canada, very much believe a diplomatic solution is essential and possible," said Freeland. "It's something that we've been particularly focused on and where the countries in the region really see Canada as having an important voice."

In separate calls last week, Freeland spoke to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Japan's Foreign Mminister Tara Kono, and South Korea's Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha about "possible paths forward" on the issue.

"I think it is very important to be sure South Korea is part of the dialogue and part of the conversation… because they are the ones very much facing the most immediate possible jeopardy," said Freeland.

[Rip]

We say we won't allow him to have nuclear missiles capable of striking us and he says he will make them no matter what we do to stop him.

What else could happen?

So you're saying industry and technology suffer during a war? Is that right? Going to war will stop them from developing weapons that they've explicitly said they are developing to deter the American threat. So doing what they've claimed you were always a moment away from doing will actually stop them from trying to "defend" themselves?

Has there ever been a geopolitical situation where you thought anything but going to war was the right way to handle it? Because you seem to think kicking peoples' asses solves all problems.

If you believe that they would only use the weapons to defend themselves we have already lost. If that is our approach we should go ahead and start working on what kind of nuclear weapons we are going to sell to Japan and others that we don't have the will to stop NK from becoming a nuclear bully.

[Rip]

This was on Bush/Cheney's watch. I don't think anyone expects the current administration to act with greater forethought and competence.

I know this will sound rude, because, well, it is, but America is not competent enough to go around the world rescuing everyone from themselves.

You shouldn't go to war with NK as a humanitarian effort because you suck at anything that doesn't involve bullets coming out of guns. ESPECIALLY with your current administration, who have made it clear that facts are irrelevant.

Attempting to solve problems while ignoring facts is what all the most skilled troubleshooters do.

What is Canada's solution to N.K. besides hope the radiation cloud from the nukes don't float north?

Diplomacy?

A diplomatic solution to the North Korea nuclear crisis is both "essential and possible" and countries in the region see Canada as having an "important voice" on the issue, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Monday.

Speaking before the Toronto Global Forum, Freeland said North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear tests are "hugely concerning."

"It's one [issue] that has particular relevance to Canada given the missile threat that North Korea is posing and given our geography," Freeland said.

Depending on the target, a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile targetting at the U.S. could pass over Canadian territory, or could target Canada itself.

"We, as Canada, very much believe a diplomatic solution is essential and possible," said Freeland. "It's something that we've been particularly focused on and where the countries in the region really see Canada as having an important voice."

In separate calls last week, Freeland spoke to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Japan's Foreign Mminister Tara Kono, and South Korea's Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha about "possible paths forward" on the issue.

"I think it is very important to be sure South Korea is part of the dialogue and part of the conversation… because they are the ones very much facing the most immediate possible jeopardy," said Freeland.

Which is as likely to stop them from long range nuclear weapons as a magic pink unicorn from outer space.

We did the diplomacy route with NK before and it turned out the same as it usually does.



I'm sure just like Iran they are more than willing to make a diplomatic agreement that doesn't actually stop them from achieving their goals.

Look how well that approach stopped the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

[GreenGoo]

If you believe that they would only use the weapons to defend themselves we have already lost. If that is our approach we should go ahead and start working on what kind of nuclear weapons we are going to sell to Japan and others that we don't have the will to stop NK from becoming a nuclear bully.

Give me a break.

NK: we are making nukes because of American aggression. Right now the world knows this is a lie.
US: Die, infidels! World goes WTF?
NK: see? World goes Ok, now I get it.

First, if NK launches a nuke, NK becomes irradiated. Self preservation is a strong motivator.

Second, current NK leadership is less strong, less belligerent and less competent than it has been in the past. It is rife with internal conflict.

You're not going to stop them from building nukes. It's a done deal, but even if it weren't, attacking them doesn't stop them. You're not going to stop them from developing ballistic missiles because it's a done deal, but even if it weren't, attacking them would not stop them.

So what is the purpose of attacking them? Preemptive strike? Why on earth would you believe they are going to use their nukes for anything other than bargaining power? Launching them is suicide, and there is more evidence that the current American leadership is crazy than there is that the NK leadership is crazy.

Are you going to use conventional warfare? Holy freakin' crap, that's a quagmire that you are NEVER going to get out of. How many times do you need to blow trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of allied and civilian lives on an unwinnable war?

Are you going to nuke them? Congrats, you're now the biggest super villain on the planet. The diplomatic and economic consequences are so extreme that I can't believe anyone would suggest it.

What is it that you hope to gain, Rip? What is there to be gained? What CAN be gained here, by armed conflict?

[Rip]

If you believe that they would only use the weapons to defend themselves we have already lost. If that is our approach we should go ahead and start working on what kind of nuclear weapons we are going to sell to Japan and others that we don't have the will to stop NK from becoming a nuclear bully.

Give me a break.

NK: we are making nukes because of American aggression. Right now the world knows this is a lie.
US: Die, infidels! World goes WTF?
NK: goes see? World goes Ok, now I get it.

First, if NK launches a nuke, NK becomes irradiated. Self preservation is a strong motivator.

Second, current NK leadership is less strong, less belligerent and less competent than it has been in the past. It is rife with internal conflict.

You're not going to stop them from building nukes. It's a done deal, but even if it weren't, attacking them doesn't stop them. You're not going to stop them from developing ballistic missiles because it's a done deal, but even if it weren't, attacking them would not stop them.

So what is the purpose of attacking them? Preemptive strike? Why on earth would you believe they are going to use their nukes for anything other than bargaining power? Launching them is suicide, and there is more evidence that the current American leadership is crazy than there is that the NK leadership is crazy.

Are you going to use conventional warfare? Holy freakin' crap, that's a quagmire that you are NEVER going to get out of. How many times do you need to blow trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of allied and civilian lives on an unwinnable war?

Are you going to nuke them? Congrats, you're now the biggest super villain on the planet. The diplomatic and economic consequences are so extreme that I can't believe anyone would suggest it.

What is it that you hope to gain, Rip? What is there to be gained? What CAN be gained here, by armed conflict?

So what you are saying is we should let them have nuclear ballistic missiles, correct?

I don't think you would like where that goes. I can say for sure that Japan for one would start a program right away as well as a substantial military buildup. A great many countries have placed their faith in us stopping bad players and that has been our pitch in stopping their pursuit of weapons and larger militaries. If we want to abandon that approach and just defend ourselves I'm all for that. But it needs to be said and acknowledged as policy. Running around making promises to prevent people from becoming a threat and then failing to do it is the worst possible thing we can do. A little bit more of a nationalist view than I expected you to support but I can get behind it. That is the fundamental approach of most true libertarians.

[GreenGoo]

So what you are saying is we should let them have nuclear ballistic missiles, correct?

I'm saying it's a done deal. How would you stop them? Is your plan to occupy the country indefinitely? Set up internment camps for scientists? What?

Tell me how attacking them stops them from developing tech, especially when countries at war tend to go into overdrive in terms of production and research. If you think they're moving fast now, what will they do when the first bomb falls?

I don't have a plan for NK because I don't see NK as a problem that the rest of the world (including America) needs to solve. Work around, sure. Solve? When was the last time America solved anything in any sort of lasting way with shooty bits? How much did it cost? How many lives were "saved" by ending them?

[Rip]

So what you are saying is we should let them have nuclear ballistic missiles, correct?

I'm saying it's a done deal. How would you stop them? Is your plan to occupy the country indefinitely? Set up internment camps for scientists? What?

Tell me how attacking them stops them from developing tech, especially when countries at war tend to go into overdrive in terms of production and research. If you think they're moving fast now, what will they do when the first bomb falls?

I don't have a plan for NK because I don't see NK as a problem that the rest of the world (including America) needs to solve. Work around, sure. Solve? When was the last time America solved anything in any sort of lasting way with shooty bits? How much did it cost? How many lives were "saved" by ending them?

Round about 80 years ago. Of course we could have dealt with it a few years earlier and saved more of those 50-80M people but a whole lot of people that took your approach and didn't feel they were "our" problem drug their feet until the task was nearly insurmountable.

If you don't consider a NK with long range nuclear missiles a problem we need to solve then we really don't have any common ground. I do hope the liberals here adopt that as a slogan though.

[hepcat]

Rip shares no common ground with others has been a slogan around here for ages.

[Paingod]

Round about 80 years ago.

The day NK rolls tanks across the border into SK, or launches missiles at anyone, is the day all the answers become clear. Until then, we work in the muddy darkness of diplomacy. I don't think anyone would clasp their hands over their mouths and go "Oh no!" and just watch. I'm pretty sure it would be a sudden and extremely painful response.

[GreenGoo]

Round about 80 years ago. Of course we could have dealt with it a few years earlier and saved more of those 50-80M people but a whole lot of people that took your approach and didn't feel they were "our" problem drug their feet until the task was nearly insurmountable.

If you don't consider a NK with long range nuclear missiles a problem we need to solve then we really don't have any common ground. I do hope the liberals here adopt that as a slogan though.

Right. But this is the first time it has been proposed that you should nuke them in order to save them from themselves. I vaguely recall the US was in an armed conflict not of their making when they "solved" the problem you are holding up as a shiny example of diplomacy via nuclear warheads.

Wait, so you can peacefully co-exist with Putin at the helm of Russia's arsenal, a known murderer, tyrant/thug and all but dictator of Russia, but Kim Jong Un is an existential threat to the USofA? Is it because you have confidence in Drumpf and Putin having such a strong relationship?

What do you foresee NK doing with their nukes, that other countries have not done? Pakistan and India freakin' hate each other and don't need intercontinental missiles to reach each other.

There has been only 1 country to drop nukes on an enemy, as we approach 100 years of their existence. What is so scary about NK that war is the only answer, despite the fact that you still have not explained to me how a war will stop them from acquiring this technology?

No, I don't like relying on individuals' sense of self preservation to prevent nuclear war. In fact I hate it. If it were up to me, nukes would not exist at all. But they do, and they have done for quite a long time now.

You've said over and over how diplomacy doesn't work. Great. Please explain to me how bombing them will stop them.

[Zarathud]

NK will stop once their ally China forces them to stop. Trump is so incompetent and dependent on Putin that he has ZERO leverage short of War. And War with NK is Stupid.

[Carpet_pissr]

Round about 80 years ago.

The day NK rolls tanks across the border into SK, or launches missiles at anyone, is the day all the answers become clear. Until then, we work in the muddy darkness of diplomacy. I don't think anyone would clasp their hands over their mouths and go "Oh no!" and just watch. I'm pretty sure it would be a sudden and extremely painful response.

This

[Rip]

Well then I am not worried. The likelihood that NK will hit someone with a missile in my lifetime is pretty much certain, now we wait.

I think you will find that the response isn't as certain. immediate, or as successful as you envision. I would be surprised if they don't hit something even before Trump finishes his first term.

[Remus West]

Well then I am not worried. The likelihood that NK will hit someone with a missile in my lifetime is pretty much certain, now we wait.

I think you will find that the response isn't as certain. immediate, or as successful as you envision. I would be surprised if they don't hit something even before Trump finishes his first term.

Can you provide even a single reason for why you think they will hit something? Suppose they manage to nuke DC. Our response would be to ruin their nation and then start wringing our hands about if we over reacted or not. What target could they hope to hit with a nuke and not have their entire nation undone?

[GreenGoo]

Well then I am not worried. The likelihood that NK will hit someone with a missile in my lifetime is pretty much certain, now we wait.

I think you will find that the response isn't as certain. immediate, or as successful as you envision. I would be surprised if they don't hit something even before Trump finishes his first term.

Dude, I'd take that bet but you so clearly fail to take ownership when you are proven wrong time after time that it's a lose/lose proposition with you. You sure are quick to let us all know when your less outlandish predictions come true though. Then you're all about how smart you were.

That said, since nothing we say here will increase or decrease the chances of a nuclear strike from NK, I'll take the bet anyway.

I look forward to your surprised face when Drumpf leaves office. However, I will absolutely admit to and be saddened by the events that prove my wrongness if the future turns out otherwise.

Wait, does it still count if the nuke launch comes AFTER the US attacks NK? That seems unreasonable.

[Rip]

Well then I am not worried. The likelihood that NK will hit someone with a missile in my lifetime is pretty much certain, now we wait.

I think you will find that the response isn't as certain. immediate, or as successful as you envision. I would be surprised if they don't hit something even before Trump finishes his first term.

Can you provide even a single reason for why you think they will hit something? Suppose they manage to nuke DC. Our response would be to ruin their nation and then start wringing our hands about if we over reacted or not. What target could they hope to hit with a nuke and not have their entire nation undone?

I didn't say they would hit with a nuc. Once they have established possession of a long range nuc they will begin various acts of aggression and terrorism with impunity knowing that no one will risk starting a nuclear confrontation over them attacking who they want, when they want for whatever concessions they seek at the time. The Cuban Missile Crisis will seem like a weekend holiday in retrospect if we allow them to reach that capability.

If they achieve the goal and fail to engage in provocations against other nations for a decade I will eat my words, but I am confident I won't need to.

South Korean and Japanese security specialists point to a more serious danger. They remind us, correctly, that their countries have depended for their own security on the credible commitment of the United States to use all available means to defend them from attack by North Korea, including retaliation with nuclear weapons if necessary. Among other things, Japan and South Korea have chosen not to acquire nuclear weapons themselves because they believe in the U.S. nuclear umbrella. (South Korea had started on a nuclear program in the 1970s but the Ford administration shut it down. Japan has considered starting a program at various times but in the end never wished to risk the U.S.-Japan alliance.).

As North Korea’s quest is getting closer to success, skepticism in Seoul and Tokyo about credibility of the American commitment is increasing. Reasonably, the skeptics ask, if North Korea attacked them, would Washington be willing to retaliate with nuclear weapons when North Korea would be able and probably willing to counter-retaliate by hitting America? Would Washington be willing to risk San Francisco in order to save Seoul or Tokyo?

The scenario I have in mind is one in which North Korea starts at a relatively low rung of the escalation ladder: sinking a South Korean naval vessel, bombarding South Korean-controlled islands in the West Sea, or creating trouble in the demilitarized zone. It has done all of these things in the last seven years but then backed off from further conflict. Once Pyongyang can target the continental United States, it will likely take bigger risks than it has to date. It would undertake such limited-war actions as much to achieve political gains as military ones. It would hope to test South Korean intentions and try to drive wedges within South Korean society: between the military on the one hand and President Moon’s dovish advisers on the other; between conservative parties and progressive ones; between segments of the public that don’t want to see their country pushed around and those who worry about Seoul’s vulnerability. Where President Moon would come out is anybody’s guess.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-fr ... you-think/

[GreenGoo]

Sigh. Your quoted material implies a lack of confidence in current America to help DEFEND them. This is almost certainly a valid concern, considering how much gibberish and randomness has come out of Washington this year.

At no point are they asking "why hasn't America protected us by attacking NK yet?"

[gbasden]

South Korea hasn't exactly been agitating for us to invade NK. They know how horrific that would be. Do you think perhaps they should get a vote on this preemptive war?

[Moliere]

South Korea hasn't exactly been agitating for us to invade NK. They know how horrific that would be. Do you think perhaps they should get a vote on this preemptive war?

No

[Max Peck]

South Korea hasn't exactly been agitating for us to invade NK. They know how horrific that would be. Do you think perhaps they should get a vote on this preemptive war?

Side note: Preventive war and preemptive war are distinct concepts. Attacking North Korea because it is attempting to acquire nuclear missiles would be an example of a preventive war; attacking North Korea because it was about to attack South Korea/Japan/USA/whoever would be an example of a preemptive war. Generally, preemptive war is seen as being much more justifiable than preventive war, which is probably why the Trump administration has been using the word "preemptive" even though people like Kelly, Mattis and McMaster know better.

[em2nought]

Trump can't clean up Puerto Rico after a hurricane.

Gotta drain the Puerto Rican swamp first https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/27/im ... y-stopped/

[pr0ner]

Trump can't clean up Puerto Rico after a hurricane.

Gotta drain the Puerto Rican swamp first https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/27/im ... y-stopped/

The Federalist? Come on now.

[GreenGoo]

And volunteers were turned away from Texas.

This prevented the federal government from moving quickly and decisively how exactly?

Untold numbers of volunteers were turned away during the events of 9/11.

Clearly it's a conspiracy by government to prevent the distribution of paper towels.

[Holman]

Trump can't clean up Puerto Rico after a hurricane.

Gotta drain the Puerto Rican swamp first https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/27/im ... y-stopped/

"This just in: GOP congressional candidate claims Trump is great and Puerto Ricans are lazy."

[gbasden]

South Korea hasn't exactly been agitating for us to invade NK. They know how horrific that would be. Do you think perhaps they should get a vote on this preemptive war?

Side note: Preventive war and preemptive war are distinct concepts. Attacking North Korea because it is attempting to acquire nuclear missiles would be an example of a preventive war; attacking North Korea because it was about to attack South Korea/Japan/USA/whoever would be an example of a preemptive war. Generally, preemptive war is seen as being much more justifiable than preventive war, which is probably why the Trump administration has been using the word "preemptive" even though people like Kelly, Mattis and McMaster know better.

Excellent point - my apologies for using the incorrect term.

[Max Peck]

Could North Korea’s missile test lead to talks? Some see a slight opening.

North Korea has proved to be an unreliable negotiating partner over the past two decades, reneging on every deal that it has signed. But despite President Trump’s repeated talk of military options for dealing with Pyongyang, most analysts say that diplomacy remains the only realistic course.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Tuesday that “diplomatic options remain viable and open, for now.”

The language that North Korea used Wednesday — saying it had achieved a “priceless victory” and completed the missile development process — gave some analysts hope that Pyongyang was positioning itself to negotiate, albeit on its own terms.

“Once Pyongyang is convinced that we are convinced that it can reach the U.S. mainland with an ICBM,” said Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “it will be willing to discuss a freeze — in testing, not a verifiable freeze of its missile or nuclear programs — in return for what it really wants, which is a lifting of sanctions.”

[Carpet_pissr]

Side note: Preventive war and preemptive war are distinct concepts. Attacking North Korea because it is attempting to acquire nuclear missiles would be an example of a preventive war; attacking North Korea because it was about to attack South Korea/Japan/USA/whoever would be an example of a preemptive war. Generally, preemptive war is seen as being much more justifiable than preventive war, which is probably why the Trump administration has been using the word "preemptive" even though people like Kelly, Mattis and McMaster know better.

Did not realize that distinction existed. Thanks for clarifying.

[Max Peck]

The New Hwasong-15 ICBM: A Significant Improvement That May be Ready as Early as 2018

Photographs and video released by North Korea reveal that the Hwasong-15 test fired on November 29 is not a modified version of the Hwasong-14, as initially assessed here based solely on flight data. The Hwasong-15 is considerably larger than the Hwasong-14, and initial calculations indicate the new missile could deliver a moderately-sized nuclear weapon to any city on the US mainland. The Hwasong-15 is also large and powerful enough to carry simple decoys or other countermeasures designed to challenge America’s existing national missile defense (NMD) system. A handful of additional flight tests are needed to validate the Hwasong-15’s performance and reliability, and likely establish the efficacy of a protection system needed to ensure the warhead survives the rigors of atmospheric re-entry.

The Hwasong-15 is a two-stage, liquid-fueled ICBM. Photographs of the Hwasong-15 reveal that its first stage is powered by a pair of engines that share the same external features found on the single chamber engine used by the Hwasong-14. The two-chamber configuration found on the Hwasong-15 is very similar to the original design of the RD-251 engine block developed and produced in the former Soviet Union, suggesting that the total thrust generated at lift-off is about 80-tons force. This is reasonably consistent with the estimated mass of the new missile, which is between 40 and 50 metric tons. The configuration of the second stage is not known, though its overall size suggests it contains 50 percent more propellant than the Hwasong-14. Taken together, and applying conservative assumptions about the second-stage propulsion system, it now appears that the Hwasong-15 can deliver a 1,000-kg payload to any point on the US mainland. North Korea has almost certainly developed a nuclear warhead that weighs less than 700 kg, if not one considerably lighter.

[pr0ner]

I wonder if this one passed through Trump before Rex said it:

[Victoria Raverna]

War didn't work, so maybe try to be super friendly to NK's leader?

Invite him to visit US, treat him like a very important guest. Schedule parties with celebrities. Vacation at Mar-A-Lago.

Do whatever possible to make him doesn't want to go back to NK.

As backup plan, make sure there are plenty of recorded pee tapes.

[Remus West]

War didn't work, so maybe try to be super friendly to NK's leader?

Invite him to visit US, treat him like a very important guest. Schedule parties with celebrities. Vacation at Mar-A-Lago.

Do whatever possible to make him doesn't want to go back to NK.

As backup plan, make sure there are plenty of recorded pee tapes.

Like that would ever work to control a civilized nation.........

[Punisher]

War didn't work, so maybe try to be super friendly to NK's leader?

Invite him to visit US, treat him like a very important guest. Schedule parties with celebrities. Vacation at Mar-A-Lago.

Do whatever possible to make him doesn't want to go back to NK.

As backup plan, make sure there are plenty of recorded pee tapes.

Hmm.. Have we TRIED a Fruit Basket?

[pr0ner]

[Moliere]

another defector

A South Korean defense ministry official said up to 20 warning shots were fired as North Korean troops approached too near the “military demarcation line” at the demilitarized zone (DMZ), apparently in search of the missing soldier.

Thursday’s defection came about five weeks after a North Korean soldier suffered critical gunshot wounds during a defection dash across the border.

Two North Korean civilians were also found in a fishing boat on Wednesday and had sought to defect, officials in the South said.

That brings the total number of North Koreans who have defected by taking dangerous routes either directly across the border or by sea to 15 so far this year, including two other soldiers. That is three times the number last year, according to South Korean officials.