• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea Successfully Tests Another ICBM, Pentagon Says

I totally agree that North Korea is not the primary point, and see the rather somber writing on the walls regarding war. These two oceans do not protect us like the used to do.

However, the fact remains that we currently have the military force and economic capital to be the reigning Super Power, and anyone who questions that status as of 2017 (incompetent President considered) isn't looking at the situation clearly. That being the case, we have no gold plated guarantee to keep this positing forever.

Our Pax-Romana could absolutely end within the foreseeable future.

So what do we do?

Persuade the international community to organize security and R2P at the supranational (probably UN) level that is general, believable and robust.
 
If you were to ask me honestly, Do I believe that we would win a conventional war against North Korea? My answer would be a resounding, yes. Further, I think it would probably be unsatisfying-ly easy.

But if you were to ask me if that would be the right course of action, I'd say no.

The conventional war would be easy, a great live-fire training exercise for our Military. But the follow-up would be terrible and only continue the conditions that made today's quandary possible.

We've got the upper hand, right now.

Kim-Jong Un's propaganda is false, their economy is in tatters and they don't have the requisite natural resources to stay this isolated forever.

In fact all he's got going for him is loyalty, unquestioning authority within his realm and the US constantly saber rattling.

If we were to stop and become his best friend it would prove the propaganda wrong. Further people will only remain loyal to the one who can't feed them for so long, especially when there's a helping hand open at the gate.

If NK were a standalone issue. You might be right.
 
"There's a new Sheriff in town!" I wish I could remember which Trumpster said that to me in the giddy, triumphant days after the election. The Donald was going to stop the world from pushing America around, after Obama had done diddly-squat about North Korea and ISIS and Russia in the Crimea.
Ain't no Sheriff. It's Deputy Fife.

Aren't y'all the same democrats that said Trump can't have the launch button, and y'all said he would just go off the rail and start firing warheads.
Y'all confuse me , witch do you want, Trump is trying to work the problem out without starting WWIII.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Persuade the international community to organize security and R2P at the supranational (probably UN) level that is general, believable and robust.

Thing is, a broken clock is right twice a day, and in part President Twump is right. The international community has little interest in actually doing anything substantial about this situation, less they would've done it literally decades ago. North Korea is a hornets nest, and just like an actual hornets nest, no one wants to actually be the one to do something about it. China and Russia are too close, and have a lot to lose if it goes wrong. South Korea and Japan depend on our military assistance too much, and won't do anything unless we lead (you know how people are braver when their buddy goes in first).

No, if anything is going to be done, it will have to be the United States taking unilateral action first.

The international community will just catch up afterwards.

If we do it right, they'll try to join and take credit.

If we muck it up, they'll distance themselves, but still make no decisive ruling against us (see also Iraq).

If NK were a standalone issue. You might be right.

As a state actor, they are pretty unique, and I'd say enough so that it is a standalone issue (for now).

How would it make my position wrong if they weren't though?
 
Thing is, a broken clock is right twice a day, and in part President Twump is right. The international community has little interest in actually doing anything substantial about this situation, less they would've done it literally decades ago. North Korea is a hornets nest, and just like an actual hornets nest, no one wants to actually be the one to do something about it. China and Russia are too close, and have a lot to lose if it goes wrong. South Korea and Japan depend on our military assistance too much, and won't do anything unless we lead (you know how people are braver when their buddy goes in first).

No, if anything is going to be done, it will have to be the United States taking unilateral action first.

The international community will just catch up afterwards.

If we do it right, they'll try to join and take credit.

If we muck it up, they'll distance themselves, but still make no decisive ruling against us (see also Iraq).



As a state actor, they are pretty unique, and I'd say enough so that it is a standalone issue (for now).

How would it make my position wrong if they weren't though?

- We were there in the early 1990s. The alternatives were quite well established. The only question really open was which supra national organization to use, if we want to avoid nuclear war in this century.
- Just because a situation looks different, does not mean that the ramifications mean it is standalone.
 
Back
Top Bottom