• 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!

How Likely is a War with North Korea?

How likely is a war with North Korea?

  • Very Likely

    Votes: 7 10.1%
  • Somewhat Likely

    Votes: 14 20.3%
  • Somewhat Unlikely

    Votes: 20 29.0%
  • Very Unlikely

    Votes: 28 40.6%

  • Total voters
    69
However the incredibly immature, stupid, and insane son who took over North Korea is too unpredictable. If that tinpot dictator gets his hands on intercontinental ballistic nukes, Hawaii and California will have reason to be as nervous as the US southeast was during the Cuban missile crisis when Cuba had nukes parked 90 miles from where I am sitting right now.

since it's so vitally important, that's even more motivation to hash out what wartime tax rates will look like. first, though, you should commit to actively opposing tax cuts at the very least.
 
If Israel were a theocracy, wouldn't all members in the Kinesset be Jewish?

Since the Israeli government has the electorate vote for Kinesset members and the Prime Minister, isn't that rather Democratic in form and nature, rather than theocratic? Where someone from the religious order take these positions?

Turn it around. Why do you believe that Israel is a theocracy? You appear to have made that claim. How to do you come to that conclusion / position? What is your reasoning?

It is a Jewish State.
 
It is a Jewish State.

OK. Given. Does that mean it is a theocracy though?
Seems they have and practice a democratic form of government. That seems, at least to me, to be at odds with being a theocracy.

Why do you believe Israel to be a theocracy?
 
it all depends on whether or not the insane fat boy in North Korea stupidly decides to call Trump's bluff.

Why do you always assume the Americans are bluffing, and the insane North Korean boyclown isn't? Three aircraft carriers are over kill for this job if necessary.
 
OK. Given. Does that mean it is a theocracy though?
Seems they have and practice a democratic form of government. That seems, at least to me, to be at odds with being a theocracy.

Why do you believe Israel to be a theocracy?

It sounded good at the time...
 
Why do you always assume the Americans are bluffing, and the insane North Korean boyclown isn't? Three aircraft carriers are over kill for this job if necessary.

I don't see them as overkill. I think the more forces we put in position, and the more urgently we do it, the less risk we will have to use them. This is a very serious threat, and it calls for a very serious response. If shooting were to start and North Korea's forces were not quickly and seriously disrupted, they would surely kill many thousands of people in the South before they were through. That includes some of the 28,000 U.S. servicemen there.

We should not underestimate the danger. But we also should not shrink from the risks of large-scale war when we need to face them. The U.S. has been doing that too much in recent years, and it has hurt our credibility. Weakness has allowed North Korea not only to dare to develop, as fast as it can, nuclear-armed missiles capable of striking our allies and even our own territory, but also to express the intent to use them. The U.S. cannot accept that.

The U.S. faced a FAR more formidable opponent than this one in the Cuban Crisis, but it backed down without a fight. And part of the reason for that, I think, is that the U.S. not only moved up an overwhelmingly large force, but had it in place within a week. I believe Khrushchev never expected a reaction like that, and that when he saw the strength and speed of it, it scared him. All the forces needed for all-out war were ready to go, and he sensed--rightly, I have always thought--that Kennedy was going to use them if necessary.

The information on the site below will give an idea of just how strong the U.S. response was in October, 1962. Remember that these immense forces had almost all been moved into position by the time of President Kennedy's speech on October 22--only about a week after he had first been shown reconnaissance photos proving that several nuclear missile bases were quickly being built in Cuba. Note the hundreds of nuclear-armed bombers. Note also how many ships were in position to enforce the "quarantine" Kennedy announced, including a couple carrier groups, and how many hundreds of tactical aircraft had been packed into airbases in the Southeast. Six divisions, about 100,000 troops, were also quickly moving into position to invade Cuba if that became necessary.

Cuban Missile Crisis Order of Battle
 
Last edited:
I won't go so far as calling it "operating without a brain". What I will call it is a belief that typically dishonest and untrustworthy people and regimes would not be so. I believe that's called being naive, at least on the international stage.

However that particular president was naïve to the point of stupidity. Not using the brain is very similar to operating without one.
 
since it's so vitally important, that's even more motivation to hash out what wartime tax rates will look like. first, though, you should commit to actively opposing tax cuts at the very least.

This nation fought two world wars without enacting war taxes, as well as many smaller wars since. During WW2, the government sold war bonds. If that insane nutcase running North Korea were to start WW3, I would support the military if war bonds were offered and in other ways. I would not support a "war tax" Even during wartime it is not military expenditures that break the bank....it's our massive runaway entitlement system that breaks the bank. And no......I would not oppose tax cuts. The last three major tax cuts, one when GWB was in office, one when Reagan was in office, and one when JFK was in office all resulted in increased tax revenue, not less revenue. Washington DC simply needs to stop spending $1.50 for every $1.00 of tax revenue.
 
Why do you always assume the Americans are bluffing, and the insane North Korean boyclown isn't? Three aircraft carriers are over kill for this job if necessary.
It's a figure of speech. I do not think Trump is bluffing. However previous US presidents have. And chances are the North Korean nutjob is bluffing. If he has any sanity at all, he is probably looking for a face saving way out of this. However we will see what actions he takes. And I do not see the three aircraft carriers as overkill. If the insane fat boy does cause a war, their is no guarantee that they will not get help from China or elsewhere.
 
This nation fought two world wars without enacting war taxes, as well as many smaller wars since. During WW2, the government sold war bonds. If that insane nutcase running North Korea were to start WW3, I would support the military if war bonds were offered and in other ways. I would not support a "war tax" Even during wartime it is not military expenditures that break the bank....it's our massive runaway entitlement system that breaks the bank. And no......I would not oppose tax cuts. The last three major tax cuts, one when GWB was in office, one when Reagan was in office, and one when JFK was in office all resulted in increased tax revenue, not less revenue. Washington DC simply needs to stop spending $1.50 for every $1.00 of tax revenue.

if you're not willing to at the very least give up tax cuts for an allegedly essential war, then i'm not convinced that even hawks believe that the war is essential. shared sacrifice, or no war.
 
Wow, I hope you're wrong. He's gotta know if he launches nukes at anyone he's signing his own country's death warrant as well.

I sincerely hope that this does not develop into a hot war. And you are right. If North Korea does start something, the regime will last about 30 minutes, however they could initially do some serious damage in South Korea.
 
if you're not willing to at the very least give up tax cuts for an allegedly essential war, then i'm not convinced that even hawks believe that the war is essential. shared sacrifice, or no war.

There will be shared sacrifice with or without war taxes.
 
There will be shared sacrifice with or without war taxes.

certainly. however, if i'm to believe the sincerity of a hawkish argument that war is urgently necessary, i want to see the hawks open their wallets first, and significantly. at that point, i'll at least consider the possibility.
 
I don't personally think there is such a thing as a war against North Korea without pulling others in on both sides. I also personally believe that if their dictator were removed or otherwise taken care of, their citizens would be dancing in the streets.

Um, didn't we believe this one once before?

TMF: Re: 'Flowers and open arms' / Political Asylum

I agree with the first part of your statement, that a war with NK is a disaster. I don't agree with the second part of your statement. Let's start with the notion that China does not want an American influenced democracy bordering its country.
 
Not interested in talking about war time taxes. I am only interested in what happens in regards to North Korea. If the insane fat boy does something stupid. if he does not, no action will need to be taken. Technically we have been at war with North Korea since the 1953.

... Trump or Jong-un? Which insane fat-boy are you worrying about acting stupid?

Is anyone else struck by the irony (or insanity) that many are advocating a nuclear war preferable to NK having nuclear weapon capability. What? Are we afraid that NK might lead us to a nuclear war? So, the solution is let's start a nuclear war?
 
Um, didn't we believe this one once before?

TMF: Re: 'Flowers and open arms' / Political Asylum

I agree with the first part of your statement, that a war with NK is a disaster. I don't agree with the second part of your statement. Let's start with the notion that China does not want an American influenced democracy bordering its country.

So you are saying that the North Koreans actually like their leader and wouldn't be dancing in the streets if he was taken care of?
 
However that particular president was naïve to the point of stupidity. Not using the brain is very similar to operating without one.

I attribute it to the recurring symptom of viewing the world as some wish it would be and accepting that as the reality, rather than how it is in reality.

The truth is that the world is filled with unscrupulous, dishonest and untrustworthy authoritarian national leaders, who got there and stay there exactly because they are unscrupulous, dishonest and untrustworthy. Seems rather 'unicornish' to believe these people to be other than who and what they really are.

The brain is fully engaged, but self-deceived, driven by, and blinded by, ideological agenda and incorrect preconceived notions.
 
So you are saying that the North Koreans actually like their leader and wouldn't be dancing in the streets if he was taken care of?

It didn't happen in Iraq. World history is full of tyrant's being replaced by worse tyrant's with incredible pain, hardship and death in between. Not every regime change is met with everyone breaking into a chorus of "Ding-Dong, the Witch is Dead"

I am not North Korean. It is not the only way of life I know. I think its reasonably arrogant to assume you know North Korean values. To be clear, however, I am not saying there will be no dancing in the streets, but its pretty arrogant to assume there will be (again, Iraq being an example).

How would you feel about NK effecting regime change in the US?
 
Last edited:
It didn't happen in Iraq. World history is full of tyrant's being replaced by worse tyrant's with incredible pain, hardship and death in between. Not every regime change is met with everyone breaking into a chorus of "Ding-Dong, the Witch is Dead"

I am not North Korean. It is not the only way of life I know. I think its reasonably arrogant to assume you know North Korean values. To be clear, however, I am not saying there will be no dancing in the streets, but its pretty arrogant to assume there will be (again, Iraq being an example).

How would you feel about NK effecting regime change in the US?

All the North Korean defectors all say the same story so I'm not just stating my opinion.
 
certainly. however, if i'm to believe the sincerity of a hawkish argument that war is urgently necessary, i want to see the hawks open their wallets first, and significantly. at that point, i'll at least consider the possibility.

But then I do not see anyone acting as hawks. I have seen nobody on the board claim that they wish for a war with North Korea. However if we allow North Korea to march onward in their goal of obtaining intercontinental ballistic nukes, we will be facing a much bigger war further down the road that could have been avoided. Not to mention that California and Hawaii get a chronic tase of the 1960s Cuban missile crisis. Here's hoping that the dumb bastard running North Korea takes stock of the armada lining up against him, sh*ts his pants and backs down.
 
But then I do not see anyone acting as hawks. I have seen nobody on the board claim that they wish for a war with North Korea. However if we allow North Korea to march onward in their goal of obtaining intercontinental ballistic nukes, we will be facing a much bigger war further down the road that could have been avoided. Not to mention that California and Hawaii get a chronic tase of the 1960s Cuban missile crisis. Here's hoping that the dumb bastard running North Korea takes stock of the armada lining up against him, sh*ts his pants and backs down.

Liberals just don't understand that sometimes it is better to fight the war now when we have a better chance of winning than waiting until it is too late and we have a better chance of losing. Hitler is the perfect example. If he had been taken seriously much earlier on, the world and the US would not have had to go through what we went through. Obama's deal with Iran is another example. Instead of keeping the pressure on Iran and forcing them (through sanctions) to never acquire a nuclear weapon EVER, Obama made a deal with them that if they didn't make a nuclear weapon for the next ten years, they would be free to do so after the ten years was up. This is what the idiot in North Korea is up to. Ten years down the road we are all screwed and so is the rest of the world.
 
Is anyone else struck by the irony (or insanity) that many are advocating a nuclear war preferable to NK having nuclear weapon capability. What? Are we afraid that NK might lead us to a nuclear war? So, the solution is let's start a nuclear war?

I hear of no so called American hawk advocating a nuclear war. On the contrary, we would all like to avoid one. However if that insane fat boy running north Korea is allowed to gain intercontinental ballistic nukes, a nuclear war is much more likely to happen. Right at this point in time, the only way a nuclear war would get started is if that north Korean idiot fires one of his crude nuclear missiles at South Korea or elsewhere. If that happens, ofcourse we would respond, possibly with low yield battlefield nukes.
 
Liberals just don't understand that sometimes it is better to fight the war now when we have a better chance of winning than waiting until it is too late and we have a better chance of losing. Hitler is the perfect example. If he had been taken seriously much earlier on, the world and the US would not have had to go through what we went through.

Exactly. There were points where Britain and France could have easily stopped the Third Reich in it's tracks. A good read on that history is the book: "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.

Obama's deal with Iran is another example. Instead of keeping the pressure on Iran and forcing them (through sanctions) to never acquire a nuclear weapon EVER, Obama made a deal with them that if they didn't make a nuclear weapon for the next ten years, they would be free to do so after the ten years was up. This is what the idiot in North Korea is up to. Ten years down the road we are all screwed and so is the rest of the world.

And the result could be inflicting our children and grandchildren with a terrorist state superpower. Future generations will look back at us and say: "Why the hell didn't you stop this?"
 
Back
Top Bottom