Trump MAGAthread VIII: Make the MAGAthread Great Again

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They have missiles, but how many, how reliable, how accurate and whether or not they can even put nukes on them is another question entirely. Even ignoring that, Mutual Assured Destruction still remains; Kim hits Guam, a few Ohios will surface and waste Kim. North Korea, contrary to popular belief, is a rational state actor despite the bluster. They know the score, otherwise we'd already have a Second Korean War long ago.

^This. North Korea wants nuclear weapons because it saw what happened to Saddam and Gaddafi.

It also wants nukes because the 90's famine generated an entire generation of stunted, retarded, starving midgets for subjects, and it basically killed the KPA. Without nukes they have no defences.

[Gim]

^This. North Korea wants nuclear weapons because it saw what happened to Saddam and Gaddafi.

It also wants nukes because the 90's famine generated an entire generation of stunted, retarded, starving midgets for subjects, and it basically killed the KPA. Without nukes they have no defences.

Thanks to Kim Jong Il.

[Oil exporting People]

You know the fatal assumption you're making is that the Norks have the same access to public global research as Americans do. Not to mention they could desgin a bomb, but building one and the process for enriching uranium isn't easy nor cheap, and it's not like Norks had access to anything of the process on how to enrich in the first place.

If a kid in the 1970s could pull it off using books at the library, then there is no doubt North Korea could with information off the internet.

Unless you gotta source in there that shows a kid successfully designing a way to enrich uranium?

It's not that hard with an entire nation's resources at hand, and when most of the basics are available online. It's not like the U.S. didn't use just a bunch of civilian physicists to design its own weapon.

[New haven america]

They were saying everyone hated NK, which is untrue, because China and Russia are NK's allies.

K?

Saying they are NK allies is pushing it. They trade with North Korea; that doesn't make them allies.

Uh, no, they are literally NK's allies.

[Gim]

Saying they are NK allies is pushing it. They trade with North Korea; that doesn't make them allies.

Uh, no, they are literally NK's allies.

Covertly speaking.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Saying they are NK allies is pushing it. They trade with North Korea; that doesn't make them allies.

Uh, no, they are literally NK's allies.

How so? They don't conduct anything like military exercises with them, they don't militarily cooperate with North Korea, and they even put sanctions on the North Koreans.

[Gim]

Uh, no, they are literally NK's allies.

How so? They don't conduct anything like military exercises with them, they don't militarily cooperate with North Korea, and they even put sanctions on the North Koreans.

Also, China condemns DPRK's missile tests.

[Steffan]

You know the fatal assumption you're making is that the Norks have the same access to public global research as Americans do. Not to mention they could desgin a bomb, but building one and the process for enriching uranium isn't easy nor cheap, and it's not like Norks had access to anything of the process on how to enrich in the first place.

Unless you gotta source in there that shows a kid successfully designing a way to enrich uranium?

It's still an accomplishment, given the fact that they have no allies and limited resources.

At what cost?
Every other aspect of their country: infrastructure, economy, military, etc.
NK is still a mess of a nation.

[Gim]

It's still an accomplishment, given the fact that they have no allies and limited resources.

At what cost?
Every other aspect of their country: infrastructure, economy, military, etc.
NK is still a mess of a nation.

It's antiquated, which is the right word.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's still an accomplishment, given the fact that they have no allies and limited resources.

At what cost?
Every other aspect of their country: infrastructure, economy, military, etc.
NK is still a mess of a nation.

Having nukes could allow the North to not spend like 40% of its budget on the military as a deterrent.

[New haven america]

Uh, no, they are literally NK's allies.

How so? They don't conduct anything like military exercises with them, they don't militarily cooperate with North Korea, and they even put sanctions on the North Koreans.

Gee, IDK, it's not like China and the USSR (Specifically Russia) are the only reasons NK exists today.

[Gim]

At what cost?
Every other aspect of their country: infrastructure, economy, military, etc.
NK is still a mess of a nation.

Having nukes could allow the North to not spend like 40% of its budget on the military as a deterrent.

That's why they are not destroyed as other dictatorships and terrorist nations are.

[Steffan]

At what cost?
Every other aspect of their country: infrastructure, economy, military, etc.
NK is still a mess of a nation.

Having nukes could allow the North to not spend like 40% of its budget on the military as a deterrent.

Then what would they spend it on? Twinkies for Kim?

[Gim]

Having nukes could allow the North to not spend like 40% of its budget on the military as a deterrent.

Then what would they spend it on? Twinkies for Kim?

Infrastructure, piling up Kim's wealth, etc.

[United Muscovite Nations]

How so? They don't conduct anything like military exercises with them, they don't militarily cooperate with North Korea, and they even put sanctions on the North Koreans.

Gee, IDK, it's not like China and the USSR (Specifically Russia) are the only reasons NK exists today.

First of all, that's a tabloid.

Secondly, the UN in general provides aid to North Korea. Thirdly, even that article points out that Russia said that if North Korea continues on its current path, that the US and South Korea would be justified in using military force against it.

[Valrifell]

You know the fatal assumption you're making is that the Norks have the same access to public global research as Americans do. Not to mention they could desgin a bomb, but building one and the process for enriching uranium isn't easy nor cheap, and it's not like Norks had access to anything of the process on how to enrich in the first place.

If a kid in the 1970s could pull it off using books at the library, then there is no doubt North Korea could with information off the internet.

Unless you gotta source in there that shows a kid successfully designing a way to enrich uranium?

It's not that hard with an entire nation's resources at hand, and when most of the basics are available online. It's not like the U.S. didn't use just a bunch of civilian physicists to design its own weapon.

Methinks you're understating the effort that goes into nuclear physics.

I'll just leave it at that since I don't know why I jumped in this conversation >.>

[New haven america]

Gee, IDK, it's not like China and the USSR (Specifically Russia) are the only reasons NK exists today.

1.First of all, that's a tabloid.

2.Secondly, the UN in general provides aid to North Korea. 3.Thirdly, even that article points out that Russia said that if North Korea continues on its current path, that the US and South Korea would be justified in using military force against it.

1. Unimportant
2. Because they kinda have to, you can't exclude a country from the In just because you don't like them, plus, 2/5 countries that are part of the permanent security council are allies with them.
3. And? That's just common sense.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1.First of all, that's a tabloid.

2.Secondly, the UN in general provides aid to North Korea. 3.Thirdly, even that article points out that Russia said that if North Korea continues on its current path, that the US and South Korea would be justified in using military force against it.

1. Unimportant
2. Because they kinda have to, you can't exclude a country from the In just because you don't like them, plus, 2/5 countries that are part of the permanent security council are allies with them.
3. And? That's just common sense.

2) The US provides aid to the North as part of the UN.
3) Why would an ally tell the North to weaken itself?

[Oil exporting People]

Uh, no, they are literally NK's allies.

It's more a relationship of convenience, then an actual military pact.

Both Moscow and Beijing benefit from Kim serving as a buffer, in that they don't have to share a border with a major U.S. ally which currently houses one of the largest foreign American troop deployments in the World. China also benefits from leveraging Pyongyang as a bargaining chip, as they showed earlier this year when Trump refrained from labeling them a currency manipulator in favor of support in containing Kim. Russia likewise has a similar benefit, in that North Korea provides a good distraction to the U.S. and further reinforces the American view of the "Pivot to the Pacific" as necessary; this affords Putin more freedom in action as the U.S. becomes more bogged down.

Should Kim break loose and start a war, Moscow and Beijing would be more than willing to participate in putting him down (In order to keep the buffer benefit).

[Steffan]

Uh, no, they are literally NK's allies.

It's more a relationship of convenience, then an actual military pact.

Both Moscow and Beijing benefit from Kim serving as a buffer, in that they don't have to share a border with a major U.S. ally which currently houses one of the largest foreign American troop deployments in the World. China also benefits from leveraging Pyongyang as a bargaining chip, as they showed earlier this year when Trump refrained from labeling them a currency manipulator in favor of support in containing Kim. Russia likewise has a similar benefit, in that North Korea provides a good distraction to the U.S. and further reinforces the American view of the "Pivot to the Pacific" as necessary; this affords Putin more freedom in action as the U.S. becomes more bogged down.

Should Kim break loose and start a war, Moscow and Beijing would be more than willing to participate in putting him down (In order to keep the buffer benefit).

^ This exact thing ^

[Genivaria]

Uh, no, they are literally NK's allies.

It's more a relationship of convenience, then an actual military pact.

Both Moscow and Beijing benefit from Kim serving as a buffer, in that they don't have to share a border with a major U.S. ally which currently houses one of the largest foreign American troop deployments in the World. China also benefits from leveraging Pyongyang as a bargaining chip, as they showed earlier this year when Trump refrained from labeling them a currency manipulator in favor of support in containing Kim. Russia likewise has a similar benefit, in that North Korea provides a good distraction to the U.S. and further reinforces the American view of the "Pivot to the Pacific" as necessary; this affords Putin more freedom in action as the U.S. becomes more bogged down.

^Part of the reason why I support the notion of the EU becoming less dependent on NATO and the US for defense.
I wish we could aid in the creation of some kind of defensive pact in the Pacific.
South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Australia...
But then they have grudges against each other from WW2.

[New haven america]

1. Unimportant
2. Because they kinda have to, you can't exclude a country from the In just because you don't like them, plus, 2/5 countries that are part of the permanent security council are allies with them.
3. And? That's just common sense.

2) The US provides aid to the North as part of the UN.
3) Why would an ally tell the North to weaken itself?

2. Because the US is the largest aid giver in the world. (Besides, Kim makes us giving aid to them as a sign of the US bowing to NK, when we could stop at anytime. I'm actually surprised Trump hasn't tried that yet, tbh...)
3. Maybe because said ally doesn't want to deal with the shit NK is starting. Russia's not even a match for the US, and if NK attacks the US with Russia's support, then that means Russia not only has to deal with the Us, but entirety of NATO (Which, as stated a few pages back, is 7.4 mil fighters with 3.5 mil ready of deployment).

[Ism]

It's more a relationship of convenience, then an actual military pact.

Both Moscow and Beijing benefit from Kim serving as a buffer, in that they don't have to share a border with a major U.S. ally which currently houses one of the largest foreign American troop deployments in the World. China also benefits from leveraging Pyongyang as a bargaining chip, as they showed earlier this year when Trump refrained from labeling them a currency manipulator in favor of support in containing Kim. Russia likewise has a similar benefit, in that North Korea provides a good distraction to the U.S. and further reinforces the American view of the "Pivot to the Pacific" as necessary; this affords Putin more freedom in action as the U.S. becomes more bogged down.

^Part of the reason why I support the notion of the EU becoming less dependent on NATO and the US for defense.
I wish we could aid in the creation of some kind of defensive pact in the Pacific.
South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Australia...
But then they have grudges against each other from WW2.

Not to mention doing anything official with Taiwan would probably piss of the PRC.

[New haven america]

It's more a relationship of convenience, then an actual military pact.

Both Moscow and Beijing benefit from Kim serving as a buffer, in that they don't have to share a border with a major U.S. ally which currently houses one of the largest foreign American troop deployments in the World. China also benefits from leveraging Pyongyang as a bargaining chip, as they showed earlier this year when Trump refrained from labeling them a currency manipulator in favor of support in containing Kim. Russia likewise has a similar benefit, in that North Korea provides a good distraction to the U.S. and further reinforces the American view of the "Pivot to the Pacific" as necessary; this affords Putin more freedom in action as the U.S. becomes more bogged down.

^Part of the reason why I support the notion of the EU becoming less dependent on NATO and the US for defense.
I wish we could aid in the creation of some kind of defensive pact in the Pacific.
South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Australia...
But then they have grudges against each other from WW2.

We could try, but that would take a lot of hard work and negotiating (And we don't exactly have the best people for that job in office right now).

Also, China wouldn't be happy about Taiwan.

[Genivaria]

^Part of the reason why I support the notion of the EU becoming less dependent on NATO and the US for defense.
I wish we could aid in the creation of some kind of defensive pact in the Pacific.
South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Australia...
But then they have grudges against each other from WW2.

Not to mention doing anything official with Taiwan would probably piss of the PRC.

There's that yes.
But it doesn't have to be official at first.
We can lay the foundation with other interested parties first and then invite Taiwan.

^Part of the reason why I support the notion of the EU becoming less dependent on NATO and the US for defense.
I wish we could aid in the creation of some kind of defensive pact in the Pacific.
South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Australia...
But then they have grudges against each other from WW2.

We could try, but that would take a lot of hard work and negotiating (And we don't exactly have the best people for that job in office right now).

Also, China wouldn't be happy about Taiwan.

Sadly correct on all counts.