One might argue that Trump forced china to solve the problem.
One wonders if that's actually true. Either way, it's still a failure. He's managed to make America look bad in the process - and hemmed himself in on policy. He has no other option left but to push towards war. It's just not done - you rememebert the shitstorm Reagan created with 'The Bombing Begins in Five Minutes', and now we've Trump actively agitating for nuclear weapons use.
Even when, arguably, the United States has plenty of military options that don't rely one iota on a nuclear warhead.
Of course, it's very easy to agitate against a country that really, posses no actual threat to you. Try to imagine the same rhetoric being used against the Soviet Union - and how alarming that would be.
The Kim regime can just ignore him if it wants. It achieves its goal just by existing. And it's achieving that by making the world acknowledge that, if you fuck with us, we can give you a really bloody nose in the process. At least, they have the potential to. That's all North Korea wants to demonstrate - it knows it'll loose any war it fights, but wants to demonstrate just how pyhrric a victory that'll be.
Either in public relations, on humanitarian front or in sheer blood spent. It won't be a short victorious war for anyone.
It doesn't even have to use a nuclear weapon to achieve it. The problem with North Korea using its nuclear weapons is that, once they're gone, they're gone. They're probably never going to be used. They're a massive white elephant that has to be acknowledged by everyone as a possibility of being unleashed, while at the same time probably never going to be unleashed.
Because the moment one of them leaves the silo is the moment the Kim regime ends. Nobody's going to be held back by the worry about them using them anymore, and everyone is going to be fairly pissed off at them for using them. The United States could probably happily annihilate a large chunk of North Korea without ever using a nuclear weapon. The average B2 can carry 30-40 tons of conventional bombs.... The equivelant of 6 or 7 Lancaster bombers used to incinerate Dresden. But risks pushing the DPRK to the point where it thinks it might have no choice but to try one small bomb, to demonstrate its resolve or something.....
Which means the whole lot gets in this weird sort of stalemate where nobody rational particularly wants to risk things escalating to the point where it pushed the DPRK to the point where it thinks it has no choice but to use them - (In case they're made to go away by surprise or whatever), and at the same time, the DPRK probably doesn't want to get into that situation either, because if it has to use them it then looses the protection they provide.
Nuclear weapons lead to some really fucked up conclusions at times.
And Trump is merrily throwing these out the window.________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
One wonders if that's actually true. Either way, it's still a failure. He's managed to make America look bad in the process - and hemmed himself in on policy. He has no other option left but to push towards war. It's just not done - you rememebert the shitstorm Reagan created with 'The Bombing Begins in Five Minutes', and now we've Trump actively agitating for nuclear weapons use.
Even when, arguably, the United States has plenty of military options that don't rely one iota on a nuclear warhead.
Of course, it's very easy to agitate against a country that really, posses no actual threat to you. Try to imagine the same rhetoric being used against the Soviet Union - and how alarming that would be.
The Kim regime can just ignore him if it wants. It achieves its goal just by existing. And it's achieving that by making the world acknowledge that, if you fuck with us, we can give you a really bloody nose in the process. At least, they have the potential to. That's all North Korea wants to demonstrate - it knows it'll loose any war it fights, but wants to demonstrate just how pyhrric a victory that'll be.
Either in public relations, on humanitarian front or in sheer blood spent. It won't be a short victorious war for anyone.
It doesn't even have to use a nuclear weapon to achieve it. The problem with North Korea using its nuclear weapons is that, once they're gone, they're gone. They're probably never going to be used. They're a massive white elephant that has to be acknowledged by everyone as a possibility of being unleashed, while at the same time probably never going to be unleashed.
Because the moment one of them leaves the silo is the moment the Kim regime ends. Nobody's going to be held back by the worry about them using them anymore, and everyone is going to be fairly pissed off at them for using them. The United States could probably happily annihilate a large chunk of North Korea without ever using a nuclear weapon. The average B2 can carry 30-40 tons of conventional bombs.... The equivelant of 6 or 7 Lancaster bombers used to incinerate Dresden. But risks pushing the DPRK to the point where it thinks it might have no choice but to try one small bomb, to demonstrate its resolve or something.....
Which means the whole lot gets in this weird sort of stalemate where nobody rational particularly wants to risk things escalating to the point where it pushed the DPRK to the point where it thinks it has no choice but to use them - (In case they're made to go away by surprise or whatever), and at the same time, the DPRK probably doesn't want to get into that situation either, because if it has to use them it then looses the protection they provide.
Nuclear weapons lead to some really fucked up conclusions at times.
And Trump is merrily throwing these out the window.________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?