General Question

Brian_Ghilliotti's avatar

Why all of a sudden are we getting ready for a major war with North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs?

Asked by Brian_Ghilliotti (306points) April 19th, 2017 from iPhone

We have known about Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs for decades. North Korea has been firing missiles off its east coat for decades. We were going to strike North Korea under Clinton during the 1990’s, but then we decided on strategic patience for about 30 years OK I. Now we want to give up strategic patience with North Korea, yet for some reason we want to continue on with strategic strategic patience with Iran. Why is that? I have an idea. If we give our strategic patience with Iran, we will severely disrupted oil markets. What do you think?

Brian Ghilliotti

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

We aren’t. Trump is.

With Trump antagonizing China, China has no overwhelming reason to put restraints on NK. They could tell Un that he has demonstrated his power and to stop the antagonism or face being cut off from China’s food and energy.

elbanditoroso's avatar

The quick answer can be seen in the movie Wag the Dog.

The president is in trouble (although in the movie it was a sex scandal), and so he conjures up a war. Spoiler: In the end, it goes badly for him.

They all do it:

Nixon in Vietnam
Bush and Cheney in Iraq
Netanyahu in Israel

An appeal to militaristic nationalism is a great way to divert peoples’ attention.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There may be some truth in the argument that North Korea has nothing that anyone wants or needs, but it’s a mistake to equate the situation in Iran with the belligerent misbehavior of North Korea.

janbb's avatar

It’s a shill game; three card monte or as @elbanditoroso “Wag the Dog.”

I doubt there will be a major war; think it is saber rattling only.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

If Governments can get their populations to focus on another country, it takes the focus off them and their screw ups, and if it does escalate a lot of their wealthy friends will make a pile of money and cut down the population of poor people while at it.

Rarebear's avatar

Because the far left wing of the populace felt it more important to cast a protest vote than to keep an insane megalomaniac out of office.

johnpowell's avatar

@stanleybmanly :: Genuinely curious here. What is the “belligerent misbehavior” of North Korea?

They want nukes, they are testing nukes. Seems totally reasonable. And after Iraq I can understand why they want them.

edit: I should add the dude is a loon. But his position on the nuke thing seems reasonable.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

How would tossing a nuke at the usa be a benefit to North Korea?
If successful the retaliation would be insane, plus he most definitely would lose China’s blessing he would isolate his country with the rest of the world his whole country would parish.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

~ ~~ ~ It might make his “weewee” bigger!~~~~

He is a looney !

What makes you think is looking to benefit North Korea ? ? ?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I agree the guy is a nut job, but he must know that the outcome for his side wouldn’t be good.

gorillapaws's avatar

Because the neoliberal Democratic sellout party (despite repeated warnings) decided to rig the primary against the most popular US politician alive who polled much higher vs.Trump in favor of one of the least liked presidential candidates in history—a candidate that was so corrupt and incompetent she snubbed the left base at every opportunity, didn’t put forth any policies that excited her constituents enough to bother to turn out for her and who lost to an orange reality TV buffoon who happened to be the least liked presidential candidate in history—all so they could keep that sweet, sweet corporate cash flowing into their coffers.

Bernie Sanders nailed it when he said: ”[Establishment Democrats] would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats.”

Yellowdog's avatar

I really don’t keep up with these things, but North Korea has developed a nuclear missile capable of striking the U.S. West Coast or at least Hawaii and is making threats.

What North Korea and Iran have in common is that Obama, Bush, and Clinton gave them billions to appease them so that they would NOT develop nuclear weapons—and sanctions to develop nuclear technology. The U.S. grew this baby…

Anyhow, Japan and South Korea are threatened as is the U.S.

Even China is with us on this one. As of Sunday, They are buying U.S. coal instead of North Korean coal—after negotiations with Donald Trump. Nuclear Fallout that will effect Japan and South Korea is the real threat—China and our allies and the U.S. are well capable of averting any possibility of North Korea having any success with a nuclear strike.

To understand and hear the words of these nations leaders, well, you really do have to follow it from a source besides what you’ve evidently been tuned into.

Zaku's avatar

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” ( source )

janbb's avatar

A foreign policy expert on NPR said today that every administration thinks it will do a better job of tackling North Korea than the previous one but it is impossible to do. He said that North Korea has massive amounts of military materiel and soldiers and a ground war would be disastrous. I don’t think there is much we can do and I still don’t know why we can’t leave it to China to contain them. I hope this admin doesn’t go off half-cocked.

kritiper's avatar

A state of war has existed between North Korea and the UN since the war began back in 1951, I think it was. A cease fire was signed that halted the action, but no agreements have been reached to halt the war permanently.
North Korea wants to be a big wheel, like the US. So they develop respectable weapons and then try to threaten the US with them. (Holding the US and the UN hostage is more accurate.)
Iran is no different, to some extent. They have made it known that they want to destroy Israel and the US.

Brian_Ghilliotti's avatar

It could very well be that they are waiting to pull off a military stunt with North Korea at the end of April when it comes time to raise the debt ceiling. The United States and the Federal Reserve created a no-win financial situation. If Congress does not allow the money spigot to keep flowing from the Federal Reserve, interest rates will grow a very large amount of debt. They have to let the Federal Reserve keep printing money to keep interest rates low. However, this will be a politically unpopular decision by many in Congress. What better way to get these people to vote in favor of letting the Federal Reserve to print more money then to start a war. It creates a sense of emergency and a pressure tactic to get Congress doing what you want, which in this case let the Federal Reserve do what it wants with the printing presses. Any inflation generated at this point can be assetized into military hardware which can then be sent to Its destruction, or generate more destruction. Either way, inflationary dollars are removed from the system and there is more destruction, that creates more financial exploitation opportunities. As a sidenote, the reason why there has been such a strong growth in the stock market but a relatively weak financial recovery on Main Street after 2008 is because all the money that the Federal Reserve initially printed for bad bank loans was then directed toward the stock market. They did not want this money to go to Main Street, with its destroyed middle class, because all it would do is generate more inflation. So it was sent to Wall Street or stayed in banks. I presume the Federal Reserve can continue to do whatever it wants using war as a pretext, keeping the corrupt interests in government and their Wall Street handlers happy. However, attacking Iran, with all its share of world oil supply, is not as favorable an option to implement this plan for the Federal Reserve as it would be to use North Korea. Imagine billions of dollars that could be generated from completely rebuilding and Inchon, Seoul, and all of North Korea after a war? Maybe your other non-Korean cities too? Why don’t they just generate more earthquakes (sarcasm)?

Brian Ghilliotti

ThePigman's avatar

Because North Korea is run by a certified lunatic who keeps threatening to nuke the US? Let’s not kid ourselves, this ain’t some Arab despot who got his ass kicked in the 90s and has kept quite ever since, this guy is acting like a legitimate threat and should be blown up. I just hope they find a way to kill him and his cohorts without blowing up too many civilians. Mind you, being blown up is better than starving to death…

LostInParadise's avatar

Because we now have two of a kind petty dictators wanting to show how powerful they are. After all the grandstanding, things should return to normal.

My plan for NK would be to airlift films of daily life in China and South Korea. Once the North Koreans see how awful their lives are by comparison, they should instantly start rebelling.

Yellowdog's avatar

Ummm… so I guess you are implying that Donald Trump is a Dictator? That Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump are pretty much the same?

Do you have any idea what life in North Korea, or any other country under a dictator in times past or present, is like? Or the fantasies Kim Jong Um has about himself? He thinks of nuclear bombs (allowed to develop under Bill Clinton and Obama, who pretty much funded this with U.S. dollars to appease him)—he threatens the U.S. with his bombs and even China recognizes the danger.

Also, to Zenvelo *(who answered this question first), Donald Trump was certainly not “antagonizing” China. Chinese president Xi Jinping and President Donald Trump appeared to be on very friendly terms if your news source allowed you to see the footage.

I can assure you, Trump has great respect for our military and our allies. Nothing he does has been without the military’s input and a careful strategy. Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama say they were diplomatic and contained peace, but actually allowed and even funded a very real nuclear threat.

Yellowdog's avatar

Egad, and I can;t emphasize enough to some of you people. This isn’t a game. Iran and North Korea and Russia went nuclear—NUCLEAR—under Obama and Clinton. That is a very dire threat to the U.S. and the planet. Instead of smearing Donald Trump or demanding to see his tax returns, you should be thankful that your nation has a superior military, intelligent and strategic leadership, and is a force—yes a force, for keeping world peace. Sorry for the drama here, but the nuclear threat is real, as is Islamic jihad.

LostInParadise's avatar

Did you know that Trump wanted a military hardware parade as part of his inauguration? Who else other than two-bit tyrants does such a thing?

zenvelo's avatar

@Yellowdog Trump has been antagonizing China for two years. He only softened his tone a couple weeks ago, when he got schooled by the Chinese Premier, and when he was informed that if China redeems its US debt, that the US economy will go into a tail spin.

Iran has NOT gone nuclear, although they were trying. Russia went nuclear in the 1940s. And you missed GW Bush in between Obama and Clinton.

Trump has no respect for the military, he criticized them for years and said our generals were lousy. And he has claimed that going to high school at a military academy makes hime better at strategy.

LostInParadise's avatar

Is it just coincidental that Trump’s 180 on China policy occurred right after the Chinese granted him the branding rights that he had applied for years ago? Screw everyone else. What’s good for Trump is good for America.

Becca543's avatar

Why are we getting ready for war with NK and not Iran?
Because there is an “Iran nuclear deal.”
They can’t develope Nuclear weapons for another 10 years at least.
As much as Trump bashed that deal I bet considering the war against terrorism and the threats from NK and Russia backing Assad Trump is secretly thanking his lucky stars that the Iran nuclear deal exists.
One less problem for a President possibly already in over his head.
Just my opinion.

Yellowdog's avatar

We had a deal with Assad as well. In January, —Susan Rice praised the outgoing President Obama for his negotiations with Assad and now there were no more chemical weapons in Syria. Obama himself was very hopeful about this in November, attributing his negotiations with Assad to acquiring what no military conquest ever could.

I don’t know about lucky stars, but I do know that you can’t trust the nation that is number one in the world for training and sponsoring terrorism with a 150 Billion of U.S. dollars to not build nuclear weapons, as Obama did Iran or in a similar fashion Clinton and Obama both trusted North Korea. If you can’t trust Assad or North Korea, why should you trust the number one sponsor of terrorism in the middle east? And why should we trust Kim Jong Un to be nice to us after decades of sponsorship for not building nukes when he has already done it and bragging about what he will do?

Yellowdog's avatar

Zenvelo – the reason I “missed” GW Bush between Clinton and Obama was—he didn’t give imulti-billion dollar bribes to terrorists in sweet deals that funded terrorism and their massive arsenals in their efforts at keeping peace and winning Nobel Peace prizes

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther