Failed Obama policy on North Korea leads to more nuclear weapons

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thewitt, Jun 7, 2016.

  1. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #1
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-n...-exclusive-idUSKCN0YT2I1?utm_source=applenews

     
  2. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #2
    Please specify what Obama policy caused this.

    Please specify what should've been done that would have prevented this.
     
  3. thewitt thread starter macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #3
  4. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #4
    A weakling Obama led to this. So full of himself and his powers of persuasion; strongmen of other countries saw thier ace in the hole and they acted quickly and with impunity. Obama left America sucker punched and you have to wonder. Accidental or purposeful? Both bad, but one is worse than the other.
     
  5. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #5
    North Korea tested their first nuke in 2006, remind me again who was President then?
     
  6. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #6
    Meanwhile, Obama is spending $1,000,000,000,000.00 on a new generation of smaller, easier-to-use nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
  8. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #8
    From the Daily Beast article:

    North Korea with enough fissile material to make one bomb is a serious threat. But its one not markedly increased by the theoretical capacity to make ten or so.

    and:
    Sometimes problems just can't be solved on the time scale you'd like. The only way to have removed North Korea's nuclear capacity was through a military operation. Something I'm quite sure President Obama would have considered under only the direst circumstances imaginable.

    In the long run we are going to have to wait for time and circumstances to cause the North Korean government and people to come around to rejoining the rest of the world. We can afford to be patient.
     
  9. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #9

    The other side of that coin is you guys would be whining and moaning about Obama letting our aging systems fall into disarray putting the country in jeopardy.
     
  10. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    Admit it: your messiah can do no wrong.
     
  11. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #11
  12. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #12

    Holy deflection Batman
     
  13. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #13
    Says the guy who when confronted with facts retorts with "if...you guys would be...probably..."
     
  14. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #14
    So we should go to war with n. Korea? Hey, sometimes a strategy works, sometimes it don't. I don't think that reflects negatively on Obama, Like he did it on purpose. Is every strategy perfect? What's your point? OMG. OBama is a terrorist and wants n Korea to kill us? Stuff happens. We don't always get what we want and reasonable minds can differ on the best strategy.
     
  15. HEK Suspended

    HEK

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    #15
    Wasn't Obama policy. Kim Jong-un saw Trump on You Tube where he spoke about other countries getting their own nukes. Kim said ok then, started up plutonium production.

    See, and we thought world leaders were not listening to Trump. Already a win and he isn't even President. So much for nonsense talk.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 8, 2016 ---
    Haha .....oops .....gotcha
    --- Post Merged, Jun 8, 2016 ---
    Picks self off floor laughing. I am gonna start me up some organization, call myself an expert, and spout some nonsense. Hell, maybe I can get some donations or a grant to study something.

    Let's see......hmmm what topic I want to study?

    I know, what makes self promoting rich casino owners go through so many wives of eastern European background.
     
  16. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #16
    Its a hard fact of life that the United States is not omnipotent. We cannot bend other countries to our will. No matter how much we spend on our military. No matter what diplomatic, or economic, political, or other methods we bring to bear.

    Its no use trying to put economic sanctions on North Korea. Because we, and most of the rest of the world already have in place an almost total embargo on trade with the PRK. The little cross-border trade between North Korea and her neighbors consists of Korean workers going to factories. Cutting those ties would simply exacerbate the dreadful humanitarian conditions inside N. Korea.

    We can exert some pressure on China; Korea's largest trading partner. But with the best will in the world China itself finds itself in an uncomfortable position with regards to the Hermit Kingdom. China doesn't want a humanitarian catastrophe on its borders, something that most experts believe very likely should the N. Korean government begin to break down. Our interests mainly, but not 100% align with China. And there is not much we can do to change that.

    We could conduct some sort of military operation against North Korea. Buts very hard to imagine what shape that might take. Anything less than a full-scale attack, aimed at decapitating the North Korean government and destroying its military, risks some truly terrifying retaliation. Even a dud nuclear device lobbed onto Seoul, S. Korea would be a disaster. And before we even got to that point, its hard to expect that world political opinion would look kindly on a direct US military attack on a sovereign nation - even one as reviled as North Korea.

    Since the end of the Korean War, successive US administrations have tried - almost without exception in vain - to bring an end to the tense situation on the Korean peninsula. During the intervening sixty years, South Korea has undergone an almost miraculous economic transformation, and now ranks as one of the wealthiest countries in Asia. Korean made automobiles, televisions, smartphones, and washing machines are among the best in the world. North Korea, by way of contrast, has suffered untold economic and human privations, in addition to being one of the most repressive and tyrannical states on earth.

    Has the Obama administration "failed" to bring about a solution to North Korea and its nuclear ambitions? Yes. But before we condemn that failure, one has to first put it into historical perspective, and then ask oneself what could reasonably have been differently to arrive at an outcome that was in any reasonable manner preferable to what we now see.
     
  17. bruinsrme macrumors 603

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #17
    I disagree with this notion.
    I am not an Obama fan by any stretch.

    That little punk haired twerp was going to build them regardless
     
  18. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #18
    Exactly. People like to jump on Obama and Hillary for stuff that would have happened anyway.
     
  19. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #19

    You're still deflecting. I never once claimed, backed or supported the idea that Obama can't do wrong. That in no way means that Im wrong in what I said about you still whining if he didn't look to strengthen an aging military aspect. Nor does it mean he's wrong in doing so.

    A couple of points that should be noted about this supposed upgrade. First off it's just a plan, it hasn't been approved yet. Second, the trillion dollars is an estimate by independent sources. Third, even if it does come to pass, it's a trillion dollars over 3 decades, which comes out to around 33 billion a year. While 33 billion sounds like a lot, that's around 4.5% of the yearly defense budget. Let me repeat that again, 33 billion dollars is about 4.5% of the YEARLY defense budget.

    Oh yeah, Trump is likely to support this as well given his past comments about our aging nuclear arsenal. Saying...

     
  20. BigHonkingDeal macrumors 6502a

    BigHonkingDeal

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Location:
    Fort Pierce
    #20

    Admit it you're just upset that your wall builder is going to lose....
     
  21. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    Again with the speculation on what Trump might do in the future. Fact: Obama is the guy actually making decisions to obligate the money. So what if the program extends past his presidency? Still his call.
     
  22. mudslag, Jun 8, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016

    mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #22

    All you're doing is getting butthurt of Obama doing his job. It will be up to the next POTUS to make the call on whether or not to follow through, extend it or kill it.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 8, 2016 ---
    Forums are screwed, can't edit. Wanted to add that it won't matter if the plan doesn't even go through, as it stands now, it hasn't. Don't forget, it has to pass Congress.
     
  23. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #23
    Obama is not finished with America.

    Obama is on a destructive path, doubled down over what damage he's already done.
     
  24. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #24
    What did Obama do to make NK think he's no different than Bush's 8 years? If Obama tried to work with NK to reduce tensions, the same folk would then blame Obama for not being finished with destroying America and being a commie. Oh, wait...
    --- Post Merged, Jun 9, 2016 ---
    That's true. Just like when previous presidents put in bill that affect the country into the future.

    But the GOP has never ever once done anything like that when they had control of the presidency and/or congress filibuster-proof majority, now have they? /sarcasm
    --- Post Merged, Jun 9, 2016 ---
    Last I'd checked, the President tells congress what he wants and the congress sits there and does nothing unless they agree with him (or he preemptively agrees with them, whatever):

    http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/obamas-trillion-dollar-nuclear-weapons-gamble/104217/

    So he didn't get Congress to write the bill for him to sign? The GOP-dominated Congress? ;)
     
  25. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #25
    Agree.

    It will end either from within (which likely will result being blamed on South Korea and launch an attack),
    or by military campaign against, which, as you say, will be highly destructive.

    If the latter it will need a Gulf War sized force to quickly overwhelm the north, but no one in power is even dreaming of doing that.
     

Share This Page