• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NBC News: U.S. May Launch Strike If North Korea Reaches For Nuclear Trigger

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doesn't the president need to get congressional approval before making these threats of preemptive strikes? I seem to remember that Bush didn't just go attack Iraq all on his own. I hate that Trump saber rattles like there is no check on his power. He needs to get congressional approval before doing anything drastic.
 

Moofers

Member
Doesn't the president need to get congressional approval before making these threats of preemptive strikes? I seem to remember that Bush didn't just go attack Iraq all on his own. I hate that Trump saber rattles like there is no check on his power. He needs to get congressional approval before doing anything drastic.

The missile salvo last week proved he doesn't need congressional approval to do anything, regardless of what the law decrees.
 
I don't think China would support NK so brazenly. Every country in the world is opposed to what is going on there.

It's not going to be supporting North Korea because it likes the country or the regime, it would be supporting it simply based on the fact that it wants no western (US, Nato E.t.c) presence on its border. China can hate the regime all it likes but it would invade to make sure the US doesn't get to set up a bade miles from its border in the future.
 
Doesn't the president need to get congressional approval before making these threats of preemptive strikes? I seem to remember that Bush didn't just go attack Iraq all on his own. I hate that Trump saber rattles like there is no check on his power. He needs to get congressional approval before doing anything drastic.

You think this Congress would stop him? You could make the arguement McConnell is more evil than Trump.
 

diehard

Fleer
I seriously question an individual's knowledge of history by comparing this to Vietnam, especially in the context of "the U.S lost the Vietnam war" as an argument against any conflict.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
I don't think China would support NK so brazenly. Every country in the world is opposed to what is going on there.

China historically has considered NK a buffer between its border and SK/US.

If they feel US is acting to do a regime change and prop up a puppet regime, they will counter by either supporting NK or essentially doing the same thing by drawing up an internal NK military coup to install their own puppet regime.

China will likely end up doing the above if they truly believe they have no influence over Kim. I believe they still think they do. They provide NK with needed aid and don't really care all that much about his saber rattling because they know it's just posturing to keep getting aid from them. They will pull aid and oil to reign him in as needed. Then he ramps up the posturing so he has the leverage of calming down with the posturing so he can get oil and aid again. Likely the Chinese aid dwindles and then he starts posturing again.

It's been the cycle for decades.
 

Mahonay

Banned
Trump going to Mar-a-lago this weekend for like the 20th time in a couple months, it's not like there are two major international crises you're dealing with...
 

Zophar

Member
China historically has considered NK a buffer between its border and SK/US.

If they feel US is acting to do a regime change and prop up a puppet regime, they will counter by either supporting NK or essentially doing the same thing by drawing up an internal NK military coup to install their own puppet regime.

China will likely end up doing the above if they truly believe they have no influence over Kim. I believe they still think they do. They provide NK with needed aid and don't really care all that much about his saber rattling because they know it's just posturing to keep getting aid from them. They will pull aid and oil to reign him in as needed. Then he ramps up the posturing so he has the leverage of calming down with the posturing so he can get oil and aid again. Likely the Chinese aid dwindles and then he starts posturing again.

It's been the cycle for decades.

At the same time, they might be realizing this cycle too and seeing that it would be better for them to just oust the Kims and install a puppet government instead of dealing with this game of rogue state babysitting.
 

TarNaru33

Banned
Like you said, North Vietnam was supported by a Superpower. But what do you mean by "the only arms that could flood into NK after that would be from China"? I remember that the last time there was a war a wretched China was able to turn the tide of the war pretty quickly, what do you think a significantly wealthier China could do if they throw their support behind the North? Certainly the United States would not be winning any war in that peninsula if China seriously backs up the North, Infact the US would lose badly.

While it is possible that China would militarily intervene against a U.S invasion of NK, it is something that can only be speculative, since we never seen (exception of India and Pakistan) 2 countries with nukes go to war with one another outright.

Also with China and U.S much more intertwined than before, that would devastate their economy (probably China's more than U.S) due to the export/import imbalance.

and what gives you the right to speak for Iraqis or Afghanis? Are you from either country? Did you live as a citizen in any of them? Do you have any family or relatives who live there? Also what is there to speak about Libya and Yemen? One is a failed state run by a dysfunctional government and barely even that since it's more like run by warlords. Terrorism has become a much more normal occurence there and radical Islam has a stronger foothold there now. NATO regime change turned it from one of the most developed African countries to a Salafi shithole with warring extremist factions. At least NATO's best buddies in Middle East are happy. Yemen meanwhile is facing the world's worst famine in a US/UK/Saudi led genocide.

"Speak for" meaning I do not have enough knowledge on the conflict or history of Libya or Yemen to have any opinion on it. Also you do not need to live in said nation to hold an opinion on it. Afghanistan was going to be invaded anyways and I agree with the invasion since it hosted terrorist camps, I would even agree to sanctions on Saudis for them not having a tighter hold on terrorist groups until a couple years ago. That won't happen because the effects on world oil supply would be too significant.

It's sad how uninformed and ignorant people become once a false media narrative has become embedded into conventional wisdom. Arming thousands of proxies to carry out a regime change at over $1 billion a year and yet neocons and people like you push the myth of a "lack of intervention" or a "non-intervention". It's incredible.

I guess I should be more clear in my wordings since you seem to nitpick it. When I said "lack of intervention" I mean a full on military intervention such as a no fly zone or a complete bombardment of Syria's military assets.

I do not consider meager supply of arms to be the intervention that Syria needed, especially since the supply of these arms came too late while the Saudis and their allies poured money and arms unrestricted to anyone who claimed to want to fight Assad. This led to the rise of terrorist groups in Syria as moderates would join those groups because of the lack of support from U.S.

NK and its dictatorship is far from anything good and its people (and Koreans generally) deserve much better. However, having the warmongering US do anything is terrible. This is the same warloving country that firebombed North Korea with 630 000 tons of mostly napalm bombs, leveling at that time at least 9 of the 22 major cities in North. The destruction and killing was so bad that even some of its own generals were disgusted. US is a nation that loves war, death and destruction and you don't assign one of the biggest warmongerers in modern history with millions of deaths on their hands to solve problems in a dictatorship. Sadly right now there's no power in this world that can invade US, carry out a regime change in that shithole, try their politicians for war crimes and keep the country occupied until it's no longer a threat for much of the developing world or basically any country not aligning with western interest and geopolitics.

Regime change enthusiasts should be the first ones to go live in the countries they endorsed a regime change for. Of course none of them will because it's usually white people writing comfortably from their apartment while they live safely in their developed nation. They don't have to worry about their or their close ones safety nor do they have to worry about getting blown to bits by bombs being dropped above their head by a hostile foreign actor. They don't have to worry from the effects of the war, of having their neighborhood or city bombed so there they sit and talk comfortably about the best way to destroy another country full of brown people or some other third world country.

I feel no need to answer to this part of your post since its more just ranting or venting. I agree that U.S committed a lot of bad shit throughout it's history, not sure what you expect with this though.
 
The missile salvo last week proved he doesn't need congressional approval to do anything, regardless of what the law decrees.

Big difference between lobbying a few symbolic cruise missiles at a half empty air base in war torn Syria with 2 hours prior notice... and attacking a country with nuclear weapons, long range missiles and one of the largest conventional armed forces in the world.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
At the same time, they might be realizing this cycle too and seeing that it would be better for them to just oust the Kims and install a puppet government instead of dealing with this game of rogue state babysitting.

The reason it hasn't happened is that it's too unpredictable. You don't know how the army, civilians, or factions within the government will respond.

It's too easy to end up with a civil war, which they absolutely don't want on their border.

Begrudgingly helping out a fake rogue state who has actually just been a rational actor for decades is far more predictable. The reason the Kim's have always sought out a nuclear weapons program is that it in facts provides them with a buffer from both a US or Chinese lead coup.

The Chinese understand that, and the US does as well. Maybe Trump doesn't but hopefully the military minds around him prevent him from being a lunatic, or even just outright tell him, nope, we aren't attacking NK, which would actually sort of be a military coup of Trump.
 

Krowley

Member
I think technically the korean war never ended. It's just a conditional cease fire, so that probably negates any need for additional congressional approval.

I'm not sure what the conditions of the cease fire are, but I expect the leadership has violated it many times over the years without provoking any decision to resume formal hostilities.
 
The missile salvo last week proved he doesn't need congressional approval to do anything, regardless of what the law decrees.

Those happen after Assad gassed his own people with chemical weapons and violated international norms. North Korea is just talking tough and conducting tests they have been doing for the last 10 years. They haven't deployed any WMDs against a large populace. They are using them for a deterrence strategy and to make hostage demands for aid. Why bomb them now without congressional authorization instead of 10 years ago?
 
Now this thought I have is completely hypothetical but what if China was like "We have had enough" they decide to invade North Korea full force ousting Kim and his regime. Then either North Korea becomes a province or state of China or if for some reason they become super kind and succeed the land to South Korea thus uniting Korea once again. Just so these shenanigans that North Korea does stops. But of course they will not do that because that gives the U.S. too much influence in the region but at the same time it can show the world that China is willing to resolve international crises even if it means to use a bit a force to do so thus increasing their appeal to the world. But of course if they decide to keep North Korea as a state of China this could eventually lead to further conflict so in the end no one wins really. Again this is hypothetical and I feel personally China being the regional super power in east Asia should be the ones to resolve this and not the U.S.
 
Doesn't the president need to get congressional approval before making these threats of preemptive strikes? I seem to remember that Bush didn't just go attack Iraq all on his own. I hate that Trump saber rattles like there is no check on his power. He needs to get congressional approval before doing anything drastic.

Technically the US is still at war with NK.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
I trust Trump on this one, he's the only one willing to do something about NK before it's too late.

He has nothing to lose , us civilians won't die from his reckless behaviour and he gets to fire a few missiles , so what if millions of Koreans die . Its not like there is a trump tower to worry about .
 
He has nothing to lose , us civilians won't die from his reckless behaviour and he gets to fire a few missiles , so what if millions of Koreans die . Its not like there is a trump tower to worry about .

This is exactly what I've been afraid of since this story broke. This is honestly his mindset.
 
If the US security council - NB not simply Trump - genuinely believes they're about to push the giant red button, is there actually any meaningful alternative? South Korea and Japan don't really have the capability to do it. There is no regional equivalent of Israel, so it has to be the US.
 
I trust Trump on this one, he's the only one willing to do something about NK before it's too late.

Yo, dude, grow the fuck up. Military action against NK isn't the answer. If that isn't obvious to you by now, you have no idea how the world works. I guess that figures though, because here you are saying you trust a guy who also has no idea how the world works.
 

rjinaz

Member
Yo, dude, grow the fuck up. Military action against NK isn't the answer. If that isn't obvious to you by now, you have no idea how the world works. I guess that figures though, because here you are saying you trust a guy who also has no idea how the world works.

Hey! That's not fair. He knows now, after a brief few minutes conversation with China!
 

BajiBoxer

Banned
If the US security council - NB not simply Trump - genuinely believes they're about to push the giant red button, is there actually any meaningful alternative? South Korea and Japan don't really have the capability to do it. There is no regional equivalent of Israel, so it has to be the US.
While it has to be done if they legitimately think that's about to happen, there's no reason to increase that likelihood through reckless statements and military action. Trump also has a boy who cried wolf problem, and is eratic enough to make an equaliy paranoid counterpart trigger happy.
 

jurgen

Member
Doesn't the president need to get congressional approval before making these threats of preemptive strikes? I seem to remember that Bush didn't just go attack Iraq all on his own. I hate that Trump saber rattles like there is no check on his power. He needs to get congressional approval before doing anything drastic.

Obama didn't for Libya in 2011. Clinton danced around it with the former Yukgoslavia.

The war powers resolution of 1973 gives the executive branch a ton of flexibility for saber-rattling.
 

Hermii

Member
If the US security council - NB not simply Trump - genuinely believes they're about to push the giant red button, is there actually any meaningful alternative? South Korea and Japan don't really have the capability to do it. There is no regional equivalent of Israel, so it has to be the US.
SK, China and the US aren't exactly best pals, but if they all have a common problem and similar goals maybe they can work together on this one?
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
If the US security council - NB not simply Trump - genuinely believes they're about to push the giant red button, is there actually any meaningful alternative? South Korea and Japan don't really have the capability to do it. There is no regional equivalent of Israel, so it has to be the US.

Well for sure if they determine a nuke isn't just going into the ocean, they will go scorched earth on NK.

This heightening of dick wagging over a test doesn't do anyone any good.
 
I don't think something from 60 years ago will hold up today. Congress will want its says so.

You asked about the legality, which if congress gives a declaration the constitution gives the executive wide powers on how they want to prosecute. Unless there's legislation I'm not aware of regarding NK in particular, the president retains his war powers. The length of time has no legal effect in this situation.
 

jstripes

Banned
At the same time, they might be realizing this cycle too and seeing that it would be better for them to just oust the Kims and install a puppet government instead of dealing with this game of rogue state babysitting.

China was perfectly happy with the cycle until the cycle produced nuclear weapons.

Now they're kinda, maybe thinking it's time to do something.
 

zelas

Member
Doesn't the president need to get congressional approval before making these threats of preemptive strikes? I seem to remember that Bush didn't just go attack Iraq all on his own. I hate that Trump saber rattles like there is no check on his power. He needs to get congressional approval before doing anything drastic.

The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack. But presidents of both parties have a long history of carrying out military operations without authorization from Congress, especially since the end of World War II, when the United States maintained a large standing army instead of demobilizing.

In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest, at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of “a ‘war’ in the constitutional sense,” as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention in Haiti.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump said, “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” He also invoked the Syrian refugee crisis and continuing regional instability.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department in the Bush administration, wrote that this criteria for what is sufficient to constitute a national interest was even thinner than previous precedents and would seemingly justify almost any unilateral use of force.

“The interests invoked — protecting regional security and in upholding or enforcing important treaty norms — will always be present when the president is considering military intervention,” he wrote. “Taken alone — and they are all we have here — these interests provide no practical limitation on presidential power.”
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/military-force-presidential-power.html


Domestically it's generally not a concern to relevant parties unless a President plans to go beyond a one off thing. Internationally, these acts are more problematic. But the people of this country generally could care less about international organizations who almost never step up and just leave us to do the heavy lifting.
 

ironcreed

Banned
Having the likes of loons like Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un playing a game of chicken does not inspire confidence. It's actually pretty terrifying when you look at the state of world affairs in general right now.
 

ZOONAMI

Junior Member
You asked about the legality, which if congress gives a declaration the constitution gives the executive wide powers on how they want to prosecute. Unless there's legislation I'm not aware of regarding NK in particular, the president retains his war powers. The length of time has no legal effect in this situation.

US never formally declared war on NK, and even if there are war powers resolutions, which I'm not aware of, the ceasefire would be broken by a preemptive strike, so theoretically congress could say they should have approved breaking the ceasefire.
 
I'm still pretty skeptical that any major offensive against NK will occur anytime soon. However, if something were to happen, my opinion is that China will align with the US/others again NK, but ultimately will do so on the condition that there will be no long-term US/other occupation of NK. Any occupation will occur strictly by China.
 

spons

Gold Member
Trump might as well liberate the people in North Korea from their horrid government. Afterwards, proceed to step down and do the same for the US.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom