“…no choice but to totally destroy North Korea”

In his first speech to the United Nations President Donald Trump blasted ‘rogue regimes’ including North Korea, Iran and Syria and threatened to ‘totally destroy North Korea’.

He has promoted his threat on Twitter:

“The scourge our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens, nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.”

North Korea’s “reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.”

“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

“Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”

How ironic is that?

On the Middle East:

Iran is “another reckless regime, one that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, destruction to Israel and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.”

“The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it, believe me.”

He even slams the United States.

The president called for the de-escalation of the Syrian conflict and a “political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people.”

His speech does not seem to have de-escalation as it’s primary function.

“We will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation and indeed to tear up the entire world. We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit funding and any form of support for the vile and sinister ideology.”

Idealistic rhetoric that will please some.

“Just as the founders as this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil and terror.”

“As president of the United States, I will always put America first. Just like you, as the leaders of your countries, will always and should always, put your countries first.”

“The United States will forever be a great friend to the world and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be taken advantage of or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return.”

There’s a number of contradictions in his speech.

Totally destroying a country of 25 million people sounds like a bit of a one-sided deal.

From Fox UN Speech: Trump Says ‘Rocket Man’ Kim Jong Un on ‘Suicide Mission,’ in Broadside at ‘Rogue Regimes’

 

Previous Post

49 Comments

  1. lurcher1948

     /  September 20, 2017

    The world watched this person and thought”old fat cant live long problem solved”

  2. Tipene

     /  September 20, 2017

    For as long as the US talks and doesn’t act against North Korea, the bolder the “Rocket man” becomes.

    Trump just needs to stop talking, and get on with it.

    All some people understand is brute force – time to get busy.

    • Brute force in WW1 and WW2 didn’t turn out very well.

      Brute force in the Middle East, in Iran, in Syria, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, hasn’t been a great success either.

      • Tipene

         /  September 20, 2017

        The World wars weren’t perfect -no conflict is, but we have the freedoms we have now as a result.

        I would argue that it was the lack of sufficient brute force in those countries that has resulted in the cross border ideological invasion many countries have experienced, and are being overwhelmed by.

        Why have a traditional war, when your opposition will fold when they hear the words “multiculturalism” & “Refugee”?

        Saddam Hussein knew this, which is why he was such a brutal tyrant – but he held a better internal order than any invading force could ever hope to achieve.

      • David

         /  September 20, 2017

        “Brute force in WW1 and WW2 didn’t turn out very well.”

        Have you got a version of these conflicts that didn’t involve brute force to compare with?

    • Joe Bloggs

       /  September 20, 2017

      Bear in mind that North Korea has one of the largest conventional artillery capabilities of any nation and that Seoul is within easy reach, only 30 miles from their border.

      That show of brute force the Hawks want America to use will inevitably result in large-scale destruction of Seoul and the deaths of a large proportion of its 25 million inhabitants within the first day of conflict…. with trillions of dollars in contingent costs…

      Then there’s North Korea’s claim to have EMP capabilities. Set off a large electromagnetic pulse or two over Japan and that country’s electronic infrastructure would be permanently fried… with trillions of dollars in contingent costs…

      Oh, yeah that’s right North Korea has nuclear capabilities. Maybe fling one or two of those at South Korea or Tokyo or Guam, eh… suicidal maybe but I’m not sure that NKs leadership would give a flying fuck at that stage…the inevitable outcome is a huge Asian wasteland reduced to ashes…. with quadrillion of dollars in contingent costs…

      The reality of brute force “solutions” is self-evident.

      North Korea has responded productively to every American effort towards conciliation. It’s only when the Americans renege that NK retaliates. A different course to that of brute force is the only viable solution.

      • David

         /  September 20, 2017

        “Bear in mind that North Korea has one of the largest conventional artillery capabilities of any nation and that Seoul is within easy reach, only 30 miles from their border.

        That show of brute force the Hawks want America to use will inevitably result in large-scale destruction of Seoul and the deaths of a large proportion of its 25 million inhabitants within the first day of conflict…. with trillions of dollars in contingent costs…”

        This is a myth. They have a lot of artillery, but almost none of it can reach Seoul. 30 miles is an extreme range for even their largest tubes.

        On top of that, their ability to sustain even a short barrage is seriously limited by the need to be in hardened bunkers and the logistics needed to move ammunition. Any sustained fire would result in very quick counter battery fire, which South Korea is well equipped for. Expect that artillery to be destroyed at around 1-2%/hour. With the US forces in Korea, and in the local area, the North Korean’s would have had the vast majority (>90%) of their heavy equipment destroyed in the first week.

        North Korea does not have the ability to do large-scale damage to Seoul without the use of nuclear weapons.

      • David

         /  September 20, 2017

        “and the deaths of a large proportion of its 25 million inhabitants within the first day of conflict”

        Just to add, this is also nonsense. Seoul has a very effective civil defense installation, there are public shelters for 20 million. The actual estimate for a surprise, sustained, artillery attack aimed directly at the general population is around the 30,000 mark.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 20, 2017

          Fat lot of use having shelters for 20,000,000 (if they actually do, which seems unlikely) when there are 25,000,000 North Koreans, most of whom wouldn’t have a hope of reaching these in time. It’s as if NZ had shelters for 3,000,000 in Auckland.

        • Joe Bloggs

           /  September 20, 2017

          I’m delighted that you’re willing to head up to Seoul to reassure the populace – go get ’em, tiger!

          Now … back to reality (something you need more of):

          Some research claims that overall damage and casualties in Seoul would be minimal, but those studies have relied on very conservative data, especially regarding the effective range of North Korean artillery systems. Many findings do not take into account newly deployed, modernized 122-mm multiple launch rocket systems with extended range, or the much more capable 300-mm multiple rocket launchers. If projectile flight distances reach proven ranges (or commonly accepted ones) and involve these new systems, then the northern portion of Seoul could be saturated with fire. Even areas south of the Han River could be within range of 170-mm self-propelled guns, 240-mm multiple rocket launchers or 300-mm multiple rocket launchers, depending on their position on the North Korean side of the DMZ. If every one of Pyongyang’s 300-mm multiple rocket launcher systems were directed against Seoul, their range would be sufficient to rain fire across the city and beyond. A single volley could deliver more than 350 metric tons of explosives across the South Korean capital, roughly the same amount of ordnance dropped by 11 B-52 bombers.

          https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/how-north-korea-would-retaliate

          So a single volley could deliver more than 350 tonnes of explosives across Seoul… fire just one more volley and Seoul receives the same tonnage as Dresden got from the main allied bomber force on 13/14 February 1945.

          What sort of death rates would result?

          The U.S. Department of Defense assessed that a Second Korean War could produce 200,000-300,000 South Korean and U.S. military casualties within the first 90 days, in addition to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

          http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/what-would-the-second-korean-war-look-like/

          and if the artillery and rockets were loaded with chemicals? The North’s chemical weapons stockpile includes mustard gas, sarin, and VX nerve agent, after all, so it wouldn’t be surprising if they hurled a shitload of that as well as HE at Seoul.

          For now it suffices to say that North Korea could dedicate a shit-load of ground forces, artillery pieces, tanks, aircraft, surface warships and submarines to an invasion of the South. Given that all of those assets are located within 200 kms of the DMZ, it wouldn’t require large-scale redeployment of military assets and could be launched within minutes of “Rocket Man” giving the order.

          • David

             /  September 20, 2017

            “So a single volley could deliver more than 350 tonnes of explosives across Seoul… fire just one more volley and Seoul receives the same tonnage as Dresden got from the main allied bomber force on 13/14 February 1945.

            What sort of death rates would result?”

            You really should read the whole thing, esp. where it answers your question;

            “This means casualty rates would drop significantly after the initial barrage, limiting potential civilian casualties to thousands of dead rather than tens of thousands, as has been speculated in some instances.”

            “and if the artillery and rockets were loaded with chemicals?”

            Casualties would be much higher. It’s important to remember these are weapons of extortion. They have no military value.

            “For now it suffices to say that North Korea could dedicate a shit-load of ground forces, artillery pieces, tanks, aircraft, surface warships and submarines to an invasion of the South.”

            North Korea is not capable of invading the South. There aircraft are from antiquity, the tanks have no fuel, they have no logistical support to move south, anything exposed would be devastated from the air, the Navy is nothing more than some rusty frigates and militarily useless mini-subs that only exist to insert agents into the South.

            Just remember Saddam’s Iraq military was larger, much better equipped and with combat experience, look at how well that performed.

            • sorethumb

               /  September 20, 2017

              Either way it is South Korea’s call?

            • David

               /  September 20, 2017

              Not really, this is just a game of bluff between NK and the US.

            • Joe Bloggs

               /  September 20, 2017

              Let’s just take a closer look at some of your inanities shall we?

              “Their aircraft are from antiquity”:
              – probably the weakest link in the NK military, I’ll grant you that… but
              – MIG 29s – old-ish but capable and easily a match for the Viper and high-attack Hornet
              – MIG 21s – obsoleted from the Russian airforce but respected for air-to-air combat
              – Sukhoi Su25 Frogfoot – still in use by the Russians
              – US-made MD-500 helicopters
              – stealth capabilities – known in the KPAF through researching in radar-absorbing paint and inventory deception.

              “the tanks have no fuel”:
              – 4,200 tanks, 2,200 armoured vehicles
              – new 240 mm multiple rocket launchers
              – despite resource shortages and ageing equipment,NK has a large, forward-positioned military that can initiate an attack on ROK with little or no warning

              “they have no logistical support to move south”:
              – who gives a shit – NKs long-range batteries are easily capable of hitting Seoul from north of the DMZ

              “anything exposed would be devastated from the air”
              – due to the age of its air assets, the country has taken the route of improving its ground forces and hardening the country against air strikes than trying to modernise its air force

              “militarily useless mini-subs that only exist to insert agents into the South”:
              – still a major threat to South Korea. Perfect for hiding around the Korean coast and harassing or sinking other vessels.

              NK fully aware that it’s is outgunned, technologically inferior and logistically light years behind its adversaries. But it also knows how to shift the equation through asymmetric tactics that involve stealth, surprise and focusing on cheap and achievable measures with an outsized impact.
              – 200,000+ special forces – the most highly trained, well-equipped, best-fed and highly motivated units in the KPA
              – well-developed cyber-warfare capabilities
              – drones
              – chemical weapons – estimated to be the third largest stockpile in the world, including mustard gas, sarin, and VX nerve agent
              – biological weapons, including at least 13 different kinds of biological agents, incl. anthrax, smallpox, and hantaviruses
              – nukes

              Let’s not be naive about NK’s military capabilities. They may be old and poorly resourced but all they really need do is deliver a single nuclear airburst over Seoul eh… and they are more than capable of doing that in a New York minute.

            • Corky

               /  September 21, 2017

              ‘Asymmetric tactics.’ My, someone’s been a busy boy. Just one flaw in your summation. But on the whole, not bad.for a Key Board Warrior,

            • David

               /  September 21, 2017

              “– MIG 29s – old-ish but capable and easily a match for the Viper and high-attack Hornet
              – MIG 21s – obsoleted from the Russian airforce but respected for air-to-air combat
              – Sukhoi Su25 Frogfoot – still in use by the Russians
              – US-made MD-500 helicopters”

              All junk. Look at how these aircraft have performed against the US elsewhere. NK has none of the C3 needed to give them even a chance against the US. The SU25’s are useful against someone who doesn’t have an airforce, nowhere else.

              “4,200 tanks, 2,200 armoured vehicles”

              Those Chinese scrap metal dealers are getting excited.

              “200,000+ special forces”

              If there are 200,000 of them, they are not that special.

              ” But it also knows how to shift the equation through asymmetric tactics that involve stealth, surprise and focusing on cheap and achievable measures with an outsized impact.”

              No they don’t. The ‘asymmetric tactics’ are all about harassing South Korea in peacetime to extort better terms. They have nothing that is militarily useful, the dozens of mini-subs are a perfect example. They are only useful against an unaware target, at best.

              They have poured everything into one ace card, nukes. Everything else is just a sideshow. NK has built a military that exists for one reason, as a tool for bluff and bluster.

  3. David

     /  September 20, 2017

    Good speech. His comments on Venezuela are spot on.

    • Joe Bloggs

       /  September 20, 2017

      trump’s not emperor of the world – he’d be better off dealing with the White Supremacists in America before criticising other countries.

      But no, he’s just a shameless, ignorant new-age Hitler. No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the well-being of his own people.

      • David

         /  September 20, 2017

        “But no, he’s just a shameless, ignorant new-age Hitler.”

        Sure he is cupcake. I think you need to have a deep breath and stop clutching your pearls, ‘Trump is Hitler’ is the new catch-cry of the profoundly ignorant and stupid.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 20, 2017

          He has Hitler’s ego-but I hope that the US would have the sense to stop him in time, unlike the Germans..

        • Joe Bloggs

           /  September 21, 2017

          David, you blankly ignore trumps threat of the genocide of 25 million North Korean civilians. Wake up fool.

  4. lurcher1948

     /  September 20, 2017

    Look I only killed 24000000 people im making the USA great again

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  September 20, 2017

      What a lot of self-praise about the greatness and generosity of the US; too cringe-making. I’d have been under the seat with embarrassment.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 20, 2017

        John Kelly almost was, and Mrs Trump looked a bit odd.

        The Zimbabweans were honest enough to show how bored they were-I bet that one or two had books on their knees.I only hope that nobody was reading something funny as I once was-and let out a loud guffaw at an inappropriate moment.

  5. Zedd

     /  September 20, 2017

    If Mr T thinks he has Int’l support on this.. hes only fooling himself; more reasons to walk, clap, make strange hand gestures & pour out strings of superlatives.. whilst most people just think he a….. 😀

    • Zedd

       /  September 20, 2017

      just watching part of his speech (on AlJz) about ‘suicidal rocket man’ & Mr Ts potential plans to destroy DPRK.. a few polite claps, BUT the telling thing was the look on Tillerson’s & the US ambassador’s faces.. NOT smiling or clapping !

      methinks Mr T is on an increasing downward spiral ?

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 20, 2017

        Ever decreasing circles, indeed,

        Look Ma, no North Koreans !

        Look Ma, no supporters !

  6. NOEL

     /  September 20, 2017

    This bluster doesn’t add anything. It obvious to most sensible observers Kim isn’t going to be the first to fire.

    • David

       /  September 20, 2017

      Of course not. His whole game is based on bluff.

      • Joe Bloggs

         /  September 20, 2017

        as is trumps. If he launches a preemptive strike then he dooms strategic partners SK and Japan, and he sure doesn’t have the capacity or the competence to face NK diplomatically.

  7. Zedd

     /  September 20, 2017

    looking at the pic of Mr T above.. the question is ‘would you buy a used car from this man ?’ 😀 😀

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  September 20, 2017

      Um….er….NO.

    • Corky

       /  September 20, 2017

      Yes, I would. The car would be made in America, by Americans, using American steel.
      Meanwhile in New Zealand we are on the final run of Falcons and Holdens. That’s the difference between Trumpy and the rest of do-nothing governments.

      • lurcher1948

         /  September 20, 2017

        And the build would be shit the style from the 60s the bad sixtys, it would have a crap v8 that NO ONE WANTS, they all want Mexican made japos or korean efficient cars not trumps rubbish Detriot steel

        • Corky

           /  September 20, 2017

          That was quite true up to a few years ago. Many American cars still had leaf spring rear suspension( not independant).

          Sorry, to say, for you, times have changed. America now makes quality cars. The Covette Stringray actual dealt to a Ferarrai during a recent face off.

      • Noel

         /  September 20, 2017

        No car is made entirely in the country of origin. Look at the running gear of US label cars in Europe.

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  September 20, 2017

          Any car can be stuffed and made to look all right when it’s actually dangerous.

          I’d certainly have the car well checked out before I bought it. Just because it’s American doesn’t mean that it hasn’t been in a prang and have things wrong with it that can’t be seen but make it lethal.

          Good point, Noel !

  8. lurcher1948

     /  September 20, 2017

    Relax to make the USA great again im liberating the oil from Iran and Venezuela

  9. sorethumb

     /  September 20, 2017

    Totally destroying a country of 25 million people sounds like a bit of a one-sided deal.
    ….
    If that’s what he meant.

  10. lurcher1948

     /  September 20, 2017

    Watching TV4 news about teachers in the USA learning to fire guns to save children against children or republicans trying to kill kids at USA schools PRAY TELL ME how many school massacres have there been in North Korea schools, NONE probablyEVER not like a weird and dangerous USA ruled by trump.Theres a school shooting nearly every day, MAKING USA great again and trump richer

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  September 20, 2017

      We had heard about it (having guns in schools) after one school shooting, but this went much further. Openly armed TEACHERS ??? It was on 3 as well. I would hate to live in a country where teachers were carrying guns on their hips-and felt that they needed to. Is elementary school what we call primary school ? Horrors.

  1. “…no choice but to totally destroy North Korea” — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition