'Screams of terrified Trump': North Korea responds to State of the Union address

[mentalfloss]

Fisa memo was a dud.



'Screams of terrified Trump': North Korea responds to State of the Union address

North Korea has attacked Donald Trump after he criticised the regime’s human rights record in his State of the Union address, suggesting he is “terrified” of its power.

Pyongyang continued the heated war of words between the two nations on Sunday, claiming its nuclear capabilities would “deter Trump and his lackeys from showing off on the Korean peninsula.”

In his address last week, Mr Trump hit out at the secretive state, claiming "no regime has oppressed its own citizens more totally or brutally than the cruel dictatorship in North Korea."

"We need only look at the depraved character of the North Korean regime to understand the nature of the nuclear threat it could pose to America and to our allies," the US President added.

A North Korean foreign ministry spokesperson fired back at the President, claiming the speech was “sinister”, and talking up Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal.

“Trump also insisted upon the ‘maximum pressure’ against our country,” the spokesman said: “However, it is no less than the screams of Trump terrified at the power the DPRK has achieved.

“Trump even reveals his sinister intention to do something against us by relying on strength while talking about ‘American resolve’.

“Our self-reliant defence capability with the nuclear force as its backbone will, however, completely deter Trump and his lackeys from showing off on the Korean peninsula."


'Screams of terrified Trump': North Korea responds to State of the Union address | The Independent

 

[DaSleeper]

​

​

 

[mentalfloss]

 

[DaSleeper]

Learn to read Boi.....You are the one with the oh look meme

 

[Murphy]

It would seem Trump is living inside your head rent free, Hoid.

The exhaust emissions in Mississauga must be getting to you again. You might consider moving to BC. :lol:

 

[Hoid]

Trump has been played. He has given NK everything they need for a first strike.

 

[petros]

Canada has been at war with North Korea since Jun 25, 1950.

What is Trudeau doing to end this war?

 

[Curious Cdn]

Trump has been played. He has given NK everything they need for a first strike.

A Korean "first strike" would be the very last thing that millions of Koreans, including all of their leadership probably, would do. It would be so suicidal, the Americans might just bounce the rubble until none of them are left. Comrade Kim can't be that stupid.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Kapyong ... the Canadian Thermopylae :

www.canadiansoldiers.com

 

[Hoid]

A Korean "first strike" would be the very last thing that millions of Koreans, including all of their leadership probably, would do. It would be so suicidal, the Americans might just bounce the rubble until none of them are left. Comrade Kim can't be that stupid.

He doesn't have to be that stupid, he only has to be that desperate.

 

[Curious Cdn]

He doesn't have to be that stupid, he only has to be that desperate.

Do you remember the way that the Americans reacted to 9/11? Consider 100,000 American dead, 300,000 wounded, maimed, horribly burned survivors and many billions of dollars of material damage. The Americans will go quite bananas and they will stop at nothing, probably until North Korea ceases to exist. All of the huffy-puffy threats from China and Russia will fall on deaf ears and only a minor miracle will prevent it all from going global. Both the Russians and Chinese have guaranteed the safety of the Norks, apparently but they will he have to back off because the Americans will be in a frenzy of anger making 9/11 look like a college prank.

 

[Hoid]

So it all comes down to Little Rocket Man acting logically and sensibly and doing the thing that any sane person would do.

 

[Curious Cdn]

So it all comes down to Little Rocket Man acting logically and sensibly and doing the thing that any sane person would do.

If he does not, all bets ... and I mean ALL bets are off. The world is teetering on the brink in a manner that it hasn't done in many decades and we could all end up dead, dying or desperate (and wishing that we were dead).

Serious shit, this rhetoric.

 

[Hoid]

More serious is Trump talking about expanding the nuclear arsenal. Especially walking about small tactical nukes, which will destabilize the world.

 

[Curious Cdn]

More serious is Trump talking about expanding the nuclear arsenal. Especially walking about small tactical nukes, which will destabilize the world.

Same old, same old. The first nukes were small, then they got big-big, then they shrank some, and then the "neutron bomb" reduced the blast, all the while smaller battlefield nukes that wouldn't annihilate your soldiers were deployed. The boy's toys don't de-stablize the world. Boys who are essentially bonkers do it.

 

[petros]

Bioweapons at the Orymprics.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Bioweapons at the Orymprics.

It wouldn't surprise me.

How about the North Koreans killing the North Korean Olympic team off? That will prevent the young athletes who by now know that their regime has been lying to them and that the South is rich, advanced and compassionate from polluting the hermit kingdom with "ideas". It will also provide the perfect context for "retaliation" against the Americans and their running dogs for killing their young athletes.

Stay tuned, folks.

 

[Murphy]

More serious is Trump talking about expanding the nuclear arsenal. Especially walking about small tactical nukes, which will destabilize the world.

A typically idiotic statement. You say a lot of stupid things. Unsubstantiated, stupid things. Someone should have slapped your mother.

Cites? Small yield, tactical nukes destabilize things how? This is your totally unqualified, unsubstantiated opinion You say stupid sh!t on purpose because you like being a smart ass. All it has managed to do, in the short time you've been here, is to display your ignorance.

Here's a quote. Link below.

Opponents argue that low-yield nuclear weapons blur the line between conventional and nuclear warfare, undermining deterrence by lowering the nuclear threshold and making nuclear war more likely. This assertion is not based in fact. In previous decades, the United States had thousands more tactical warheads than today, many with much lower yields. (By 1991, nearly all of these warheads had been retired from service and were subsequently dismantled.)

The warheads were deployed at the height of the Cold War but never used even in intense regional conflicts such as Vietnam where U.S. use posed little risk of a nuclear response from Russia or China. There is no evidence that the mere possession of these weapons during the Cold War made the United States more likely to use them. Rather, these weapons were never used because nuclear deterrence worked.

Critics also argue that low-yield warheads are for warfighting, not deterrence, and once any nuclear weapon is used, escalation to a global holocaust cannot be controlled. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, responding to the Defense Science Board’s report on low-yield nuclear weapons, argued, “There’s one role — and only one role — for nuclear weapons, and that’s deterrence. We cannot, must not, will not ever countenance their actual use.”

Her statement, while well-meaning, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Deterrence is based on the enemy’s belief that the United States has both the capability and the will to employ nuclear weapons in extremis when vital national interests are threatened. A “threat to use” has, therefore, always been a part of the deterrence equation that has prevented any use of nuclear weapons for over 70 years.

Would an initial limited nuclear exchange escalate uncontrollably? Many Americans, including some in the nuclear policy community, believe that it would. If our nuclear-armed adversaries shared this belief, then it might not be necessary to consider low-yield nuclear weapons since the fear of all-out nuclear war would deter all parties from even limited use. Several, however, including Russia, as seen in recent doctrinal changes, modernization efforts and military exercises related to limited-use options, seem to believe that nuclear escalation could indeed be controlled.

https://warontherocks.com/2017/11/low-yield-nuclear-weapons-worth-new-look/ :lol:

Here's a peek at how many nukes are distributed around the globe, and who controls them.

https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/

 

[mentalfloss]

Same thing Harper did.

That shut him up real quick.

 

[Murphy]

No it didn't. You're breathing in all those exhaust fumes, Hoid.