Breaking: China will declare war on the U.S. if we strike North Korea first.
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
Trump has been making ominous threats his whole life
By Fareed Zakaria
August 10, 2017 at 7:48 PM
People walk by a TV screen at a train station in Seoul.(Lee Jin-Man/Associated Press)
How did we get here? Why does it appear that we’re on the brink of a war in Asia, one that could involve nuclear weapons? North Korea has had nuclear-weapons capacity for at least 10 years. Have its recent advances been so dramatic and significant to force the United States to wage a preventive war? No. The crisis we now find ourselves in has been exaggerated and mishandled by the Trump administration to a degree that is deeply worrying and dangerous.
From the start, the White House has wanted to look tough on North Korea. In the early months of President Trump’s administration, before there could possibly have been a serious policy review, Secretary of State Rex Tillersonwarned that the era of strategic patience with North Korea was over. Last week, national security adviser H.R. McMaster said that North Korea’s potential to hit the United States with nuclear weapons was an “intolerable” threat. Not North Korea’s use of weapons, mind you; just the potential.
Trump, of course, went furthest, saying Tuesday that if North Korea did not cease its threats, it would be met with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” When pressed on Thursday, Trump doubled down, saying, “If anything, maybe that statement wasn’t tough enough.” In other words, Trump has made clear that the United States would respond to North Korean threats with a massive military strike, possibly involving nuclear weapons.
Is this credible? No. The United States is not going to launch a preventive nuclear war in Asia. Trump’s comments have undoubtedly rattled Washington’s closest allies in the region, Japan and South Korea. Empty threats and loose rhetoric only cheapen American prestige and power, boxing in the administration.
So why do it? Because it’s Trump’s basic mode of action. For his entire life, Trump has made grandiose promises and ominous threats — and rarely delivered on any. When he was in business, Reuters found, he frequently threatened to sue news organizations for libel, but the last time he followed through was 33 years ago, in 1984. Trump says that he never settles cases out of court. In fact, he has settled at least 100 times, according to USA Today.
(Adriana Usero,kate woodsome/The Washington Post)
In his political life, he has followed the same strategy of bluster. In 2011, he said that he had investigators who “cannot believe what they’re finding” about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and that he would at some point “be revealing some interesting things.” He had nothing. During the campaign, he vowed that he would label China a currency manipulator, move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, make Mexico pay for a border wall and initiate an investigation into Hillary Clinton. So far, nada. After being elected, he signaled to China that he might recognize Taiwan. Within weeks of taking office, he folded. He implied that he had tapes of his conversations with then-FBI Director James B. Comey. Of course, he had none.
Even now, as he deals with a nuclear crisis, Trump has made claims that could be easily shown to be false. He tweeted that his first presidential order was to “modernize” the United States’ nuclear arsenal. In fact, he simply followed a congressional mandate to authorize a review of the arsenal, which hasn’t been completed yet. Does he think the North Koreans don’t know this?
When the United States watched as Stalin’s Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons, it was careful in its rhetoric. When it saw a far more threatening leader, Mao Zedong, pursuing nuclear weapons, it was even more cautious. Mao insisted that he had no fear of a nuclear war because China would still have more than enough survivors to defeat Western imperialists. And yet, successive U.S. administrations kept their cool.
The world is already living with a nuclear North Korea. If that reality cannot be reversed through negotiations and diplomacy, the task will be to develop a robust system of deterrence, the kind that kept the peace with Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. Bluster from the president can increase the dangers of miscalculation or cause a dangerous downward spiral of brinkmanship.
“I think Americans should sleep well at night, have no concerns about this particular rhetoric of the last few days,”Tillerson said on Wednesday. This was an unusual, perhaps even unprecedented statement. The secretary of state seems to have been telling Americans — and the world — to ignore the rhetoric, not of the North Korean dictator, but of his own boss, the president of the United States. It is probably what Trump’s associates have done for him all his life. They know that the guiding mantra for him has been not the art of the deal, but the art of the bluff.
Read more from Fareed Zakaria’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
By Fareed Zakaria
August 10, 2017 at 7:48 PM
People walk by a TV screen at a train station in Seoul.(Lee Jin-Man/Associated Press)
How did we get here? Why does it appear that we’re on the brink of a war in Asia, one that could involve nuclear weapons? North Korea has had nuclear-weapons capacity for at least 10 years. Have its recent advances been so dramatic and significant to force the United States to wage a preventive war? No. The crisis we now find ourselves in has been exaggerated and mishandled by the Trump administration to a degree that is deeply worrying and dangerous.
From the start, the White House has wanted to look tough on North Korea. In the early months of President Trump’s administration, before there could possibly have been a serious policy review, Secretary of State Rex Tillersonwarned that the era of strategic patience with North Korea was over. Last week, national security adviser H.R. McMaster said that North Korea’s potential to hit the United States with nuclear weapons was an “intolerable” threat. Not North Korea’s use of weapons, mind you; just the potential.
Trump, of course, went furthest, saying Tuesday that if North Korea did not cease its threats, it would be met with “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” When pressed on Thursday, Trump doubled down, saying, “If anything, maybe that statement wasn’t tough enough.” In other words, Trump has made clear that the United States would respond to North Korean threats with a massive military strike, possibly involving nuclear weapons.
Is this credible? No. The United States is not going to launch a preventive nuclear war in Asia. Trump’s comments have undoubtedly rattled Washington’s closest allies in the region, Japan and South Korea. Empty threats and loose rhetoric only cheapen American prestige and power, boxing in the administration.
So why do it? Because it’s Trump’s basic mode of action. For his entire life, Trump has made grandiose promises and ominous threats — and rarely delivered on any. When he was in business, Reuters found, he frequently threatened to sue news organizations for libel, but the last time he followed through was 33 years ago, in 1984. Trump says that he never settles cases out of court. In fact, he has settled at least 100 times, according to USA Today.
(Adriana Usero,kate woodsome/The Washington Post)
In his political life, he has followed the same strategy of bluster. In 2011, he said that he had investigators who “cannot believe what they’re finding” about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, and that he would at some point “be revealing some interesting things.” He had nothing. During the campaign, he vowed that he would label China a currency manipulator, move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, make Mexico pay for a border wall and initiate an investigation into Hillary Clinton. So far, nada. After being elected, he signaled to China that he might recognize Taiwan. Within weeks of taking office, he folded. He implied that he had tapes of his conversations with then-FBI Director James B. Comey. Of course, he had none.
Even now, as he deals with a nuclear crisis, Trump has made claims that could be easily shown to be false. He tweeted that his first presidential order was to “modernize” the United States’ nuclear arsenal. In fact, he simply followed a congressional mandate to authorize a review of the arsenal, which hasn’t been completed yet. Does he think the North Koreans don’t know this?
When the United States watched as Stalin’s Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons, it was careful in its rhetoric. When it saw a far more threatening leader, Mao Zedong, pursuing nuclear weapons, it was even more cautious. Mao insisted that he had no fear of a nuclear war because China would still have more than enough survivors to defeat Western imperialists. And yet, successive U.S. administrations kept their cool.
The world is already living with a nuclear North Korea. If that reality cannot be reversed through negotiations and diplomacy, the task will be to develop a robust system of deterrence, the kind that kept the peace with Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. Bluster from the president can increase the dangers of miscalculation or cause a dangerous downward spiral of brinkmanship.
“I think Americans should sleep well at night, have no concerns about this particular rhetoric of the last few days,”Tillerson said on Wednesday. This was an unusual, perhaps even unprecedented statement. The secretary of state seems to have been telling Americans — and the world — to ignore the rhetoric, not of the North Korean dictator, but of his own boss, the president of the United States. It is probably what Trump’s associates have done for him all his life. They know that the guiding mantra for him has been not the art of the deal, but the art of the bluff.
Read more from Fareed Zakaria’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Same way Russia couldn't defeat Afghanistan. And who has China ever fought to prove they should be feared.
China backed North Korean against the American/UN forces who back South Korean. It wasn't a straight fight tho.
I must say this, what the Americans did in Iraq forced the Chinese to increase the development of the arsenal.
Yep. Empires have gone to die in Afghanistan. They'll never be "conquered".
WTF....WTF!!!!!!!! Trump is a fucking lunatic.
I keep hearing people talking about China calling in the debts. But it doesnt even work that way
China owns 1 trill of US treasury bonds you better believe it works that way
To compare the military of the 60s to the military today is silly regardless of whatever type of Point the person trying to make
In terms of conventional wars the last 2 wars were easy and extremely successful. Its the occupation that has caused the casualties and been a "clusterfuck"....... there would be no occupation in a war with China
Because it will be mutual destruction
never listen to easy b that kat would have you thinking Clinton was going to win by 70%...Trump was going to be removed from office in February. And that WWIII is popping off tomorrow.
I don't like your tone
As i've stated several times in all these clickbait WWIII threads
Its all good back in the 90's kats used to hype up the Iraqi elite republican guard.
And in bgol 00's WWIII with powerful Iran and Russia was imminent....
I never thought it was going to be a nuclear war with both of the golf wars.... this time you have a unstable person in the White House right now the only safeguards we have now if the generals don't carry out his orders.
Its all good back in the 90's kats used to hype up the Iraqi elite republican guard.
And in bgol 00's WWIII with powerful Iran and Russia was imminent....
You keep typing "golf" its really bothering me
Right. But that isnt the point. Again, the point is about incompetence and military failure of the highest degree. Going in the middle east 2001 it was foreshadowed that the US would face similar obstacles as vietnam in essentially attempting to conduct guerrilla warfare on foreign land( a fucking desert no less) . And despite this knowledge they failed miserably on anything resembling strategic ground movements and anything NOT conducted by drone strikes or bomb deployment. Most of the so called victories were results of under table arms deals and bribes... And sure, one cant compare US military capabilities of today with those from the 60s but the same can be said about China. And the reality is the US hasnt had a clear and convincing victory on the war front since WWII and has never faced off against super power with the reach and resources of China.
All that being said, this country is clearly ahead of all others in the arms race. Im just saying we aint the military juggernaut we have been brainwashed to think we are. We bully third world shitholes with the threat of nukes and 1st world nations with trade agreements.
Theres no incompetence or failure with the wars of 2001..... the US crushed The Iraqi military and changed regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. You cant dictate how an occupation will go
The US military hasn't faced a super power since WWII but who has the modern Chinese military faced....ever? Yet a few of you seem to think they can go toe to toe with the most powerful military on the planet
Actually you CAN predict how an occupation will go.. Thats the point. Critics (myself included) said it would be a never ending war. Bush and co said there would be no occupation and US forces would be out in a year.... then 3, then 5, then 7.... Still waiting and the bill is still running up. That my friend is incompetence... Saying there were no failures and incompetence involved is laughable.. They destabilized an entire region and birthed the current face of radical islam terrorists.. The mere fact that the invasion occurred was failure numero uno.Theres no incompetence or failure with the wars of 2001..... the US crushed The Iraqi military and changed regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. You cant dictate how an occupation will go
Never said they would go toe to toe though i wont say they cant compete either... And while you bigging up the most powerful military on the planet dont forget they have two L's on the record since WWII and are currently led by a fucking manchild moron.The US military hasn't faced a super power since WWII but who has the modern Chinese military faced....ever? Yet a few of you seem to think they can go toe to toe with the most powerful military on the planet
And again, my point isnt about China and their chances at victory.. My point is the same bravado and arrogance i hear from some of you is the same shit spouted off predicting swift and clear victories in Nam and Iraq.. Two L's.
Again you can't predict an occupation you can guess as you did.....The US defeated the conventional military and placed two governments of its choosing which are still in power....If thats an L you throw out weird L's
That region has been unstable since biblical times and always will be.
Again, you CAN predict how an occupation will go as was the case in this instance but Bush and Cheney sold the country a bill of goods, invaded 16 years ago and we havent left since. Also, have you forgotten it created a rippling effect which nearly resulted in the collapse of the American economy?! And if you think that area has been unstable since "biblical times" (whatever that means) then you might wanna crack open a history book young man. Because you've been brainwashed to a near point of no return.
Oh, and those faux governments the US propped up arent in power son. If they were we would have been able to get our ass out of that shithole long ago. Its fucking anarchy... and the only ones remotely in control are ISIS and crew.
What makes you think they(the US) actually want to leave? Instead of cracking open a history book why dont you let me know when the region was stable? Those government's aren't in power? So saddam's family is back in power and Iraq? They didn't hold elections? The Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan?
Some people will say that the Communists won in Vietnam( even though the US was never really vested in that war)....but your L in Iraq is hilarious to me....Who won?
Oh so this is what we're gonna do now???
Sincerely bro... You've swallowed the propaganda they fed you. Read a fucking book. The region- Afghan in particular- was progressive, liberal, and stable as recent as the 50s.... and thats just modern history.
You mentioned the Taliban not me. I said ISIS... you do know the difference do you not? And no nigga, those paper governments arent in "power", and they certainly arent in control.
The US military goals were stated as finding weapons of mass destruction, ending radical islamic terrorism, stabilizing the region, implement a democracy (laughable notion in a muslim country) and insure a independent government and military in less than 5 years.
We accomplished exactly none of that shit in 16years and counting.... and nearly destroyed our economy in the process. So you tell me who won.
Similar threads
