Strike on Guam? I dare say the US would have a fair chance of shooting it down,not so sure they have the ability to tackle missile(s) sent elsewhere. No star wars defence shield .
Your points 1 and 2 are indeed grim. Satanic state would have the money to obtain nuclear bombs and use them.
Strike on Guam?
That may be exactly what Trump and the USA want. When Japan was flexing it's muscles in 1941 we know the US knew a strike on their Pacific forces was going to take place. The conspiracy historians amoungst us, which includes me, believe Roosevelt and Churchill were just waiting for such a strike, and indeed, before the event, knew it would be on Pearl. That would, and of course did, bring the isolationist US into the fight against Nazi Germany, and then the Axis forces in their entirety. Result!
Trump means "Fire and fury, with power that the World has never seen before", and is just waiting for the excuse to strike at the political centre of N.Korea. Trump is no usual President, and will not conform to usual diplomatic practice. He knows that only delays the inevitable, and has no teeth anyway. I abhor war, but sometimes/ often in history a early warring strike is far better than pussy footing around that only leads to a greater conflict. This is such an example.
Put on your tin hats, it is going to be a rocky ride!
Sounds like you are much more comfortable with the 20-100m (or more if China is drawn in), largely civilian, deaths such a conflict will cause than I am. SK capital Seoul with a population of 25m is only 30 miles from DPRK border. In the event of war DPRK extensive number of artillery pieces and Grad MLRS will launch an immediate massive bombardment of Seoul using a combination of explosive, biological, chemical and quite probably tactical nuclear weapons. They will then launch a massive invasion through an extensive network of secret tunnels, which SK and US will try to stop before they reach the southern coast. Read any of the several studies on this scenario and it is a sh*t sandwich all round where there are no good options or outcomes, deliberately so with the DPRK plans and tactics, only some are worse than others. All of the studies say the only people that call for the US to attack DPRK are those that know nothing of the very major difficulties and high casualties rates that will be involved.
I understand completely what you are saying Rod, but history has taught us to do nothing, or even worse, just keep talking endlessly to a leader bent on military action, only delays the inevitable, and when that inevitable transpires, the consequences are far worse than if real force had been used in the first place. The free world must act with resolute determination now.
hmm..., wasn't that what tony bliar said about saddam hussein?
didn't turn out so well as i recall
No, not quite. But in any case just remember the Munich Crisis of 1938 and the subsequent Munich Agreement that Chamberlain boasted meant "Peace in our time". You can talk, and talk with someone with aggressive intent, exhausting all diplomacy, and think you are coming away from it with a good deal (although Chamberlain doubted this as he returned to No. 10 from Munich) when all the time the one with "power" in his mind is planning attack.
The "Boy" leading NK is now stating he is ready to launch "four" intermediate missiles towards Guam. If you are the President of a nation with awesome fire power that if used fully would be "the likes that the World has never seen before" what would you now do? Wait like the leaders of Britain and France did in 1938 into 1939 and be seen by the aggressor as being weak and just hot air until the inevitable happens? Or strike first and make sure the aggressor knows you mean business, that in 1938 would have stopped Hitler from taking the opportunist steps he did that eventually led to WW2 on September 3rd 1939?
Talk is easy, but action by a leader of a great nation is never that.