UKC

Following Kim Jong Un's comment sbout the nuclear button being on his desk Trump has now said that HIS button is bigger!
If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. It's the language ofthe kndergarten playground.

In reply to mypyrex:

You're not wrong.
I did laugh when I read the headline this morning. However it is rather sobering when you realise the blithering idiot is also the most powerful man in the world.

In reply to Ben_Climber:

This mornings face palm was painful.

In reply to mypyrex:


Taken metaphorically to mean than Trump has bigger nukes and could wipe N. Korea from the face of the earth if Kim Jong Un tries anything on, it is maybe a fair point to make.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Maybe it’s a reference to the size of Trumps hands, anything including his dick would look huge in those.

In reply to Robert Durran:


When it comes to nukes, any more than 'a few' is fairly moot. The whole problem with the MAD doctrine is that it relies on rational behaviour, and while Trump probably has rational people standing between him and his 'big red button', who knows if the same can be said for Kim Jong-Un's inner circle.

In reply to Robert Durran:


That may well be but it's hardly the language of a mature adult. Surely Trump would gain credibility by ignoring the equally puerile rhetoric emanating from North Korea. When people start ignoring bullies they tend to loose interest.

In reply to mypyrex:


I'm not sure that ignoring it would be wise; Kim Yong Un needs to know that there will be consequences if he does anything daft. I agree that Trump's rhetoric should be a lot more mature though.

In reply to planetmarshall:

I wouldn't want to bank on that too much.

One of the lesser known 'RIP's from last year was Stanislav Petrov, one of the 'rational people' on the Kremlin side of the cold war who quite possibly saved the world in 1983. Interesting story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24280831

In reply to mypyrex:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/world-on-the-brink-of-trum...

In reply to deepsoup:

Bit confused about their Kim Jongs...

In reply to mypyrex:


Parents are fond of saying things like this to their children. However, at my school ignoring a bully would usually result in a wedgie and loss of your lunch money.

In reply to deepsoup:


I'm familiar with the story. I think it's reasonable to believe that there are more Petrovs than Trumps in the world, and even if Petrov had followed protocol, I don't see how the BBC can reasonably claim that a retaliatory strike would be "almost certain".

In any case, it's not 1983 any more.

In reply to mypyrex:


I would respectfully suggest that trump should respond, but in a measured statesman-like manner - not with his normal childish behaviour.

As for ignoring bullies - that never works. It only emboldens them, and they keep pushing to see how far they can go. It also demonstrates to other potential bullies that they too can do what they like, and there will be no comeback.
The only successful way to deal with bullies unfortunately is to NOT let them get away with anything.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Diplomatic channels exist for that purpose, twitter isn't one of them.

In reply to Ciro:

I wish Trumpcould be made to understand that!

In reply to captain paranoia:


I suspect they are keen to reunite the Korean peninsula and people

In reply to Robert Durran:


Trump is so beyond pigshit thick that he doesn't understand the concept of mutually assured destruction.

In reply to pasbury:
Smart enough to become leader ' free world' so not that daft

In reply to pasbury:


No he's not that thick.

In reply to John Kelly:

He isn't the leader of the free world. He's the president of the united states of America.

In reply to John Kelly:

The Mash item originally metioned dick-waving contest with Kim-Jong Il. Now edited to the correct Kim-Jong...

In reply to mypyrex:

He's laying in to Steve Bannon now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42560520

I wonder what's in this book?

In reply to pasbury:


I struggle with your description of Trump as pigshit thick - billionaire? President - pretty fair CV

You may reasonably dislike his policies and his politics but thick? - cunning, low, Machiavellian might make more sense

In reply to John Kelly:

I reserve judgement on his intelligence. Billionaire? Inherited money, repeated commercial failure, tax regime favouring the asset rich plus unscrupulous activity and borderline illegal practice. His agenda favours c*nts like himself.

Venal, bullying, corrupt, dishonest, immoral, unethical.

In reply to pasbury:

Agree with 95% of that

In addition his education is fairly basic and military record is slightly odd (4 medical excemption for Vietnam)

He is a cunning low character but I think we might have to differ on his intellect

In reply to pasbury:



He is all of that, but none of that has anything to do with intelligence.
I suspect he is of pretty average intelligence.

In reply to mypyrex:

A friend of mine suggested this, and i thought it was genius!!

You give them both a Big Red Button.
Say that when you press the Big Red Button, you deliver an electric shock direct to the other guy. Say it is all science-ish, and that they are the first leader ever to have done this. In fact, say that it was in fact their idea.

Then, at random times, the button gives them an electric shock, but you say that is the other one getting their own back.

The two of them could then spend days frantically jabbing at buttons, giving themselves electric shocks....

In reply to John Kelly:

I don't know if he was once cleverer but he certainly seems thick as mince now, barely coherent, not able to maintain a train of thought, unable to understand simple concepts. There's nothing about his record suggests that he has decent business acumen either.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Some years ago during the cold war, there was an independent (wacko) candidate for American president whose main campaigning point was that in the event of pushing the button, the first person to die (be shot before any missiles landed) would be the person who pushed it. Would apply to USA president and head of USSR.

I thought it was quite a good idea really.

In reply to Tyler:


Currently $3.1 billion reasons?

What I don't get is why people attack him for anything other than his bonkers policies

In reply to John Kelly:


No, a truly Machiavellian character would operate behind the scenes - a classic modern fictional example being Malcolm Tucker. Trump is far too narcissistic for that.

I don't think you can extrapolate much about his intelligence from his CV. I'd like to think that a certain degree of intelligence is necessary to become POTUS - I certainly never believed that Dubya was as dumb as he appeared - but so far the only common factor among US presidents is extraordinary wealth. So much for the meritocracy.

In reply to John Kelly:


Some people may think that heads of state should conduct themselves with some level of dignity given the seriousness of their position, the extraordinary responsibility and opportunity that comes with the role. Obama also polarized many, but I don't think he was ever regarded as anything other than statesmanlike. Trump is an embarrassment to his office and his country.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I was given a slim volume of Trump's poetry as a Christmas present (sigh) and I have to say that figurative language is not the big fella's strong point.

In reply to John Kelly:



Didn't you pick up about the bankruptcies and the fraud and non payments to contractors. Eg on November 23rd 2016 he had to settle out of court to the tune of £25 000 000 ( $?) on a charge of fraud relating to his "university".
He's not a business man he's a swindler and a crook. I'm astonished that even bright people such as yourself are taken in. You don't have to search for proof, it's in the public domain, at least the tip of the iceberg is...

In reply to John Kelly:
Yes, but as he started with $3.1+ billion he's not done that well, especially given the boom years in property prices during the time he's been operating, don't forget this is a guy who owned a casino that went bankrupt. Also, no one knows how much he's worth or what he owes, his dealings are very opaque and we've not seen his tax returns. He may only be worth a fraction of what he claims, as was the case with one of Trump's allies recently.

True, there's plenty to get your teeth into but not sure why you think he should be given a free pass on the claims he's a great businessman and deal maker when his record doesn't stack up.

In reply to John Kelly:



It's not just his insane policies though, he is a misogynistic, xenophobic racist who raped his own wife. I don't see how he deserves any kind of respect.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Kim Jong Un's behaviour - in particular, the North Korean nuclear programme - seems entirely rational and pragmatic to me, in the context of deterring possible aggression from the US.

My other comment on that is I am impressed with the speed in which North Korea - a pariah country with no real allies - has developed a hydrogen bomb (as seems to be the case.) They must have some very good physicists and engineer. And/or good spies.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Legally there is nobody between Trump and his 'big red button', at least in the short term (it'd take a while to have him declared unfit and deposed). I'm sure Hitler had rational people around him too.
jk

In reply to jkarran:


BBC article on this here. I was surprised to find that the US Presidents authority to launch nuclear weapons is absolute, though some military figures disagree that this is legally the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42065714


Are you invoking Godwin's law?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Just because Trump is a cock of the very first water let's not think that some how makes Kim any more rational. Starving the populous to fund a nuclear program is neither rational nor pragmatic, sabre rattling with no possible hope of achieving anything other than antagonising other countries is neither rational nor pragmatic.

Especially as YouTube is banned in the country!

In reply to planetmarshall:


If you like. I've never seen much merit in the idea of 'Godwin's law' so happy for the thread to continue with or without mentions of historic Nazis.
jk

In reply to Tyler:


I'm not defending the North Korean regime. Nor am I hoping for a war. However the nuclear programme seems quite pragmatic as a deterrent. Would the US have invaded Iraq, say, had that country had viable nuclear weapons which were targetting the US?

Could it simply be that North Korea wants to be left alone?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I would say they've actually increased the risk of a limited US attack to a near certainty in the near future, and maybe that's what Kim Jong-un actually wants. Perhaps internal politics is more the consideration for him rather than any nuclear deterrence? I can't see the US ever allowing them to get to the stage where they're capable of delivering multiple warheads via ballistic missiles to the US mainland -- and that reasoning goes beyond the N Korea problem to what other countries like Iran will take from how the US acts. And remember at this point in time their long-range ballistic missile capability is believed to be very inaccurate, and that they don't have a useable re-entry vehicle design for the warhead. Even if they did develop that, then what they will have short-term is something that might hit somewhere roughly where it's meant to go, if it doesn't malfunction on the way, or get destroyed by US anti-ballistic missile systems. It's not a mutually-assured destruction scenario by a long way, but the longer the US leaves it before acting, the more costly and painful that action will be.

In reply to mypyrex:

Those sort of remarks are those which may start fights.

I'd almost guarantee that most North Koreans want a nice peaceful and happy life the same as most Europeans ( and the rest of the world), and are quite happy to let everyone just get on with living.

Its only when politicians start getting involved we end killing each other in large amounts.

In reply to WaterMonkey:

Never suggested he deserved any respect

In reply to Tyler:

I've not seen the 'started with 3billion' stuff
I understand
Inherited 40million in 70's
They do say that if he had invested 40m in shares result would have been 3 billion today
so maybe adequate businessman (with low moral standards) rather than exceptional

Still think policies and morality or lack of it rather than his intellect or business acumen is his great weakness

In reply to wurzelinzummerset:

They have demonstrated the ability to build nuclear weapon, build a rocket that can reach 4500km above the surface, I don't think we can be to sure they can't get the thing back to earth in a viable condition and hit a city. Detonate at 400km would cause some problems for any electronics within 1000km.
Wonder how heavy the warhead is

In reply to planetmarshall:

Narcissistic and Machiavellian !!!!! - take your point

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Swindler and crook yes but I'm not sure that precludes him being a businessman or even puts him in the very naughty business category - maybe, never killed anyone?

VW, union carbide, et al

In reply to mypyrex:

You might want to try this quiz if you haven't already

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40891219

In reply to John Kelly:


I suppose he must be some sort of shrewd as he managed to get Deutsche Bank to lend him money when not one single bank in the USA is willing to. I understand there is some sort of back story involving Russians, Azerbaijan, money laundering and fake property deals in Florida. Perhaps none of it is unlawful? Do you want to bet.
The only people who believe in Trump's business credentials are the dupes who watched the Apprentice where trump did a very good pantomime super magnate act and then voted for him.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

People like trump operate under a different legislative framework to normal people. It’s an immoral, unproductive one. As I said above, part of his agenda is to make it easier for others to follow in his footsteps.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Most probably. Kim Jong Un knows that lots of people want to see his regime overthrown - I suspect he sees having nuclear weapons as his best bet to stay in power.

In reply to pasbury:


On the contrary: in America, at least, they operate under exactly the same legislative framework as anybody else. We shall see, for example, what the Mueller investigation turns up.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Why don’t you try to take legal action against him and see what happens.

Or try being someone on a normal income who he takes legal action against.

Do you really think you and he would have equal legal leverage?

In reply to mypyrex:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pentagon-trump-agreed-to-delay-us-sout...

A chink of hope?

In reply to pasbury:




I'm not in the position of taking action against him so your first sentence is irrelevant.

But I'm happy to listen. Can you expand on cases brought in the US involving Trump where there is a suggestion that his leverage has influenced the course of justice?

(By the way, I emphasise 'in the US'. Here in the UK, the handling of the entire Menie Estate affair is a public disgrace, and our shame. But that's us.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It was a thought experiment. It has nothing to do with the US either, his wealth and assets protect him from the sort of prosecutions that can be brought against normal people.

In reply to pasbury:

I've got reasonable faith in the US constitution, the legal system, and the separation of powers.

But we can see what happens with, for example, the current threatened action regarding the book by Wolff.

In reply to pasbury:


Yes, other crooks.