Of course it's possible to stop nuclear war before the end of 2020. I think you mean to ask whether it's likely that it will be stopped before 2020. My answer is, "yes", either way. Just give it a couple of years, and then you'll be eating your hat.

the problem as I see it is that Trump has already bypassed congress and the international community on making these devices, and demonstrated he can put an aircraft carrier next to N Korea without anyone knowing. And he clearly has no moral compunction to do anything except to make more money and stay in power.

That Trump has pushed boundaries should come as no surprise. I just don't think that he'll go that far.

go as far as what? The DoD already decided the B61-12 isnt a WMD.

I meant that I don't think that he'll go as far as to start bombing North Korea! That's still a massive step to take, in spite of any preparations or strongly worded statements that he has made.

North Korea doesn't pose a credible threat, the United States would not need nuclear weapons to defeat North Korea and using nuclear weapons would destroy the United States' (already questionable) reputation of being a benevolent superpower. What could the US possibly gain from nuking North Korea?

North Korea doesn't pose a credible threat, — Tzeentch

Exactly. What the world needs to do is stop looking at Trump from everyone else's point of view and think how we look to him. N Korea isnt a real threat to US security, but it has proven it can hit Japan by mistake when trying to hit us, which makes it a perfect victim.

N Korea isnt a real threat to US security, but it has proven it can hit Japan by mistake when trying to hit us, which makes it a perfect victim. — ernestm

Not really. It takes a single look at the anti-ballistic missile defenses of Japan to realize that North Korea poses no threat to Japan either.

So what? He only wants to win the next election. Wartime presidents never lose an election. I dont think the logical process needs to go any further than that.

Considering an unprovoked attack on North Korea would inevitably result in war with China, that is highly implausible.

So what? He only wants to win the next election. Wartime presidents never lose an election. I don't think the logical process needs to go any further than that. — ernestm

Hold your horses, not so fast...

One important distinction among wartime elections is between an election
during a war and the first election after a war. The first election after a war can be seen as a referendum on whether the war was successful. In fact, however, we know that the incumbent often has lost in such an election even after success in war. Winston Churchill experienced this phenomenon in 1945, just as George H.W. Bush did in 1992. The lesson is simple and familiar by now: successful prosecution of a war does not necessarily translate into reelection.

[...]

There are simplistic claims that wartime presidents always get reelected. One problem with those claims is selection bias: presidents who do not think they can get reelected pull out of the race, so the potential effects of Korea in 1952 and Vietnam in 1968 on the reelection of Truman and Johnson cannot be tested. Omitting these elections would lead to exaggeration of the chances of an incumbent winning reelection during war-time if these were instances when the incumbent would not have won.

[...]

The patterns that emerge from this historical review are very clear. Presidents who sought reelection during wartime have won. How much the war-time contributed to their reelection, however, cannot be discerned with available data. Again, two presidents stood down rather than attempting reelection during wartime—Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968—and their decisions not to run were at least partly due to the difficulty they would have had winning reelection; thus it is not as if reelection during wartime is always a cinch. — Changing Horses in Wartime? The 2004 Presidential Election by Herbert D. Weisberg and Dino P. Christenson

And that's just from little more than a cursory glance.

Well we have a bit of a reprieve. Today I learned it will take Boeing a year to retool for the project, so only the prototypes are available until jan 2020, after which the plan is for Boeing to make 2 a week for five years. So in current circumstance Trump will only have a couple dozen and would probably have to wait until the month before the election before starting.

So with additional information, he would not have the power to wipe out N Korea in one strike by the end of his first term and would only start the bombing if he were in real risk of losing.

Christopher Hitchens predicted that Pakistan would be the state starting a nuclear war. This seems very likely, since they have a huge population bomb the government can´t stop. This factor of instability, together with the pro-belicist (Muslim) identity of this new country makes "the nation of the pure" the most likely attacker with nuclear heads, much more than North Korea. Nuclear wars are a good deal for people who think the world should end soon (Islam, Christian fundamentalists, George Soros) but a terrible business for anybody else. You don´t need nukes to win global wars; only the economy, as China or Saudi Arabia are proving. North Korea is a mad mad regime but they fall on the side of the world that doesn´t want History to end. They just want a good deal I suspect, and Trump is trying to negotiate that deal with China and the mad regime, something that Obama did not even bother to attempt.

lol. Well I differ from most people. I dont think Trump is stupid. He just acts stupid because the resulting chaos is to his advantage. However Bannon is definitely insane, and despite their fallout, I think Trump still supports the Bannon agenda. The more chaos there is, the more the rich can extort more money for themselves. I dont see any moral compunction against starting a nuclear war for trump. Pakistan does actually have more moral compunction not to start a nuclear war. So I think the USA is more likely the cause. The USA already argued nuclear weapons arent WMDs. No one else could go that far.

So it could be any day Trump feels like starting the bombing. — ernestm

We are probably lucky that NK has some pretty awesome ability to respond to any attack. As best I can tell, much of that ability can not be taken out in a first strike.

My analysis is that all Trump cares about is Trump, and a horrific war in Asia would not be good for Trump.

What worries me are unintentional fuck ups.

As example, one time in Arkansas a repair tech dropped a wrench which punctured the side of a missile in a silo, which led to massive escape of rocket fuel, leading to the rocket leaving the silo and dumping the nuke on the ground nearby. Didn't go off. If it had Arkansas would now be unlivable.

On another occasion somebody accidentally put on a training tape at NORAD which simulated an incoming Russian first strike. The generals called the National Security advisor and told him that we were under attack.

Crazy stuff like this could happen again at any moment. We're playing Russian roulette with modern civilization.

Imho, Kennedy was killed by the "deep state" because he brought America to the very knife edge of total destruction, truly an unforgivable failure for any President. If Trump puts the country in a similar position, the gloves will come off, imho.

"I dont see any moral compunction against starting a nuclear war for trump. Pakistan does actually have more moral compunction not to start a nuclear war." Ernestm
Why Pakistan should refrain from starting a nuclear war? The state´s official religion is Islam, and the country has been purged from other beliefs that amount to only 4%. With this strong islamic milieu, I do not see why Pakistan is more likely to feel guilty about using nuclear bombs than the U.S. War and violence are a sacrament in islamism. A sacrament is a ritual that brings you closer to God and makes you more worthy. Killing people or dying trying to was considered sacramental (human sacrifices) among Vikings or Germanic tribes, and they fought among themselves when Romans were not attacking. Or they´d invade, simply because war was sacred to them, a favoured path to be in good terms with their daemons and to prove worth. Islam is based on that kind of "morality", because early Muslims mixed Judaism with their own tribal ideas of the world.

Christian and post-Christian (Progressive) U.S. do not have the concept of Holy War or Jihad. That is partly why Europeans had to wait more than a century and lose more than half of Christianity to Islam before they could organize defence. And still, Christian soldiers needed to expiate their sins in monasteries or donating to the Church if they wanted to go to Heaven. Does Pakistan have "anti-belicist" movies and songs, like the endless list of those produced by the U.S. culture?

In Quran however, Muslims read that the promised triumph of Allah over the whole of human kind and long-for Doomsday looks suspiciously similar to what would happen if Pakistan (or Iran) started a nuclear war:
We have made of what is on the earth ornaments for it in order to test them as to whose work is better, and We will surely turn what is on it into a barren wasteland!. 18:7-8

So when the horn is blown once, and the earth and the mountains are lifted and crushed with a single blow; on that day the inevitable event will occur. 69:13-15

Therefore, watch out for a day when the sky brings forth a distinctive smoke that covers the people; this is a painful punishment.. 44:10-11

For all this, and the demographic bomb that is also in total harmony with Islamic teachings, I find more likely that Pakistan begins the Doomsday War, and feels less guilty about it if at all, than the U.S.

It would be better for Pakistanis to return to their lost hindu religion; at least Hinduism has no need for a Doomsday as they think that history is meant to be endless.

Well, obviously we need a doomsday weapon. Just hope that everyone is rational enough to not want to die.

ust hope that everyone is rational enough to not want to die. — Wallows

Which opens another huge box of worms. Where is the evidence that life is better than death?

I myself routinely wail about nuclear weapons based on the assumption that life is better than death, but that conclusion is really little more than faith.

Which opens another huge box of worms. Where is the evidence that life is better than death? — Jake

That's like trying to prove a negative. Don't you find life rewarding enough to not want to die?

Don't you find life rewarding enough to not want to die? — Wallows

Rewarding in comparison to what?

Rewarding in comparison to what? — Jake

There is no comparison. So, we must appreciate life for what it offers us regardless.

yes, I totally agree. What´s the point of being conscious if we don´t protect our life and those of our dear ones? We have an eternity to enjoy being dead. In life we must serve Life. All religions worth of the name are about that, and all that our parents taught us as kids that for me has more weight than religion.

I have one question. Are you asking if we can stop a nuclear war ones it started or stop one from happening?

There is no comparison. So, we must appreciate life for what it offers us regardless. — Wallows

Not wanting to die is based on a comparison, whether one realizes that or not. Appreciating life is not the same thing as not wanting to die.

Not wanting to die is based on a comparison, whether one realizes that or not. — Jake

Not really. Again, you don't have anything to compare life to apart from your neighbor who always smiles every day when going to work and coming back from it. I'm not aware of people being able to compare their life to something like death, unless the suffering of living is so great that death seems like the only alternative. However, that is taking the issue to the extreme in my opinion, and fortunately, not many people contemplate suicide or at least shouldn't if there's some alternative to entertain that is more productive to oneself and others.

Appreciating life is not the same thing as not wanting to die. — Jake

Yeah, that much I agree on. No dispute about that on my end.

Again, you don't have anything to compare life to apart from your neighbor who always smiles every day when going to work and coming back from it. — Wallows

I agree we have no basis of comparison. And thus, not wanting to die is not reason based. A reason based perspective would be built upon comparing A to B and then selecting the more desired outcome.

The fact that we may like where we are now doesn't equal where we are now being better than something else which is unknown. I like this forum, but that's only because I don't know of a philosophy forum populated by cute redheaded coeds who all find me to be The Genius.

Mods, are you reading this? Do you see now how you're totally falling down on the job? :smile:

North Korea doesn't pose a credible threat — Tzeentch

NK doesn't pose all that much of a threat to the United States, but nukes or not, it poses a huge threat to South Korea. Seoul is about 9 million+, and is located very close to NK's concentration of conventional arms. We can't neutralize those conventional arms with a nuke without wrecking much of Seoul in the process. Should NK decide to attack SK even with conventional weapons, it would be bad for SK, us, and the world -- because of the possibility of a war getting out of hand -- even a conventional war.

I'd bet on Pakistan as a nuker before NK. Pakistan has the added advantage (in this bet) of being unstable. NK seems to be under tight control. That could change rapidly, but I don't think there are NKs anxious to seize the few nuclear weapons they have and attack Japan or SK. There probably are several factions in Pakistan that would like to attack India, for example, and factions in India who would be delighted to have an excuse to wipe out Pakistan.

Then there is Israel which might, if it were sufficiently beleaguered, decide to protect its future with a few well-placed nukes.

One thing about Trump and his nuking NK: I am not sure the military would obey a command to launch nuclear weapons on North Korea.

Considering an invasion by North Korea would undoubtedly drag the United States, Japan and possibly more into war, it is a highly improbable scenario. What would anyone hope to gain? And one shouldn't underestimate China's say in North Korea's actions. China has also very little interest in war. The real trick Trump is playing is that he's creating an imaginary threat to play the strongman against, and judging by the contents of this thread he's succeeding at it.