The Transfer of a Russian ICBM to North Korea?

You have yet to support the notion that Trump was against the funding, and that people had to "stand up" to him.

 

Yes. Using the Patriot system. The same missiles south Korea has.

This isn't hard math.

That missile that Russia gave to North Korea has gone against the Patriot system and lost.

South Korea has that system. As such...don't really care.

 

That's what all those articles I'd linked for you, should have allowed you to at least begin to see. Here, I will consolidate just the more obvious indicators, from the snips, I'd provided. For simplicity's sake, I will just link that post, rather than break up the quotes, with each one's link, again; and I'll distinguish between different snips, with color changes.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-to-north-korea.612878/page-2#post-1074408652


WASHINGTON — Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are pressuring U.S. President Donald Trump to take a tougher line on Moscow after an incident at sea between Ukraine and Russia, which is ratcheting tensions between the two neighbors.



WASHINGTON ― A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers is pressuring the Trump administration to release $250 million in military aid to Ukraine...


In a letter sent Tuesday to acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, the leaders of the Senate’s bipartisan Ukraine Caucus expressed “deep concerns” as the Trump administration evaluates the aid package.



The move to hold up the aid, which helps Ukraine buy lethal weapons and was first reported by Politico last week, sparked bipartisan ire.



But the delays come amid questions over Trump’s approach to Russia, after a weekend in which the president repeatedly seemed to downplay Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine and pushed for Russia to be reinstated into the Group of Seven, an annual gathering of the world’s largest advanced economies. The review is also occurring amid a broader internal debate over whether to halt or cut billions of dollars in foreign aid.

A couple of points. Yes, Trump was not shy, about calling out individual members. And he had no trouble pointing his Twitter finger at unnamed "Republicans," plural, in a hypothetical way. That is, he might say, before a vote, "any Republican who doesn't support (or, who supports) this, ..." as a means of generalized intimidation. Though I don't specifically remember him ever having starting a fight with a group of named Republicans, I don't doubt that he had, as long as they were each, in the issue, independent of one another. That is, as long as he was just encouraging constituents of each to voice their objections, in the expectation this might affect those individual lawmakers' separate voting decisions. These were fights against those who were seen as smaller opponents, and so there was the expectation of Trump winning these battles. Even if some individual Senator, say, like Mitt Romney, were to vote against Trump's wishes-- as long as the overall vote went Trump's way, there was no danger of it being viewed as a loss. Rather, Trump would follow up such an instance, by merely continuing to paint the individual who didn't go along with the rest, as not really on the team (to put it nicely). He would ostracize the person who, again, was unable on his own, to thwart Trump.

This Ukrainian aid issue differed, because there was a united block of Senators and Representatives who drew strength from their numbers. They couldn't really he culled, from the herd. Therefore, it was not a matter of Trump versus McConnell, or whoever. Instead, it would be about the specific issue, at hand. And this was not an issue, that enough Congressmen were willing to back down on, because of Trump criticism. Therefore, all-importantly, Trump knew he would lose-- which is bad for his image. He much prefers to be in the position of the Casino (as in, "the House always wins").

I do not know, whether or not, privately, Trump ever "communicated (his) objection to Republicans in Congress." But he did not do so publicly. And if he'd done so, privately, then they had told him, tough luck. Like I said, this issue, at that time, was exceptional.

Since then, the Republican Party, as well as politics, in general, has changed. If you don't remember Trump ever seeming to be a toady of Putin's, then either your memory is being selective, or you hadn't been paying close enough attention. If you don't believe me, then read those articles I snipped and linked. If you still see not even a sign that my narrative is credible, then that perceptive blockage is on you, and I'm not going to endlessly draw water, that you are clearly resolved not to drink.

 

It is possible that NATO knew that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would happen eventually and wanted to make sure Ukraine was somewhat prepared.

 

What does that have to do with Trump's position on arming Ukraine with deadly weaponry?

 

I responded to those articles in my subsequent reply, which you subsequently replied to, but you did not reply to my last reply section. Check it out again and see if you can reply: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-to-north-korea.612878/page-2#post-1074408805

Well maybe not "groups of named Republicans", but he called out certain individuals. Such as here: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/895599179522650112/

It depends on what you mean by "seeming to be a toady of Putin's." I'm unaware of how Trump benefited Putin.

 

The missile has gone against the Patriot system? In what way?

 

Try to keep in mind what the main idea is, we are discussing. You'd said something about Trump being tough on Russia, because of the weapons we sent Ukraine. So I pointed out to you, that this was the idea of Congress, not Trump. You responded that Trump had signed off on it, and I told you that was because it had passed with a veto-proof majority, so he knew he couldn't stop it, and didn't want to look weak, in being overridden by Congress. Then you'd postulated that, if Trump had a problem with the plan, he would have tweeted, and all Republicans would change their positions. So I told you, even if that is how it might work now, it was not at that point, and not on this issue, back then. So, why would you point me to this quote, about even earlier?

Did you not understand my description of the emasculating of the Republicans, by Trump, being an ongoing, cumulative process? So, if they were standing up to Trump in 2018, that would mean they were not already cowed, in 2017, right?

So what? Why don't you try re-reading my reply? I explained how the bully likes to pick on someone he can beat. Not on a whole gang of people, who would stick together, and beat him-- the situation regarding this weaponry going to Ukraine. What don't you get?

You're killin' me. We are talking about Trump not wanting to cause problems for Putin, wanting to stay out of his way-- like by taking our forces out of Syria, & leaving the country to him. So I'd just meant, being deferential-- like by taking Putin's word, ahead of our own Intelligence agencies, about Russian interference in our election. In that joint press conference they'd had, from Iceland, I think (or somewhere in Scandinavia), Trump came across as a Putin bootlick: "I don't know why it would be Russia"-- it was a humiliation for America. One of the snips I provided you also mentioned-- in connection with bipartisan members of Congress, questioning Trump's delay in delivering the weapons-- Trump's also lobbying for Putin, to get Russia put back in the G-8 (which had become the G-7, when Russia was ejected). I mean, you saw no signs, of Trump being willing to cater to Putin?

 

Yep. The 2017 $47 million worth of deadly weaponry to Ukraine wasn't exactly being compassionate to Russia now was it.

Not the initial 2017 delivery. Perhaps you are under the impression that nothing came before the 2017 delivery.

Nope. I just said that he would have tweeted about it. I did NOT say that following a tweet, "all Republicans would change their positions." To the contrary, in my mock Trump tweet I specified (in bold):

Sure, but is there evidence that there was anything to stand up to Trump on in 2017 with regard to deadly weaponry to Ukraine?

How did that benefit Putin?

Okay, so nothing consequential. Just stupid rhetoric.

It depends on what you mean by "cater to." To "cater" to someone sounds consequential. Was Trump's rhetoric soft on Putin? Yeah, you bet! Were his policies? Nope! Again, the question which you need to grapple with: why weren't the Ukrainians armed with deadly weaponry under Obama? I first hit you with this challenge in this post, but you did not reply to that question in your subsequent reply, and I'm curious whether or not you can muster up an answer: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-to-north-korea.612878/page-2#post-1074408582

 

You know what? My mistake, I was confusing this ICBM with Russia's more recent tech the Kenzhal. This particular ICBM was designed during the soviet era...

Has it gone against the patriot? No. Do we have the capability in shooting this POS down? Yeah.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world...ary-shot-down-an-icbm-in-space-from-a-warship
For the first time, U.S. military shot down an ICBM in space from a warship
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...troyer-shoots-down-an-icbm-in-milestone-test/
US Navy destroyer shoots down an ICBM in milestone test

 

Lmao what a pathetic grasp at the bottom of the barrel. What did Trump do to help Russia? He even bombed Syrian airports for gassing their own right after Obama and Biden refused to back their red line comment like cowardice dogs. He done that even while Russia was in Syria. He was the kind of crazy that scared the other crazies to death. I remember people thinking he was going to start WWIII yet here we are with good ol Biden getting us there.

 

If our military has any intentions of being involved in international events, it is going to happen regardless whomever is president. It is the sheep that tend to blame the presidents they do not like, the government will continue business as usual.

 

The problem, in reality, seems to be that you think that any President, can authorize arms shipments, requiring funds from Congress.

No "grappling" required. The answer is: because Congress, under Obama, did not pass any legislation mandating this-- as it did, under Trump. I acknowledge that Obama did not ask Congress to do so, but I assert that neither did Trump. So what is missing, here, is not more sources, or explanations, from me, but your supporting evidence, that Trump asked Congress, to fund/approve deadly military aid for Ukraine.

 

I'm still confused. When we're talking about "shooting down" a missile, we're talking about missile interception systems aren't we?

 

You can express all the skepticism you wish, and it won't change the fact that it was Trump who'd been waiting on Putin's approval, to build a luxury apartment building, in Moscow.

It is your own suggestion, that Trump was not ready to kiss Putin's ass, that is pathetic, and laughable. Did you see Trump take Putin's side, over our own Intelligence agencies, in front of a world audience, in Finland?




Are you trying to imply that, in four years, Trump did more to thwart Russia, than Biden has done in the last two, and is continuing to do? When Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump did not say, "they need to be stopped!" He called Putin "savvy," and his casting of his invasion as a "peacekeeping force," as "genius."

 

@Joe knows


I had written some text after the second video, in my post, just above, but when I came back with a video to go with it, the text had disappeared. Yet, after saving the addition of the video, I was out of time, to rewrite it. I had asked if you could guess who it was-- after Russia was tossed out of the G-8, as punishment for its annexation of Crimea-- who was in effect, doing Putin's bidding, by lobbying to get Russia reinstated?









<Snip>
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Tuesday that Russia should be readmitted to the Group of 7 industrialized nations, a call for ending Moscow's pariah status on the world stage that is likely to earn a cool reception when the group's annual summit opens this weekend.Aug 20, 2019
https://www.nytimes.com › politics
Trump Says Russia Should Be Readmitted to G7 - The New York Times
<End>

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-new...ssia-should-be-reinstated-to-g7-1251640899834

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/politics/russia-g7/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...rump-reps-isolated-america-g-7-summit-n880961

 

Were you under the impression that nothing came before the 2017 delivery?

Please link to my post in which I claimed that Trump asked Congress, to fund/approve deadly military aid for Ukraine. You won't find it.

 

Handing over an intermediate range ICBM to NK is almost certainly not on the table. There's lots of other military equipment NK desperately needs that Russia can provide that is not nuclear related. Also lets be clear here one missile or even a dozen missiles doesn't cut it. Some are always off line for maintenance (that's assuming the NK's could maintain them without direct Russian help) and every so often you have to test fire one to make sure the system is still operational.

For a start the technological problems are significant and therefore almost certainly beyond NK's ability to solve. Firstly every country in the world that has them designs their missiles and their nuclear warheads in tandem i.e a warhead is designed to be mated to the missile and vice versa. This is because the warhead and its reentry vehicle has to operate in conjunction with the missile's onboard power, guidance and communication systems. So Russia could not simply hand Kim a missile and expect the Koreans to successfully mate a primitive and completely untested warhead to the modern Russian systems. At this stage NK doesn't seem to have even demonstrated it has an ICBM capable warhead let alone tested one!

Yes its widely accepted it has or is close to completing a basic nuclear weapon capable of being dropped from aircraft or in a cruise missile. But designing a successful ICBM and payload is harder than building a A-bomb in the fist place. Case in point Americas first ICBM (The Atlas) started development in 1946 but wasn't declared operational until 1959. And it sucked! Wikipedia states that it had 13 successful test launches from a total of 24 attempts! The US's first more or less capable ICBM (the Titian II) didn't replace until 1965. None of which doesn't mean NK has a chance on improving on that time line, given they've already invested heavily in their rocket program and especially if Kim can trade munitions for 'technical assistance' from Russia. But the fact remains we're not talking about playing with Lego here. Its not click plug and play. NK is not going to have a reliable fleet.

Finally Russia is not going to hand over weapons from it's nuclear arsenal to NK. The adverse geopolitical ramifications are horrendous. For a start China would be pissed off as well as the US and its allies. And Putin really, really needs China. Secondly should (God forbid) NK ever use one of the bombs Putin provided there would be no denying the source, this is because the isotope footprint of bombs produced by the various nuclear powers can be traced to the source of production. So if Kim nuked Seoul for instance using a Russian provided warhead? It would be traced straight back to Putin and the attack would be regarded by the World as nuclear warfare by proxy.

Lastly there's lots of stuff Putin could easily provide an low risk, especially food which as well as conventional military equipment and parts to beef up NK's 1970's military. So all in all. No it ain't happening and the ideas just a beat up.

 

That was edited, shown by all the white outs. Show the whole exchange

 

LOL-- And out comes the conspiracy theory. I will not debate someone, who refuses to accept what I can show him right before his own eyes, on video, and listen to with his own ears, from audiotapes. This is no different than the sad belief, that it was only editing, which makes January sixth look violent.

Why don't you show us, the unedited tape? Maybe because it doesn't exist? But you go on-- draw your beliefs from whatever unsupported source, informs your baseless opinions, while denying all evidence that does exist; clearly, it must be a grand f'ing conspiracy, which immediately edits everything that would show the truth: that Trump is the savior of the people, and the greatest leader since Julius Caesar. You certainly got right, the words "pathetic grasp at the bottom of the barrel," but were only wrong, in that it is your own words, and your own, empty barrel of evidence, to which your description, so aptly applies.

 

I dunno about 'Russia-friendly' but it shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone that kicking Russia out of our economic club is likely to drive them into more cooperation with others that arent in our club. Foreign policy people used to understand this sort of thing. I guess the Bush policy of 'You're either with us or you're with the terrorists' wasn't terrible enough to actually stop using, since that's still pretty much how we do.

And just so Im not misunderstood- it is terrible, this is why, and it seems the geniuses in charge arent capable or interested in figuring that out, despite many of them having voiced adamant opposition to it in the past...

 

So our takeaway should be, it is virtually assured that there are only a few of these advanced missiles, therefore there's no cause for concern?

So you you are saying, it seems, that you believe that the article is, at its core, total bullshit? Did you even read the article, or did you already know enough, to predict all possible developments? You say little different from the article, except that where the article calls it a "radical departure" from past practice, you simply state with certainty, that you, in effect, understand everything that Putin would or would not do-- and this is not something, the predictable Vlad would undertake...because he always acts, so reasonably.

I have to LOL, at your line about "geopolitical ramifications"-- those are, obviously, very important to Putin. Your argument about China, nonetheless, does carry some weight. However, China is not a full-fledged ally of Russia's. They cooperate when China sees advantage in doing so, to work against U.S. political hegemony; that would remain unchanged, even if Russia did something to piss off China. Where is Xi going to turn instead-- to closer alliance with Europe & the U.S.?

I'd like to believe this is all fantasy, but I would have found much more comforting than your talking about past history, conventional thinking, or your apparently innate understanding of Putin, if you had been able to cite this publication as having made ridiculous claims in the past, that have all been debunked; or that the publishers of this information were Russian oligarchs. But the story does not read to me as much as Russian propaganda or scare-mongering, as it does, an attempt to alert us to troubling developments.

Note that it is only yourself, you argue against, when your point is that certain things could only be achieved with much Russian assistance. The report, therefore, assumes that this is what will be provided.

<Snip>
The real issue is a radical departure from past political practice by Russia if it has chosen to transfer to North Korea an advanced 50-ton solid propellant ICBM, the Topol-M, also known as the SS-27.

The key concern is that unlike the North Korean liquid propellant ICBMs we have seen over the last few years, this particular ICBM could not possibly have come into the hands of the North Koreans without the full support and cooperation of the Russian government. In addition, North Korea could not maintain and operate Topol-M ICBMs without substantial cooperation and training from the Russian government and its scientists. As such, the sudden appearance of the Hwasong-18 in North Korea cannot be ignored as simply “business as usual."
<End Snip>

In closing, I agree that this seems like a wildly irresponsible path for Putin to take; yet, I am not so sure, as you, that one can rely on Putin, to not do anything crazy. By the way, since you know Putin so well-- are there any circumstances in which Putin would use nuclear weapons: A) in Ukraine; B) in Russia; C) in a NATO country?

 

What is the thinking behind your reply, is a mystery to me, Chris. Do you see how much of an effort I make, to explain my meaning? And, when you miss it, how I will go back-- granted, possibly after grumbling about needing to do so-- and painstakingly cover the ideas, in every detail? Well, you need to do a tiny bit of that, yourself. I have gone over this multiple times, and you are, in this first quote, asking the same thing that, in your own post, you had quoted me as answering. So that means, as I thought I have already asked you, you must go through your thinking, for me. I don't know where the hang up is, but it makes no sense, for me to just repeat the same thing, yet expect a different result. Go over my last answer to this question, with me, in your post. For example, say that you see this flaw in my argument, so wrote X. Then go through my answer to X, explaining what it means, to you, what you interpret me to be saying, and how it doesn't answer your point. OK?

You are, once again, suggesting that my articles about Republicans standing up to Trump would not apply, prior to these stories? Why not?

And you utterly miss my point. Why don't you, please link to my post, saying that you had claimed that Trump had asked for Congress to approve this-- you won't find that, either. But that Trump did not ask, was my counter argument, to your asserting that Trump, had some hand in the policy. No, he didn't request this. It was foisted upon him, by Congress. He had no choice, in the matter. This was his job, to fullfil Congress's will. And yet, eventually, he did decide to drag his feet, even though there was no real Constitutional basis for him to do so. You seem to understand that-- but why then, don't you see, that Trump deserves no credit, for merely doing his job, albeit not in a timely way. Had the same legislation passed under Obama, then Obama would have followed suit. So, it seems that the difference lies in Congress, not between the two Presidents.

Is that argument, not clear enough, for you. Do you understand my thinking? Then, use that, in explaining the difference, in your own perspective.

 

@chris155au . Here are some additionally clarifying remarks, I'd tried to edit into my reply, but was not quick enough. They apply to your focus on the date
of the articles I supplied, as if you need an new article from me, for each week, prior to those.

Does it seem reasonable to you, to think that the Rs were more intimidated by Trump at first, became less intimidated, and then more intimidated, once again? To me, if they were willing to stand up to Trump in, 2018, for example, that implies that they would have done the same any time before that, though not necessarily after that. Do you not follow this?

In fact, I recall you had already walked back that argument, and said your point was merely that Trump would have tweeted. Well, first, neither of us knows what he did or didn't tweet. For all you know, he did tweet about his objection to this. But, second, you are fooling yourself, if you think that you can predict, with certainty, what Trump "would have" done, under certain circumstances. Isn't it part of your whole Trump position, that he is unpredictable, to our adversaries? Oh, but you can predict him, perfectly (that was sarcasm, btw, if you didn't catch on).

You are looking at this, in an overly simplified, black or white way. If Congress displeases him, he tweets. End of story. No other considerations taken into account, which might alter the normal response. That is your error. As I have already explained, Trump would see it as a loss, for Congress to override him. Therefore, there is no difference, between his refusing to sign a bill, to avoid looking weak, and to sign a bill, but whine on Twitter, that he really didn't want to sign it. If you don't understand that, then I'm going to have to deduce that you are just not capable of even that little bit of subtlety, in your thinking.

 

For clarity, two very simple questions:

1. Were you aware of the initial 2017 delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine?
2. If yes, is it your claim that Trump "dragged his feet" in order for that to get through?