It's essentially a terror weapon. It doesn't need much accuracy as he's probably betting that it hitting anywhere in North America will deter us from launching an attack. Having nuclear weapons is a validation in his mind that he is a big boy on the world stage. I would expect he thinks it will give him leverage in getting concessions....and it might. The nuclear sword hangs over S Korea, Japan, China and the US. Remember in one sense he has less to lose than anyone. He doesn't care about his people other than as tools to prop him up. That is why both S Korea and China have been so reticent to take a real hard line with him. A N Korean collapse could really damage and destabilize both China and S Korea. On top of that China fears a unified S Korea allied with us. This is an intractable problem that only the North Korean people can solve.
Oooooo.... look out, Kim Jong Un.... this should have you TREMBLING, I must say. It's going to be severe, believe you me! "'As far as North Korea is concerned, I don’t know, we will see what happens. I have some pretty severe things that we are thinking about....." I feel SO MUCH BETTER now that Orange Know-nothing is thinking about SEVERE (and I mean SEVERE in capital letters) things.
I used the dictionary definition. You should just stick with that. But lets get to the point, you are wrong. Charles Lane, Washington Post, March 21: So, I’d like to hear you say very specifically, you know, with respect to NATO, what is your ask of these other countries? Right, you’ve painted it in very broad terms, but do you have a percent of GDP that they should be spending on defense? Tell me more, because it sounds like you want to just pull the U.S. out. Trump: No, I don’t want to pull it out. NATO was set up at a different time. NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country anymore. We’re borrowing, we’re borrowing all of this money. We’re borrowing money from China, which is sort of an amazing situation. But it was a much different thing. NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO but we’re spending a lot of money. Number one, I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved. MARCH 23 2016 Halperin, March 23: Should America be the leader of NATO or not necessarily? Trump: I think NATO may be obsolete. NATO was set up a long time ago — many, many years ago when things were different. Things are different now. We were a rich nation then. We had nothing but money. We had nothing but power. And you know, far more than we have today, in a true sense. And I think NATO — you have to really examine NATO. And it doesn’t really help us, it’s helping other countries. And I don’t think those other countries appreciate what we’re doing. Heilemann: So, just to be clear, you made two slightly different arguments there and I just want to clarify. One of them is that you might want to see the U.S. pay less money into NATO because … Trump: That one definitely. That one definitely. Heilemann: But it’s possible that NATO is obsolete and should be gotten rid of? Trump: It’s possible. It’s possible. I would certainly look at it. And I’d want more help from other people. The one thing definitely — we’re paying too much. As to whether or not it’s obsolete, I’ll make that determination. Then in April at a speech: And so I said, number one, it’s obsolete. I said, number two, to the best of my knowledge, the United States pays far too much proportionately, and why are we always paying the bills to protect other people? And the press, which is so totally dishonest, the press goes headlines the next day “Trump doesn’t want NATO, wants to disband.” That’s not what I said. I said you’ve got to pay your bills. And you know what? If they can’t pay their bills, honestly there should be — they’ve got to go. Because we can’t do this.
To be honest, this stood out to me too. Not AS bad as Osama saying Puton "better cut it out" but close.
