What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Brain]

The plan would also include some $2.7 million for border security

Whoa. Leave some money for other federal plans.

[mongers]

Apparently the White House is thinking of a small military strike on North Korea.

Full FT.com article on issue, worth a read:

https://www.ft.com/content/a6384b1e-eaf7-11e7-8713-513b1d7ca85a

Do you get a commission of you generate new subscribers?

I'm not a subscriber, I just found it from bing search, I guess your cookies are set showing you've looked at the FT site more than x times. 

I tend to refresh cookies quite often.

[Eddie Teach]

The plan would also include some $2.7 million for border security

Whoa. Leave some money for other federal plans.

It's the principle of the thing. Mexico is supposed to pay for our border security. 

[The Minsky Moment]

FT article excerpts
BTW if finances permit it, you should subscribe.  It's worth it.

   https://www.ft.com/content/a6384b1e-eaf7-11e7-8713-513b1d7ca85a

. . .As US officials try to determine how close Mr Kim is to crossing the nuclear threshold, the Pentagon is updating its plans. At one end of the spectrum, Mr Mattis has said the US has options that would not necessarily spark retaliation against Seoul — a claim that has been met with much scepticism — while Gen McMaster has talked about the possibility of a "preventive war" aimed at eliminating the North Korean missile and nuclear weapons programmes.

In a private briefing for former national security advisers over the summer, Gen McMaster outlined the options, which led some — but not all — of the participants to conclude that the US was more serious about military action than they had thought, according to two people familiar with the event.

   Military planners have started using phrases such as "kick in the shin" and "bloody nose" to describe action they believe would send a strong message to Mr Kim, but not one so strong as to spark serious retaliation, according to two people familiar with the internal discussions.

Dennis Wilder, a former top CIA analyst, says there are many options that could be interpreted as a kick in the shin or a bloody nose. They include striking an air base or naval facility not associated with the ICBM programme, destroying one of Mr Kim's homes, hitting a key part of the missile programme or targeting a missile during a test launch.

"Presumably, such a strike would be a one-off attack that is immediately followed-up by a presidential announcement that this is a warning shot and nothing more," says Mr Wilder.
l
   Many former officials are sceptical, however, that the US could take such limited military action. James Stavridis, former Nato supreme allied commander and now dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, who puts the odds of nuclear war at 10 per cent, sees "no military options which would result in fewer than several hundred thousand casualties and perhaps as many as 2m to 3m".

Mr Mullen says Mr Trump's team would be taking a huge gamble if it assumed Mr Kim would not respond to an attack. "Our intelligence is not great, so how do we know that they would not respond?" he says. "If I was Japan or South Korea, I would be asking 'what are we, chopped liver?' The US is supposed to be protecting them."

. . .

   William Fallon, another former head of Pacific Command, worries about the loose talk about military action. "Air strikes are essential [to a military operation] . . . the idea that you can do that and nothing else is nonsense — that has been proven again and again," he says. "If we're serious that we will not allow North Korea to have a nuclear capability, then you better be prepared to go all the way, and I don't know how you can do that without sending ground troops."
. . .


   Given the risks, some analysts are sceptical that Mr Trump would launch the kind of attack that could spark a big conflict. General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs, said in July that war on the peninsula would lead to "a loss of life unlike any we have experienced in our lifetimes". But he also said that it was "unimaginable" to let North Korea have the capability to hit the US with a nuclear weapon.

Gen Dunford and Mr Mattis have both warned North Korea about the kind of military response that would follow any attack on the US, but they have also stressed the strong need for diplomacy.

"I can see a lot of bluster . . . but when the North Koreans don't back off, I can't imagine Dunford and Mattis in the Situation Room saying the risk of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is worth it," says Michael Green, a former Asia adviser to George W Bush.
. . .

   Richard Fontaine, president of the Center for a New American Security, says he hoped that the US military talk was simply a rhetorical form of gunboat diplomacy. "If I'm wrong and they mean all these things when they say Kim is not rational or deterrable, then it almost certainly leads to war, because I don't think the North is willing to give up its entire nuclear weapons programme."

Tim Keating, another former head of Pacific Command, says Mr Mattis and secretary of state Rex Tillerson were "doing a wonderful job" tamping down the more bellicose rhetoric coming from some officials. "I wouldn't have said what McMaster said," Mr Keating says. "I hope that calm heads would prevail and explore any and every diplomatic option short of military activity."

While some hope Mr Mattis will stave off a catastrophic conflict, he toohas given pause for thought. After warning troops in December about gathering storm clouds, he urged them to read This Kind of War, a book about how the US was unprepared for the 1950 Korean war. But after saying there was still time for diplomacy, he ended on a solemn note: "There is very little reason for optimism."

[The Minsky Moment]

Basically tells us what we already suspected, Mattis is the cool hand, McMaster is a hothead.

[Jacob]

Thanks for that. I'm a little surprised (but not really) that the White House thinks they can calibrate the "shin kick" to not provoke retaliation. North Korea has a bit of a track record on that.

... and if the US blows up one of Kim's homes or a non-ICBM base it would seem perfectly proportional for North Korea to blow up one of Trump's homes or strike at a US base in retaliation. I'm not sure how the US would react to that.

[Jacob]

In other news, what do you think of Norway's recent purchase of F-52 fighter jets?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-norway-f52-aircraft-sold-deal-not-exist-defence-erna-solberg-a8153126.html

[The Brain]

It's heartwarming that Trump will sacrifice the peninsula to deflect the investigation.

[Barrister]

In other news, what do you think of Norway's recent purchase of F-52 fighter jets?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-norway-f52-aircraft-sold-deal-not-exist-defence-erna-solberg-a8153126.html

I know we all love to bash on Trump, but this seems like an easily explainable slip of the tongue.  Norway is purchasing 52 F-35s.  Easy to see where F-52 comes from.

[crazy canuck]

In other news, what do you think of Norway's recent purchase of F-52 fighter jets?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-us-norway-f52-aircraft-sold-deal-not-exist-defence-erna-solberg-a8153126.html

I know we all love to bash on Trump, but this seems like an easily explainable slip of the tongue.  Norway is purchasing 52 F-35s.  Easy to see where F-52 comes from.

Sure, it is easy to excuse some random person off the street for misreading that script but this is the President of the United States who presumably should know more about the deal with Norway  than what he is reading from a script. 

[Valmy]

So because it is easy to see where the fuck-up came from, that makes it not embarrassing? Anyway despite your claim that I 'love' doing this I take no pleasure in Trumps fuck-ups. I guess as a foreigner you get to enjoy the LOLZ a bit more.

Do you hold Canadian leaders to the same standard?

[Berkut]

Cal of Duty, I believe, is where it comes from.

[crazy canuck]

Do you hold Canadian leaders to the same standard?

I hope we never have to find out.

[Grey Fox]

So because it is easy to see where the fuck-up came from, that makes it not embarrassing? Anyway despite your claim that I 'love' doing this I take no pleasure in Trumps fuck-ups. I guess as a foreigner you get to enjoy the LOLZ a bit more.

Do you hold Canadian leaders to the same standard?

For BB, Trudeau is a only a step or 2 removed from being the Antichrist.

[The Brain]

So because it is easy to see where the fuck-up came from, that makes it not embarrassing? Anyway despite your claim that I 'love' doing this I take no pleasure in Trumps fuck-ups. I guess as a foreigner you get to enjoy the LOLZ a bit more.

Do you hold Canadian leaders to the same standard?

For BB, Trudeau is a only a step or 2 removed from being the Antichrist.

He's not even a cardinal.