pentagon who are good people and they wouldn t follow orders. that s not how it works, and actually it s pretty quick the process. it is. it s very efficient. it s effective. it s built for that. it s been that way for decades. there are checks and balances along the way. now, they move quickly because sometimes and obviously in a situation like this time s not going to be on your side. but once that decision is made by the president all the vetting at that point has been done. it may have been done quickly, but it would have been done by the secretary of defense, chairman joint of staff and chairman brooks. is it not possible that the president is trying to just get kim jong-un to give up his nuclear program and be scared enough to deal and negotiate with the u.s.? i think if that s his strategy, he s not going to win. so what s a more effective strategy would be to do what actually they re doing, which is to increase the pressure on kim jong-un to work with international partne
i think the consequences of even a conventional war are really quite serious. i think there s this kind of myth out there that president trump could give the order to fire a nuclear weapon on north korea and general mattis or secretary of defense mattis would disobey it or that there are too many people in the pentagon who are good people and they wouldn t follow orders. that s not how it works, and actually it s pretty quick the process. it is. it s very efficient. it s effective. it s built for that. it s been that way for decades. there are checks and balances along the way. now, they move quickly because sometimes and obviously in a situation like this time s not going to be on your side. but once that decision is made by the president all the vetting at that point has been done. it may have been done quickly, but it would have been done by the secretary of defense, chairman joint of staff and chairman brooks. is it not possible that the president is trying to just get kim jo
hearing from president trump in terms of fire and fury and the like? although i have to say i ve never seen a president challenge a nuclear power, like i bet your nuclear device doesn t even work. we re getting ready to enter into a period of intensity with the olympics coming up in february, u.s. military exercises restarting at the end of february and into march, so we re staring down an already difficult period. so this kind of rhetoric doesn t help out general brooks on the ground and secretary mattis. of course there are thousands of u.s. troops stationed in south korea and japan. even if the nuclear device can t reach the u.s. or mainland hawaii, of course, there are plenty of americans, not to mention innocent north and south koreans right there. and their families. and it doesn t have to go nuclear, this conflict. they ve got plenty of conventional capabilities to wreak a lot of damage and cause a lot of casualties. what i really don t understand about all this is that th
online. this is very serious matter, and it s not one we should be goading kim jong-un to prove something. do you hear from colleagues of yours who are still in the trump administration without naming any, of course about their concerns of this kind of language which we ve been hearing from president trump in terms of fire and fury and the like? although i have to say i ve never seen a president challenge like i bet your nuclear power doesn t even work. we re getting ready to enter into a period of intensity with the olympics coming up in february, u.s. military exercises in february and into march, so we re staring down an already difficult period. so this kind of rhetoric doesn t help out general brooks on the ground and secretary mattis. of course there are thousands of u.s. troops stationed in south korea and japan. even if the device can t reach the u.s. or mainland hawaii, of