How so? Trump has shown time and again that he acts out against sound advice. I could see things spiraling out of control with reactions and counter reactions to nuclear/ICBM testing.
Obviously I don't think he's going to wake up one day and obliterate NK, but what happens when NK does another test--maybe an aerial test to really flout the world and show off a mushroom cloud--and Trump's reaction is to lob some missiles at their known nuclear sites? Lobbing missiles is what he did when he got angry seeing dead kids on cable news, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Is that when Seoul starts getting shelled? What do we do if thousands of people in Seoul start dying?
Update: This is Trump's statement about the news...
Yes. Just because he's taking a tough stance doesn't mean it's irrational. What else should he say? Nothing? Maybe "well if they Lee threatening us we will just do nothing"? What exactly is an appropriate response? Does it even matter anymore? You're paranoid and you don't understand the political nature of this discussion. Saying "he got mad and launched missiles because he saw dead kids on TV" just highlights this.
JFK almost launched off a nuclear conflagration and is considered one of the best american presidents. Donald Trump isn't even near average. These are impossibly stressful decisions in which literally millions of lives lie in the balance. I trust McMaster and Mattis..but at the end of the day the President makes the decisions. During the cuban missile crisis THE JOINT CHIEFS pushed HARD for a full out attack on the cuban mainland. JFK was almost swayed. I think it is very reasonable to ponder whether or not a 71 year old reality television star who is very clearly quite emotional...is capable of winning bets of this nature.
Decision making under uncertainty is hard for even the best of us. I do not believe he is the best of us.
For some reason HN isn't letting me respond to your next comment. I trust mattis because I have listened to him give many speeches and he struck me as a sober thinker willing to grapple with hard questions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKIJKQRb53o
My approval of mccmaster was originally based on his reputation stemming from his book "dereliction of duty" about how american generals mishandled vietnam. So that's why I trust them a little bit. But I do not trust them that much. I think they are intelligent people but...I think the pentagon induces a lot of group-think and intellectual momentum and suppression of dissent. When all you have is a hammer..the world looks like a nail. This is part of why I prefer having civilian Sec-Defs..and why it is important to have a president who is willing to cast aside the advice of his advisors..since in the past 15 years (though I liked ash carter and gates) a lot of that advice has been hawkish drivel. I really recommend a book called "The generals" by Thomas E. Ricks (on this topic). Tldr: don't trust the generals that much but more than trump.
For why I trust people (in general), I trust people who are willing to seriously consider the possibility they are dead wrong and people brave enough to seriously consider opposing views. I trust people who try to be rigorous in all things.
