US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis says "North Korea has to be stopped". From pursuing nuclear weapons. He doesn't say HOW? Why?

First strike? Nuclear war? He doesn't have to provide a schematic/template/time table/details Yogafan. What is he saying? "They have to be stopped". Anyone can say that . I believe everyone agrees with that. It is a no-brainer isn't it? He has certain powers that you and I don't have. He can exert influence to ACT. I want to know on what level he is talking about. Unless it is just empty rhetorical chain rattling. You're okay with what he said and I have no problem with your being okay with it. I have a problem because I have no clue what he means. Empty threats/kindasorta threats/implications of a terrible whatever seems counterproductive to me. Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday to thee! :)

Here is a quote that should make things clearer.

• Thae Yong Ho is the most high-profile North Korean defector in two decades
• He says that Kim Jong-un is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US
• Thae said that the world should be prepared North Korea to launch missiles
• He said the 'real solution to the North Korean nuclear issue is to eliminate Kim'

We won't know what action the government plan to take until it's actually taking place and that is the way it has to be in order to keep the world safe.  I'm curious too but that doesn't mean that you or I have a right to classified information.  They're dealing with a man who kills his own family members, he killed his uncle by throwing him to a pack of wild dogs, he executed one of his generals because he was not sitting up straight enough during a meeting.  There is no chance of a diplomatic solution when dealing with a madman. Whatever information we have about Kim Ding Dong will be only a fraction of what the government know about him.  I don't believe Mattis or Trump will be making empty threats and I don't envy their task in dealing with this evil man who is becoming more dangerous with each day that passes.

i would like to know what he means by what he said B. I am not asking for details or timetables.  Just the gist of what he is implying. Nuclear war perhaps? Would you like to know or do you feel okay being kept in the dark and having government do all it does behind closed doors, under the radar, in secrecy? Whatever works for you is okay with me. What works for me is UNDERSTANDING what someone's words mean and I don't understand what he meant by what he said. You may. Or you may not and perhaps it doesn't bother you. It bothers me. Did I answer your question? Wouldst thou carest to answer mine? Happy Monday to thee. This post was edited by RosieG at April 3, 2017 7:00 AM MDT

No, Rosie, I am not okay with government doing everything in secrecy.  In fact, the majority of what they do should be completely open and above board.  That said, there are certain situations that do require it.  Or would you prefer he draw a red line in the sand?  

That will be one of the forever albatrosses around Obama's neck. He never should have said that if he didn't intend to follow through. If I said it I would have done something. But I think diplomacy should be worked to death with every breathe of our being before we engage in another dam* war! Don't you? What goes on behind closed doors may or may not be in the best interests of we the people. I expect if you hide something it's because disclosing it would be unpopular. A lousy reason for keeping secrets but it's done all the time. National security is a different issue. If disclosure negatively impacts national security of course we must remain tight-lipped unless there are leakers around just dying to get info they can sell to the highest bidder and over that we have zero control.  Did I answer your question Bozette? Thank you for your reply and Happy Tuesday to thee B! :)

Indeed it will, and that is precisely why Mattis shouldn't be laying out a plan for public consumption.  We should always exhaust all diplomatic means before engaging in military actions.  That doesn't preclude having a plan ready should it become necessary, but those plans need to be held close to the vest while attempts at diplomacy are made.