The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Eric Margolis ArchiveBlogview
No One Needs Another Korean War
shutterstock_149173886
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

Panmunjom, the ‘peace village’ on the incredibly tense demilitarized zone (aka DMZ) between North and South Korea, is one of the weirdest places I’ve ever visited. Tough North Korean soldiers lurk about, watched by equally tough South Korean troops in one-way sunglasses and an aggressive judo ‘warrior’ stance.

When I was filming at Panmunjom, we were warned to beware of North Koreans who could at any moment rush into the main conference room and drag us into North Korea.

It was into this crazy house that the new, jet-lagged US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was transported from turbulent Washington. After a quick look at the DMZ, Tillerson announced `no more Mr. Nice Guy.’ The US had run out of `strategic patience’ with North Korea and will go to war to end North Korea’s ‘threat’ to the US, he warned.

Tillerson, formerly CEO of Exxon, is well-versed in world affairs but the Korean peninsula’s complexities could be too much for him to quickly absorb. Immediately threatening war is no way to begin a diplomatic mission. But Tillerson was obviously reading from a script written by his boss, Donald Trump, whose knowledge of North Asian affairs makes Tillerson look like a Confucian scholar.

Welcome to Trump’s credo: tweet loudly and walk with a big stick.

What would war between the US and North Korea mean? A very grim scenario if it occurs.

The US has nearly 80,000 military personnel in South Korea and Japan, as well as more war-fighting units in Guam, which the US conquered from Spain in 1898. The US 7th Fleet patrols the region, armed with tactical nuclear weapons. US nukes are also based in South Korea and Guam. As we recently saw, US heavy B-1 and B-52 bombers can fly from North America to Korea.

South Korea has a formidable, 600,000-man army equipped with state of the art weapons. I’ve been up on the DMZ with the 2nd ROK division. As an old soldier, I was very impressed by their skill and warlike spirit.

North Korea’s one million-man armed force is large, but obsolescent. Its great strength in heavy artillery partly compensates for its totally obsolete, 1960’s vintage air force. Key combat elements of the DPRK army are dug deep into the rocky hills just north of the DMZ, with thousands of heavy North Korean guns facing south. In the event of war, the North claims it will destroy South Korea’s capitol, Seoul, that is only 30km away and has 20 million residents.

US estimates of war in Korea, made a decade ago, suggest America would incur 250,000 casualties in a war that would cost one million Korean deaths. That’s why the US has shied away from direct attack on North Korea. Unlike Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Somalis, North Koreans know how to fight back and are amply armed for a defensive war.

The US would certainly be tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons against North Korean troops and guns deeply dug into the mountainous terrain. Without them, air power, America’s usual trump card, would lose much of its destructive potential. No doubt, all North Korea would be ravaged by US air power, as it was during the 1950’s Korean War. South Korea plans massive air, missile and commando attacks on North Korean military HQ and against leader Kim Jung-un’s hideaway.

US war plans call for amphibious landings along North Korea’s long, vulnerable coastline. This threat forces the North to deploy large numbers of regular army and militia troops on both coasts.

North Korea’s air force and little navy would be vaporized on the first day of hostilities. But it is likely that the DPRK would be able to fire a score or more of medium-ranged missiles at Japan. If the war goes nuclear, Japan looks almost certain to suffer nuclear attack, along with Guam. Tokyo and Osaka are prime targets.

North Korean forces might be able to push south to Seoul, but likely no further in the face of fierce attacks by US and South Korean air power operating from bases further south. The North’s powerful commando force of some 100,000 troops would attack key South Korean targets, including its vital air bases shared with the US. Such raids would be highly disruptive but not decisive unless the DPRK used chemical and/or biological weapons to shut down South Korea’s air bases and its ports at Busan and Inchon.

The US and South Korea could certainly win such a war but it would be very bloody and expensive. There would be the threat of Chinese military intervention if it appeared the US was about to occupy North Korea. Russia is right next door.

Secretary Tillerson, please leave war threats to the generals and start practicing some active diplomacy with the North. If ever a war was not needed, it’s here.

(Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Mr. Margolis, don’t you know that talking tough is a method of diplomacy?

    And can’t you see that over-cautious diplomacy in past years has only produced an increasingly belligerent and well armed North Korea?

    We all know how terrible a war with North Korea would be. Give the administration credit for some brains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    And can’t you see that over-cautious diplomacy in past years has only produced an increasingly belligerent and well armed North Korea?
     
    Actually it's probably the opposite, and the current situation is better understood as another result of Bush II/neocon incompetent or malign belligerence, stifling the chance there was of defusing the confrontation in the early 2000s.

    Ever since it became clear that South Korea faced no threat of military defeat by NK, the US presence, like the continuation of NATO in Europe after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, has served only to inflame the situation by encouraging confrontation rather than compromise.

    The best solution would be for the US to declare victory in Korea and leave. The only reason that hasn't happened is nothing to do with North Korea, and everything to do with the US wanting to keep South Korea firmly within its military sphere for use as a tool for the aggressive confrontation of China.
    , @Wally
    At least the always simplistic & rather dim Margolis didn't boast about being from NYC as he usually does.
    He thinks that makes him special. Why, I don't know.
    I guess that's why he moved away from NYC.
    , @zhu
    I credit the administration with having played a lot of video games but I do not credit them with any real knowledge of military history or Korean history. Threatening people is not a good way to negotiate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/no-one-needs-another-korean-war/#comment-1805332
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. American involvement in the Korean peninsula in the 21st Century is stark, raving mad. South Korea, aided by Japan if it feels the need, should be able to defend South Korea. American troops should have been withdrawn decades ago. If China, Japan and the two Koreas want to fight it out on that peninsula, by all means let them (I predict that they’ll reach a modus vivendi very quickly). U.S. involvement just destablizes things.

    Is the Korean lobby all that powerful in the U.S.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    American withdrawal from the Korean peninsula will NOT stabilize matters. North Korea is driven by a lunatic. He will threaten anyone and anything regardless if America is there or not there.
    , @iffen
    Is the Korean lobby all that powerful in the U.S.?

    No, in order to be considered powerful you have to be a Lobby, not a lobby.

    Something like the NRA. :)

    , @Joe Wong
    South Korean would rather live under North Korean rule instead of inviting the unrepentant war criminal Japanese to step a foot on the Korea peninsula. The last time the Korean asking Japanese to help the Japanese turned Korea into a military occupied colony, their empress got raped and burnt by the Japanese, and the Koreans were ruled like subhuman species with brutality.

    Talking about the American arrogance and ignorance about the world, your comment surely laid it bare.
  3. A Chinese intervention from the gitgo is certain. China will expel the US from the peninsula, and unify it under a Chinese vassal state.

    Russia would likely support its Chinese ally, and the whole region might become involved. The great problem will be to prevent a nuclear war. We would lose that, too.

    Trump promised to ameliorate our relations with Russia and China. Now, he is sliding toward war with them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I like your idea even better. We withdraw from S. Korea and give the Chinese the green light on Korea, North and South, while we double down on Japan. That is, if the Japanese are in, otherwise we can withdraw from Japan as well.
    , @Gleimhart Mantooso
    Everyone loses in a nuclear war.
  4. If we wait, the likely outcome will only be worse.

    Assurances should be given to China that after we will nuke N. Korea, a unified Korea will be neutral and we will withdraw from Korea and Japan.

    Read More
    • LOL: Andrei Martyanov
    • Troll: L.K
    • Replies: @Randal

    Assurances should be given to China that after we will nuke N. Korea, a unified Korea will be neutral and we will withdraw from Korea and Japan.
     
    I don't think "assurances" from the US regime carry the value in international diplomacy that you seem to think they do, these days .......
    , @Joe Wong
    Can China give Donald Trump assurance that China will not nuke the USA then it goes ahead to nuke the unrepentant war criminal Japanese?
  5. Great, if we win we get to occupy yet another nation in N. Korea and spend billions making it into an outpost of democracy, decadence, faggotry and transgenderism.

    History repeats itself and sooner or later China would get involved in some form or fashion either in the form of providing advanced anti-ship weapons to knock out aircraft carriers, air support or tens of thousands of troops to do the fighting. I do believe N. Korea has a respectable air defense system so the U.S. would suffer some downed aircraft and bombers unlike in the Middle East.

    Frankly, I don’t see the U.S. military being up to task for very long given the war weariness and low morale that must have set in since 2001. We’re great at shock and awe campaigns but if the war morphs into another protracted conflict with no end in sight it will become an albatross around Trump’s neck and doom his 2020 re-election bid. Besides, we’ve got to be running low on white guys who actually fight the wars given our low birth rates and high suicide rates. A military comprised of a potpourri of third world racial stocks (who generally dislike America), masculine women and sex deviants won’t stand a chance against the likes of N. Korea and China whose militaries are designed to win wars and reject multiculturalism and social engineering initiatives.

    A protracted conflict with N. Korea could see a replay of 2006 and 2008 where the Democrats recaptured Congress and the presidency. Only this time the Republicans will never get it back and will be consigned to oblivion for all time while Trump will be cursed by Republicans much in the same manner GW Bush was and is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Longfisher
    "A protracted conflict with N. Korea could see a replay of 2006 and 2008 where the Democrats recaptured Congress and the presidency. Only this time the Republicans will never get it back and will be consigned to oblivion for all time while Trump will be cursed by Republicans much in the same manner GW Bush was and is."

    Perhaps true. But only in so far as the Left doesn't again run as their candidate an utterly unelectable Clinton.

    The Clinton ship has sailed. And, not amount of additional time cooking in the oven will undo "already done".

    LF
  6. @Bob Sykes
    A Chinese intervention from the gitgo is certain. China will expel the US from the peninsula, and unify it under a Chinese vassal state.

    Russia would likely support its Chinese ally, and the whole region might become involved. The great problem will be to prevent a nuclear war. We would lose that, too.

    Trump promised to ameliorate our relations with Russia and China. Now, he is sliding toward war with them.

    I like your idea even better. We withdraw from S. Korea and give the Chinese the green light on Korea, North and South, while we double down on Japan. That is, if the Japanese are in, otherwise we can withdraw from Japan as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vinnie
    Are you NUTS? Why would ANYONE, including the Red Chinese and the Japanese, believe the USA would actually defend ANYONE after we threw South Korea to the wolves.

    The Leaders of North Korea are INSANE, apparently as a genetic defect. If they would simply stop declaring that THEY intend to start WW3, bringing Red China and USA (and probably Russia) into the mess, the North Koreans could have EVERYTHING the South Koreans and Japanese have within a single North Korean generation.

    But the NORKs refuse. Every single week, the NORKs issue some new bit of insanity, which both their Red Chinese protectors and the USA simply ignore.

    There was some hope back when Kim Young-un ascended the throne that the insanity that is NORK government would end. But NOOOO! Young-un is at least as crazy as his father and grandfather, and perhaps even more full goose bozo.

    At some point the South Koreans and/or Japanese will respond to some especially brutal NORK provocation (each provocation ignored in the past requires that the NEXT provocation be more heinous) with an airstrike (or naval bombardment) against NORK assets. The NORKs MUST then proceed to all out war or lose the ability to issue new threats.

    There's going to be another war in Korea. The only question is whether the ENTIRE world is also destroyed.
  7. Trump may just be using tough talk to rattle the boy dictator, but there is no compelling US interest in North Korea to begin with. We have no business stationing troops there – all it does is strengthen North Korea’s Raison d’Etre – opposing the imperialist monster from the West. When you remove the troops and shrug your shoulders over North Korea, their dictator has to find something else to justify his regime. South Korea has flourished with state of the art public infrastructure and higher GDP growth than us because, in part, we pay their defense bill. Enough is enough.

    Read More
  8. I have a sister who is really cranked up about Trump going for two more carrier groups. I know we don’t really need them, but she does not really understand the purpose of carrier groups.

    Most of our arms are like the antlers on a moose, not really good weapons, but effective at bluffing lesser competitors so that the big guy avoids having to fight too much. Lots of huffing and puffing, but hopefully not too much blood.

    We are bluffing. We should be more worried that the bluffs are not working very well than that Trump is going to start a war.

    Not that we will last forever, nothing does, but there is not a lot of sense in getting excited about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Not that we will last forever, nothing does, but there is not a lot of sense in getting excited about it.
     
    True. The shy is always falling, isn't it?

    While Humpty Trump and his bosses and myrmidons seem perfectly capable of continuing the same old stupidity, at least they give the drama queens something to write and yap about, and the hysterics something to fear.
  9. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It could be averted if Koreans weren’t such obedient dogs, but they are.

    Read More
  10. Most of this article is outdated Cold War BS. South Koreans relate more closely to China than the USA. China is their MAJOR trading partner. They are proud people and don’t like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year.

    1. We need strong civilian leaders to force our crazed Generals to obey orders and withdraw our troops from the DMZ as the Bush administration ordered long ago. They are not needed as South Korea is five times more powerful than North Korea.

    2. We need to downsize back to the agree upon troop levels in South Korea and stop sending more and more forces there, while the South Korean military downsizes.

    3. The biggest threat is a cross border artillery exchange that kills thousands of South Koreans and hundreds of Americans (who were supposed to have withdrawn from the DMZ to a new $13 billion base south of Seoul several years. ago.) If this occurs, angry South Koreans will blame the USA, no matter who is at fault, and storm American bases during riots. Our troops and families will be escorted to the nearest airports and flown away as a humiliated empire looks on.

    4. China is the biggest threat to North Korea! It is tired of their troublesome BS and may take action one day.

    I cover all this in detail here:

    http://www.g2mil.com/casey.htm

    Meanwhile, American political leaders and Generals must shut up! North Korea is not our problem and they DO NOT HAVE missiles that can hit the USA and CANNOT build them. North Korea is a problem for South Korea, China, and Japan. Whenever asked, Americans must simply say “that is a problem for South Korea to address.”

    This may confuse readers accustomed to daily Pentagon/CIA propaganda about “threats” that appear in American media, so read that link to learn more. For those too smug or lazy to learn more, here is part:

    “Most South Koreans do not view Americans as saviors from communism. They have no memory of the Korean war and want peace. A key step is the closure of American bases because North Korea has long maintained that the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Korean peninsula is a prerequisite for peace. There are no Chinese or Russian forces in North Korea, even though South Korea is far stronger. South Korea political leaders deal with a growing number of nationalists and pacifists who want the American military to leave, and traditional supporters of a long standing alliance. Many South Koreans support American bases only because they benefit from the billions of dollars in annual American military spending, which generates tens of thousands of jobs.”

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "They are proud people and don’t like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year."

    Not quite.

    According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 58% of South Koreans view United States' influence positively, and with 28% view of negatively, and 55% of Americans views South Korea's influence positively, and with 34% view of negatively. South Korea is one of the most pro-American nations in the world.
    , @basedKRN
    The problem is not North Korea. The problem is China. That's the real threat.
    The US is in South Korea not just under some noble guise to protect their ally from Nork aggression, but as a way of keeping the competing superpower that is China in check.

    What do I know? Very little. But I think if the Chinese had their way, they would annex all of Korea, then Japan, and then the rest of the world.
    They're like Jews in that way, except inconceivably greater in number.
    We just want a unified independent Korea.
  11. @Bob Sykes
    A Chinese intervention from the gitgo is certain. China will expel the US from the peninsula, and unify it under a Chinese vassal state.

    Russia would likely support its Chinese ally, and the whole region might become involved. The great problem will be to prevent a nuclear war. We would lose that, too.

    Trump promised to ameliorate our relations with Russia and China. Now, he is sliding toward war with them.

    Everyone loses in a nuclear war.

    Read More
  12. The US and South Korea could certainly win such a war …

    We were told this in 1950: didn’t happen. Despite the fact we had Gen. Mac Arthur
    and other seasoned commanders fresh from the war in the Pacific. Dispite the fact we dropped more tonnage of bombs and napalm on North Korea (roughly the size of Kentucky and a bit of Tennessee) than were used in entire Pacific War.

    There would be the threat of Chinese military intervention if it appeared the US was about to occupy North Korea. Russia is right next door.

    Yup!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
  13. @john cronk
    Mr. Margolis, don't you know that talking tough is a method of diplomacy?

    And can't you see that over-cautious diplomacy in past years has only produced an increasingly belligerent and well armed North Korea?

    We all know how terrible a war with North Korea would be. Give the administration credit for some brains.

    And can’t you see that over-cautious diplomacy in past years has only produced an increasingly belligerent and well armed North Korea?

    Actually it’s probably the opposite, and the current situation is better understood as another result of Bush II/neocon incompetent or malign belligerence, stifling the chance there was of defusing the confrontation in the early 2000s.

    Ever since it became clear that South Korea faced no threat of military defeat by NK, the US presence, like the continuation of NATO in Europe after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, has served only to inflame the situation by encouraging confrontation rather than compromise.

    The best solution would be for the US to declare victory in Korea and leave. The only reason that hasn’t happened is nothing to do with North Korea, and everything to do with the US wanting to keep South Korea firmly within its military sphere for use as a tool for the aggressive confrontation of China.

    Read More
  14. Tough talk may be part of the stratagem but I am becoming increasingly convinced that there is a profusion of psychopathic and/or good old fashioned mentally ill individuals in the higher echelons of the American power structure regardless of who the POTUS is.

    Of course their adversaries in this potential conflict I am fairly certain already qualify for this designation.

    Is no one in power familiar with the concept of a Pyrrhic victory if a victory is even attainable?

    Someone must surely know that Americans cannot politically sustain 250K casualties in any conflict save being invaded on home soil. They must also know that “shock and awe” as displayed in Baghdad is a relatively wet firecracker with North Korea.

    So my money is on the ‘tough talk’ theory. The only problem is that tough talk with an unstable adversary can easily result in a punch being thrown.

    A potential apocalypse now rests on whether the North Korean leadership is nuts or just pretending to be nuts. Not good at all.

    Someone should tell Trump that the so called strategies unveiled in ” The Art of The Deal” are not transferable to foreign policy.

    Cheers-

    Read More
  15. @iffen
    If we wait, the likely outcome will only be worse.

    Assurances should be given to China that after we will nuke N. Korea, a unified Korea will be neutral and we will withdraw from Korea and Japan.

    Assurances should be given to China that after we will nuke N. Korea, a unified Korea will be neutral and we will withdraw from Korea and Japan.

    I don’t think “assurances” from the US regime carry the value in international diplomacy that you seem to think they do, these days …….

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t think “assurances” from the US regime

    You may be correct. Just because I don't believe anything they have to say doesn't mean that the Chinese wouldn't listen.

    I can't see the Chinese being excited about N. Korea having a full nuclear arsenal.

    A double cross by the US wouldn't really put us in a better postion.

    I say nukem.
    , @Z-man
    Yeah, after we get rid of the 'nutty fat boy' a UN sponsored agreement where Korea is nuclear free, we keep one or two combined air/land bases in the southern part of Korea with less troops than we have now and no withdrawal from Japan but also reduced. The Chinese would actually want us to stay there, especially in Japan.
  16. Korean War II is a trap that Trump must avoid at all costs.

    Only thing that could rival the stupidity of our recent series of endless Mideast adventures would be another land war in Asia.

    Read More
  17. Some time ago Kissinger termed Koreans as a very volatile people.

    Be Warned!

    Read More
  18. @Randal

    Assurances should be given to China that after we will nuke N. Korea, a unified Korea will be neutral and we will withdraw from Korea and Japan.
     
    I don't think "assurances" from the US regime carry the value in international diplomacy that you seem to think they do, these days .......

    I don’t think “assurances” from the US regime

    You may be correct. Just because I don’t believe anything they have to say doesn’t mean that the Chinese wouldn’t listen.

    I can’t see the Chinese being excited about N. Korea having a full nuclear arsenal.

    A double cross by the US wouldn’t really put us in a better postion.

    I say nukem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Tough talk from the safety of your basement.

    Another internet general pushing to risk the lives of millions.
    , @Randal

    You may be correct.
     
    Most likely, I think, in this case.

    Just because I don’t believe anything they have to say doesn’t mean that the Chinese wouldn’t listen.
     
    If they were to agree to it, it would be in the expectation of a subsequent US breach of any undertaking given and because they believed they would profit nonetheless.

    I can’t see the Chinese being excited about N. Korea having a full nuclear arsenal.
     
    I can't see them being excited about nuclear weapons being detonated right next door, or about having to deal with the fallout (nuclear and otherwise) of yet another disastrous American war of aggression, or about trusting the US when it promises: "this time we'll be true to the spirit and not just the most extreme and dishonest interpretation conceivable of our word, honest....".

    A double cross by the US wouldn’t really put us in a better postion.
     
    No, but only because the consequences of waging yet another openly aggressive interventionist war, and with nuclear weapons to boot, would actually be utterly disastrous for the US and any remaining influence or credibility it has in the world. It's not the subsequent double cross that would cause the costs to the US.

    From the magical make believe perspective of the neocon, in which such a war is seen by the world as another noble and selfless effort by the shining city on the hill to promote truth and decency and bring the benefits of the greatness of the American Way to the benighted of the world, a double cross would certainly put the US in a better position, by getting rid of the North Koreans whilst allowing the US to retain a position in Korea to use against the evil Chinese. Of course, it wouldn't necessarily be seen as a double cross. The promise would be made, and then "circumstances would change" afterwards, or, as with the continuation and expansion of NATO, the retention of US forces in Korea would simply be dishonestly portrayed as "not aimed at the Chinese".

    In other words, anyone stupid enough to think nuking the North Koreans is a good idea is also stupid enough to want to retain a US presence in Korea with which to menace the Chinese.

    I say nukem.
     
    I suspect not.
    , @FLgeezer
    >I say nukem.

    Very predictable iffen. You usually confine yourself to say that regarding enemies of Israel, but equal opportunity prevails . I'm guessing you are long Boeing and Raytheon. Are you familiar with the phrase 'blood money'?
  19. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @iffen
    I don’t think “assurances” from the US regime

    You may be correct. Just because I don't believe anything they have to say doesn't mean that the Chinese wouldn't listen.

    I can't see the Chinese being excited about N. Korea having a full nuclear arsenal.

    A double cross by the US wouldn't really put us in a better postion.

    I say nukem.

    Tough talk from the safety of your basement.

    Another internet general pushing to risk the lives of millions.

    Read More
  20. The US would win a war with North Korea fairly easily. Nukes would probably be used by both sides. The cost of such a victory would be immense damage to Japan and South Korea. But maybe that’s considered a plus as far as the US is concerned. Japan and SK would no longer be the serious economic rivals to the US that they are now. They’d have to be rebuilt and the US would be the one to do it. They’d be even more completely in the US sphere than they are now, and NK would now be part of it as well. China, seeing how far the US would go, would not risk taking action in NK, and would probably back off in Taiwan and the South China Sea. So basically, the US kills 4 birds with one stone. The main cost to the US that would be felt back home would be the massive worldwide recession caused by the collapse of SK and Japan, but as far as our masters are concerned, that would be a small price to pay.

    Read More
  21. “Is the Korean lobby all that powerful in the U.S.?”

    US actions in Korea have never had anything to do with the will of actual Koreans.

    Read More
  22. Maybe I should ask the Korean girls who paint my wife’s fingernails what they think. I should also ask the Korean pimp nail salon owners who get the visas and schlep all those poor slave girls over here.

    My father was the engineer on a US Navy destroyer during the first Korean war. They shelled the North Korean coast, hunted submarines, and escorted carriers from which aviators like Neil Armstrong flew sorties.

    He remembered seeing Korean families in little boats trying to get across to join their relatives on the other side of political and military borders they did not create. It was a civil war of the saddest kind, like the old one in America, in which brothers and sisters suddenly found themselves on opposing teams.

    Maybe we should just leave them to work this out for themselves.

    As for me, I’m glad I’ve already bought and installed the massive LG refrigerator my wife wanted. (She just had to have it, three doors and all.) It’s made in Korea, so it might not be available after the war starts.

    Everything here is just boys talking about war stuff they love in the abstract. The real people who live it can’t possibly be as enthusiastic.

    PS: Our side can blow the hell out of the little men of N. Korea, who all must have a massive short-guy complex. Their starving system has made them all smaller then their southern counterparts, and it must bother them. This article is just another piece of propaganda. Our President and his Secretary of State will quite rightly continue to talk tough.

    Read More
  23. The maintenance and expansion of the Anglo/Zio Empire is not my concern. No nation or combination of nations poses a credible threat to East Texas where I live. It is Imperial Washington that I regard with fear and loathing. Owned and operated as it is by psychotic murderers.

    Read More
  24. @iffen
    I don’t think “assurances” from the US regime

    You may be correct. Just because I don't believe anything they have to say doesn't mean that the Chinese wouldn't listen.

    I can't see the Chinese being excited about N. Korea having a full nuclear arsenal.

    A double cross by the US wouldn't really put us in a better postion.

    I say nukem.

    You may be correct.

    Most likely, I think, in this case.

    Just because I don’t believe anything they have to say doesn’t mean that the Chinese wouldn’t listen.

    If they were to agree to it, it would be in the expectation of a subsequent US breach of any undertaking given and because they believed they would profit nonetheless.

    I can’t see the Chinese being excited about N. Korea having a full nuclear arsenal.

    I can’t see them being excited about nuclear weapons being detonated right next door, or about having to deal with the fallout (nuclear and otherwise) of yet another disastrous American war of aggression, or about trusting the US when it promises: “this time we’ll be true to the spirit and not just the most extreme and dishonest interpretation conceivable of our word, honest….”.

    A double cross by the US wouldn’t really put us in a better postion.

    No, but only because the consequences of waging yet another openly aggressive interventionist war, and with nuclear weapons to boot, would actually be utterly disastrous for the US and any remaining influence or credibility it has in the world. It’s not the subsequent double cross that would cause the costs to the US.

    From the magical make believe perspective of the neocon, in which such a war is seen by the world as another noble and selfless effort by the shining city on the hill to promote truth and decency and bring the benefits of the greatness of the American Way to the benighted of the world, a double cross would certainly put the US in a better position, by getting rid of the North Koreans whilst allowing the US to retain a position in Korea to use against the evil Chinese. Of course, it wouldn’t necessarily be seen as a double cross. The promise would be made, and then “circumstances would change” afterwards, or, as with the continuation and expansion of NATO, the retention of US forces in Korea would simply be dishonestly portrayed as “not aimed at the Chinese”.

    In other words, anyone stupid enough to think nuking the North Koreans is a good idea is also stupid enough to want to retain a US presence in Korea with which to menace the Chinese.

    I say nukem.

    I suspect not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    anyone stupid enough to think

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?
  25. @another fred
    I have a sister who is really cranked up about Trump going for two more carrier groups. I know we don't really need them, but she does not really understand the purpose of carrier groups.

    Most of our arms are like the antlers on a moose, not really good weapons, but effective at bluffing lesser competitors so that the big guy avoids having to fight too much. Lots of huffing and puffing, but hopefully not too much blood.

    We are bluffing. We should be more worried that the bluffs are not working very well than that Trump is going to start a war.

    Not that we will last forever, nothing does, but there is not a lot of sense in getting excited about it.

    Not that we will last forever, nothing does, but there is not a lot of sense in getting excited about it.

    True. The shy is always falling, isn’t it?

    While Humpty Trump and his bosses and myrmidons seem perfectly capable of continuing the same old stupidity, at least they give the drama queens something to write and yap about, and the hysterics something to fear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    The choice was Hillary and certain war with a real opponent, Russia, or Trump and granted, a bit of saber rattling, but not much more.

    I know who I preferred.
  26. @Randal

    Assurances should be given to China that after we will nuke N. Korea, a unified Korea will be neutral and we will withdraw from Korea and Japan.
     
    I don't think "assurances" from the US regime carry the value in international diplomacy that you seem to think they do, these days .......

    Yeah, after we get rid of the ‘nutty fat boy’ a UN sponsored agreement where Korea is nuclear free, we keep one or two combined air/land bases in the southern part of Korea with less troops than we have now and no withdrawal from Japan but also reduced. The Chinese would actually want us to stay there, especially in Japan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Yeah, after we get rid of the ‘nutty fat boy’
     
    It isn't as easy to do it, as it is to write it.
  27. Somebody want to explain why after 64 years we don’t have a peace treaty with DPRK? We bombed them back tot the Stone Age in the early 50′s after we forced division of a unified country after WWII.

    As for needing another war: talk to Lockheed (maker of THAAD), General Dynamics, Boeing, L3, United, BAE, etc. who’s going to buy “defense” products if we don’t create adversaries? Wall St. would crap itself.

    Read More
  28. Anyone remember this action by Clinton? October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton

    This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49319

    Read More
  29. We have zero interest in North Korea. They are only threatening us because we are messing with them. I suggest we sign a peace treaty, and then just ignore them. That will drive them crazy at first but eventually they will turn to annoying South Korea and China and I say let them deal with it.

    We should drop our stupid sanctions, and stop trying to prevent them from developing their nuclear arsenal. I mean, that’s a done deal, and by only invading and destroying countries that don’t have nukes it’s pretty much our fault anyhow. We have only a few vital interests from North Korea.

    1. No attacks on the United States. If North Korea launches a nuclear attack on the Untied States we will so devastate the North that we will make what happened in the 1950′s look like a tea party. I don’t think we need to worry about that.

    2. No messing with US citizens. “Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead.”

    3. No shipping nuclear weapons technology to other countries. This is perhaps a biggie. It is still very hard to make nuclear weapons. We are fortunate that only well-organized and disciplined states can do this. States that, however unpalatable, are nevertheless disciplined and unlikely to commit suicide. We need to keep nukes away from the crazy people who do not have this discipline. The sanctions come back in a second if that happens.

    Otherwise we just ignore them.

    What, you say, we need an alliance with South Korea to help us defend Japan? And we need an alliance with Japan to help us defend South Korea? Isn’t that circular? Where is the US national interest in all this craziness?

    If you re in a bar and people start fighting each other, the smart thing to do is slip out quietly and let them at it.

    Read More
  30. @Randal

    You may be correct.
     
    Most likely, I think, in this case.

    Just because I don’t believe anything they have to say doesn’t mean that the Chinese wouldn’t listen.
     
    If they were to agree to it, it would be in the expectation of a subsequent US breach of any undertaking given and because they believed they would profit nonetheless.

    I can’t see the Chinese being excited about N. Korea having a full nuclear arsenal.
     
    I can't see them being excited about nuclear weapons being detonated right next door, or about having to deal with the fallout (nuclear and otherwise) of yet another disastrous American war of aggression, or about trusting the US when it promises: "this time we'll be true to the spirit and not just the most extreme and dishonest interpretation conceivable of our word, honest....".

    A double cross by the US wouldn’t really put us in a better postion.
     
    No, but only because the consequences of waging yet another openly aggressive interventionist war, and with nuclear weapons to boot, would actually be utterly disastrous for the US and any remaining influence or credibility it has in the world. It's not the subsequent double cross that would cause the costs to the US.

    From the magical make believe perspective of the neocon, in which such a war is seen by the world as another noble and selfless effort by the shining city on the hill to promote truth and decency and bring the benefits of the greatness of the American Way to the benighted of the world, a double cross would certainly put the US in a better position, by getting rid of the North Koreans whilst allowing the US to retain a position in Korea to use against the evil Chinese. Of course, it wouldn't necessarily be seen as a double cross. The promise would be made, and then "circumstances would change" afterwards, or, as with the continuation and expansion of NATO, the retention of US forces in Korea would simply be dishonestly portrayed as "not aimed at the Chinese".

    In other words, anyone stupid enough to think nuking the North Koreans is a good idea is also stupid enough to want to retain a US presence in Korea with which to menace the Chinese.

    I say nukem.
     
    I suspect not.

    anyone stupid enough to think

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China."

    Which would intensify matters considerably.
    , @Randal

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.
     
    I don't think what I wrote really amounts to name-calling, particularly since if you reread it carefully you will note that I actually implied you probably don't really believe what you are arguing for here anyway.

    But feel free to respond as you see fit. I have a thick skin. I only get really annoyed when there's a credible threat of getting the police involved......

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?
     
    Whatever the result, it wouldn't be the US's problem or business. Believe it or not, there are parts of the world where that is the case, you know. Let the Chinese deal with it, since it's in their backyard.

    It's not a given that US withdrawal would result in Japan and SK acquiring nuclear weapons, but neither would it necessarily be a disaster if they were to do so. I suspect the Americans and Chinese between them are perfectly capable of "persuading" both SK and Japan that it wouldn't be in their interests to develop nuclear weapons. Doing so without superpower approval has immense costs in today's world that neither are likely to want to bear. That said, a nuclear standoff is a proven way of keeping the peace, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work in NE Asia just as well.

    NK has nuclear weapons because it faces a credible threat of aggression by a military superpower with a well established track record of such aggression, that it cannot hope to deter by conventional military means - the universal basic reason for building them. Neither SK nor Japan face any such situation. Nuclear weapons would not enable NK to conquer either country, and any threat to use them aggressively would lack any credibility in the absence of Chinese and US acceptance. Japan is already recognised as a "latent" nuclear power anyway, and SK could easily go that route as well.

    It's worth bearing in mind that, absent the US interference issue, SK is actually far more valuable to China than NK is, and China certainly wouldn't take lightly a NK invasion that would kill the golden goose, least of all if it involved nuclear strikes.

    Indeed, the most likely problem thrown up by a unilateral US withdrawal would be serious issues in China's relations with NK.
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
    You got it half right. US should withdraw from South Korea.
    In less than half year North Korean government will fall.
    US should stay in Japan.
    , @denk
    *We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. *

    Historically,
    Jp has always been the aggressor against China/Korea,
    at one time during the Tang dynasty [?] China even sent an expedition force to help Korea beat back a Jp invasion.
    Jp aggressions against China continues until this very day.

    Economically,
    Both JP/Sk are China's top trading partners, for China to attack the two would be like shooting itself in the feet.

    militarily,
    Both Jp/Sk are armed to the teeth military heavy weight, especially Jp which ranks 4th in the world's ranking, never mind that they are part of the murkkan alliance which includes India/Australia and that 800 lb gorilla, the USA.
    If the PLA wants to flex its muscle it could've picked a easier target like
    Bhutan or Sikkim, for example.

    Which ever way you look at it,
    China has no reason whatsoever to attack Sk/Jp.


    Your rants make no sense
    Zero, none, nada, zilch !
    Typical Anglo projection of their own predatory mindset,
    Please keep your hallucination to yourself !
  31. @Diversity Heretic
    American involvement in the Korean peninsula in the 21st Century is stark, raving mad. South Korea, aided by Japan if it feels the need, should be able to defend South Korea. American troops should have been withdrawn decades ago. If China, Japan and the two Koreas want to fight it out on that peninsula, by all means let them (I predict that they'll reach a modus vivendi very quickly). U.S. involvement just destablizes things.

    Is the Korean lobby all that powerful in the U.S.?

    American withdrawal from the Korean peninsula will NOT stabilize matters. North Korea is driven by a lunatic. He will threaten anyone and anything regardless if America is there or not there.

    Read More
  32. @iffen
    anyone stupid enough to think

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?

    “If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China.”

    Which would intensify matters considerably.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    And keeping 80,000 US troops in Japan and S. Korea doesn't "intensify matters considerably"?

    Would we like 80,000 Chinese troops in Mexico?

    Being worried about NK nukes doesn't justify 80,000 money consuming troops.
    In fact all it does is make them potential targets.

    At minimum, the US troops should get out and maybe a few US nukes could remain as a deterrent.
  33. @KenH
    Great, if we win we get to occupy yet another nation in N. Korea and spend billions making it into an outpost of democracy, decadence, faggotry and transgenderism.

    History repeats itself and sooner or later China would get involved in some form or fashion either in the form of providing advanced anti-ship weapons to knock out aircraft carriers, air support or tens of thousands of troops to do the fighting. I do believe N. Korea has a respectable air defense system so the U.S. would suffer some downed aircraft and bombers unlike in the Middle East.

    Frankly, I don't see the U.S. military being up to task for very long given the war weariness and low morale that must have set in since 2001. We're great at shock and awe campaigns but if the war morphs into another protracted conflict with no end in sight it will become an albatross around Trump's neck and doom his 2020 re-election bid. Besides, we've got to be running low on white guys who actually fight the wars given our low birth rates and high suicide rates. A military comprised of a potpourri of third world racial stocks (who generally dislike America), masculine women and sex deviants won't stand a chance against the likes of N. Korea and China whose militaries are designed to win wars and reject multiculturalism and social engineering initiatives.

    A protracted conflict with N. Korea could see a replay of 2006 and 2008 where the Democrats recaptured Congress and the presidency. Only this time the Republicans will never get it back and will be consigned to oblivion for all time while Trump will be cursed by Republicans much in the same manner GW Bush was and is.

    “A protracted conflict with N. Korea could see a replay of 2006 and 2008 where the Democrats recaptured Congress and the presidency. Only this time the Republicans will never get it back and will be consigned to oblivion for all time while Trump will be cursed by Republicans much in the same manner GW Bush was and is.”

    Perhaps true. But only in so far as the Left doesn’t again run as their candidate an utterly unelectable Clinton.

    The Clinton ship has sailed. And, not amount of additional time cooking in the oven will undo “already done”.

    LF

    Read More
  34. @Diversity Heretic
    American involvement in the Korean peninsula in the 21st Century is stark, raving mad. South Korea, aided by Japan if it feels the need, should be able to defend South Korea. American troops should have been withdrawn decades ago. If China, Japan and the two Koreas want to fight it out on that peninsula, by all means let them (I predict that they'll reach a modus vivendi very quickly). U.S. involvement just destablizes things.

    Is the Korean lobby all that powerful in the U.S.?

    Is the Korean lobby all that powerful in the U.S.?

    No, in order to be considered powerful you have to be a Lobby, not a lobby.

    Something like the NRA. :)

    Read More
  35. @Carlton Meyer
    Most of this article is outdated Cold War BS. South Koreans relate more closely to China than the USA. China is their MAJOR trading partner. They are proud people and don't like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year.

    1. We need strong civilian leaders to force our crazed Generals to obey orders and withdraw our troops from the DMZ as the Bush administration ordered long ago. They are not needed as South Korea is five times more powerful than North Korea.

    2. We need to downsize back to the agree upon troop levels in South Korea and stop sending more and more forces there, while the South Korean military downsizes.

    3. The biggest threat is a cross border artillery exchange that kills thousands of South Koreans and hundreds of Americans (who were supposed to have withdrawn from the DMZ to a new $13 billion base south of Seoul several years. ago.) If this occurs, angry South Koreans will blame the USA, no matter who is at fault, and storm American bases during riots. Our troops and families will be escorted to the nearest airports and flown away as a humiliated empire looks on.

    4. China is the biggest threat to North Korea! It is tired of their troublesome BS and may take action one day.

    I cover all this in detail here:

    http://www.g2mil.com/casey.htm

    Meanwhile, American political leaders and Generals must shut up! North Korea is not our problem and they DO NOT HAVE missiles that can hit the USA and CANNOT build them. North Korea is a problem for South Korea, China, and Japan. Whenever asked, Americans must simply say "that is a problem for South Korea to address."

    This may confuse readers accustomed to daily Pentagon/CIA propaganda about "threats" that appear in American media, so read that link to learn more. For those too smug or lazy to learn more, here is part:

    "Most South Koreans do not view Americans as saviors from communism. They have no memory of the Korean war and want peace. A key step is the closure of American bases because North Korea has long maintained that the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Korean peninsula is a prerequisite for peace. There are no Chinese or Russian forces in North Korea, even though South Korea is far stronger. South Korea political leaders deal with a growing number of nationalists and pacifists who want the American military to leave, and traditional supporters of a long standing alliance. Many South Koreans support American bases only because they benefit from the billions of dollars in annual American military spending, which generates tens of thousands of jobs."

    “They are proud people and don’t like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year.”

    Not quite.

    According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 58% of South Koreans view United States’ influence positively, and with 28% view of negatively, and 55% of Americans views South Korea’s influence positively, and with 34% view of negatively. South Korea is one of the most pro-American nations in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    BBC? Is that joke?


    That's the same Marxist government controlled broadcasting network that is doing everything possible to destroy British Britain and European Europe.

    That's the same Marxist government controlled broadcasting network that ignores:

    A poll of ten European nations with over 10,000 respondents finds overwhelming support for a Muslim immigration ban within the EU. In total 55% agree Muslim immigration should be stopped, only 20% disagree.
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/08/shock-poll-collapses-media-narrative-overwhelming-eu-support-for-a-muslim-ban/
    , @basedKRN

    “They are proud people and don’t like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year.”

    Not quite.

    According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 58% of South Koreans view United States’ influence positively, and with 28% view of negatively, and 55% of Americans views South Korea’s influence positively, and with 34% view of negatively. South Korea is one of the most pro-American nations in the world.
     
    Yes, there are two sides to it. We are very pro-America and I'm a first-generation immigrant to the US. I love America and right now, I do think we need them on the peninsula to protect us from NK/China--but I prefer we got nukes and figured this thing out ourselves and then have them move out.

    We are pro-America insofar as we have the standard "Thank God the US saved us from the Communists" narrative, which I still hold onto. But I'm anti-(((America))) insofar as our political masters have gotten like a 100 million people killed around the world, since WWI when America was lied to in order to enter WWI and all the events that followed. As in, maybe if America didn't get involved in world affairs, Koreans wouldn't have suffered so much.
  36. @Z-man
    Yeah, after we get rid of the 'nutty fat boy' a UN sponsored agreement where Korea is nuclear free, we keep one or two combined air/land bases in the southern part of Korea with less troops than we have now and no withdrawal from Japan but also reduced. The Chinese would actually want us to stay there, especially in Japan.

    Yeah, after we get rid of the ‘nutty fat boy’

    It isn’t as easy to do it, as it is to write it.

    Read More
  37. Re: “…What would war between the US and North Korea mean? A very grim scenario if it occurs…”

    When I consider what earth / humanity / the Korean peninsula will (very, likely…), look like if there is a strike (conventional OR Nuclear…), by N.K. Vs. the U.S., OR, by U.S. vs. N.K….is the ending scenes from the Movie ‘Dr. Strangelove’: serial N-Explosions will “Till we meet, again” plays, in the background!

    Read More
  38. NK in a nutshell,

    Murkka is the provocateur in the Korean Peninsula.
    Thats what the pro arsonist do for a living.

    Contrary to Washington/MSM propaganda,
    NK is NOT China’s lapdog.
    Uncle scam propagated this B.S. so that it could blame China for whatever NK ‘transgressions’.

    NK is Washington’s ultimate bogeyman,
    *to scare SK, JP and drive them into an anti Chinese coalition,
    *to perpetuate its military bases in Okinawa and SK,
    *last but not least, to justify its militarisation of the KoreaN Peninsula
    and install offensive WMD at China’s doorstep.

    In other words, NK is like AQ,
    The gift that keeps on giving.

    ………………………………

    The only question remains …..
    Is NK a witting or unwitting player in this never ending kabuki bet Washington and Phonyong ?

    Willam Engdahl made a very compelling case,
    I’ve been thinking along similar line for quite some time now.

    http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO1Nov2016.php

    Read More
  39. @iffen
    anyone stupid enough to think

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.

    I don’t think what I wrote really amounts to name-calling, particularly since if you reread it carefully you will note that I actually implied you probably don’t really believe what you are arguing for here anyway.

    But feel free to respond as you see fit. I have a thick skin. I only get really annoyed when there’s a credible threat of getting the police involved……

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?

    Whatever the result, it wouldn’t be the US’s problem or business. Believe it or not, there are parts of the world where that is the case, you know. Let the Chinese deal with it, since it’s in their backyard.

    It’s not a given that US withdrawal would result in Japan and SK acquiring nuclear weapons, but neither would it necessarily be a disaster if they were to do so. I suspect the Americans and Chinese between them are perfectly capable of “persuading” both SK and Japan that it wouldn’t be in their interests to develop nuclear weapons. Doing so without superpower approval has immense costs in today’s world that neither are likely to want to bear. That said, a nuclear standoff is a proven way of keeping the peace, and there’s no reason why it wouldn’t work in NE Asia just as well.

    NK has nuclear weapons because it faces a credible threat of aggression by a military superpower with a well established track record of such aggression, that it cannot hope to deter by conventional military means – the universal basic reason for building them. Neither SK nor Japan face any such situation. Nuclear weapons would not enable NK to conquer either country, and any threat to use them aggressively would lack any credibility in the absence of Chinese and US acceptance. Japan is already recognised as a “latent” nuclear power anyway, and SK could easily go that route as well.

    It’s worth bearing in mind that, absent the US interference issue, SK is actually far more valuable to China than NK is, and China certainly wouldn’t take lightly a NK invasion that would kill the golden goose, least of all if it involved nuclear strikes.

    Indeed, the most likely problem thrown up by a unilateral US withdrawal would be serious issues in China’s relations with NK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Whatever the result, it wouldn’t be the US’s problem or business. Believe it or not, there are parts of the world where that is the case, you know. Let the Chinese deal with it, since it’s in their backyard.

    I agree. After proper notice, we should disengage militarily from S. Korea and Japan.

    Doing so without superpower approval has immense costs in today’s world that neither are likely to want to bear.

    Talk about stupid ideas, we are discussing a case where this strategy has been a massive fail.
    Said strategy will likely fail in Iran in the longer run.

    If you wait long enough, they will develop a full arsenal, then all of the options will be theirs and you (the US) will have none, you can only react.
    , @ZipperZapper
    Randal writes:

    NK has nuclear weapons because it faces a credible threat of aggression by a military superpower with a well established track record of such aggression, that it cannot hope to deter by conventional military means – the universal basic reason for building them. Neither SK nor Japan face any such situation. Nuclear weapons would not enable NK to conquer either country, and any threat to use them aggressively would lack any credibility in the absence of Chinese and US acceptance. Japan is already recognised as a “latent” nuclear power anyway, and SK could easily go that route as well.

     

    It's understandable that North Korea would opt to obtain nuclear weapons as a matter of self-preservation, although the threat is overblown, as the US would not have any appetite for invading or attempting to seize North Korea, given the severe costs even a conventional, non-nuclear war would impose on the Korean peninsula as a whole, and on Japan.

    Kim's calculus is based on three things:

    1. A desire to increase or improve North Korea's position in the world, its power, and its perceived prestige in the minds of those who make up the ruling party and in the minds of the country's largely brainwashed citizenry, who, through no fault of their own, don't know any better. Indeed, it is vital for this to happen in order to motivate the citizens, the generals and the apparatchiks within the party itself to continue supporting him and thus keep him in power.

    2. Use the nuclear weapons to threaten North Korea's neighbours and thus allow him and the regime to stay in power for an indefinite period of time.

    3. Use the nuclear weapons to threaten North Korea's neigbours and the United States as a means of extracting money and various concessions that will allow the regime to continue obtaining hard currency (i.e., via drug trafficking and other activities) so it can continue financing the lavish lifestyles the members of the regime lead, while ordinary North Koreans are denied even a subsistence standard of living.

    Unless Kim is as nuts as some people say he is, he surely must know that any use of his nuclear weapons will result in immediate and total destruction of the regime and the country, and he will perish too, in the cauldrons of holy fire he loves to talk about.

    The big question is, do we continue letting him developing nuclear weapons until he reaches a stage where he does lose his sanity and lobs a bomb at Seoul or Tokyo? History has shown, time and again, that appeasement never works. Do we continue putting up with his extortion, too, in the name of preserving an already fragile peace?? Can we find a way to remove him or at least neutralize him, without triggering a large-scale war
  40. @john cronk
    Mr. Margolis, don't you know that talking tough is a method of diplomacy?

    And can't you see that over-cautious diplomacy in past years has only produced an increasingly belligerent and well armed North Korea?

    We all know how terrible a war with North Korea would be. Give the administration credit for some brains.

    At least the always simplistic & rather dim Margolis didn’t boast about being from NYC as he usually does.
    He thinks that makes him special. Why, I don’t know.
    I guess that’s why he moved away from NYC.

    Read More
  41. @Corvinus
    "They are proud people and don’t like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year."

    Not quite.

    According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 58% of South Koreans view United States' influence positively, and with 28% view of negatively, and 55% of Americans views South Korea's influence positively, and with 34% view of negatively. South Korea is one of the most pro-American nations in the world.

    BBC? Is that joke?

    That’s the same Marxist government controlled broadcasting network that is doing everything possible to destroy British Britain and European Europe.

    That’s the same Marxist government controlled broadcasting network that ignores:

    A poll of ten European nations with over 10,000 respondents finds overwhelming support for a Muslim immigration ban within the EU. In total 55% agree Muslim immigration should be stopped, only 20% disagree.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/08/shock-poll-collapses-media-narrative-overwhelming-eu-support-for-a-muslim-ban/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "That’s the same Marxist government controlled broadcasting network that is doing everything possible to destroy British Britain and European Europe."

    False News Story. You have thoroughly been duped.

    "A poll of ten European nations with over 10,000 respondents finds overwhelming support for a Muslim immigration ban within the EU."

    Yes, yes, yes, I'm familiar with the narrative. It is other than surprising given the ramped up rhetoric.

    "And keeping 80,000 US troops in Japan and S. Korea doesn’t “intensify matters considerably”?

    Settle down. North Korea would still be threatening the region regardless of the American presence.
  42. @Corvinus
    "If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China."

    Which would intensify matters considerably.

    And keeping 80,000 US troops in Japan and S. Korea doesn’t “intensify matters considerably”?

    Would we like 80,000 Chinese troops in Mexico?

    Being worried about NK nukes doesn’t justify 80,000 money consuming troops.
    In fact all it does is make them potential targets.

    At minimum, the US troops should get out and maybe a few US nukes could remain as a deterrent.

    Read More
  43. @jacques sheete

    Not that we will last forever, nothing does, but there is not a lot of sense in getting excited about it.
     
    True. The shy is always falling, isn't it?

    While Humpty Trump and his bosses and myrmidons seem perfectly capable of continuing the same old stupidity, at least they give the drama queens something to write and yap about, and the hysterics something to fear.

    The choice was Hillary and certain war with a real opponent, Russia, or Trump and granted, a bit of saber rattling, but not much more.

    I know who I preferred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    I know what ya mean, but even though my expectations were at rack bottom he's still a mega disappointment especially since he wasted no time in getting on board with the awful neocon agenda.

    Anything would've been better than The Hag, and I'm happy that he handed her her comeuppance.
  44. @iffen
    anyone stupid enough to think

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?

    You got it half right. US should withdraw from South Korea.
    In less than half year North Korean government will fall.
    US should stay in Japan.

    Read More
  45. @Randal

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.
     
    I don't think what I wrote really amounts to name-calling, particularly since if you reread it carefully you will note that I actually implied you probably don't really believe what you are arguing for here anyway.

    But feel free to respond as you see fit. I have a thick skin. I only get really annoyed when there's a credible threat of getting the police involved......

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?
     
    Whatever the result, it wouldn't be the US's problem or business. Believe it or not, there are parts of the world where that is the case, you know. Let the Chinese deal with it, since it's in their backyard.

    It's not a given that US withdrawal would result in Japan and SK acquiring nuclear weapons, but neither would it necessarily be a disaster if they were to do so. I suspect the Americans and Chinese between them are perfectly capable of "persuading" both SK and Japan that it wouldn't be in their interests to develop nuclear weapons. Doing so without superpower approval has immense costs in today's world that neither are likely to want to bear. That said, a nuclear standoff is a proven way of keeping the peace, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work in NE Asia just as well.

    NK has nuclear weapons because it faces a credible threat of aggression by a military superpower with a well established track record of such aggression, that it cannot hope to deter by conventional military means - the universal basic reason for building them. Neither SK nor Japan face any such situation. Nuclear weapons would not enable NK to conquer either country, and any threat to use them aggressively would lack any credibility in the absence of Chinese and US acceptance. Japan is already recognised as a "latent" nuclear power anyway, and SK could easily go that route as well.

    It's worth bearing in mind that, absent the US interference issue, SK is actually far more valuable to China than NK is, and China certainly wouldn't take lightly a NK invasion that would kill the golden goose, least of all if it involved nuclear strikes.

    Indeed, the most likely problem thrown up by a unilateral US withdrawal would be serious issues in China's relations with NK.

    Whatever the result, it wouldn’t be the US’s problem or business. Believe it or not, there are parts of the world where that is the case, you know. Let the Chinese deal with it, since it’s in their backyard.

    I agree. After proper notice, we should disengage militarily from S. Korea and Japan.

    Doing so without superpower approval has immense costs in today’s world that neither are likely to want to bear.

    Talk about stupid ideas, we are discussing a case where this strategy has been a massive fail.
    Said strategy will likely fail in Iran in the longer run.

    If you wait long enough, they will develop a full arsenal, then all of the options will be theirs and you (the US) will have none, you can only react.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I agree. After proper notice, we should disengage militarily from S. Korea and Japan.
     
    So we agree on the best approach. Are you leaving out ["after nuking/regime changing NK"]?

    Talk about stupid ideas, we are discussing a case where this strategy has been a massive fail.
     
    Hardly. North Korea built nuclear weapons whilst it was under direct threat of attack from the world's only superpower, and not when it was benefitting hugely from integration into the world economy as SK and Japan do. The cases are not remotely comparable.

    Said strategy will likely fail in Iran in the longer run.
     
    Maybe, but most likely not. Iran probably doesn't want nuclear weapons, and for good reasons.

    Though it should be noted that said strategy anyway is not being employed with Iran - Iran still faces constant menace from US military forces along with all kinds of economic and other harassment. That, of course, along with deterrence of Israeli nuclear attack, is the only strong argument for Iran to acquire nukes, since it is otherwise not existentially threatened militarily by any of its neighbours.

    If you wait long enough, they will develop a full arsenal, then all of the options will be theirs and you (the US) will have none, you can only react.
     
    By the time NK has a full arsenal of nuclear weapons and the means to reliably deliver them to the US, the circumstances will likely be totally different. Certainly if the US has followed our best strategy and disengaged, NK's main target will likely be China and not the US, and China will probably be guaranteeing SK's security, because the last thing China will want is a nuclear war on its doorstep. That, and US technology is likely to stay decades ahead of NK's as well, making it pretty unlikely NK will ever have the capability to reliably and successfully hit the US.
  46. @iffen
    I don’t think “assurances” from the US regime

    You may be correct. Just because I don't believe anything they have to say doesn't mean that the Chinese wouldn't listen.

    I can't see the Chinese being excited about N. Korea having a full nuclear arsenal.

    A double cross by the US wouldn't really put us in a better postion.

    I say nukem.

    >I say nukem.

    Very predictable iffen. You usually confine yourself to say that regarding enemies of Israel, but equal opportunity prevails . I’m guessing you are long Boeing and Raytheon. Are you familiar with the phrase ‘blood money’?

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @iffen
    I have never advocated attacking Iran, although I wouldn't mind a little payback for the hostage taking.

    Are you familiar with the concept of examining and evaluating all of the options?

    As a matter of fact, if we don't make progress in the terror wars, we should consider other options.

    For example, let ISIS or AL What-it-She-Bob take over a country or a good part for a while. Then we could have a target for conventional warfare for which we are better equipped.

  47. You don’t need a Confucian scholar’s knowledge of Korean affairs to know that Kim and his Chinese mastera need to be put on notice that there’s a limit to our tolerance of their sabre rattling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    kid,

    If not for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's sabotage China would've resolved this made in USA 'crisis' years ago and turned the Korean Peninsula into a nuke free zone.

    Once again, what did that !@#$%^! Tillerson do when China propose a peace talk, thats right, he showed the middle finger. !

    'All option on the table ....except peace'
    so say the mafiaso, er, Sec of state.

    Uncle scam whinning about 'sabre rattling' = Robber crying robbery !
  48. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    My idea would be for America to simply leave South Korea altogether. Mexico and Canada do not suffer any ill affects from not keeping troops 8,000 miles away in the Korean peninsula and neither would America. No catastrophe resulted for America from leaving South Vietnam in 1975.

    Just leave the entire Korean peninsula altogether. Let Koreans work out their problems among themselves.

    Read More
  49. The one rational solution – is for China to step up and covertly take out Kim. In that way China would retain control of NKorea, and everything would be same-o same-o. There has to be many many NKoreans who would like the job.

    Mutually assured destruction must be the option. If Kim was to do something, he and his clowns must know that they and all of NKorea’s blood line will cease to exist on this planet. In every possible way, the NKorean people must be told this every day.

    Peace — Art

    p.s. I hope Trump knows that he does not have a mandate for a major war. He led us to believe that he was against war.

    Read More
  50. @iffen
    Whatever the result, it wouldn’t be the US’s problem or business. Believe it or not, there are parts of the world where that is the case, you know. Let the Chinese deal with it, since it’s in their backyard.

    I agree. After proper notice, we should disengage militarily from S. Korea and Japan.

    Doing so without superpower approval has immense costs in today’s world that neither are likely to want to bear.

    Talk about stupid ideas, we are discussing a case where this strategy has been a massive fail.
    Said strategy will likely fail in Iran in the longer run.

    If you wait long enough, they will develop a full arsenal, then all of the options will be theirs and you (the US) will have none, you can only react.

    I agree. After proper notice, we should disengage militarily from S. Korea and Japan.

    So we agree on the best approach. Are you leaving out ["after nuking/regime changing NK"]?

    Talk about stupid ideas, we are discussing a case where this strategy has been a massive fail.

    Hardly. North Korea built nuclear weapons whilst it was under direct threat of attack from the world’s only superpower, and not when it was benefitting hugely from integration into the world economy as SK and Japan do. The cases are not remotely comparable.

    Said strategy will likely fail in Iran in the longer run.

    Maybe, but most likely not. Iran probably doesn’t want nuclear weapons, and for good reasons.

    Though it should be noted that said strategy anyway is not being employed with Iran – Iran still faces constant menace from US military forces along with all kinds of economic and other harassment. That, of course, along with deterrence of Israeli nuclear attack, is the only strong argument for Iran to acquire nukes, since it is otherwise not existentially threatened militarily by any of its neighbours.

    If you wait long enough, they will develop a full arsenal, then all of the options will be theirs and you (the US) will have none, you can only react.

    By the time NK has a full arsenal of nuclear weapons and the means to reliably deliver them to the US, the circumstances will likely be totally different. Certainly if the US has followed our best strategy and disengaged, NK’s main target will likely be China and not the US, and China will probably be guaranteeing SK’s security, because the last thing China will want is a nuclear war on its doorstep. That, and US technology is likely to stay decades ahead of NK’s as well, making it pretty unlikely NK will ever have the capability to reliably and successfully hit the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    since it is otherwise not existentially threatened militarily by any of its neighbours.

    At least since we took out Iraq.
    , @iffen
    and for good reasons

    Again we find agreement.

    I would say that not wanting Israel dropping bombs everywhere in Iran is a very good reason.
  51. @FLgeezer
    >I say nukem.

    Very predictable iffen. You usually confine yourself to say that regarding enemies of Israel, but equal opportunity prevails . I'm guessing you are long Boeing and Raytheon. Are you familiar with the phrase 'blood money'?

    I have never advocated attacking Iran, although I wouldn’t mind a little payback for the hostage taking.

    Are you familiar with the concept of examining and evaluating all of the options?

    As a matter of fact, if we don’t make progress in the terror wars, we should consider other options.

    For example, let ISIS or AL What-it-She-Bob take over a country or a good part for a while. Then we could have a target for conventional warfare for which we are better equipped.

    Read More
  52. @Randal

    I agree. After proper notice, we should disengage militarily from S. Korea and Japan.
     
    So we agree on the best approach. Are you leaving out ["after nuking/regime changing NK"]?

    Talk about stupid ideas, we are discussing a case where this strategy has been a massive fail.
     
    Hardly. North Korea built nuclear weapons whilst it was under direct threat of attack from the world's only superpower, and not when it was benefitting hugely from integration into the world economy as SK and Japan do. The cases are not remotely comparable.

    Said strategy will likely fail in Iran in the longer run.
     
    Maybe, but most likely not. Iran probably doesn't want nuclear weapons, and for good reasons.

    Though it should be noted that said strategy anyway is not being employed with Iran - Iran still faces constant menace from US military forces along with all kinds of economic and other harassment. That, of course, along with deterrence of Israeli nuclear attack, is the only strong argument for Iran to acquire nukes, since it is otherwise not existentially threatened militarily by any of its neighbours.

    If you wait long enough, they will develop a full arsenal, then all of the options will be theirs and you (the US) will have none, you can only react.
     
    By the time NK has a full arsenal of nuclear weapons and the means to reliably deliver them to the US, the circumstances will likely be totally different. Certainly if the US has followed our best strategy and disengaged, NK's main target will likely be China and not the US, and China will probably be guaranteeing SK's security, because the last thing China will want is a nuclear war on its doorstep. That, and US technology is likely to stay decades ahead of NK's as well, making it pretty unlikely NK will ever have the capability to reliably and successfully hit the US.

    since it is otherwise not existentially threatened militarily by any of its neighbours.

    At least since we took out Iraq.

    Read More
  53. Nuclear NK serves a very important purpose for American Empire. The objective is to get Japan more active in military that would lead to the eventual development of nuclear weapons as a part of American Empire hat would keep China in check. It is strange that China did not know how to stop NK from developing nuclear capability. China certainly wants to prevent unification of Koreas but by allowing NK having nukes they over did it because nuclear NK will lead to nuclear Japan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
    "It is strange how China did not know how to stop N.K. from developing nuke weapon capability."

    utu,

    Lots of strange things we do NOT know.

    Lots of LIES we do know about N.K. (that originated in strange sources) and we mistake them for truth. .

    See National Interest article below that discusses an N.K. role in helping Iran get nuke weapons and which is riddled with "reportedly, probably, and it's long been asserted, creation of a 4th Reich," ad nauseum.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-north-korea-secretly-build-iranian-bomb-16140
  54. Not even a miniscule chance of war with Korea. Nothing in it for the Izzy-Firsters so it won’t happen.

    Read More
  55. First of all, who gives a rat’s butt about “Kim’s sabre-rattling”? He can rattle his sabres until the cows come home. Until he actually makes a war, it’s irrelevant to South Korea and the US. “Sabre-rattling” is no justification for starting a war of aggression.

    Second, the number of NK Special Forces is estimated to be between 120,000 and 180,000 depending on who you read. These boys are no joke. Some years back an NK submarine ran aground in South Korea on an infiltration mission. The crew were captured but two NK SF escaped. They were pursued by the entire SK military and police but remained on the run for 53 days and killed 11 of their pursuers. Now imagine 150,000 of those boys attacking South Korea and US forces.

    Third, Pentagon war games show the US losing 50,000 casualties within the first ninety days of war with NK. Probably 20,000 of those would be the ones on the demilitarized line who would be wiped out in 48-72 hours. Those are the troops who were supposed to be moved south of Seoul, in tacit admission that they would be mostly useless where they were if war broke out.

    Fourth, North Korea’s artillery is supposedly capable of dropping half a MILLION shells per HOUR on South Korea’s positions. Until those units are taken out, Seoul and any military north of Seoul are pretty much hosed. It will take days, probably weeks, to achieve the goal of reducing those artillery units, buried as they are in redoubts.

    Fifth, the notion that nukes would resolve the situation is idiotic. Not only would nukes (“tactical” or otherwise) would kill hundreds of thousands of NK civilians, they would likely threaten South Korea as well.

    Sixth, nukes are only useful in attacking very large concentrations of troops. You think North Korea wouldn’t figure out that dispersal of forces would reduce their effectiveness? Remember that buried artillery can’t move so it’s only a threat to the limit of its range. You can’t conquer South Korea with buried artillery. Using nukes to take out buried artillery would be inefficient overkill.

    Seventh, North Korea does not have deliverable nukes, so their using nukes in a war in the near term is highly unlikely.

    Eighth, North Korea is not a threat to Japan. The possibility of dropping a few missiles there would only bring Japan into the war. Japan is quite capable of dealing with North Korea absent the US military. Any attack on Japan by North Korea unilaterally would bring the US into the war, so North Korea won’t do it.

    Ninth, whether China would enter the war as it did in the first Korean War is debatable. China has no particular interest in supporting North Korea EXCEPT as a buffer zone between the US and China. If North Korea were to lose a war with the US, China might allow it as long as the US did not station significant numbers of troops (that is, larger than the 20,000 already stationed in South Korea – which China doesn’t particularly care about) or missile systems in the newly united country. The problem, of course, is that the US is very likely to do just that as part of its “China containment” policy.

    If China did enter the war, all bets would be off. China has plenty of nukes they could use against US forces using nukes against North Korea, and that would immediately result in nuclear war between the US and China. Expect some US cities to be lost…

    The risk is simply too high for the lame benefit of “beating up North Korea” because of the pathetic reason that they are “sabre rattling”.

    No, any war against North Korea will be because the US military-industrial complex seeks the war profits. There is no geopolitical or other national interest in the US starting a war with North Korea. North Korea is South Korea’s and China’s problem.

    Anyone championing such a war is someone who doesn’t give a rat’s butt about US or Korean lives and is just a murderous psychopath like John McCain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    If we assume that at some point N. Korea will attack S. Korea, and if we assume that N. Korea will continue to perfect its missile technology and build a complete nuclear arsenal (this is as certain as anything can be), then a first strike now is the best option. The longer you wait the more it devolves from a best option. At some point you would just have to cross your fingers and hope that your son was not stationed in S. Korea.

    Why don't we give the Chinese a chance to cooperate with us in the destruction of the N. Korean regime? Help us destroy N. Korea and make a unified Korea neutral, or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea and Japan and then we will leave.

  56. @john cronk
    Mr. Margolis, don't you know that talking tough is a method of diplomacy?

    And can't you see that over-cautious diplomacy in past years has only produced an increasingly belligerent and well armed North Korea?

    We all know how terrible a war with North Korea would be. Give the administration credit for some brains.

    I credit the administration with having played a lot of video games but I do not credit them with any real knowledge of military history or Korean history. Threatening people is not a good way to negotiate.

    Read More
  57. @Wally
    The choice was Hillary and certain war with a real opponent, Russia, or Trump and granted, a bit of saber rattling, but not much more.

    I know who I preferred.

    I know what ya mean, but even though my expectations were at rack bottom he’s still a mega disappointment especially since he wasted no time in getting on board with the awful neocon agenda.

    Anything would’ve been better than The Hag, and I’m happy that he handed her her comeuppance.

    Read More
  58. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Like Osama bin Laden told the whole world why his terrorist group attacked America, fat boy Kim Jong Un told the whole world why he had been sabre-rattling. It is not because “they hate our freedom”, that is for sure.

    Like his father Kim Jong-il before him, Kim Jong Un has a good reason to fear the American and South Korean military, who have been holding massive joint military drills annually last twenty years. Gaddafi backed down. Look what happened to Gaddafi. There’s virtually no chance of Kim giving up without a bloody war.

    Read More
  59. You don’t need a Confucian scholar’s knowledge of Korean affairs to know that Kim and his Chinese mastera need to be put on notice that there’s a limit to our tolerance of their sabre rattling.

    I’d prefer that we just mind our own business for once.

    If anyone needs to be put on notice, it’s the US government. Meddling in Asia since at least the 1830s. Yes eighteen. Payback time is way overdue, and we’re lucky they’ve been so forbearing for so long.

    Read More
  60. I have never advocated attacking Iran, although I wouldn’t mind a little payback for the hostage taking.

    So installing the shah was just peachy?

    Remember the Iran Air Flight 655 massacre of 290 Iranians including women and children?

    Read More
  61. “No one needs another war with Korea.’

    Uh not so fast, Mr. Margolis?

    The U.S.-Zionists are in need of such “existential” threat in the Far East in order to put pressure upon internal P.R.C. economic politics, and force a desirable Goldman Sachs Group outcome.

    Besides, what do Americans really know about N. Korea except that which is told to “We” citizens by our own crooked and lying government and the Corporate Media? Do you know of any journalist who has penetrated into N. Korean society and came back to reveal what the hell is going on there? I do not.

    In addition, Eric, I ask — Why since the “false” end of the Korean War did the two communist giants (that border N. Korea) allow that country’s “progress” to end up looking quite backward and, according the the common Americans’ perspective, much like Spahn Ranch after Charlie Manson came to power?

    No doubt, some citizens manage to remember how President W. Bush appointed nuclear weapon power, North Korea, to the dreaded “Axis of Evil.” W.T.F. is going on here, Sir? The only person who toured Pyongyang & said decent things about the place (that I know) of was Dennis “The Worm” Rodman, and upon his return to the states, the Corporate “lying” Media bashed the shit out of him.

    Yes, agreed — no one in their right mind “needs another war with N. Korea.” However, I posit that abscessed (global) war profiteers are not in their right mind and subsequently, Secretary Tillerson can casually emphasize that the time for talking is now over. Where is the Worm & the Harlem Globetrotters when we need them?

    A question, Sir. What is KNOWN about N. Korea that I do not know except of course that they’re willing to nuke us? Does Kim hate Americans because we think we are free?

    Thank you.

    Read More
  62. @Richard Steven Hack
    First of all, who gives a rat's butt about "Kim's sabre-rattling"? He can rattle his sabres until the cows come home. Until he actually makes a war, it's irrelevant to South Korea and the US. "Sabre-rattling" is no justification for starting a war of aggression.

    Second, the number of NK Special Forces is estimated to be between 120,000 and 180,000 depending on who you read. These boys are no joke. Some years back an NK submarine ran aground in South Korea on an infiltration mission. The crew were captured but two NK SF escaped. They were pursued by the entire SK military and police but remained on the run for 53 days and killed 11 of their pursuers. Now imagine 150,000 of those boys attacking South Korea and US forces.

    Third, Pentagon war games show the US losing 50,000 casualties within the first ninety days of war with NK. Probably 20,000 of those would be the ones on the demilitarized line who would be wiped out in 48-72 hours. Those are the troops who were supposed to be moved south of Seoul, in tacit admission that they would be mostly useless where they were if war broke out.

    Fourth, North Korea's artillery is supposedly capable of dropping half a MILLION shells per HOUR on South Korea's positions. Until those units are taken out, Seoul and any military north of Seoul are pretty much hosed. It will take days, probably weeks, to achieve the goal of reducing those artillery units, buried as they are in redoubts.

    Fifth, the notion that nukes would resolve the situation is idiotic. Not only would nukes ("tactical" or otherwise) would kill hundreds of thousands of NK civilians, they would likely threaten South Korea as well.

    Sixth, nukes are only useful in attacking very large concentrations of troops. You think North Korea wouldn't figure out that dispersal of forces would reduce their effectiveness? Remember that buried artillery can't move so it's only a threat to the limit of its range. You can't conquer South Korea with buried artillery. Using nukes to take out buried artillery would be inefficient overkill.

    Seventh, North Korea does not have deliverable nukes, so their using nukes in a war in the near term is highly unlikely.

    Eighth, North Korea is not a threat to Japan. The possibility of dropping a few missiles there would only bring Japan into the war. Japan is quite capable of dealing with North Korea absent the US military. Any attack on Japan by North Korea unilaterally would bring the US into the war, so North Korea won't do it.

    Ninth, whether China would enter the war as it did in the first Korean War is debatable. China has no particular interest in supporting North Korea EXCEPT as a buffer zone between the US and China. If North Korea were to lose a war with the US, China might allow it as long as the US did not station significant numbers of troops (that is, larger than the 20,000 already stationed in South Korea - which China doesn't particularly care about) or missile systems in the newly united country. The problem, of course, is that the US is very likely to do just that as part of its "China containment" policy.

    If China did enter the war, all bets would be off. China has plenty of nukes they could use against US forces using nukes against North Korea, and that would immediately result in nuclear war between the US and China. Expect some US cities to be lost...

    The risk is simply too high for the lame benefit of "beating up North Korea" because of the pathetic reason that they are "sabre rattling".

    No, any war against North Korea will be because the US military-industrial complex seeks the war profits. There is no geopolitical or other national interest in the US starting a war with North Korea. North Korea is South Korea's and China's problem.

    Anyone championing such a war is someone who doesn't give a rat's butt about US or Korean lives and is just a murderous psychopath like John McCain.

    If we assume that at some point N. Korea will attack S. Korea, and if we assume that N. Korea will continue to perfect its missile technology and build a complete nuclear arsenal (this is as certain as anything can be), then a first strike now is the best option. The longer you wait the more it devolves from a best option. At some point you would just have to cross your fingers and hope that your son was not stationed in S. Korea.

    Why don’t we give the Chinese a chance to cooperate with us in the destruction of the N. Korean regime? Help us destroy N. Korea and make a unified Korea neutral, or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea and Japan and then we will leave.

    Read More
  63. @Randal

    I agree. After proper notice, we should disengage militarily from S. Korea and Japan.
     
    So we agree on the best approach. Are you leaving out ["after nuking/regime changing NK"]?

    Talk about stupid ideas, we are discussing a case where this strategy has been a massive fail.
     
    Hardly. North Korea built nuclear weapons whilst it was under direct threat of attack from the world's only superpower, and not when it was benefitting hugely from integration into the world economy as SK and Japan do. The cases are not remotely comparable.

    Said strategy will likely fail in Iran in the longer run.
     
    Maybe, but most likely not. Iran probably doesn't want nuclear weapons, and for good reasons.

    Though it should be noted that said strategy anyway is not being employed with Iran - Iran still faces constant menace from US military forces along with all kinds of economic and other harassment. That, of course, along with deterrence of Israeli nuclear attack, is the only strong argument for Iran to acquire nukes, since it is otherwise not existentially threatened militarily by any of its neighbours.

    If you wait long enough, they will develop a full arsenal, then all of the options will be theirs and you (the US) will have none, you can only react.
     
    By the time NK has a full arsenal of nuclear weapons and the means to reliably deliver them to the US, the circumstances will likely be totally different. Certainly if the US has followed our best strategy and disengaged, NK's main target will likely be China and not the US, and China will probably be guaranteeing SK's security, because the last thing China will want is a nuclear war on its doorstep. That, and US technology is likely to stay decades ahead of NK's as well, making it pretty unlikely NK will ever have the capability to reliably and successfully hit the US.

    and for good reasons

    Again we find agreement.

    I would say that not wanting Israel dropping bombs everywhere in Iran is a very good reason.

    Read More
  64. @Randal

    Yeah, after we get rid of the ‘nutty fat boy’
     
    It isn't as easy to do it, as it is to write it.

    Are you saying he is not a ‘nutty fat boy’?

    Read More
  65. Curtis “Bombs Away” Lemay bragged about killing 20% of the population of Korea in a non-stop 3 year B-29 aerial bombing campaign…..i.e. several millions. When asked how many he would be willing to kill to win his splendid little war, he replied “all of them”. He ordered bombing and napalm attacks on all cities, towns, dams, power stations…..everything. His adjutants reported to him that the 23 largest cities in the north had been leveled and there were no more targets. He ordered the lads to “level them again”. It is said that the newly elected Ike had great difficulty regaining control of the nuclear arsenal from the Mad Bomber and his Strategic Air Command.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Lemay was the vice-presidential candidate for George Wallace in 1968. At the time it became a commonplace to say, "If you go, you want Lemay to lead, you just don't want Lemay to decide when it is time to go."
  66. @nsa
    Curtis "Bombs Away" Lemay bragged about killing 20% of the population of Korea in a non-stop 3 year B-29 aerial bombing campaign.....i.e. several millions. When asked how many he would be willing to kill to win his splendid little war, he replied "all of them". He ordered bombing and napalm attacks on all cities, towns, dams, power stations.....everything. His adjutants reported to him that the 23 largest cities in the north had been leveled and there were no more targets. He ordered the lads to "level them again". It is said that the newly elected Ike had great difficulty regaining control of the nuclear arsenal from the Mad Bomber and his Strategic Air Command.

    Lemay was the vice-presidential candidate for George Wallace in 1968. At the time it became a commonplace to say, “If you go, you want Lemay to lead, you just don’t want Lemay to decide when it is time to go.”

    Read More
  67. @Wally
    BBC? Is that joke?


    That's the same Marxist government controlled broadcasting network that is doing everything possible to destroy British Britain and European Europe.

    That's the same Marxist government controlled broadcasting network that ignores:

    A poll of ten European nations with over 10,000 respondents finds overwhelming support for a Muslim immigration ban within the EU. In total 55% agree Muslim immigration should be stopped, only 20% disagree.
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/08/shock-poll-collapses-media-narrative-overwhelming-eu-support-for-a-muslim-ban/

    “That’s the same Marxist government controlled broadcasting network that is doing everything possible to destroy British Britain and European Europe.”

    False News Story. You have thoroughly been duped.

    “A poll of ten European nations with over 10,000 respondents finds overwhelming support for a Muslim immigration ban within the EU.”

    Yes, yes, yes, I’m familiar with the narrative. It is other than surprising given the ramped up rhetoric.

    “And keeping 80,000 US troops in Japan and S. Korea doesn’t “intensify matters considerably”?

    Settle down. North Korea would still be threatening the region regardless of the American presence.

    Read More
  68. @utu
    Nuclear NK serves a very important purpose for American Empire. The objective is to get Japan more active in military that would lead to the eventual development of nuclear weapons as a part of American Empire hat would keep China in check. It is strange that China did not know how to stop NK from developing nuclear capability. China certainly wants to prevent unification of Koreas but by allowing NK having nukes they over did it because nuclear NK will lead to nuclear Japan.

    “It is strange how China did not know how to stop N.K. from developing nuke weapon capability.”

    utu,

    Lots of strange things we do NOT know.

    Lots of LIES we do know about N.K. (that originated in strange sources) and we mistake them for truth. .

    See National Interest article below that discusses an N.K. role in helping Iran get nuke weapons and which is riddled with “reportedly, probably, and it’s long been asserted, creation of a 4th Reich,” ad nauseum.

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-north-korea-secretly-build-iranian-bomb-16140

    Read More
  69. @MBlanc46
    You don't need a Confucian scholar's knowledge of Korean affairs to know that Kim and his Chinese mastera need to be put on notice that there's a limit to our tolerance of their sabre rattling.

    kid,

    If not for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld’s sabotage China would’ve resolved this made in USA ‘crisis’ years ago and turned the Korean Peninsula into a nuke free zone.

    Once again, what did that !@#$%^! Tillerson do when China propose a peace talk, thats right, he showed the middle finger. !

    ‘All option on the table ….except peace’
    so say the mafiaso, er, Sec of state.

    Uncle scam whinning about ‘sabre rattling’ = Robber crying robbery !

    Read More
  70. @iffen
    anyone stupid enough to think

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?

    *We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. *

    Historically,
    Jp has always been the aggressor against China/Korea,
    at one time during the Tang dynasty [?] China even sent an expedition force to help Korea beat back a Jp invasion.
    Jp aggressions against China continues until this very day.

    Economically,
    Both JP/Sk are China’s top trading partners, for China to attack the two would be like shooting itself in the feet.

    militarily,
    Both Jp/Sk are armed to the teeth military heavy weight, especially Jp which ranks 4th in the world’s ranking, never mind that they are part of the murkkan alliance which includes India/Australia and that 800 lb gorilla, the USA.
    If the PLA wants to flex its muscle it could’ve picked a easier target like
    Bhutan or Sikkim, for example.

    Which ever way you look at it,
    China has no reason whatsoever to attack Sk/Jp.

    Your rants make no sense
    Zero, none, nada, zilch !
    Typical Anglo projection of their own predatory mindset,
    Please keep your hallucination to yourself !

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Typical Anglo projection of their own predatory mindset,

    From my comment at #64:


    Why don’t we give the Chinese a chance to cooperate with us in the destruction of the N. Korean regime? Help us destroy N. Korea and make a unified Korea neutral, or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea and Japan and then we will leave.
     
    amend to:

    or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea, Japan and Vietnam and then we will leave.

    , @L.K
    Well, 'iffen' is no anglo, not that I think very highly of anglos, but ifffen is just another zio jew chickenhawk-chickenshit.
    He just loves war... done by others...
  71. @denk
    *We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. *

    Historically,
    Jp has always been the aggressor against China/Korea,
    at one time during the Tang dynasty [?] China even sent an expedition force to help Korea beat back a Jp invasion.
    Jp aggressions against China continues until this very day.

    Economically,
    Both JP/Sk are China's top trading partners, for China to attack the two would be like shooting itself in the feet.

    militarily,
    Both Jp/Sk are armed to the teeth military heavy weight, especially Jp which ranks 4th in the world's ranking, never mind that they are part of the murkkan alliance which includes India/Australia and that 800 lb gorilla, the USA.
    If the PLA wants to flex its muscle it could've picked a easier target like
    Bhutan or Sikkim, for example.

    Which ever way you look at it,
    China has no reason whatsoever to attack Sk/Jp.


    Your rants make no sense
    Zero, none, nada, zilch !
    Typical Anglo projection of their own predatory mindset,
    Please keep your hallucination to yourself !

    Typical Anglo projection of their own predatory mindset,

    From my comment at #64:

    Why don’t we give the Chinese a chance to cooperate with us in the destruction of the N. Korean regime? Help us destroy N. Korea and make a unified Korea neutral, or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea and Japan and then we will leave.

    amend to:

    or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea, Japan and Vietnam and then we will leave.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    Are you crazy ?
    You risk ww3 with USSR to prevent missiles in Cuba now you expect China to accept nuke armed Korea/Jp !

    China has a much saner idea,
    ' Murkka stop its sabre rattling war games, NK stop its test, all sides sit down and talk. '?

    Cant you give peace a chance,
    just for once ?
    , @basedKRN

    we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea, Japan and Vietnam and then we will leave.
     
    THIS.
  72. @iffen
    Typical Anglo projection of their own predatory mindset,

    From my comment at #64:


    Why don’t we give the Chinese a chance to cooperate with us in the destruction of the N. Korean regime? Help us destroy N. Korea and make a unified Korea neutral, or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea and Japan and then we will leave.
     
    amend to:

    or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea, Japan and Vietnam and then we will leave.

    Are you crazy ?
    You risk ww3 with USSR to prevent missiles in Cuba now you expect China to accept nuke armed Korea/Jp !

    China has a much saner idea,
    ‘ Murkka stop its sabre rattling war games, NK stop its test, all sides sit down and talk. ‘?

    Cant you give peace a chance,
    just for once ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
    "Can't you give peace a chance?"

    I appreciate your trying to get 'iffen "iffen's" head out-of-his-ass, but he's extremely constipated with the crap Sam "The Sham" Shama has installed there. (Sigh) Situation's hopeless.

    Besides, denk, the (allied) Goldman Sachs Group and Military-Industrial-Security Complex are into increasing world tensions in order to get what they want.

    As Bob Dylan once howled on the album Slow Train Coming, "there will be no peace 'til Christ returns!" Shortly thereafter, Dylan resigned from Christianity, he was awarded a Nobel lit. prize,
    and nowadays, golden calf hordes of Zionist Christians are cheering on the Apocalypse. Hoo-boy!

    Thank you, denk.
  73. @denk
    Are you crazy ?
    You risk ww3 with USSR to prevent missiles in Cuba now you expect China to accept nuke armed Korea/Jp !

    China has a much saner idea,
    ' Murkka stop its sabre rattling war games, NK stop its test, all sides sit down and talk. '?

    Cant you give peace a chance,
    just for once ?

    “Can’t you give peace a chance?”

    I appreciate your trying to get ‘iffen “iffen’s” head out-of-his-ass, but he’s extremely constipated with the crap Sam “The Sham” Shama has installed there. (Sigh) Situation’s hopeless.

    Besides, denk, the (allied) Goldman Sachs Group and Military-Industrial-Security Complex are into increasing world tensions in order to get what they want.

    As Bob Dylan once howled on the album Slow Train Coming, “there will be no peace ’til Christ returns!” Shortly thereafter, Dylan resigned from Christianity, he was awarded a Nobel lit. prize,
    and nowadays, golden calf hordes of Zionist Christians are cheering on the Apocalypse. Hoo-boy!

    Thank you, denk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    I could understand War Street/lockheed martin./Pentagon lusting for wars, much as Dracula thirsting for blood, its their life line. !
    Not necessary wars tho, often they'd settle for a good 'crisis' courtesy of uncle scam, as long as it boost their bottom line or make the generals mundane life meaningful again. !

    BUt I dont understand what's in it for joe six packs like iffen ?

    May be its the 'fun', vaporising NK'/China in a bright flash makes for fantastic view in the tube, meanwhile he'd be safe from any retaliatory attacks from China cuz THAAD supposedly would take care of that ?

    At least thats what Lockheed Martin of the F35 'fame' says,
    hehehehe

    p.s.

    Sorry for the late reply, I called it a day soon after posting the last piece, way past bed time !
    ....................................
  74. @iffen
    I like your idea even better. We withdraw from S. Korea and give the Chinese the green light on Korea, North and South, while we double down on Japan. That is, if the Japanese are in, otherwise we can withdraw from Japan as well.

    Are you NUTS? Why would ANYONE, including the Red Chinese and the Japanese, believe the USA would actually defend ANYONE after we threw South Korea to the wolves.

    The Leaders of North Korea are INSANE, apparently as a genetic defect. If they would simply stop declaring that THEY intend to start WW3, bringing Red China and USA (and probably Russia) into the mess, the North Koreans could have EVERYTHING the South Koreans and Japanese have within a single North Korean generation.

    But the NORKs refuse. Every single week, the NORKs issue some new bit of insanity, which both their Red Chinese protectors and the USA simply ignore.

    There was some hope back when Kim Young-un ascended the throne that the insanity that is NORK government would end. But NOOOO! Young-un is at least as crazy as his father and grandfather, and perhaps even more full goose bozo.

    At some point the South Koreans and/or Japanese will respond to some especially brutal NORK provocation (each provocation ignored in the past requires that the NEXT provocation be more heinous) with an airstrike (or naval bombardment) against NORK assets. The NORKs MUST then proceed to all out war or lose the ability to issue new threats.

    There’s going to be another war in Korea. The only question is whether the ENTIRE world is also destroyed.

    Read More
  75. @Chuck Orloski
    "Can't you give peace a chance?"

    I appreciate your trying to get 'iffen "iffen's" head out-of-his-ass, but he's extremely constipated with the crap Sam "The Sham" Shama has installed there. (Sigh) Situation's hopeless.

    Besides, denk, the (allied) Goldman Sachs Group and Military-Industrial-Security Complex are into increasing world tensions in order to get what they want.

    As Bob Dylan once howled on the album Slow Train Coming, "there will be no peace 'til Christ returns!" Shortly thereafter, Dylan resigned from Christianity, he was awarded a Nobel lit. prize,
    and nowadays, golden calf hordes of Zionist Christians are cheering on the Apocalypse. Hoo-boy!

    Thank you, denk.

    I could understand War Street/lockheed martin./Pentagon lusting for wars, much as Dracula thirsting for blood, its their life line. !
    Not necessary wars tho, often they’d settle for a good ‘crisis’ courtesy of uncle scam, as long as it boost their bottom line or make the generals mundane life meaningful again. !

    BUt I dont understand what’s in it for joe six packs like iffen ?

    May be its the ‘fun’, vaporising NK’/China in a bright flash makes for fantastic view in the tube, meanwhile he’d be safe from any retaliatory attacks from China cuz THAAD supposedly would take care of that ?

    At least thats what Lockheed Martin of the F35 ‘fame’ says,
    hehehehe

    p.s.

    Sorry for the late reply, I called it a day soon after posting the last piece, way past bed time !
    ………………………………

    Read More
  76. Kim is an anglophile, he likes wine and watch NBA.
    Doesnt look ‘mad’ to me, never mind his father.

    There might be method in his apparent ‘madness’, he could be acting to script written in Washington.
    Read post 40

    Read More
  77. The article is quite correct, we don’t need another Korean War. We haven’t needed another Korean War for just about 70 years. But, of course, Little Kimmy and the NK “leaders” have never ever known this. What happens when your toddler decides he/she wants some juice? How does your toddler act? Keep in mind that when it comes to world class negotiators, nobody out negotiates a toddler. “Can I have some juice? Can I have some juice? Can I have some juice? Can I have some juice?” “No!” “Why not?” “Because I said so!” “Okay, when can I have some juice? Can I have some juice now?” “No.” “How about now?”

    This is the way a third rate military power belonging to an immature toddler acts/reacts. Anybody here heard of the USS Pueblo? Little Kimmy needs food, and NK just doesn’t know how to ask.

    Read More
  78. @denk
    *We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. *

    Historically,
    Jp has always been the aggressor against China/Korea,
    at one time during the Tang dynasty [?] China even sent an expedition force to help Korea beat back a Jp invasion.
    Jp aggressions against China continues until this very day.

    Economically,
    Both JP/Sk are China's top trading partners, for China to attack the two would be like shooting itself in the feet.

    militarily,
    Both Jp/Sk are armed to the teeth military heavy weight, especially Jp which ranks 4th in the world's ranking, never mind that they are part of the murkkan alliance which includes India/Australia and that 800 lb gorilla, the USA.
    If the PLA wants to flex its muscle it could've picked a easier target like
    Bhutan or Sikkim, for example.

    Which ever way you look at it,
    China has no reason whatsoever to attack Sk/Jp.


    Your rants make no sense
    Zero, none, nada, zilch !
    Typical Anglo projection of their own predatory mindset,
    Please keep your hallucination to yourself !

    Well, ‘iffen’ is no anglo, not that I think very highly of anglos, but ifffen is just another zio jew chickenhawk-chickenshit.
    He just loves war… done by others…

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    Wow,
    A chickenshit ?

    Thanks for the head up !
  79. @Diversity Heretic
    American involvement in the Korean peninsula in the 21st Century is stark, raving mad. South Korea, aided by Japan if it feels the need, should be able to defend South Korea. American troops should have been withdrawn decades ago. If China, Japan and the two Koreas want to fight it out on that peninsula, by all means let them (I predict that they'll reach a modus vivendi very quickly). U.S. involvement just destablizes things.

    Is the Korean lobby all that powerful in the U.S.?

    South Korean would rather live under North Korean rule instead of inviting the unrepentant war criminal Japanese to step a foot on the Korea peninsula. The last time the Korean asking Japanese to help the Japanese turned Korea into a military occupied colony, their empress got raped and burnt by the Japanese, and the Koreans were ruled like subhuman species with brutality.

    Talking about the American arrogance and ignorance about the world, your comment surely laid it bare.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Well, let this ignorant and arrogant American express his opinion that it is a damned shame that any European-origin American has suffered so much as a broken fingernail to prevent various Asian tribes from as*-fu*king each other. Every one of you slant-eyed yellow bastards (Korean, Chinese, Japanese--it may matter to you but it sure doesn't to me) can go plumb to hells of your own making and stay there. And joining you there will be every American who ever advocated meddling in Asia
  80. @iffen
    If we wait, the likely outcome will only be worse.

    Assurances should be given to China that after we will nuke N. Korea, a unified Korea will be neutral and we will withdraw from Korea and Japan.

    Can China give Donald Trump assurance that China will not nuke the USA then it goes ahead to nuke the unrepentant war criminal Japanese?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Not to worry, angelic Chinese have never attacked anybody, anywhere, ever.
  81. @Joe Wong
    Can China give Donald Trump assurance that China will not nuke the USA then it goes ahead to nuke the unrepentant war criminal Japanese?

    Not to worry, angelic Chinese have never attacked anybody, anywhere, ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    Wow,
    I'm so scared, the yellow peril,
    heheheh

    http://www.us-uk-interventions.org/
  82. Anyone besides me notice that those smart (sneaky?) N. Koreans blew up their missile at the launch in order to conceal their true expertise?

    Read More
  83. @Randal

    I don’t think that it is necessary to resort to name calling. I can understand that the weakness of your argument would lead you in that direction, but if it continues, I will respond in spades.
     
    I don't think what I wrote really amounts to name-calling, particularly since if you reread it carefully you will note that I actually implied you probably don't really believe what you are arguing for here anyway.

    But feel free to respond as you see fit. I have a thick skin. I only get really annoyed when there's a credible threat of getting the police involved......

    We are currently being held “hostage” in Korea and Japan by past events. We need to withdraw our forces from both countries. If we did that, both S. Korea and Japan would have to develop nuclear weapons to defend against N. Korea and to a lesser extent China. As long as we have the nuclear umbrella open we are a hostage to N. Korea’s actions. At some point, after they have a complete nuclear arsenal, N. Korea may launch a military attack against S. Korea. What do you suggest we do at that point?
     
    Whatever the result, it wouldn't be the US's problem or business. Believe it or not, there are parts of the world where that is the case, you know. Let the Chinese deal with it, since it's in their backyard.

    It's not a given that US withdrawal would result in Japan and SK acquiring nuclear weapons, but neither would it necessarily be a disaster if they were to do so. I suspect the Americans and Chinese between them are perfectly capable of "persuading" both SK and Japan that it wouldn't be in their interests to develop nuclear weapons. Doing so without superpower approval has immense costs in today's world that neither are likely to want to bear. That said, a nuclear standoff is a proven way of keeping the peace, and there's no reason why it wouldn't work in NE Asia just as well.

    NK has nuclear weapons because it faces a credible threat of aggression by a military superpower with a well established track record of such aggression, that it cannot hope to deter by conventional military means - the universal basic reason for building them. Neither SK nor Japan face any such situation. Nuclear weapons would not enable NK to conquer either country, and any threat to use them aggressively would lack any credibility in the absence of Chinese and US acceptance. Japan is already recognised as a "latent" nuclear power anyway, and SK could easily go that route as well.

    It's worth bearing in mind that, absent the US interference issue, SK is actually far more valuable to China than NK is, and China certainly wouldn't take lightly a NK invasion that would kill the golden goose, least of all if it involved nuclear strikes.

    Indeed, the most likely problem thrown up by a unilateral US withdrawal would be serious issues in China's relations with NK.

    Randal writes:

    NK has nuclear weapons because it faces a credible threat of aggression by a military superpower with a well established track record of such aggression, that it cannot hope to deter by conventional military means – the universal basic reason for building them. Neither SK nor Japan face any such situation. Nuclear weapons would not enable NK to conquer either country, and any threat to use them aggressively would lack any credibility in the absence of Chinese and US acceptance. Japan is already recognised as a “latent” nuclear power anyway, and SK could easily go that route as well.

    It’s understandable that North Korea would opt to obtain nuclear weapons as a matter of self-preservation, although the threat is overblown, as the US would not have any appetite for invading or attempting to seize North Korea, given the severe costs even a conventional, non-nuclear war would impose on the Korean peninsula as a whole, and on Japan.

    Kim’s calculus is based on three things:

    1. A desire to increase or improve North Korea’s position in the world, its power, and its perceived prestige in the minds of those who make up the ruling party and in the minds of the country’s largely brainwashed citizenry, who, through no fault of their own, don’t know any better. Indeed, it is vital for this to happen in order to motivate the citizens, the generals and the apparatchiks within the party itself to continue supporting him and thus keep him in power.

    2. Use the nuclear weapons to threaten North Korea’s neighbours and thus allow him and the regime to stay in power for an indefinite period of time.

    3. Use the nuclear weapons to threaten North Korea’s neigbours and the United States as a means of extracting money and various concessions that will allow the regime to continue obtaining hard currency (i.e., via drug trafficking and other activities) so it can continue financing the lavish lifestyles the members of the regime lead, while ordinary North Koreans are denied even a subsistence standard of living.

    Unless Kim is as nuts as some people say he is, he surely must know that any use of his nuclear weapons will result in immediate and total destruction of the regime and the country, and he will perish too, in the cauldrons of holy fire he loves to talk about.

    The big question is, do we continue letting him developing nuclear weapons until he reaches a stage where he does lose his sanity and lobs a bomb at Seoul or Tokyo? History has shown, time and again, that appeasement never works. Do we continue putting up with his extortion, too, in the name of preserving an already fragile peace?? Can we find a way to remove him or at least neutralize him, without triggering a large-scale war

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The big question is, do we continue letting him developing nuclear weapons until he reaches a stage where he does lose his sanity and lobs a bomb at Seoul or Tokyo? History has shown, time and again, that appeasement never works.

    Like I said.
    , @denk
    'Kim’s calculus is based on three things:...................'


    KIm is just a small fry.
    No mention about that 2000 lb gorilla,
    Uncle scam, agent provocateur par excellence ?

    From [40]

    NK is Washington’s ultimate bogeyman,
    *to scare SK, JP and drive them into an anti Chinese coalition,
    *to perpetuate its military bases in Okinawa and SK,
    *last but not least, to justify its militarisation of the KoreaN Peninsula
    and install offensive WMD at China’s doorstep.

    Here's an update,
    *To justify the automatic rollover of the murkkan/SK 'defence' pact amidst growing dissent.
    [ SK armed forces CIC is a 4star murkkan general, go figure ;-)]
    *To drive a wedge bet China/SK,
    *To drive a wedge bet China/NK,
    *Last but not least, to excuse Trump's proposed largesse to the MICC,
    notice that Jim *mad dog* Mattis is a current director of General Dynamics ?

    One stone kills 7 birds,
    a WIN-win for UNCLE SCAM/kim !
  84. @ZipperZapper
    Randal writes:

    NK has nuclear weapons because it faces a credible threat of aggression by a military superpower with a well established track record of such aggression, that it cannot hope to deter by conventional military means – the universal basic reason for building them. Neither SK nor Japan face any such situation. Nuclear weapons would not enable NK to conquer either country, and any threat to use them aggressively would lack any credibility in the absence of Chinese and US acceptance. Japan is already recognised as a “latent” nuclear power anyway, and SK could easily go that route as well.

     

    It's understandable that North Korea would opt to obtain nuclear weapons as a matter of self-preservation, although the threat is overblown, as the US would not have any appetite for invading or attempting to seize North Korea, given the severe costs even a conventional, non-nuclear war would impose on the Korean peninsula as a whole, and on Japan.

    Kim's calculus is based on three things:

    1. A desire to increase or improve North Korea's position in the world, its power, and its perceived prestige in the minds of those who make up the ruling party and in the minds of the country's largely brainwashed citizenry, who, through no fault of their own, don't know any better. Indeed, it is vital for this to happen in order to motivate the citizens, the generals and the apparatchiks within the party itself to continue supporting him and thus keep him in power.

    2. Use the nuclear weapons to threaten North Korea's neighbours and thus allow him and the regime to stay in power for an indefinite period of time.

    3. Use the nuclear weapons to threaten North Korea's neigbours and the United States as a means of extracting money and various concessions that will allow the regime to continue obtaining hard currency (i.e., via drug trafficking and other activities) so it can continue financing the lavish lifestyles the members of the regime lead, while ordinary North Koreans are denied even a subsistence standard of living.

    Unless Kim is as nuts as some people say he is, he surely must know that any use of his nuclear weapons will result in immediate and total destruction of the regime and the country, and he will perish too, in the cauldrons of holy fire he loves to talk about.

    The big question is, do we continue letting him developing nuclear weapons until he reaches a stage where he does lose his sanity and lobs a bomb at Seoul or Tokyo? History has shown, time and again, that appeasement never works. Do we continue putting up with his extortion, too, in the name of preserving an already fragile peace?? Can we find a way to remove him or at least neutralize him, without triggering a large-scale war

    The big question is, do we continue letting him developing nuclear weapons until he reaches a stage where he does lose his sanity and lobs a bomb at Seoul or Tokyo? History has shown, time and again, that appeasement never works.

    Like I said.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    chief American prosecutor,
    Robert Jackson in Nuremberg trial,
    a war of aggression "is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

    that the tribunals would certainly be a farce if the United States failed to apply the Nuremberg standards to itself in the future.


    http://www.countercurrents.org/kantar300408.htm

    p.s.

    You operate 24 hrs ?
  85. @L.K
    Well, 'iffen' is no anglo, not that I think very highly of anglos, but ifffen is just another zio jew chickenhawk-chickenshit.
    He just loves war... done by others...

    Wow,
    A chickenshit ?

    Thanks for the head up !

    Read More
  86. @iffen
    Not to worry, angelic Chinese have never attacked anybody, anywhere, ever.

    Wow,
    I’m so scared, the yellow peril,
    heheheh

    http://www.us-uk-interventions.org/

    Read More
  87. @iffen
    The big question is, do we continue letting him developing nuclear weapons until he reaches a stage where he does lose his sanity and lobs a bomb at Seoul or Tokyo? History has shown, time and again, that appeasement never works.

    Like I said.

    chief American prosecutor,
    Robert Jackson in Nuremberg trial,
    a war of aggression “is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

    that the tribunals would certainly be a farce if the United States failed to apply the Nuremberg standards to itself in the future.

    http://www.countercurrents.org/kantar300408.htm

    p.s.

    You operate 24 hrs ?

    Read More
  88. A lot of ignorant American twaddle that uses Sth Korean and US websites as data about the North Koreans military capability. In the first place China has a military alliance with Nth Korea since 1961. Just as the US claims it has a military obligation to assist its puppet state Sth Korea (which it occupies like Japan) so too has China a like obligation to assist Nth Korea; which it didin 1950 after the Yankees refused to heed repeated warnings about invading the Nth. Second China and Nth Korea, Iran and Russia share military technology and have for decades (before and after Putin). Also the tech to build nukes and missiles is much more advanced than that used to build tanks, subs or aircraft. Most of Sth Koreas airforce are US F15-16s and F4s. All are 30+ years old and the F4s over 45 years old. None are new but mere upgrades of obsolete designs. The South is dependent on the US for all its ordinance save for some modern indiginous tanks, ships etc. It is not super equipped nor more modern than the North. Mere hubris and US propaganda. No nukes could be used (as none were in the 1950s or in the Vietnam War). Why? Because Russia and China would come in at once. Which is why they were not used. Further, to destroy Japan (a tiny Island with no resources) the North would send cruise missiles (unstoppable as they hug the sea/ground) with fuel air explosives. One would destroy (vaporise) an area of several square kilometers. The target would be the myriad offshore Japanese electricity grids that serve several mega cities. Thus no electricity, no power for lighting, frigeration, no sewerage, no pumped, filtered drinking water. In ten days the city would die and in Tokyo’s case 30 million inhabitants would have to be evacuated. Japan has 56 nuke power stations on/near its coasts. A few missiles on these and several Fukushimas all at once. So much for the idiot scenerio above. Read some real military sites bozo instead of All-American ones designed for the local rednecks Trumpites. China could overrun all of Asia in mere months and the US could do nothing! They have 40 cities with a million or more inhabitants; thus 40 nukes would destroy the US. Mutually assured distruction is all this would mean which is why nothing has happened in 70 years. So the US would have to fight a conventional land war in Asia and even the biggest American stooge could believe they would win.Why they can hardly hold Iraq, a third world nation. This stuff makes me laugh as it is so irresponsible; a mere pipe dream Hollywood style.

    Read More
  89. @Joe Wong
    South Korean would rather live under North Korean rule instead of inviting the unrepentant war criminal Japanese to step a foot on the Korea peninsula. The last time the Korean asking Japanese to help the Japanese turned Korea into a military occupied colony, their empress got raped and burnt by the Japanese, and the Koreans were ruled like subhuman species with brutality.

    Talking about the American arrogance and ignorance about the world, your comment surely laid it bare.

    Well, let this ignorant and arrogant American express his opinion that it is a damned shame that any European-origin American has suffered so much as a broken fingernail to prevent various Asian tribes from as*-fu*king each other. Every one of you slant-eyed yellow bastards (Korean, Chinese, Japanese–it may matter to you but it sure doesn’t to me) can go plumb to hells of your own making and stay there. And joining you there will be every American who ever advocated meddling in Asia

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    Lets see,
    The score sheet of your 'humanitarian' missions in Asia alone,

    YOu killed three millions in the Korean war,
    three millions in Nam,
    three millions in Cambodia/Loas
    three millions in INdonesia,
    two millions in Jp,
    at least 10 millions in China,....

    you wiped out the entire Nepalese royal family of king Birendra,
    His crime ?......a sojurn to Beijing !

    You Killed three millions in INdonesia just to remove Beijing friendly prez Sukarno,

    Blow Rajiv Ghandhi to smithereens cuz he wanted to make nice with the Panda,

    Ousted Oz pm Kelvin Rudd/Gough Whitlam when they tried to cozy up to the Chinese,

    Ditto for Sri Lanka prez Raja...

    A united China/Jp/Korea is of course the nighmare that makes uncle scam sit up in the middle of the night in cold sweat , cuz it literally spells
    FUCK OFF UNCLE SHAM !

    So you engineered the down fall of progressives like Yatohama who wanted to make up with China, then install assholes Abe and his ilks,

    You Sabotaged the honeymoon bet China/Sk by ramming THAAD down Sk throat,

    Drive another wedge bet China/NK by pressuring Beijing to sanction its 'ally'...

    All these and more cuz...
    'You want to 'prevent Chinks/Gooks/JapS assfucking each other' !

    Interesting ,
    this thread brings out the best of the White men ...and its dregs.
  90. @ZipperZapper
    Randal writes:

    NK has nuclear weapons because it faces a credible threat of aggression by a military superpower with a well established track record of such aggression, that it cannot hope to deter by conventional military means – the universal basic reason for building them. Neither SK nor Japan face any such situation. Nuclear weapons would not enable NK to conquer either country, and any threat to use them aggressively would lack any credibility in the absence of Chinese and US acceptance. Japan is already recognised as a “latent” nuclear power anyway, and SK could easily go that route as well.

     

    It's understandable that North Korea would opt to obtain nuclear weapons as a matter of self-preservation, although the threat is overblown, as the US would not have any appetite for invading or attempting to seize North Korea, given the severe costs even a conventional, non-nuclear war would impose on the Korean peninsula as a whole, and on Japan.

    Kim's calculus is based on three things:

    1. A desire to increase or improve North Korea's position in the world, its power, and its perceived prestige in the minds of those who make up the ruling party and in the minds of the country's largely brainwashed citizenry, who, through no fault of their own, don't know any better. Indeed, it is vital for this to happen in order to motivate the citizens, the generals and the apparatchiks within the party itself to continue supporting him and thus keep him in power.

    2. Use the nuclear weapons to threaten North Korea's neighbours and thus allow him and the regime to stay in power for an indefinite period of time.

    3. Use the nuclear weapons to threaten North Korea's neigbours and the United States as a means of extracting money and various concessions that will allow the regime to continue obtaining hard currency (i.e., via drug trafficking and other activities) so it can continue financing the lavish lifestyles the members of the regime lead, while ordinary North Koreans are denied even a subsistence standard of living.

    Unless Kim is as nuts as some people say he is, he surely must know that any use of his nuclear weapons will result in immediate and total destruction of the regime and the country, and he will perish too, in the cauldrons of holy fire he loves to talk about.

    The big question is, do we continue letting him developing nuclear weapons until he reaches a stage where he does lose his sanity and lobs a bomb at Seoul or Tokyo? History has shown, time and again, that appeasement never works. Do we continue putting up with his extortion, too, in the name of preserving an already fragile peace?? Can we find a way to remove him or at least neutralize him, without triggering a large-scale war

    ‘Kim’s calculus is based on three things:……………….’

    KIm is just a small fry.
    No mention about that 2000 lb gorilla,
    Uncle scam, agent provocateur par excellence ?

    From [40]

    NK is Washington’s ultimate bogeyman,
    *to scare SK, JP and drive them into an anti Chinese coalition,
    *to perpetuate its military bases in Okinawa and SK,
    *last but not least, to justify its militarisation of the KoreaN Peninsula
    and install offensive WMD at China’s doorstep.

    Here’s an update,
    *To justify the automatic rollover of the murkkan/SK ‘defence’ pact amidst growing dissent.
    [ SK armed forces CIC is a 4star murkkan general, go figure ;-)]
    *To drive a wedge bet China/SK,
    *To drive a wedge bet China/NK,
    *Last but not least, to excuse Trump’s proposed largesse to the MICC,
    notice that Jim *mad dog* Mattis is a current director of General Dynamics ?

    One stone kills 7 birds,
    a WIN-win for UNCLE SCAM/kim !

    Read More
  91. @Diversity Heretic
    Well, let this ignorant and arrogant American express his opinion that it is a damned shame that any European-origin American has suffered so much as a broken fingernail to prevent various Asian tribes from as*-fu*king each other. Every one of you slant-eyed yellow bastards (Korean, Chinese, Japanese--it may matter to you but it sure doesn't to me) can go plumb to hells of your own making and stay there. And joining you there will be every American who ever advocated meddling in Asia

    Lets see,
    The score sheet of your ‘humanitarian’ missions in Asia alone,

    YOu killed three millions in the Korean war,
    three millions in Nam,
    three millions in Cambodia/Loas
    three millions in INdonesia,
    two millions in Jp,
    at least 10 millions in China,….

    you wiped out the entire Nepalese royal family of king Birendra,
    His crime ?……a sojurn to Beijing !

    You Killed three millions in INdonesia just to remove Beijing friendly prez Sukarno,

    Blow Rajiv Ghandhi to smithereens cuz he wanted to make nice with the Panda,

    Ousted Oz pm Kelvin Rudd/Gough Whitlam when they tried to cozy up to the Chinese,

    Ditto for Sri Lanka prez Raja…

    A united China/Jp/Korea is of course the nighmare that makes uncle scam sit up in the middle of the night in cold sweat , cuz it literally spells
    FUCK OFF UNCLE SHAM !

    So you engineered the down fall of progressives like Yatohama who wanted to make up with China, then install assholes Abe and his ilks,

    You Sabotaged the honeymoon bet China/Sk by ramming THAAD down Sk throat,

    Drive another wedge bet China/NK by pressuring Beijing to sanction its ‘ally’…

    All these and more cuz…
    ‘You want to ‘prevent Chinks/Gooks/JapS assfucking each other’ !

    Interesting ,
    this thread brings out the best of the White men …and its dregs.

    Read More
  92. Another Korean War would be awful, particularly if the Chinese decide to join in again.

    But… the existence of North and South Korea and their stark contrast is very useful. The prosperity of the South and abject poverty of the North makes a great argument for freedom and against everything the Left wants.

    Read More
  93. The next Korean conflict needs to be that warned to the Chinese by Dwight D Eisenhower, that the US will nuke the North Koreans. Its that simple. There’s no sense in freedom-loving people, like those in South Korea including US military personnel, putting up with or risking their lives over the maniac in North Korean. Just bomb N Korea until they cry out in surrender.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    Really ,
    kid ?

    Here's what the international community says,
    Nukem !
    , @basedKRN

    The next Korean conflict needs to be that warned to the Chinese by Dwight D Eisenhower, that the US will nuke the North Koreans. Its that simple. There’s no sense in freedom-loving people, like those in South Korea including US military personnel, putting up with or risking their lives over the maniac in North Korean. Just bomb N Korea until they cry out in surrender.
     
    Do you live here, sir? I do. I'm Korean blood. Nobody here says we should attack North Korea. I've never met a South Korean person who was concerned about North Korea or thought that we should attack them. They are only concerned NOW, not because Kim Jongun is saying anything super different than he has for so many years, but because of all this new talk and movement from the Trump administration. This isn't America First. What the fuck, Trump? This isn't what I voted for.

    We do not want to attack North Korea, because that would mean 1.) death to our people in the North and 2.) more importantly, retaliation from the North Korea and then death to US. At least WE have been living in relative peace and prosperity, just trying to make a living and go about our busy days. It's gonna affect ME.

    See, I'm not some "Syrian refugee" or some other shitskin in a distant land that can't speak English and tell you the other side. I'm talking to YOU and anyone else who is worried that NK is a threat to America or whatever, any of you armchair generals. I'm saying this is not how it actually is, you might know what you're talking about, and really, I DON'T WANT MY PEOPLE IN ANY OF YOUR FUCKING WARS.

  94. @Clique777
    The next Korean conflict needs to be that warned to the Chinese by Dwight D Eisenhower, that the US will nuke the North Koreans. Its that simple. There's no sense in freedom-loving people, like those in South Korea including US military personnel, putting up with or risking their lives over the maniac in North Korean. Just bomb N Korea until they cry out in surrender.

    Really ,
    kid ?

    Here’s what the international community says,
    Nukem !

    Read More
  95. @Carlton Meyer
    Most of this article is outdated Cold War BS. South Koreans relate more closely to China than the USA. China is their MAJOR trading partner. They are proud people and don't like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year.

    1. We need strong civilian leaders to force our crazed Generals to obey orders and withdraw our troops from the DMZ as the Bush administration ordered long ago. They are not needed as South Korea is five times more powerful than North Korea.

    2. We need to downsize back to the agree upon troop levels in South Korea and stop sending more and more forces there, while the South Korean military downsizes.

    3. The biggest threat is a cross border artillery exchange that kills thousands of South Koreans and hundreds of Americans (who were supposed to have withdrawn from the DMZ to a new $13 billion base south of Seoul several years. ago.) If this occurs, angry South Koreans will blame the USA, no matter who is at fault, and storm American bases during riots. Our troops and families will be escorted to the nearest airports and flown away as a humiliated empire looks on.

    4. China is the biggest threat to North Korea! It is tired of their troublesome BS and may take action one day.

    I cover all this in detail here:

    http://www.g2mil.com/casey.htm

    Meanwhile, American political leaders and Generals must shut up! North Korea is not our problem and they DO NOT HAVE missiles that can hit the USA and CANNOT build them. North Korea is a problem for South Korea, China, and Japan. Whenever asked, Americans must simply say "that is a problem for South Korea to address."

    This may confuse readers accustomed to daily Pentagon/CIA propaganda about "threats" that appear in American media, so read that link to learn more. For those too smug or lazy to learn more, here is part:

    "Most South Koreans do not view Americans as saviors from communism. They have no memory of the Korean war and want peace. A key step is the closure of American bases because North Korea has long maintained that the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Korean peninsula is a prerequisite for peace. There are no Chinese or Russian forces in North Korea, even though South Korea is far stronger. South Korea political leaders deal with a growing number of nationalists and pacifists who want the American military to leave, and traditional supporters of a long standing alliance. Many South Koreans support American bases only because they benefit from the billions of dollars in annual American military spending, which generates tens of thousands of jobs."

    The problem is not North Korea. The problem is China. That’s the real threat.
    The US is in South Korea not just under some noble guise to protect their ally from Nork aggression, but as a way of keeping the competing superpower that is China in check.

    What do I know? Very little. But I think if the Chinese had their way, they would annex all of Korea, then Japan, and then the rest of the world.
    They’re like Jews in that way, except inconceivably greater in number.
    We just want a unified independent Korea.

    Read More
  96. @Corvinus
    "They are proud people and don’t like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year."

    Not quite.

    According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 58% of South Koreans view United States' influence positively, and with 28% view of negatively, and 55% of Americans views South Korea's influence positively, and with 34% view of negatively. South Korea is one of the most pro-American nations in the world.

    “They are proud people and don’t like the unneeded American occupation, but tolerate it to collect billions of dollars a year.”

    Not quite.

    According to a 2014 BBC World Service Poll, 58% of South Koreans view United States’ influence positively, and with 28% view of negatively, and 55% of Americans views South Korea’s influence positively, and with 34% view of negatively. South Korea is one of the most pro-American nations in the world.

    Yes, there are two sides to it. We are very pro-America and I’m a first-generation immigrant to the US. I love America and right now, I do think we need them on the peninsula to protect us from NK/China–but I prefer we got nukes and figured this thing out ourselves and then have them move out.

    We are pro-America insofar as we have the standard “Thank God the US saved us from the Communists” narrative, which I still hold onto. But I’m anti-(((America))) insofar as our political masters have gotten like a 100 million people killed around the world, since WWI when America was lied to in order to enter WWI and all the events that followed. As in, maybe if America didn’t get involved in world affairs, Koreans wouldn’t have suffered so much.

    Read More
  97. @iffen
    Typical Anglo projection of their own predatory mindset,

    From my comment at #64:


    Why don’t we give the Chinese a chance to cooperate with us in the destruction of the N. Korean regime? Help us destroy N. Korea and make a unified Korea neutral, or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea and Japan and then we will leave.
     
    amend to:

    or we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea, Japan and Vietnam and then we will leave.

    we will provide nuclear technology to S. Korea, Japan and Vietnam and then we will leave.

    THIS.

    Read More
  98. @Clique777
    The next Korean conflict needs to be that warned to the Chinese by Dwight D Eisenhower, that the US will nuke the North Koreans. Its that simple. There's no sense in freedom-loving people, like those in South Korea including US military personnel, putting up with or risking their lives over the maniac in North Korean. Just bomb N Korea until they cry out in surrender.

    The next Korean conflict needs to be that warned to the Chinese by Dwight D Eisenhower, that the US will nuke the North Koreans. Its that simple. There’s no sense in freedom-loving people, like those in South Korea including US military personnel, putting up with or risking their lives over the maniac in North Korean. Just bomb N Korea until they cry out in surrender.

    Do you live here, sir? I do. I’m Korean blood. Nobody here says we should attack North Korea. I’ve never met a South Korean person who was concerned about North Korea or thought that we should attack them. They are only concerned NOW, not because Kim Jongun is saying anything super different than he has for so many years, but because of all this new talk and movement from the Trump administration. This isn’t America First. What the fuck, Trump? This isn’t what I voted for.

    We do not want to attack North Korea, because that would mean 1.) death to our people in the North and 2.) more importantly, retaliation from the North Korea and then death to US. At least WE have been living in relative peace and prosperity, just trying to make a living and go about our busy days. It’s gonna affect ME.

    See, I’m not some “Syrian refugee” or some other shitskin in a distant land that can’t speak English and tell you the other side. I’m talking to YOU and anyone else who is worried that NK is a threat to America or whatever, any of you armchair generals. I’m saying this is not how it actually is, you might know what you’re talking about, and really, I DON’T WANT MY PEOPLE IN ANY OF YOUR FUCKING WARS.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in Palestine, which inevitably invites terrorist attacks against US citizens and property.”
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.