The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
If There’s a War in Korea, Blame Trump
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_720461215

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Brainwashed Americans believe that Kim Jong-un is responsible for the confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington, but nothing could be further from the truth. The real problem is not Kim’s nuclear weapons but Washington’s 65 year-long military occupation that continues to reinforce a political solution that was arbitrarily imposed on a sovereign nation in order to split the country in two, install a puppet regime in the south, establish a permanent military presence to defend US commercial interests, and maintain control of a strategically-located territory that is a critical part of Washington’s plan to encircle Russia and China to remain the dominant global power throughout the century. Simply put, Washington is 100 percent responsible for the current confrontation just as it has been responsible for every flare-up for the last 7 decades.

Even so, fighting back against the relentless outpouring of US-backed state propaganda is no easy task. So allow me to defend the position of the DPRK with just one, brief analogy that will help to put things into perspective:

Imagine if the Korean army decided to deploy tens of thousands of combat troops to fight on the side of the South during the Civil War. And let’s say, that these forces were so successful that they were able to kill 3 million Americans while reducing every business and factory, every home and hospital, every church and university, to smoldering rubble. As a result of Korean meddling, the North was unable to win the war, but was forced to settle for an armistice that permanently split the US into North and South allowing Korea to install its stooges in the capitol of Richmond while it established military bases in every southern state from Virginia to Louisiana.

Let’s say this arrangement worked for over 6 decades due mainly to the efforts of Korean propagandists who derided any attempt at reconciliation, dialogue or reunification. Let’s say, activists and politicians in the North pushed for a “Sunshine Policy” that would foster communication and better relations between the two sides, but their efforts were constantly sabotaged by self-serving imperial overlords who saw any move towards dialogue as a threat to their continued presence in the South, so they engaged in the same illicit practices the US engages in today, that is, sowing dissension, discord and division between the two sides, always provoking more trouble, more disharmony, more acrimony. Always and everywhere pushing forward the imperial agenda by turning the bulk of the world’s population into Shia and Sunni.

Isn’t that the Grand Plan; divide and conquer, pit one brother against the other, keep all of us at each others throats in order to justify the ongoing occupation, in order to justify the ongoing meddling, in order to justify the ongoing economic exploitation?

Of course, it is. The United States has never lifted its sanctions on North Korea, never treated their leaders with anything except contempt and brutality, and never made any sincere attempt to end the hostilities. Washington will not even sit down with a delegation from the DPRK to air their differences or discuss a path forward.

Why?

Is it because the DPRK is a Communist state? Is that it?

Heck, no. The US has open trade relations with China and Vietnam both of who share a similar Marxist ideology. Even more shocking, the US now employs an openly “Utopian” Marxist militia (the Kurdish YPG) in East Syria as its proxy-army in its fight to topple the government in Damascus. Think about that for a minute: Washington’s shock troops in Syria are basically “a bunch of commies”. I don’t say that to criticize the Kurds (who share a similar ideology to my own) but to illustrate the contemptible lack of principle and utter hypocrisy of everything Washington says or does. Washington doesn’t care what one’s personal philosophy is. Washington cares about power. And anything that helps to enhance Washington’s grip on global power, is the supreme good.

The United States refuses to sign a treaty with the North ending the war, refuses to sit down with delegates from the North, and refuses to provide any security assurances that they won’t attack the North at anytime for any reason. This is Washington’s policy towards the North, and yet we continue to read almost daily in the New York Times and Washington Post and the other “trusted” elite media, that the North is “threatening the US”, that the North is impulsive and violent, and that the North must be punished for its defiance.

Baloney! The North is NOT responsible for the crisis on the peninsula. The US is responsible. 100 percent responsible! Check out this excerpt from an article by David William Pear

“Fearing that peace might break out with the two Koreas talking to each other, Washington instructed South Korean President Moon Jae-in to keep the message about anything but peace….It is not just Trump. A former top official for the Obama administration warned Moon that South Korea was not going to get anywhere with the North Koreans unless they have the “US behind them”…… The official went on to say, “If South Koreans are viewed as running off the leash, it will exacerbate tension within the alliance”.” (U.S. Humiliates South Korea, Threatens North Korea, The Unz Review)

So South Korea is “off the lash” like a pathetic little poodle? Is that what he’s saying?

This flippant quote deserves careful consideration mainly because it is not just a “one-off”, but rather summarizes the fundamental master-slave relationship between leaders in the South and their colonial Bossman in Washington.

ORDER IT NOW

It’s Washington that’s calling the shots in the south, Washington that controls the Korean military and Washington that sets the policy. This is essentially how the system works. Conversely, countries that defend their own sovereignty (like Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela) remain outside the US-run system, making them Washington’s de facto enemies to be demonized and threatened. But it’s not ideology that Washington cares about, it’s independence. That’s the big no-no. Check out this excerpt from an article at Liberation News:

“U.S. military occupation following World War II was more hostile and brutal than the Japanese colonial government. In fact from 1945 to 1948, the U.S. military continued to employ Japanese colonists, and Japanese law remained in effect. The prostitution of Korean women was official government policy for the purpose of now entertaining U.S. soldiers.

Meanwhile, in North Korea, the Soviet Civil Authority supported the peasant organizations and workers’ councils. In March 1946, land reform was instituted in which land owned by Japanese colonizers and their Korean collaborators was divided and handed over to poor formers. The rule of the land-owning class was broken, and landlords were allowed to keep only the same amount of land as their former tenants. Soviet forces left the peninsula in 1948…….

U.S. occupation troops remain in South Korea to this day. Washington continues to falsely claim that North Korea is to blame for the continued division of Korea. However, U.S. imperialism and the 32,000 U.S. troops that are stationed in South Korea to enforce the border between the North and South remain the predominant obstacle to reunification of the Korean Peninsula…. U.S. imperialism, from the beginning of Japanese colonization to today, has never had the interests of the Korean people in mind.” (“U.S. ‘liberators’ turned South Korea into a neo-colony”, Liberation News)

For years the US kept the same savage colonial system in place in order to partition the country and to prevent the Korean people from deciding their own future. That basic system is still in place today thanks largely to Washington’s oppressive military presence. Check out this excerpt from North Korean state news blasting the sovereignty-eviscerating Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that allows Washington to control the South Korean military:

“The National Peace Committee of Korea blasted the 64-year-old South Korea-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) as an “aggressive and traitorous war document” that has allowed U.S. forces to control the South Korean army and to continue joint military operations, according to the KCNA.

The committee called SOFA the “symbol of the U.S. military occupation of South Korea” and said that “the defense treaty has reduced South Korea into advanced base for a nuclear war” among other things, the KCNA said.

The South Korean people cannot evade the tragedy of a nuclear war as long as the U.S. military occupation of South Korea continues, given that the three-year Korean War ended in a ceasefire in 1953, not a peace treaty, it said.” (“N. Korean committee calls for end to U.S. domination in S.K.”, Yonhap News)

(Note: Do I have more confidence in North Korean state news than the “filthy fishwrap” Washington Post? You’re damn right, I do!)

There are of course, peaceful remedies to the current stand-off, the most reasonable of which is the Moon-Putin Plan named after South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Here’s a brief summary of the plan:

“The Moon-Putin plan …is a plan to bring South and North Korea together through physical infrastructure and trade mechanisms, involving the neighboring countries of Russia and China. Bridges of cooperation linking South Korea to Russia via North Korea: gas, railroads, ports, electricity, a northern sea route, shipbuilding, jobs, agriculture, and fisheries. Siberian oil and gas pipelines would be extended to Korea, both North and South, as well as to Japan. Both Koreas would be linked up with the vast rail networks of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, including high-speed rail, and the Eurasian Economic Union, which includes the Trans-Siberian Railway. According to Gavan McCormack, “North Korea would accept the security guarantee of the five (Japan included), refrain from any further nuclear or missile testing, shelve (‘freeze’) its existing programs and gain its longed for ‘normalization’ in the form of incorporation in regional groupings, the lifting of sanctions and normalized relations with its neighbor states, without surrender.” (“North Korea War Plan: Chrystia Freeland is more dangerous than Tony Blair”, Off-Guardian)

Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? What better way to reduce the chance of another bloody war than economic integration, which is why the Trump administration not only opposes the idea, but it’s also why the entire western media have made sure that no one even hears about it. Coverage of The Moon-Putin plan has been completely blacked out in our vaunted “free media”. As it happens, policy options that don’t jibe with Washington’s chronic warmongering never see the light of day.

Finally, the Trump administration opposes any plan that involves open dialogue, economic integration, reunification or a peaceful resolution to the crisis. What Washington wants is to preserve the status quo, they want Korea that is divided, occupied, powerless and languishing in a “permanent state of colonial dependency.”

Trump is ready to go to war to preserve the existing state of affairs. God help us all.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

(Republished by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 88 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Is North Korea a threat to the United States? Any rational person will quickly answer no. Because North Korea is very small and the United States is very large.

    America First is a good idea. But coming from Trump it is bullshit. Trump is an Imperialist and a Zionist.

    I support Trump anyway. His opposition is also Imperialist and Zionist. AND they are corrupt. AND they are Maoist. AND they intend to marginalize and ostracize the white race while turning America into a shit hole.

    All Zio/Imperialists are not the same.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Lol. More children who think they voted for their savior. Don't vote, the blood sucking military runs the White House. General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, should have gotten a court martial for his incompetence in 911, but instead runs Trump's military policy. The incompetent rise to the top because they help the rich steal our money. Trump belongs to the Ruling Class. If he didn't, the rulers never would have selected him as president.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    geeez, maoist? seriously?

    I like your other points though :) except the shit hole part :)

    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Kirt says:

    Thank you very much, Mr. Whitney. Not just giving us a different take, but calling our attention to news which is completely suppressed by the US “free” press. This is why I love Unz Review.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. get a grip mike!

    there is no war coming to korea for the simple reason a huge percent of worlds hitech production is within spitting distance of the potential hostilities.

    oligarchs everywhere are not going to blow many trillions of dollars worth of production and sales and plunge the world into depression over nk having some rudimentary bombs

    washington wants to hamstring china as much as possible and hold on to its military bases on the korean peninsula.

    this is all posturing on the part washington just like everywhere else washington is fearful of losing its grip or worse has lost its grip like in syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    there is no war coming to korea for the simple reason a huge percent of worlds hitech production is within spitting distance of the potential hostilities.

    oligarchs everywhere are not going to blow many trillions of dollars worth of production and sales and plunge the world into depression over nk having some rudimentary bombs
     
    Ah, the Great Illusion argument.

    Funnily enough the book which gave its name to your position was published in 1909 -nicely in time for WW1.

    [The main point of the book was not to argue, as you do here, that war wouldn't happen because it's too costly, only to claim that it was an illusion to think that wars between modern great powers could result in economic gains for either side. But it gave its name nevertheless to the position you put forward here, that wars won't happen because they cost too much. Reality suggests otherwise. We are not so skilfully and well managed as your position implies.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Brainwashed Americans believe that Kim Jong-un is responsible for the confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington, but nothing could be further from the truth. The real problem is not Kim’s nuclear weapons but Washington’s 65 year-long military occupation that continues to reinforce a political solution

    Yes, a lot of truth in that, but Kim is a really dummy. How dumb? He even alienated China, and China is really pissed with him. I mean how dumb can you get?

    Also, you have to blame South Korean elites and intellectuals. South Korea is now free enough for its intellectual class to reframe history and set things straight. But they are just a bunch of dogs. The ‘conservatives’ just obey Pentagon, and ‘liberals’ just obey Harvard and push homo stuff and Diversity.
    South Koreans are addicted to US in everything and a bunch of craven cowards. Due to emphasizing materialism and individual choice above nationalism and ethnos, they don’t even have the patriotic courage of Israelis. They are like hapless peasants in SEVEN SAMURAI still hiding behind Uncle Sam.

    US has been terrible on Korean issue. Also, its actions in Middle East drove North Korea to acquire nukes.
    BUT Kim’s main priority is preserving his regime, not serving the people or nation. And he’s too spoiled and stupid to make an intelligent case for nukes.

    Had he gone to the international community and made a case of US imperialism, the world community could have seen NK’s side of the narrative. But his cultural idols are rappers, and he acted the gangsta with his nukes against the US. Stupidity this dumb cannot be helped. He turned himself into a James Bond villain with empty threats against the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Yes, a lot of truth in that, but Kim is a really dummy. How dumb? He even alienated China, and China is really pissed with him. I mean how dumb can you get?
     
    The problem with this argument is that it is similar to much of the anti-Putin criticism, in that it confuses playing a weak hand with playing badly.

    There is certainly a case for saying that Kim's wider diplomatic approach has been mistaken, as you do later, in that it would be more effective to point out the clear evidence that nuclear weapons are required to deter a US bipartisan regime with a long track record of military aggression, rather than to bluster and shout about raining down fire on the US. But he's far from the first ruler of a US target state to make that seeming mistake (Saddam suffered for doing the same, whereas Khomeini did it and prospered), and there's a reasonable argument that as a policy choice it stems from internal political priorities rather than stupidity.

    But as far as alienating the Chinese is concerned, it seems pretty clear that Kim, along with significant elements within the NK elite, sees excess Chinese "influence" as being as dangerous to NK sovereignty (and regime survival, which like all ruling elites they regard as being the same thing) in its 0wn way as US military aggression. Kim took stern steps to limit such "influence" and evidently had significant wider regime support in doing so (because he's still alive and in charge), and the price was always going to be an annoyed China.

    Contrast with the British early-C20th elite, which ultimately proved too compromised by American influence (family and business connections) to prevent Britain falling probably irretrievably within the US sphere and reducing its de facto sovereignty to the mere nominal sham it is today.

    It's way too early imo to form any real opinion on Kim's competence or otherwise, from this distance. Wise men have wisely imo cautioned against underestimating the opposition.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. There will not be another war, it will be a continuation of the original war touched by Kim’s invasion of the south, encouraged and supported by Stalin. If it comes, it will be on Kim. The Kim dynasty has been trying to provoke hostilities for the entire time since the armistice.

    This article is simple minded BS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    This article is simple minded BS.
     
    Well your first paragraph certainly suggests you ought to be able to recognise such.

    For a more useful and reality-based summary of the road to the current situation, albeit from a member of the US establishment, this would be more helpful:

    MAYDAY KOREA! by William R. Polk
    , @Harold Smith
    Taking your statement at face value, what's wrong with invading other countries and trying to provoke hostilities? If the U.S. can do it, why can't North Korea?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. If Moon Dae Jin had the independence to offer to expel the yankee legions from his country, he could effect a settlement of the Korea problem and move things toward a positive equilibrium improving things for the entire Korean nation and for the surrounding countries who would now be free from foreign threats and/or thralldom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I think our Abe govt. Is preferring thralldom for now, as
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. During the few days when they were buddies, it was Obama who informed Trump that N.Korea was THE big foreign policy issue in need of resolution. Trump’s instinct on foreign policy was that the U.S. was over-committed and wasting resources without positive results in sight. But when you hire the neocon swamp as your foreign policy team, you stay in Afghanistan, bomb Syria, arm Ukraine, turn Saudi Arabia loose on Yemen and risk nuclear war with N. Korea. Whatever percentage of people voted for Trump for a more humble foreign policy (candidate Dubya’s line) lost their bet. Only consolation is that Hillary would be no better and maybe worse.

    Read More
    • Agree: bluedog
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Blame the 1953 president of the USA, and McArthur.
    Peter Lowe, The Origins of the Korean War, London, 1986
    GB did not want to interfere with what they saw as a civil war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Excellent piece. The truth is that USA has always been that evil empire Reagan called Soviet union. It took some temerity and generally sheepish Soviet and frankly now Russian diplomacy for USA to even have this sitting on high horse position. After killing millions in the course of 20-21 st centuries, avoiding all peaceful resolution to every single conflict, always choosing path of confrontation and violence is there any doubt as who is USA and who is responsible for current sorry state of international affairs? Those who are targets of USA aggression and interferences obviously must unite and confront USA in UN and at every possibility to unmask USA for who it is. For all military muscle USA is basically impotent as it cannot confront those who matters militarily and for he rest rabbits it is the only way to hang together as in old Soviet full of profanities child story the gang of rabbits beats the lion while lion beats them only one on one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Randal says:

    Trump will have command responsibility for a war if the US starts one, for sure, but it’s a bit harsh to single him out for criticism when the blame should really rest on the entire US foreign policy and military communities, including their media shills, who have been pursuing a bipartisan policy of aggressive confrontation of North Korea consistently for decades, certainly since 2002.

    Here is the basic reality: the US does not have any right, legal or moral, to deny NK weapons to protect itself. That necessarily includes nuclear weapons that can strike the US directly. The US like any other nation has to accept that other countries have the means to attack it, and deal with it. Any attack on NK of the kind the US establishment regularly proposes (decapitation, regime change, targeted strikes on weapons and facilities etc, etc) is a preventive war, not a pre-emptive strike, and therefore is ipso facto both illegal in international law (ie the treaty commitments the US voluntarily committed itself to and expects others to abide by) and immoral under most general ethical systems other than might makes right. It would be another US war of aggression.

    It seems clear that some voices in the US military elite have made clear to the President (and some have gone public) that there are huge risks in any such attack, and that there can be no guarantee that a “targeted strike” will not result in a much wider NK response. You can decide when a war starts, but you don’t get to control when it finishes. On the other hand, there are clearly voices in and around the US elite arguing that such a targeted strike could be carried out with a good chance of success in achieving regime change, and therefore no wider war. It’s not clear (inevitably, and anybody who clams to know for certain that the US regime will or won’t start a war with NK is lying or deluded) which way the President will ultimately go, and indeed there are good reasons for suspecting he’s in the balance and could go either way depending upon events and how the political debate develops.

    What is certain is that those who advocated for a “limited”, “targeted” war will be quick to evade any personal responsibility if their gamble results in disaster. The blame, of course, will rest with the NK leadership for responding to their “targeted” and “limited” strike with a wider war. The US will then of course be responding to “aggression” by the NKs and voices against a substantial war with NK will be suppressed as they always are in the early stages of any war.

    It is vital to understand that the senior US regime men and women advocating for wars do not care in the slightest for the human costs of the wars they push, only for who gets the blame for those human costs. Most of the political debate and the military strategy of the US regime is shaped by the requirement to ensure that blame falls elsewhere.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    I do agree with everything except this:

    Here is the basic reality: the US does not have any right, legal or moral, to deny NK weapons to protect itself. That necessarily includes nuclear weapons that can strike............

    UN resolutions about Nuclear weapons say different.

    How come a person of your caliber did miss out on this one.
    , @peterAUS
    Good post.

    As I've written before, it's all about probabilities.
    Everything is possible, the question is just how much, how likely.

    You can be hit by small meteorite while strolling in a park.
    Etc.

    I'll leave moral issues out of this post.

    If the objective is preventing NK to develop ICMB nuclear capability it could go:
    Decapitation strike 40 %.
    Limited war 40 %.
    Regional war 15 %
    M.A.D. 5 %.

    Start with the first and see how it goes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Moi says:

    While the two Koreas are trying to improve relations, our foremost Christian soldier, VP Pence, is there to make sure that doesn’t happen. Gonzo!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. I wonder, just wonder, if NK were a majority Muslim country whether such elaborate back and forth discussions would be evident. Iran isn’t close to a nuclear weapon yet, it is still common knowledge that it’s only a matter of time before its ruination will be well under way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Randal says:
    @Quartermaster
    There will not be another war, it will be a continuation of the original war touched by Kim's invasion of the south, encouraged and supported by Stalin. If it comes, it will be on Kim. The Kim dynasty has been trying to provoke hostilities for the entire time since the armistice.

    This article is simple minded BS.

    This article is simple minded BS.

    Well your first paragraph certainly suggests you ought to be able to recognise such.

    For a more useful and reality-based summary of the road to the current situation, albeit from a member of the US establishment, this would be more helpful:

    MAYDAY KOREA! by William R. Polk

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    It seems Polk has his history down pat. He and I agree, for the most part, on the history part. Neither Park or Rhee were anything to write home about and both are examples of "he's a SOB, but he's our SOB," attitude.

    I haven't read part 2 yet, but will sometime today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Randal says:
    @Anonymous
    Brainwashed Americans believe that Kim Jong-un is responsible for the confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington, but nothing could be further from the truth. The real problem is not Kim’s nuclear weapons but Washington’s 65 year-long military occupation that continues to reinforce a political solution

    Yes, a lot of truth in that, but Kim is a really dummy. How dumb? He even alienated China, and China is really pissed with him. I mean how dumb can you get?

    Also, you have to blame South Korean elites and intellectuals. South Korea is now free enough for its intellectual class to reframe history and set things straight. But they are just a bunch of dogs. The 'conservatives' just obey Pentagon, and 'liberals' just obey Harvard and push homo stuff and Diversity.
    South Koreans are addicted to US in everything and a bunch of craven cowards. Due to emphasizing materialism and individual choice above nationalism and ethnos, they don't even have the patriotic courage of Israelis. They are like hapless peasants in SEVEN SAMURAI still hiding behind Uncle Sam.

    US has been terrible on Korean issue. Also, its actions in Middle East drove North Korea to acquire nukes.
    BUT Kim's main priority is preserving his regime, not serving the people or nation. And he's too spoiled and stupid to make an intelligent case for nukes.

    Had he gone to the international community and made a case of US imperialism, the world community could have seen NK's side of the narrative. But his cultural idols are rappers, and he acted the gangsta with his nukes against the US. Stupidity this dumb cannot be helped. He turned himself into a James Bond villain with empty threats against the US.

    Yes, a lot of truth in that, but Kim is a really dummy. How dumb? He even alienated China, and China is really pissed with him. I mean how dumb can you get?

    The problem with this argument is that it is similar to much of the anti-Putin criticism, in that it confuses playing a weak hand with playing badly.

    There is certainly a case for saying that Kim’s wider diplomatic approach has been mistaken, as you do later, in that it would be more effective to point out the clear evidence that nuclear weapons are required to deter a US bipartisan regime with a long track record of military aggression, rather than to bluster and shout about raining down fire on the US. But he’s far from the first ruler of a US target state to make that seeming mistake (Saddam suffered for doing the same, whereas Khomeini did it and prospered), and there’s a reasonable argument that as a policy choice it stems from internal political priorities rather than stupidity.

    But as far as alienating the Chinese is concerned, it seems pretty clear that Kim, along with significant elements within the NK elite, sees excess Chinese “influence” as being as dangerous to NK sovereignty (and regime survival, which like all ruling elites they regard as being the same thing) in its 0wn way as US military aggression. Kim took stern steps to limit such “influence” and evidently had significant wider regime support in doing so (because he’s still alive and in charge), and the price was always going to be an annoyed China.

    Contrast with the British early-C20th elite, which ultimately proved too compromised by American influence (family and business connections) to prevent Britain falling probably irretrievably within the US sphere and reducing its de facto sovereignty to the mere nominal sham it is today.

    It’s way too early imo to form any real opinion on Kim’s competence or otherwise, from this distance. Wise men have wisely imo cautioned against underestimating the opposition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Kim dumb ?
    He's still there.
    In the good old times very bad dictators could be removed, because they could retire to a mansion in the south of France, live well, from stolen money, and die of old age in their beds.
    FDR's unconditional surrender began to change this.
    Now that Saddam has been hung, Khadaffi lynched, and Milosevitch died in prison, before he was acquitted of all accusations, what dictator is going to leave as long as he lives ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Randal says:
    @paraglider
    get a grip mike!

    there is no war coming to korea for the simple reason a huge percent of worlds hitech production is within spitting distance of the potential hostilities.

    oligarchs everywhere are not going to blow many trillions of dollars worth of production and sales and plunge the world into depression over nk having some rudimentary bombs

    washington wants to hamstring china as much as possible and hold on to its military bases on the korean peninsula.

    this is all posturing on the part washington just like everywhere else washington is fearful of losing its grip or worse has lost its grip like in syria.

    there is no war coming to korea for the simple reason a huge percent of worlds hitech production is within spitting distance of the potential hostilities.

    oligarchs everywhere are not going to blow many trillions of dollars worth of production and sales and plunge the world into depression over nk having some rudimentary bombs

    Ah, the Great Illusion argument.

    Funnily enough the book which gave its name to your position was published in 1909 -nicely in time for WW1.

    [The main point of the book was not to argue, as you do here, that war wouldn't happen because it's too costly, only to claim that it was an illusion to think that wars between modern great powers could result in economic gains for either side. But it gave its name nevertheless to the position you put forward here, that wars won't happen because they cost too much. Reality suggests otherwise. We are not so skilfully and well managed as your position implies.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Z-man says:

    Like I’ve said before China, Russia and the US should make a grand bargain to unify Korea and keep it firmly non nuclear.
    No American troops in the former NORK.
    A demilitarized zone near the Chinese and Russian borders.
    And let the Koreans sort out all the rest. This will make everybody happy especially the Japs and the Chinese as Korea will be spending a lot of money to integrate the North into it’s economy.
    If this does not happen and Yung Fat Kim gets the intercontinental missile with a bomb on top, then pinpoint strategic bombing of large areas should be performed by the Trump Air Force!
    DA!! Putin Trump Axis 2018-2025!! DA!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Frankie P
    Come on Z-man, you're much smarter than that! Russia and China would be ecstatic to make a grand bargain to unify Korea and remove all American troops from the entire peninsula. Any move toward a grand bargain will result in the eventual removal of US troops; therefore, the US will NEVER agree to a grand bargain. The resulting peace would benefit the Koreans, the Chinese and the Russians, perhaps ever accrue some benefit toward the Japanese. It would facilitate even more Eurasian integration, with Russian gas and oil pipelines from Siberia to the peninsula, OBOR high-speed rail lines from China, through the peninsula and to east coast of Russia. Korea, the south, that is, would move from the US sphere of influence to the Chinese sphere, something that is already happening economically, but of course the political ramifications lag behind. Notice who does not appear on that list of beneficiaries: the USA. Yes, the good old USA, always ready to kick the table when the game isn't going its way.

    Frankie P
    , @polskijoe
    And why should the US be part of the discussions?

    Anglo imperialism is stubborn like no other. (okay the Zios are equal).
    US is bent on staying in Syria, even though they are illegaly there.

    Even the damn Soviets left countries more easily than Anglos do.
    Just ask the Germans and Japanese.

    Russians, Chinese, Koreans were having a meeting to improve sitaution,
    and then he pathetic Vancouver summit happened.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. North Korea was set up to be an excuse for war by the Zionists following WWII as was Germany, see the book JFK , the CIA and VIETNAM by L. Feltcher Prouty and General MacArthurs book REMININICES both can be had on amazon.

    The war in Korean could have been won, but the zionists who were in control of the U.S. gov told Truman to fire MacArthur.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    The war in Korean could have been won,
     
    How many more Americans should have died to "win" that war? How many more Koreans? How much more American gold should have been wasted?

    The US should have never had any troops in Korea, nothing in Asia is any business of the US government or responsibility of the American tax payer.
    , @polskijoe
    Good. Macarthur was dangerous. He wanted to use dozens of nukes all over the place.
    Eisenhower was a weirdo.
    And Truman and others same story.

    Anglo-leader or Jewish-leader, same danger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Randal

    This article is simple minded BS.
     
    Well your first paragraph certainly suggests you ought to be able to recognise such.

    For a more useful and reality-based summary of the road to the current situation, albeit from a member of the US establishment, this would be more helpful:

    MAYDAY KOREA! by William R. Polk

    It seems Polk has his history down pat. He and I agree, for the most part, on the history part. Neither Park or Rhee were anything to write home about and both are examples of “he’s a SOB, but he’s our SOB,” attitude.

    I haven’t read part 2 yet, but will sometime today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. The author doesn’t say anything new so we can perhaps focus on the absurd intellectual arrogance of the article. “Brainwashed Americans believe that Kim Jong-un is responsible for the confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington, but nothing could be further from the truth”. That attitude is typical of the US internet: all mankind is stupid except the few Enlightened Ones, which always includes, needles to say, the author of the article in question. We’re then told to believe, on the strength of nothing but the author’s say so, that things are the very opposite of what they seem: blackbirds are actually white; the only reason we think they’re black is because we’re looking at them from the wrong perspective! Then we’re told that the Moon-Putin Plan is “named after South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Russian President Vladimir Putin”, saving us from jumping to the obvious but erroneous conclusion that it had something to do with Elon Musk. These people would swear high and holy that we all have two heads if they thought we were fools enough to believe it!
    I’m amused, by the way, by the claim that “countries that defend their own sovereignty … remain outside the US-run system, making them Washington’s de facto enemies to be demonized and threatened”. Does the author therefore believe that the various American attempts to undermine the EU are due to the fact that the Member States are defending their sovereignty? Could that also explain a certain reluctance to help the Ukrainians defend their sovereignty?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @WorkingClass
    Is North Korea a threat to the United States? Any rational person will quickly answer no. Because North Korea is very small and the United States is very large.

    America First is a good idea. But coming from Trump it is bullshit. Trump is an Imperialist and a Zionist.

    I support Trump anyway. His opposition is also Imperialist and Zionist. AND they are corrupt. AND they are Maoist. AND they intend to marginalize and ostracize the white race while turning America into a shit hole.

    All Zio/Imperialists are not the same.

    Lol. More children who think they voted for their savior. Don’t vote, the blood sucking military runs the White House. General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, should have gotten a court martial for his incompetence in 911, but instead runs Trump’s military policy. The incompetent rise to the top because they help the rich steal our money. Trump belongs to the Ruling Class. If he didn’t, the rulers never would have selected him as president.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Lol. More children who think they voted for their savior.
     
    It's pretty damned obvious from the content of the post to which you were replying that WC's view of Trump is absolutely that he is at best the lesser of the available evils. Completely the opposite of what you imply with your "voted for their savior" nonsense. Suggests the problem lies in your reading comprehension, rather than with WC's political awareness.

    By all means criticise or praise Trump, but your position is just the equivalent on the other extreme of the "Trump is playing multi-dimensional chess and you defeatists who criticise him are just too stupid to see it" nonsense put about by his uncritical supporters.

    Reality is just a little bit more complex, and more ordinary, than you and they like to pretend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Searching for truth and Justice in this case and most cases is a futile attempt.
    Acute problem has to be solved now. North Korea in this case is the agent provocateur.
    It should not have a nuclear weapons. Pence is right.
    Lets drown North Korea in its own juice. Lets destroy it economically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    lolz. Do the Madeline Albright on the Asian babies? Only devil worshippers support the troops or killing other human beings by starving them. American slaves have learned to love evil and hate good. Wars consist of arrangements between governments to displace, starve or kill certain people and steal their property. The military steals money from the taxpayers and gives them zero in return. What benefit did the Iraq war provide the American workers? Same with all the other wars. The rich profit and the middle class gets poorer. Americans pay about 50% of their income in taxes and almost all of it goes to the military and other police state agencies. Maybe the US will use anthrax again like they did in the 1950s and blame it on old stock piles from Bulgaria which Putin obviously is responsible for with the help of the Chinese.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Mike “cut in paste” Whitney couldn’t analyze his way out of a wet paper bag. All the CIA’s writers want us to believe that the President Puppet actually controls something, or that voting matters or that we live in a Democracy or a Republic. They pile on the reinforcement whenever they write about anything. Foreign policy? Trump did it. Train derailment? The administration. See how simple your world is now? Comfortable?

    The Trump administration is the latest clown act installed in front of the world’s most violent empire, we had the Obama clown act before and little has changed regardless of the CIA’s propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Randal says:
    @Anonymous
    Lol. More children who think they voted for their savior. Don't vote, the blood sucking military runs the White House. General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, should have gotten a court martial for his incompetence in 911, but instead runs Trump's military policy. The incompetent rise to the top because they help the rich steal our money. Trump belongs to the Ruling Class. If he didn't, the rulers never would have selected him as president.

    Lol. More children who think they voted for their savior.

    It’s pretty damned obvious from the content of the post to which you were replying that WC’s view of Trump is absolutely that he is at best the lesser of the available evils. Completely the opposite of what you imply with your “voted for their savior” nonsense. Suggests the problem lies in your reading comprehension, rather than with WC’s political awareness.

    By all means criticise or praise Trump, but your position is just the equivalent on the other extreme of the “Trump is playing multi-dimensional chess and you defeatists who criticise him are just too stupid to see it” nonsense put about by his uncritical supporters.

    Reality is just a little bit more complex, and more ordinary, than you and they like to pretend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Only zombies vote or argue over the merits of politicians, who all work together to govern the slaves. The voters will of course keep voting, like lemmings. A slave chasing their own tail in a fit of reductive lesser evil nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Alden says:

    Whitney’s a liberal. Sometimes what they say is the truth. More often it’s not. So I’m skeptical about everything he writes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    Mike Whitney showed that he had some sense better than the blog ''regulars'' who included so many dyed in the wool New Democrats for hillary and then Barack, real dense bunch of party true believers there in FDL a few years ago. Mike's posts usually were positive, I thought, the reflexive party operatives usually didnt' go after his iconoclast remarks as I remember, they are too dumb to think on the fly as a rule.
    Hey I don't know much, I do remember those horrible beehive liberals though, they banished me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Who financed Obama? The MIC. The Crown Family in particular, who have made untold billions from war. Same with Trump. He promised to end senseless wars, but has jacked them all up. Massive profits in wars. Trump = Obama = The Master over the Slaves. Trump doesn’t give a Flying F about the American working class. 3 million people in the US live in old cars and vans. Homeless people beg at every stop light. Only idiots support the Ponzi scheme called the military. Massive profits lie in extorting tax money and building weapons systems. The Government of South Korea rapes their own citizens with weapons outlays too because some of them are on empire’s payroll and publically announce that North Korea might destroy Disney Land.

    Maybe the South Koreans will resist. Unlike the beaten down, slave American sheep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Slow down! You have watch your health. Your brain is reaching critical mass.
    Your head maybe will explode.
    , @Malla

    The Crown Family
     
    You mean the CROWN of the independent secretive nation of 'City of London' (not to be confused with London city, capital of the United Kingdoms) or Crown as in the British Royal Family?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. nsa says:

    There is zero chance of JUSA attacking Korea…….nothing it in for the conniving jooies who pull the strings on Trumpstein, Mad Poodle, and the rest of the cardboard cutout cartoon characters inhabiting the executive and legislative branches of the great republic. The jooies want the ME razed, not Asia. So in a very real sense, peace lovers can thank the jooies for vetoing another extermination of the inhabitants of the Korean peninsula………

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    that's it! [''

    the rest of the cardboard cutout cartoon characters inhabiting the executive and legislative branches of the great republic.
     
    That's the word I was lookin' for. I like to think of Congrass as a herd of Penguins sometimes. (Flock)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Anonymous
    Who financed Obama? The MIC. The Crown Family in particular, who have made untold billions from war. Same with Trump. He promised to end senseless wars, but has jacked them all up. Massive profits in wars. Trump = Obama = The Master over the Slaves. Trump doesn't give a Flying F about the American working class. 3 million people in the US live in old cars and vans. Homeless people beg at every stop light. Only idiots support the Ponzi scheme called the military. Massive profits lie in extorting tax money and building weapons systems. The Government of South Korea rapes their own citizens with weapons outlays too because some of them are on empire's payroll and publically announce that North Korea might destroy Disney Land.

    Maybe the South Koreans will resist. Unlike the beaten down, slave American sheep.

    Slow down! You have watch your health. Your brain is reaching critical mass.
    Your head maybe will explode.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Randal

    Lol. More children who think they voted for their savior.
     
    It's pretty damned obvious from the content of the post to which you were replying that WC's view of Trump is absolutely that he is at best the lesser of the available evils. Completely the opposite of what you imply with your "voted for their savior" nonsense. Suggests the problem lies in your reading comprehension, rather than with WC's political awareness.

    By all means criticise or praise Trump, but your position is just the equivalent on the other extreme of the "Trump is playing multi-dimensional chess and you defeatists who criticise him are just too stupid to see it" nonsense put about by his uncritical supporters.

    Reality is just a little bit more complex, and more ordinary, than you and they like to pretend.

    Only zombies vote or argue over the merits of politicians, who all work together to govern the slaves. The voters will of course keep voting, like lemmings. A slave chasing their own tail in a fit of reductive lesser evil nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Randal
    Trump will have command responsibility for a war if the US starts one, for sure, but it's a bit harsh to single him out for criticism when the blame should really rest on the entire US foreign policy and military communities, including their media shills, who have been pursuing a bipartisan policy of aggressive confrontation of North Korea consistently for decades, certainly since 2002.

    Here is the basic reality: the US does not have any right, legal or moral, to deny NK weapons to protect itself. That necessarily includes nuclear weapons that can strike the US directly. The US like any other nation has to accept that other countries have the means to attack it, and deal with it. Any attack on NK of the kind the US establishment regularly proposes (decapitation, regime change, targeted strikes on weapons and facilities etc, etc) is a preventive war, not a pre-emptive strike, and therefore is ipso facto both illegal in international law (ie the treaty commitments the US voluntarily committed itself to and expects others to abide by) and immoral under most general ethical systems other than might makes right. It would be another US war of aggression.

    It seems clear that some voices in the US military elite have made clear to the President (and some have gone public) that there are huge risks in any such attack, and that there can be no guarantee that a "targeted strike" will not result in a much wider NK response. You can decide when a war starts, but you don't get to control when it finishes. On the other hand, there are clearly voices in and around the US elite arguing that such a targeted strike could be carried out with a good chance of success in achieving regime change, and therefore no wider war. It's not clear (inevitably, and anybody who clams to know for certain that the US regime will or won't start a war with NK is lying or deluded) which way the President will ultimately go, and indeed there are good reasons for suspecting he's in the balance and could go either way depending upon events and how the political debate develops.

    What is certain is that those who advocated for a "limited", "targeted" war will be quick to evade any personal responsibility if their gamble results in disaster. The blame, of course, will rest with the NK leadership for responding to their "targeted" and "limited" strike with a wider war. The US will then of course be responding to "aggression" by the NKs and voices against a substantial war with NK will be suppressed as they always are in the early stages of any war.

    It is vital to understand that the senior US regime men and women advocating for wars do not care in the slightest for the human costs of the wars they push, only for who gets the blame for those human costs. Most of the political debate and the military strategy of the US regime is shaped by the requirement to ensure that blame falls elsewhere.

    I do agree with everything except this:

    Here is the basic reality: the US does not have any right, legal or moral, to deny NK weapons to protect itself. That necessarily includes nuclear weapons that can strike…………

    UN resolutions about Nuclear weapons say different.

    How come a person of your caliber did miss out on this one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    The UN is a treaty organisation not a world government. It cannot make nuclear weapons (or any other kind) illegal, and attempts to do so are mere posturing. Note that regardless of all the UN's (considerable) verbiage on the topic of nuclear weapons, the US, China and Russia are not in the slightest inclined to even consider giving up their "forbidden" arsenals, and will never do so.

    In fact the US is today actively considering expanding the utility of its own nuclear weapons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Pipe down, Whitney. There isn´t going to be war in Korea, or with China, or Russia, as much as the Neo-Con´s and other morons would like it. Trump has been forced to go through this ridiculous kabuki dance by the swamp creatures who slither through DOD and Congress. Relax. Much ado about nothing. Kim Jong Un is not insane and neither is Trump, nor Putin, nor Xi.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Malla says:
    @Anonymous
    Who financed Obama? The MIC. The Crown Family in particular, who have made untold billions from war. Same with Trump. He promised to end senseless wars, but has jacked them all up. Massive profits in wars. Trump = Obama = The Master over the Slaves. Trump doesn't give a Flying F about the American working class. 3 million people in the US live in old cars and vans. Homeless people beg at every stop light. Only idiots support the Ponzi scheme called the military. Massive profits lie in extorting tax money and building weapons systems. The Government of South Korea rapes their own citizens with weapons outlays too because some of them are on empire's payroll and publically announce that North Korea might destroy Disney Land.

    Maybe the South Koreans will resist. Unlike the beaten down, slave American sheep.

    The Crown Family

    You mean the CROWN of the independent secretive nation of ‘City of London’ (not to be confused with London city, capital of the United Kingdoms) or Crown as in the British Royal Family?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    lolz, another slave so confused by conspiracy twaddle on the interwebs he's unable to see the trees for the forest. Remember that the CIA helps those who help themselves to propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Randal says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    I do agree with everything except this:

    Here is the basic reality: the US does not have any right, legal or moral, to deny NK weapons to protect itself. That necessarily includes nuclear weapons that can strike............

    UN resolutions about Nuclear weapons say different.

    How come a person of your caliber did miss out on this one.

    The UN is a treaty organisation not a world government. It cannot make nuclear weapons (or any other kind) illegal, and attempts to do so are mere posturing. Note that regardless of all the UN’s (considerable) verbiage on the topic of nuclear weapons, the US, China and Russia are not in the slightest inclined to even consider giving up their “forbidden” arsenals, and will never do so.

    In fact the US is today actively considering expanding the utility of its own nuclear weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Outside the west the UN is seen as the handmaiden of the west.
    What it was intended to be by FDR.
    Therefore FDR did anything to get Stalin's approval to have the UN in New York, not in some neutral country.
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
    We have to look at the big picture. and we have to look where we are.
    There are three powers that have overall influence over the world US, Russia and China.
    Although Russia is the one that is counterbalancing the US nuclear power, there is a tendency of China to take a Russian side. Yes there are more nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, but there is their rivalry, but neither of them is interested to influence the main world rivalry of US and Russia.
    There is also UK and France but in my opinion these have a little relevance, and probably they abandoned the upkeep of their nuclear weapons
    So we can safely assume that from nuclear point of view the world is in balance.

    Now in my opinion North Korea is throwing monkey wrench into system.
    By developing Nuclear weapons obviously for purpose of targeting US, is making US very uneasy.
    But also Russians and China should be uneasy, because by North Koreans actions they maybe drown into Nuclear war.
    Yes you may say that Governments are consisting of people of sane mind, but this is not something we may rely 100%

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Searching for truth and Justice in this case and most cases is a futile attempt.
    Acute problem has to be solved now. North Korea in this case is the agent provocateur.
    It should not have a nuclear weapons. Pence is right.
    Lets drown North Korea in its own juice. Lets destroy it economically.

    lolz. Do the Madeline Albright on the Asian babies? Only devil worshippers support the troops or killing other human beings by starving them. American slaves have learned to love evil and hate good. Wars consist of arrangements between governments to displace, starve or kill certain people and steal their property. The military steals money from the taxpayers and gives them zero in return. What benefit did the Iraq war provide the American workers? Same with all the other wars. The rich profit and the middle class gets poorer. Americans pay about 50% of their income in taxes and almost all of it goes to the military and other police state agencies. Maybe the US will use anthrax again like they did in the 1950s and blame it on old stock piles from Bulgaria which Putin obviously is responsible for with the help of the Chinese.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Yes you are correct, and I fully understand your grievances. they are fully justified.
    The insane policies that did start with the rule of Bush one in my opinion are coming to the end. Policies of Zionist Globalists with their full spectrum dominance committed heinous crimes all over the world.
    There are some still in US who advocating these policies, but their power is diminishing.
    But now is at steering wheel Trump with his nationalistic policies is abandoning this blatant conquest of the Wold by military means, So far Trump did not start any new conflict.
    At the moment what we have to do is keep our fingers crossed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla

    The Crown Family
     
    You mean the CROWN of the independent secretive nation of 'City of London' (not to be confused with London city, capital of the United Kingdoms) or Crown as in the British Royal Family?

    lolz, another slave so confused by conspiracy twaddle on the interwebs he’s unable to see the trees for the forest. Remember that the CIA helps those who help themselves to propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    You did not answer my question yet. Which one?
    On your answer, thou shall be judged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Randal

    Yes, a lot of truth in that, but Kim is a really dummy. How dumb? He even alienated China, and China is really pissed with him. I mean how dumb can you get?
     
    The problem with this argument is that it is similar to much of the anti-Putin criticism, in that it confuses playing a weak hand with playing badly.

    There is certainly a case for saying that Kim's wider diplomatic approach has been mistaken, as you do later, in that it would be more effective to point out the clear evidence that nuclear weapons are required to deter a US bipartisan regime with a long track record of military aggression, rather than to bluster and shout about raining down fire on the US. But he's far from the first ruler of a US target state to make that seeming mistake (Saddam suffered for doing the same, whereas Khomeini did it and prospered), and there's a reasonable argument that as a policy choice it stems from internal political priorities rather than stupidity.

    But as far as alienating the Chinese is concerned, it seems pretty clear that Kim, along with significant elements within the NK elite, sees excess Chinese "influence" as being as dangerous to NK sovereignty (and regime survival, which like all ruling elites they regard as being the same thing) in its 0wn way as US military aggression. Kim took stern steps to limit such "influence" and evidently had significant wider regime support in doing so (because he's still alive and in charge), and the price was always going to be an annoyed China.

    Contrast with the British early-C20th elite, which ultimately proved too compromised by American influence (family and business connections) to prevent Britain falling probably irretrievably within the US sphere and reducing its de facto sovereignty to the mere nominal sham it is today.

    It's way too early imo to form any real opinion on Kim's competence or otherwise, from this distance. Wise men have wisely imo cautioned against underestimating the opposition.

    Kim dumb ?
    He’s still there.
    In the good old times very bad dictators could be removed, because they could retire to a mansion in the south of France, live well, from stolen money, and die of old age in their beds.
    FDR’s unconditional surrender began to change this.
    Now that Saddam has been hung, Khadaffi lynched, and Milosevitch died in prison, before he was acquitted of all accusations, what dictator is going to leave as long as he lives ?

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Randal

    Now that Saddam has been hung, Khadaffi lynched, and Milosevitch died in prison, before he was acquitted of all accusations, what dictator is going to leave as long as he lives ?
     
    Indeed. Not to mention Pinochet harassed to death.

    Just another example of how profoundly stupid leftist "humanitarian" types are, and how much harm they do when they enable the warmongers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. edNels says:
    @Alden
    Whitney’s a liberal. Sometimes what they say is the truth. More often it’s not. So I’m skeptical about everything he writes.

    Mike Whitney showed that he had some sense better than the blog ”regulars” who included so many dyed in the wool New Democrats for hillary and then Barack, real dense bunch of party true believers there in FDL a few years ago. Mike’s posts usually were positive, I thought, the reflexive party operatives usually didnt’ go after his iconoclast remarks as I remember, they are too dumb to think on the fly as a rule.
    Hey I don’t know much, I do remember those horrible beehive liberals though, they banished me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Randal
    The UN is a treaty organisation not a world government. It cannot make nuclear weapons (or any other kind) illegal, and attempts to do so are mere posturing. Note that regardless of all the UN's (considerable) verbiage on the topic of nuclear weapons, the US, China and Russia are not in the slightest inclined to even consider giving up their "forbidden" arsenals, and will never do so.

    In fact the US is today actively considering expanding the utility of its own nuclear weapons.

    Outside the west the UN is seen as the handmaiden of the west.
    What it was intended to be by FDR.
    Therefore FDR did anything to get Stalin’s approval to have the UN in New York, not in some neutral country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. I wonder how long it will take for Norway to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the Donald.

    For Obama the award was prompt.

    Is this tardiness reverse racism?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. peterAUS says:
    @Randal
    Trump will have command responsibility for a war if the US starts one, for sure, but it's a bit harsh to single him out for criticism when the blame should really rest on the entire US foreign policy and military communities, including their media shills, who have been pursuing a bipartisan policy of aggressive confrontation of North Korea consistently for decades, certainly since 2002.

    Here is the basic reality: the US does not have any right, legal or moral, to deny NK weapons to protect itself. That necessarily includes nuclear weapons that can strike the US directly. The US like any other nation has to accept that other countries have the means to attack it, and deal with it. Any attack on NK of the kind the US establishment regularly proposes (decapitation, regime change, targeted strikes on weapons and facilities etc, etc) is a preventive war, not a pre-emptive strike, and therefore is ipso facto both illegal in international law (ie the treaty commitments the US voluntarily committed itself to and expects others to abide by) and immoral under most general ethical systems other than might makes right. It would be another US war of aggression.

    It seems clear that some voices in the US military elite have made clear to the President (and some have gone public) that there are huge risks in any such attack, and that there can be no guarantee that a "targeted strike" will not result in a much wider NK response. You can decide when a war starts, but you don't get to control when it finishes. On the other hand, there are clearly voices in and around the US elite arguing that such a targeted strike could be carried out with a good chance of success in achieving regime change, and therefore no wider war. It's not clear (inevitably, and anybody who clams to know for certain that the US regime will or won't start a war with NK is lying or deluded) which way the President will ultimately go, and indeed there are good reasons for suspecting he's in the balance and could go either way depending upon events and how the political debate develops.

    What is certain is that those who advocated for a "limited", "targeted" war will be quick to evade any personal responsibility if their gamble results in disaster. The blame, of course, will rest with the NK leadership for responding to their "targeted" and "limited" strike with a wider war. The US will then of course be responding to "aggression" by the NKs and voices against a substantial war with NK will be suppressed as they always are in the early stages of any war.

    It is vital to understand that the senior US regime men and women advocating for wars do not care in the slightest for the human costs of the wars they push, only for who gets the blame for those human costs. Most of the political debate and the military strategy of the US regime is shaped by the requirement to ensure that blame falls elsewhere.

    Good post.

    As I’ve written before, it’s all about probabilities.
    Everything is possible, the question is just how much, how likely.

    You can be hit by small meteorite while strolling in a park.
    Etc.

    I’ll leave moral issues out of this post.

    If the objective is preventing NK to develop ICMB nuclear capability it could go:
    Decapitation strike 40 %.
    Limited war 40 %.
    Regional war 15 %
    M.A.D. 5 %.

    Start with the first and see how it goes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    As I’ve written before, it’s all about probabilities.
     
    Well yes, and we've discussed these issues at length previously.

    My point here is that those who argue that a "decapitation strike" (or "targeted strikes" of various kinds) can work and effectively advocate for it are essentially stating a willingness to take the gamble that it will fail, but usually are not willing to be honest about accepting the consequences if and when it does fail (in the case of Korea, a North Korean military response that is entirely justified because they will have been subjected to an unlawful and essentially unprovoked attack - unprovoked because what the US regime claims as the pretext for its attack, namely NK building weapons that are effective for its own defence, certainly is not a legitimate cause for starting a preventive war).

    We can be damned sure that if NK launches general attacks on US and SK bases and cities across the border in direct response to your proposed "decapitation strike", those in US politics and its media who argued for such a strike will not be honest and admit that their gamble failed and they are the ones to blame for the resulting losses, but rather will shriek loudly about "NK aggression" and call anybody seeking to point out the truth "unpatriotic", and claim they are "undermining the troops".

    Because these tropes are so commonplace, it is necessary to explicitly take them into account in the debates in the runup to any proposed war of choice.
    , @bluedog
    Hmm now why would you want to do that, after all we are as rouge a state as NK is after all they haven't attacked half the world nor have a dozen on going wars...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. edNels says:
    @nsa
    There is zero chance of JUSA attacking Korea.......nothing it in for the conniving jooies who pull the strings on Trumpstein, Mad Poodle, and the rest of the cardboard cutout cartoon characters inhabiting the executive and legislative branches of the great republic. The jooies want the ME razed, not Asia. So in a very real sense, peace lovers can thank the jooies for vetoing another extermination of the inhabitants of the Korean peninsula.........

    that’s it! [”

    the rest of the cardboard cutout cartoon characters inhabiting the executive and legislative branches of the great republic.

    That’s the word I was lookin’ for. I like to think of Congrass as a herd of Penguins sometimes. (Flock)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    Good post.

    As I've written before, it's all about probabilities.
    Everything is possible, the question is just how much, how likely.

    You can be hit by small meteorite while strolling in a park.
    Etc.

    I'll leave moral issues out of this post.

    If the objective is preventing NK to develop ICMB nuclear capability it could go:
    Decapitation strike 40 %.
    Limited war 40 %.
    Regional war 15 %
    M.A.D. 5 %.

    Start with the first and see how it goes.

    As I’ve written before, it’s all about probabilities.

    Well yes, and we’ve discussed these issues at length previously.

    My point here is that those who argue that a “decapitation strike” (or “targeted strikes” of various kinds) can work and effectively advocate for it are essentially stating a willingness to take the gamble that it will fail, but usually are not willing to be honest about accepting the consequences if and when it does fail (in the case of Korea, a North Korean military response that is entirely justified because they will have been subjected to an unlawful and essentially unprovoked attack – unprovoked because what the US regime claims as the pretext for its attack, namely NK building weapons that are effective for its own defence, certainly is not a legitimate cause for starting a preventive war).

    We can be damned sure that if NK launches general attacks on US and SK bases and cities across the border in direct response to your proposed “decapitation strike”, those in US politics and its media who argued for such a strike will not be honest and admit that their gamble failed and they are the ones to blame for the resulting losses, but rather will shriek loudly about “NK aggression” and call anybody seeking to point out the truth “unpatriotic”, and claim they are “undermining the troops”.

    Because these tropes are so commonplace, it is necessary to explicitly take them into account in the debates in the runup to any proposed war of choice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    My point here is that those who argue that a “decapitation strike” (or “targeted strikes” of various kinds) can work and effectively advocate for it are essentially stating a willingness to take the gamble that it will fail....
     
    It could fail. It could succeed too.

    ...accepting the consequences if and when it does fail...
     
    Should it fail the next option: limited war.
    I believe that all that, most likely, will stop at that level. Say, 80 %.
    Good enough for any US administration to take that risk.

    We can be damned sure that if NK launches general attacks on US and SK bases and cities across the border in direct response to your proposed “decapitation strike”...
     
    means that option 2.
    Again, limited conventional war there.
    Not the end of the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Randal says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Kim dumb ?
    He's still there.
    In the good old times very bad dictators could be removed, because they could retire to a mansion in the south of France, live well, from stolen money, and die of old age in their beds.
    FDR's unconditional surrender began to change this.
    Now that Saddam has been hung, Khadaffi lynched, and Milosevitch died in prison, before he was acquitted of all accusations, what dictator is going to leave as long as he lives ?

    Now that Saddam has been hung, Khadaffi lynched, and Milosevitch died in prison, before he was acquitted of all accusations, what dictator is going to leave as long as he lives ?

    Indeed. Not to mention Pinochet harassed to death.

    Just another example of how profoundly stupid leftist “humanitarian” types are, and how much harm they do when they enable the warmongers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Mugabe seems to be an example of getting away with it.
    But what about father and son Bush, and Tony Blair ?
    An investigation against Blair of several years, with a damning report, and nothing happens.
    One million deaths in Iraq, not to mention the other horrors, and what did it accomplish ?
    I now wonder what will happen to Zuma.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @DESERT FOX
    North Korea was set up to be an excuse for war by the Zionists following WWII as was Germany, see the book JFK , the CIA and VIETNAM by L. Feltcher Prouty and General MacArthurs book REMININICES both can be had on amazon.

    The war in Korean could have been won, but the zionists who were in control of the U.S. gov told Truman to fire MacArthur.

    The war in Korean could have been won,

    How many more Americans should have died to “win” that war? How many more Koreans? How much more American gold should have been wasted?

    The US should have never had any troops in Korea, nothing in Asia is any business of the US government or responsibility of the American tax payer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    As I’ve written before, it’s all about probabilities.
     
    Well yes, and we've discussed these issues at length previously.

    My point here is that those who argue that a "decapitation strike" (or "targeted strikes" of various kinds) can work and effectively advocate for it are essentially stating a willingness to take the gamble that it will fail, but usually are not willing to be honest about accepting the consequences if and when it does fail (in the case of Korea, a North Korean military response that is entirely justified because they will have been subjected to an unlawful and essentially unprovoked attack - unprovoked because what the US regime claims as the pretext for its attack, namely NK building weapons that are effective for its own defence, certainly is not a legitimate cause for starting a preventive war).

    We can be damned sure that if NK launches general attacks on US and SK bases and cities across the border in direct response to your proposed "decapitation strike", those in US politics and its media who argued for such a strike will not be honest and admit that their gamble failed and they are the ones to blame for the resulting losses, but rather will shriek loudly about "NK aggression" and call anybody seeking to point out the truth "unpatriotic", and claim they are "undermining the troops".

    Because these tropes are so commonplace, it is necessary to explicitly take them into account in the debates in the runup to any proposed war of choice.

    My point here is that those who argue that a “decapitation strike” (or “targeted strikes” of various kinds) can work and effectively advocate for it are essentially stating a willingness to take the gamble that it will fail….

    It could fail. It could succeed too.

    …accepting the consequences if and when it does fail…

    Should it fail the next option: limited war.
    I believe that all that, most likely, will stop at that level. Say, 80 %.
    Good enough for any US administration to take that risk.

    We can be damned sure that if NK launches general attacks on US and SK bases and cities across the border in direct response to your proposed “decapitation strike”…

    means that option 2.
    Again, limited conventional war there.
    Not the end of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I believe that all that, most likely, will stop at that level. Say, 80 %.
    Good enough for any US administration to take that risk.
     
    So your view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don't particularly matter to you because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a "limited" war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don't particularly matter to you because most of them will be Korean civilians. That, of course, doesn't even begin to consider the global economic catastrophe that even a limited war in Korea would cause, let alone a regional war. (And I don't think your risk estimates are even approximately reliable, by the way. Not because they are yours, but because I don't believe any such analysis is remotely plausible to any degree of accuracy. The detailed knowledge is just not there, not in Washington (as if there were any honest and competent analysts there anyway) and not in Beijing for that matter. Not anywhere. The situation is just too complex and the facts too murky.)

    That's at least honest, but I suspect most would prefer that the US instead just obeys the rules it voluntarily signed up to, and gets used to living like the rest of the world lives.

    You will undoubtedly respond that it doesn't matter what the rest of the world might think, only what the US regime thinks. Which is, of course, exactly the "might makes right", American exceptionalist, lawless bullshit that has underpinned the very US policies that have made the NKs decide they must have a deterrent that can actually hit the US itself if they are to be safe, and put us all in this situation in the first place.

    , @Chris Mallory

    Again, limited conventional war there.
    Not the end of the world.
     
    Unless it is your father, son or brother killed for the war game idiocy of people like yourself.

    Buy a parachute and a rifle and knock yourself out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Randal
    The UN is a treaty organisation not a world government. It cannot make nuclear weapons (or any other kind) illegal, and attempts to do so are mere posturing. Note that regardless of all the UN's (considerable) verbiage on the topic of nuclear weapons, the US, China and Russia are not in the slightest inclined to even consider giving up their "forbidden" arsenals, and will never do so.

    In fact the US is today actively considering expanding the utility of its own nuclear weapons.

    We have to look at the big picture. and we have to look where we are.
    There are three powers that have overall influence over the world US, Russia and China.
    Although Russia is the one that is counterbalancing the US nuclear power, there is a tendency of China to take a Russian side. Yes there are more nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, but there is their rivalry, but neither of them is interested to influence the main world rivalry of US and Russia.
    There is also UK and France but in my opinion these have a little relevance, and probably they abandoned the upkeep of their nuclear weapons
    So we can safely assume that from nuclear point of view the world is in balance.

    Now in my opinion North Korea is throwing monkey wrench into system.
    By developing Nuclear weapons obviously for purpose of targeting US, is making US very uneasy.
    But also Russians and China should be uneasy, because by North Koreans actions they maybe drown into Nuclear war.
    Yes you may say that Governments are consisting of people of sane mind, but this is not something we may rely 100%

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons
     
    That's fine, but you have to give a reason for the NKs to pay any attention to your desire to tell them how to manage their defences, when unlike you they actually do face a clear and present danger of US military aggression if they don't acquire an effective deterrent. Bear in mind they already have nuclear weapons - that horse escaped some years ago. They already have nuclear weapons that most likely can hit the nearby countries that we are told represent further proliferation risks in response - SK and Japan. The argument is not about whether they can have nuclear weapons, but whether they are allowed to have weapons that can hit the US. In other words, does the US have some special unique dispensation that allows it to murder people en masse just because it gets scared.

    If you are going to insist on preventing that, then you need to face up to what is required. Will the end, will the means. Either you find a way to bully or persuade them into dropping their missile program (this is what the Chinese and Russians appear to be counting on at the moment) or you let the US warmongers try their aggressive war gamble and don't whinge about the consequences. I suspect the former might have been rendered simply unavailable by US regime policies over the past few decades.

    Better imo is to accept that there is one more nuclear weapons state in the world and move to secure the balance again in the new position. The US regime can't tell the NKs what to do, but it for certain can tell the SKs and the Japanese what to do, and if either of those countries moves to build nukes openly then it will only be with US regime acquiescence, open or covert.

    In the worst case, if SK and Japan are also added to the already fairly long list of nuclear weapons states (you forgot Israel by the way), that also is perfectly liveable with. Neither represents any particularly greater risk of irresponsible or unintended use, certainly not in a world in which Israel, India and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons.

    Best to accept the new situation and focus on putting the blame for the latest proliferation squarely where it belongs - on irresponsible, lawless US regime policies of unilateral military aggression over the past few decades.
    , @renfro

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons
     
    Say no all you want, that horse is already out of the gate.

    Their nukes could be a deterrent to a US nuke strike.

    But it all depends on who you think are the biggest psychopaths.....those currently running the US or those in Korea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Anonymous
    lolz. Do the Madeline Albright on the Asian babies? Only devil worshippers support the troops or killing other human beings by starving them. American slaves have learned to love evil and hate good. Wars consist of arrangements between governments to displace, starve or kill certain people and steal their property. The military steals money from the taxpayers and gives them zero in return. What benefit did the Iraq war provide the American workers? Same with all the other wars. The rich profit and the middle class gets poorer. Americans pay about 50% of their income in taxes and almost all of it goes to the military and other police state agencies. Maybe the US will use anthrax again like they did in the 1950s and blame it on old stock piles from Bulgaria which Putin obviously is responsible for with the help of the Chinese.

    Yes you are correct, and I fully understand your grievances. they are fully justified.
    The insane policies that did start with the rule of Bush one in my opinion are coming to the end. Policies of Zionist Globalists with their full spectrum dominance committed heinous crimes all over the world.
    There are some still in US who advocating these policies, but their power is diminishing.
    But now is at steering wheel Trump with his nationalistic policies is abandoning this blatant conquest of the Wold by military means, So far Trump did not start any new conflict.
    At the moment what we have to do is keep our fingers crossed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. The Problem is Israel’s 70 year occupation of the United States. Actual Americans have no say in U.S. foreign policy.

    Read More
    • Agree: renfro
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. renfro says:

    It should be obvious that Trump knows jack shit about Korea or anything else foreign wise.
    But Trumps advisors know he is like a 2 year old who loves to smash and throw his toys around so they hand him whatever they want him to smash and throw.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. bluedog says:
    @peterAUS
    Good post.

    As I've written before, it's all about probabilities.
    Everything is possible, the question is just how much, how likely.

    You can be hit by small meteorite while strolling in a park.
    Etc.

    I'll leave moral issues out of this post.

    If the objective is preventing NK to develop ICMB nuclear capability it could go:
    Decapitation strike 40 %.
    Limited war 40 %.
    Regional war 15 %
    M.A.D. 5 %.

    Start with the first and see how it goes.

    Hmm now why would you want to do that, after all we are as rouge a state as NK is after all they haven’t attacked half the world nor have a dozen on going wars…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Randal says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    We have to look at the big picture. and we have to look where we are.
    There are three powers that have overall influence over the world US, Russia and China.
    Although Russia is the one that is counterbalancing the US nuclear power, there is a tendency of China to take a Russian side. Yes there are more nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, but there is their rivalry, but neither of them is interested to influence the main world rivalry of US and Russia.
    There is also UK and France but in my opinion these have a little relevance, and probably they abandoned the upkeep of their nuclear weapons
    So we can safely assume that from nuclear point of view the world is in balance.

    Now in my opinion North Korea is throwing monkey wrench into system.
    By developing Nuclear weapons obviously for purpose of targeting US, is making US very uneasy.
    But also Russians and China should be uneasy, because by North Koreans actions they maybe drown into Nuclear war.
    Yes you may say that Governments are consisting of people of sane mind, but this is not something we may rely 100%

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons

    That’s fine, but you have to give a reason for the NKs to pay any attention to your desire to tell them how to manage their defences, when unlike you they actually do face a clear and present danger of US military aggression if they don’t acquire an effective deterrent. Bear in mind they already have nuclear weapons – that horse escaped some years ago. They already have nuclear weapons that most likely can hit the nearby countries that we are told represent further proliferation risks in response – SK and Japan. The argument is not about whether they can have nuclear weapons, but whether they are allowed to have weapons that can hit the US. In other words, does the US have some special unique dispensation that allows it to murder people en masse just because it gets scared.

    If you are going to insist on preventing that, then you need to face up to what is required. Will the end, will the means. Either you find a way to bully or persuade them into dropping their missile program (this is what the Chinese and Russians appear to be counting on at the moment) or you let the US warmongers try their aggressive war gamble and don’t whinge about the consequences. I suspect the former might have been rendered simply unavailable by US regime policies over the past few decades.

    Better imo is to accept that there is one more nuclear weapons state in the world and move to secure the balance again in the new position. The US regime can’t tell the NKs what to do, but it for certain can tell the SKs and the Japanese what to do, and if either of those countries moves to build nukes openly then it will only be with US regime acquiescence, open or covert.

    In the worst case, if SK and Japan are also added to the already fairly long list of nuclear weapons states (you forgot Israel by the way), that also is perfectly liveable with. Neither represents any particularly greater risk of irresponsible or unintended use, certainly not in a world in which Israel, India and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons.

    Best to accept the new situation and focus on putting the blame for the latest proliferation squarely where it belongs – on irresponsible, lawless US regime policies of unilateral military aggression over the past few decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    How many decades have did pass since armistice. I do not know but many.
    US did not attack North Korea and did not do anything else than doing these stupid military exercises for Kim to look at. So what is the point. Kim suddenly got scared for what US did in Middle east?
    So Kim figured out that what US did to Gadhafi and Sadam is going to happen to him?
    Lets be realistic here. Kim is not naive. He knows that what happened in middle east did have three initiators.
    Oil
    Israels interests.
    Full spectrum dominance test run.

    Kim has no oil. Israel does not give a rats arse about Korea. And Globalist test run is a total failure particularly if we look at time frame.
    Only Libya was to the certain extent success, but I do not see any gain.
    Rest of the adventures are never ending failure.

    So what is the reason that Kim suddenly got afraid? Or did he really got afraid!

    Or maybe as it is in my opinion he only wants to play a big man in front of his people, or probably he is playing a big man for all wold to watch.

    Anyway did Kim pronounce any justification for his build up?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. renfro says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    We have to look at the big picture. and we have to look where we are.
    There are three powers that have overall influence over the world US, Russia and China.
    Although Russia is the one that is counterbalancing the US nuclear power, there is a tendency of China to take a Russian side. Yes there are more nuclear powers like India and Pakistan, but there is their rivalry, but neither of them is interested to influence the main world rivalry of US and Russia.
    There is also UK and France but in my opinion these have a little relevance, and probably they abandoned the upkeep of their nuclear weapons
    So we can safely assume that from nuclear point of view the world is in balance.

    Now in my opinion North Korea is throwing monkey wrench into system.
    By developing Nuclear weapons obviously for purpose of targeting US, is making US very uneasy.
    But also Russians and China should be uneasy, because by North Koreans actions they maybe drown into Nuclear war.
    Yes you may say that Governments are consisting of people of sane mind, but this is not something we may rely 100%

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons

    Say no all you want, that horse is already out of the gate.

    Their nukes could be a deterrent to a US nuke strike.

    But it all depends on who you think are the biggest psychopaths…..those currently running the US or those in Korea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Randal

    Now that Saddam has been hung, Khadaffi lynched, and Milosevitch died in prison, before he was acquitted of all accusations, what dictator is going to leave as long as he lives ?
     
    Indeed. Not to mention Pinochet harassed to death.

    Just another example of how profoundly stupid leftist "humanitarian" types are, and how much harm they do when they enable the warmongers.

    Mugabe seems to be an example of getting away with it.
    But what about father and son Bush, and Tony Blair ?
    An investigation against Blair of several years, with a damning report, and nothing happens.
    One million deaths in Iraq, not to mention the other horrors, and what did it accomplish ?
    I now wonder what will happen to Zuma.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    My point here is that those who argue that a “decapitation strike” (or “targeted strikes” of various kinds) can work and effectively advocate for it are essentially stating a willingness to take the gamble that it will fail....
     
    It could fail. It could succeed too.

    ...accepting the consequences if and when it does fail...
     
    Should it fail the next option: limited war.
    I believe that all that, most likely, will stop at that level. Say, 80 %.
    Good enough for any US administration to take that risk.

    We can be damned sure that if NK launches general attacks on US and SK bases and cities across the border in direct response to your proposed “decapitation strike”...
     
    means that option 2.
    Again, limited conventional war there.
    Not the end of the world.

    I believe that all that, most likely, will stop at that level. Say, 80 %.
    Good enough for any US administration to take that risk.

    So your view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will be Korean civilians. That, of course, doesn’t even begin to consider the global economic catastrophe that even a limited war in Korea would cause, let alone a regional war. (And I don’t think your risk estimates are even approximately reliable, by the way. Not because they are yours, but because I don’t believe any such analysis is remotely plausible to any degree of accuracy. The detailed knowledge is just not there, not in Washington (as if there were any honest and competent analysts there anyway) and not in Beijing for that matter. Not anywhere. The situation is just too complex and the facts too murky.)

    That’s at least honest, but I suspect most would prefer that the US instead just obeys the rules it voluntarily signed up to, and gets used to living like the rest of the world lives.

    You will undoubtedly respond that it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world might think, only what the US regime thinks. Which is, of course, exactly the “might makes right”, American exceptionalist, lawless bullshit that has underpinned the very US policies that have made the NKs decide they must have a deterrent that can actually hit the US itself if they are to be safe, and put us all in this situation in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    If you, and some other people reading/posting here want to know what I would want it's simple:
    I want to go to the beach, have a beer/coffee and do a bit of swimming/walking (not necessarily in that order).
    I'll actually do that when finish this post.

    As for NK/US possible conflict you are making a crucial error here: deterrent.
    In order to have a deterrent the Fat Boy does not need ICMB with nuclear warhead. All he needs is to develop mobile tactical nuke launchers and their infrastructure.

    As for

    So your view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will be Korean civilians.
     
    You are slipping into "moral play" here.
    Now....if that can happen to a British conservative gentleman we do have a problem here.

    So, I'll rephrase that paragraph without me or you. Non entities in this game, except as possible victims:
    So US Administration view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to majority of US public because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to majority of US public because most of them will be Korean civilians.

    Now, as for those numbers, I don't think they are that high.
    In the case of limited conventional war, which is most likely (as I said, around 80 %), the death toll would be in thousands in South Korea and tens of thousands in North Korea.
    Most likely below, altogether, 50 000.

    As for the paragraph with numbers etc. finishing with

    The situation is just too complex and the facts too murky.

     

    Agree.
    I'd suggest re-reading events leading up to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
    Estimates of time/casualties etc.
    There are even two pretty decent movies about it. It's good to re-watch meetings of The Committee itself and with the President and Chefs of Staff etc.

    You will undoubtedly respond that it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world might think, only what the US regime thinks.
     
    Yup.
    And US public after,say, a week of MSM "message".

    I guess this is the most important issue we are facing at the moment.
    How that is going to unravel I don't know.
    I do believe that my scenario is the most likely.

    As I did mention several times before, perhaps we, humans, simply developed weapons too powerful for our nature.
    Mr. Leo Szilard was probably right there and then.
    We have been too smart for our own good. Or, our nature and moral development didn't follow our intellectual capability.

    Whatever.....we'll soon see how all that unravels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. renfro says:

    I put the chances of war with Korea at about 0.05%.
    I put the chances of the US attacking Iran at about 60% and increasing.

    Which brings back this blast from the past. I did not like Obama’s domestic policies but give him credit for having some balls on Israel and Iran. So far our Clown President Trump is unable to locate his balls. Maybe they are on display at a Israeli museum or one of Adelson’s casinos.

    Obama tells Americans it is ‘abrogation of my constitutional duty’ to defer to Israel on Iran Deal

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/americans-abrogation-constitutional/

    ‘Don’t succumb to “political concerns,” he told the Congress, in implicit reference to the power of the Israel lobby, the millions marshaled by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC.
    And he boldly defined an American national interest that is different from the Israeli one.

    Israel is the only country in the world that is against this deal, he said. Europe and the Security Council are behind it all the way. And while Benjamin Netanyahu is completely “sincere” in his opposition, Obama said, “As president of the United States, it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty” to defer to Israel’s wishes on this matter.

    When has the president stated before that the Israel lobby wants him to abrogate his constitutional duties? He has done so now, and let that word go forth.

    In his speech at American University this afternoon, Obama was most forceful in his denunciation of the “mindset” that got us into the Iraq war, a mindset that believes in unilateral action, that exaggerates threats, and whose advocates mislead Americans about the costs of war.
    Over and over again he stated the costs of the Iraq war, materially and in human suffering, even referring to the great numbers of Iraqis who died for our folly.
    And the costs of war in our country are borne by the less than “1 percent,” Obama said movingly– those in uniform. While those who make the decision to go to war do not suffer the personal consequences.
    He made clear that absent the deal there is no other path than a path to war, ultimately. Absent a deal, Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program, and there will soon be calls for military strikes. The very same people who are advising this route are the ones who pushed for the Iraq war.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @Randal

    So I must say no to North Korean Nuclear weapons
     
    That's fine, but you have to give a reason for the NKs to pay any attention to your desire to tell them how to manage their defences, when unlike you they actually do face a clear and present danger of US military aggression if they don't acquire an effective deterrent. Bear in mind they already have nuclear weapons - that horse escaped some years ago. They already have nuclear weapons that most likely can hit the nearby countries that we are told represent further proliferation risks in response - SK and Japan. The argument is not about whether they can have nuclear weapons, but whether they are allowed to have weapons that can hit the US. In other words, does the US have some special unique dispensation that allows it to murder people en masse just because it gets scared.

    If you are going to insist on preventing that, then you need to face up to what is required. Will the end, will the means. Either you find a way to bully or persuade them into dropping their missile program (this is what the Chinese and Russians appear to be counting on at the moment) or you let the US warmongers try their aggressive war gamble and don't whinge about the consequences. I suspect the former might have been rendered simply unavailable by US regime policies over the past few decades.

    Better imo is to accept that there is one more nuclear weapons state in the world and move to secure the balance again in the new position. The US regime can't tell the NKs what to do, but it for certain can tell the SKs and the Japanese what to do, and if either of those countries moves to build nukes openly then it will only be with US regime acquiescence, open or covert.

    In the worst case, if SK and Japan are also added to the already fairly long list of nuclear weapons states (you forgot Israel by the way), that also is perfectly liveable with. Neither represents any particularly greater risk of irresponsible or unintended use, certainly not in a world in which Israel, India and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons.

    Best to accept the new situation and focus on putting the blame for the latest proliferation squarely where it belongs - on irresponsible, lawless US regime policies of unilateral military aggression over the past few decades.

    How many decades have did pass since armistice. I do not know but many.
    US did not attack North Korea and did not do anything else than doing these stupid military exercises for Kim to look at. So what is the point. Kim suddenly got scared for what US did in Middle east?
    So Kim figured out that what US did to Gadhafi and Sadam is going to happen to him?
    Lets be realistic here. Kim is not naive. He knows that what happened in middle east did have three initiators.
    Oil
    Israels interests.
    Full spectrum dominance test run.

    Kim has no oil. Israel does not give a rats arse about Korea. And Globalist test run is a total failure particularly if we look at time frame.
    Only Libya was to the certain extent success, but I do not see any gain.
    Rest of the adventures are never ending failure.

    So what is the reason that Kim suddenly got afraid? Or did he really got afraid!

    Or maybe as it is in my opinion he only wants to play a big man in front of his people, or probably he is playing a big man for all wold to watch.

    Anyway did Kim pronounce any justification for his build up?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Kim has no oil. Israel does not give a rats arse about Korea. And Globalist test run is a total failure particularly if we look at time frame.
    Only Libya was to the certain extent success, but I do not see any gain.
    Rest of the adventures are never ending failure.

    So what is the reason that Kim suddenly got afraid? Or did he really got afraid!
     

    If he is rational and responsible (if only for his own survival), he would certainly see US unilateralism as a direct menace to his country. It's easy to pontificate about it being all about Israel and anyone other than Israel's enemies being safe from attack when you are a mere internet bloviator such as you and I, less so when you are a national leader whose country has been publicly declared a member of an "Axis of Evil" by the president of an aggressor superpower that has since overthrown two of the other three members in wars of aggression, and when you face regular military "exercises" which can easily be rehearsals for the day when the "exercise" will be cover for an actual attack, and when a commonplace topic of discussion in the elite military and foreign policy circles of said aggressor state is whether a "decapitation" strike or a "targeted" strike would be the better way to initiate a war of aggression against you.

    That said, you certainly could be correct about Kim's motivation. Most motivations in the real world, though, are multi-threaded, so it's likely that both fear of US aggression and a desire to posture for domestic political reasons are at work in Kim's head, and the heads of those in NK elite circles that agree with him.

    It makes little difference to the policy issue, though. The NKs have shown no particular inclination to back down in the face of threats so far. The best outcome is still to reject another costly and potentially disastrous war and accept the damage already done by US policy and to try to ensure the blame goes where it belongs, and perhaps results in some moderation of the US's lawless behaviour, or at least a wider recognition of the harm that behaviour does.


    Anyway did Kim pronounce any justification for his build up?
     
    NK has repeatedly and explicitly referred to the need to defend against US aggression as the justification for its nuclear weapons program, as well as the economic warfare waged against it, and indeed last year specifically pointed to the US's gross act of aggression in murdering Syrian soldiers with missile strikes as justification for its program.

    North Korea: Trump's airstrikes in Syria justify its nuclear weapons program

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    I believe that all that, most likely, will stop at that level. Say, 80 %.
    Good enough for any US administration to take that risk.
     
    So your view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don't particularly matter to you because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a "limited" war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don't particularly matter to you because most of them will be Korean civilians. That, of course, doesn't even begin to consider the global economic catastrophe that even a limited war in Korea would cause, let alone a regional war. (And I don't think your risk estimates are even approximately reliable, by the way. Not because they are yours, but because I don't believe any such analysis is remotely plausible to any degree of accuracy. The detailed knowledge is just not there, not in Washington (as if there were any honest and competent analysts there anyway) and not in Beijing for that matter. Not anywhere. The situation is just too complex and the facts too murky.)

    That's at least honest, but I suspect most would prefer that the US instead just obeys the rules it voluntarily signed up to, and gets used to living like the rest of the world lives.

    You will undoubtedly respond that it doesn't matter what the rest of the world might think, only what the US regime thinks. Which is, of course, exactly the "might makes right", American exceptionalist, lawless bullshit that has underpinned the very US policies that have made the NKs decide they must have a deterrent that can actually hit the US itself if they are to be safe, and put us all in this situation in the first place.

    If you, and some other people reading/posting here want to know what I would want it’s simple:
    I want to go to the beach, have a beer/coffee and do a bit of swimming/walking (not necessarily in that order).
    I’ll actually do that when finish this post.

    As for NK/US possible conflict you are making a crucial error here: deterrent.
    In order to have a deterrent the Fat Boy does not need ICMB with nuclear warhead. All he needs is to develop mobile tactical nuke launchers and their infrastructure.

    As for

    So your view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will be Korean civilians.

    You are slipping into “moral play” here.
    Now….if that can happen to a British conservative gentleman we do have a problem here.

    So, I’ll rephrase that paragraph without me or you. Non entities in this game, except as possible victims:
    So US Administration view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to majority of US public because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to majority of US public because most of them will be Korean civilians.

    Now, as for those numbers, I don’t think they are that high.
    In the case of limited conventional war, which is most likely (as I said, around 80 %), the death toll would be in thousands in South Korea and tens of thousands in North Korea.
    Most likely below, altogether, 50 000.

    As for the paragraph with numbers etc. finishing with

    The situation is just too complex and the facts too murky.

    Agree.
    I’d suggest re-reading events leading up to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
    Estimates of time/casualties etc.
    There are even two pretty decent movies about it. It’s good to re-watch meetings of The Committee itself and with the President and Chefs of Staff etc.

    You will undoubtedly respond that it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world might think, only what the US regime thinks.

    Yup.
    And US public after,say, a week of MSM “message”.

    I guess this is the most important issue we are facing at the moment.
    How that is going to unravel I don’t know.
    I do believe that my scenario is the most likely.

    As I did mention several times before, perhaps we, humans, simply developed weapons too powerful for our nature.
    Mr. Leo Szilard was probably right there and then.
    We have been too smart for our own good. Or, our nature and moral development didn’t follow our intellectual capability.

    Whatever…..we’ll soon see how all that unravels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    As for NK/US possible conflict you are making a crucial error here: deterrent.
    In order to have a deterrent the Fat Boy does not need ICMB with nuclear warhead. All he needs is to develop mobile tactical nuke launchers and their infrastructure
     
    This is clearly false, since the US is only responding hysterically to the idea that NK might have a weapon that could target a US city. It has been relatively relaxed about the longstanding NK possession of nukes that can be used against SK. The reason for that is clearly that the US regime and elites do not care about potential deaths of foreigners or even, to a lesser extent, US military personnel (only that they themselves should not get undue amounts of blame for them in the US media), and hence would not, in extremis, be deterred by them.

    Though in this regard it's what the NK leadership believes that counts, not what you or I might agree to be the situation. That said, however, the idea that attacks on foreign populations might not motivate the US regime sufficiently was a pretty commonplace issue in Europe in the Cold War and played a big part in justifying US tripwire and cruise missile deployments to Europe. The NK leadership would not be particularly unusual in recognising that (imo) reality.


    I’d suggest re-reading events leading up to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
     
    I recall in this connection an anecdote recounted by William Polk in the second part of the piece I linked in a reply above, regarding China in the 1960s, which I think probably applies to NK in spades:

    "In the 1960s, I once was ordered to find out what the CIA might be able to do with this or a similar option to slow down Chinese nuclear development. The CIA was then sending agents into China from secret bases on Quemoy and Matsu. I asked what they found out. The responsible CIA officer replied that he did not know because none ever returned.
     

    Now, as for those numbers, I don’t think they are that high.
    In the case of limited conventional war, which is most likely (as I said, around 80 %), the death toll would be in thousands in South Korea and tens of thousands in North Korea.
    Most likely below, altogether, 50 000.
     

    As for numbers it depends heavily on two big issues (and a lot of other known and unknown unknowns, as it were). First, are we talking about direct combat-related deaths (including of civilians) or are we talking about overall excess deaths caused by the war, and second to what degree will the NK government choose to launch attacks designed to kill large numbers in retaliation, and how successful will the US military be in suppressing such attacks. The record doesn't inspire particular confidence in US military claims for the latter.

    The estimates would range from almost none in the (highly unlikely imo) event of a smoothly successful US regime change operation (when did that ever happen before?), to imo at least hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in any limited war in which the NKs choose to launch significant attacks on SK and US military bases and the US military does not achieve miracles in suppressing them (to some extent it depends where we are drawing the line as to when a "limited war" becomes a "regional war" - I am assuming the latter occurs if and when China gets involved on the NK side). If the US uses airburst nukes and general heavy bombardment to suppress NK military operations, as some have suggested is being actively considered in Washington, then that in itself will likely cause excess deaths (military and civilian) in NK running into 6 figures.

    Bear in mind that one of your proposed scenarios is a failed decapitation strike that is then escalated to a limited war, presumably by the immediate NK response. In that situation the military initiative will likely lie with NK as much as with the US.

    You are slipping into “moral play” here.
    Now….if that can happen to a British conservative gentleman we do have a problem here.
     

    A fair warning against a genuine hazard in such discussions. In this case "you" can appropriately be replaced with the US regime, as you suggested it ought to be.
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Dear peabrain.
    US military option is out of question.
    Xi declared openly and plainly.
    He does not want a war on Korean peninsula.
    He also declared that if North Korea attacked China will come to North Korea help.
    Only if North Korea initiated attack China would stay neutral.
    If US would do any "preemptive attack" US would face China, and possibly Russia.
    ............................................................................................................................................
    W O R L D W A R 3

    kapish?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @peterAUS

    My point here is that those who argue that a “decapitation strike” (or “targeted strikes” of various kinds) can work and effectively advocate for it are essentially stating a willingness to take the gamble that it will fail....
     
    It could fail. It could succeed too.

    ...accepting the consequences if and when it does fail...
     
    Should it fail the next option: limited war.
    I believe that all that, most likely, will stop at that level. Say, 80 %.
    Good enough for any US administration to take that risk.

    We can be damned sure that if NK launches general attacks on US and SK bases and cities across the border in direct response to your proposed “decapitation strike”...
     
    means that option 2.
    Again, limited conventional war there.
    Not the end of the world.

    Again, limited conventional war there.
    Not the end of the world.

    Unless it is your father, son or brother killed for the war game idiocy of people like yourself.

    Buy a parachute and a rifle and knock yourself out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @WorkingClass
    Is North Korea a threat to the United States? Any rational person will quickly answer no. Because North Korea is very small and the United States is very large.

    America First is a good idea. But coming from Trump it is bullshit. Trump is an Imperialist and a Zionist.

    I support Trump anyway. His opposition is also Imperialist and Zionist. AND they are corrupt. AND they are Maoist. AND they intend to marginalize and ostracize the white race while turning America into a shit hole.

    All Zio/Imperialists are not the same.

    geeez, maoist? seriously?

    I like your other points though :) except the shit hole part :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Vinteuil says:

    I live for the day when the South Koreans invite us out of their country.

    Please, let it be so.

    Why do they let us stick around?

    Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Money green card marriages money money money
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Randal says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    How many decades have did pass since armistice. I do not know but many.
    US did not attack North Korea and did not do anything else than doing these stupid military exercises for Kim to look at. So what is the point. Kim suddenly got scared for what US did in Middle east?
    So Kim figured out that what US did to Gadhafi and Sadam is going to happen to him?
    Lets be realistic here. Kim is not naive. He knows that what happened in middle east did have three initiators.
    Oil
    Israels interests.
    Full spectrum dominance test run.

    Kim has no oil. Israel does not give a rats arse about Korea. And Globalist test run is a total failure particularly if we look at time frame.
    Only Libya was to the certain extent success, but I do not see any gain.
    Rest of the adventures are never ending failure.

    So what is the reason that Kim suddenly got afraid? Or did he really got afraid!

    Or maybe as it is in my opinion he only wants to play a big man in front of his people, or probably he is playing a big man for all wold to watch.

    Anyway did Kim pronounce any justification for his build up?

    Kim has no oil. Israel does not give a rats arse about Korea. And Globalist test run is a total failure particularly if we look at time frame.
    Only Libya was to the certain extent success, but I do not see any gain.
    Rest of the adventures are never ending failure.

    So what is the reason that Kim suddenly got afraid? Or did he really got afraid!

    If he is rational and responsible (if only for his own survival), he would certainly see US unilateralism as a direct menace to his country. It’s easy to pontificate about it being all about Israel and anyone other than Israel’s enemies being safe from attack when you are a mere internet bloviator such as you and I, less so when you are a national leader whose country has been publicly declared a member of an “Axis of Evil” by the president of an aggressor superpower that has since overthrown two of the other three members in wars of aggression, and when you face regular military “exercises” which can easily be rehearsals for the day when the “exercise” will be cover for an actual attack, and when a commonplace topic of discussion in the elite military and foreign policy circles of said aggressor state is whether a “decapitation” strike or a “targeted” strike would be the better way to initiate a war of aggression against you.

    That said, you certainly could be correct about Kim’s motivation. Most motivations in the real world, though, are multi-threaded, so it’s likely that both fear of US aggression and a desire to posture for domestic political reasons are at work in Kim’s head, and the heads of those in NK elite circles that agree with him.

    It makes little difference to the policy issue, though. The NKs have shown no particular inclination to back down in the face of threats so far. The best outcome is still to reject another costly and potentially disastrous war and accept the damage already done by US policy and to try to ensure the blame goes where it belongs, and perhaps results in some moderation of the US’s lawless behaviour, or at least a wider recognition of the harm that behaviour does.

    Anyway did Kim pronounce any justification for his build up?

    NK has repeatedly and explicitly referred to the need to defend against US aggression as the justification for its nuclear weapons program, as well as the economic warfare waged against it, and indeed last year specifically pointed to the US’s gross act of aggression in murdering Syrian soldiers with missile strikes as justification for its program.

    North Korea: Trump’s airstrikes in Syria justify its nuclear weapons program

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    You have too strong arguments so I have to back of .
    I did try my best.
    Thank you!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe the anti-NK rhetoric heated up because of Moon’s presidency. Unlike the predecessor, Moon seems more interested in peace with North. That throws a wrench into American Game in the region. So, maybe, the US is working with SK hawks and ratcheting up tensions to undermine Moon’s peace initiative.

    If so, it’s ironic because the Trump’s administration has been similarly undermined by the Power. The Power hates the idea of good relations between US and Russia. So, all this Russia-hacking nonsense. The Power arms Ukraine for more ‘cold war’.

    Behind Russia Hacking Theory is Jewish Hysteria and Paranoia that hates the idea of patriotic white Americans becoming friendly with White Russians.

    So, Jews subvert any possibility of good relations between US and Russia, and the US subverts any chance of thaw between NK and SK.

    Well, it’s just one theory. If true, then the US isn’t really planning for war but to prevent Moon from easing tensions.

    But if US really does intend war and topples the North regime, will it pan out to US advantage in the end? Currently, China has worse relations with NK than with SK. If NK is gone and there is a united Korea, it might grow closer to the China. It’s like, with Hussein gone, Shia Iraq grew closer to Shia Iran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Alden says:
    @Vinteuil
    I live for the day when the South Koreans invite us out of their country.

    Please, let it be so.

    Why do they let us stick around?

    Why?

    Money green card marriages money money money

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Randal

    Kim has no oil. Israel does not give a rats arse about Korea. And Globalist test run is a total failure particularly if we look at time frame.
    Only Libya was to the certain extent success, but I do not see any gain.
    Rest of the adventures are never ending failure.

    So what is the reason that Kim suddenly got afraid? Or did he really got afraid!
     

    If he is rational and responsible (if only for his own survival), he would certainly see US unilateralism as a direct menace to his country. It's easy to pontificate about it being all about Israel and anyone other than Israel's enemies being safe from attack when you are a mere internet bloviator such as you and I, less so when you are a national leader whose country has been publicly declared a member of an "Axis of Evil" by the president of an aggressor superpower that has since overthrown two of the other three members in wars of aggression, and when you face regular military "exercises" which can easily be rehearsals for the day when the "exercise" will be cover for an actual attack, and when a commonplace topic of discussion in the elite military and foreign policy circles of said aggressor state is whether a "decapitation" strike or a "targeted" strike would be the better way to initiate a war of aggression against you.

    That said, you certainly could be correct about Kim's motivation. Most motivations in the real world, though, are multi-threaded, so it's likely that both fear of US aggression and a desire to posture for domestic political reasons are at work in Kim's head, and the heads of those in NK elite circles that agree with him.

    It makes little difference to the policy issue, though. The NKs have shown no particular inclination to back down in the face of threats so far. The best outcome is still to reject another costly and potentially disastrous war and accept the damage already done by US policy and to try to ensure the blame goes where it belongs, and perhaps results in some moderation of the US's lawless behaviour, or at least a wider recognition of the harm that behaviour does.


    Anyway did Kim pronounce any justification for his build up?
     
    NK has repeatedly and explicitly referred to the need to defend against US aggression as the justification for its nuclear weapons program, as well as the economic warfare waged against it, and indeed last year specifically pointed to the US's gross act of aggression in murdering Syrian soldiers with missile strikes as justification for its program.

    North Korea: Trump's airstrikes in Syria justify its nuclear weapons program

    You have too strong arguments so I have to back of .
    I did try my best.
    Thank you!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    You're very welcome!

    I'm off balance now. I'm not used to gracious agreement as the conclusion to an exchange........ :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Frankie P says:
    @Z-man
    Like I've said before China, Russia and the US should make a grand bargain to unify Korea and keep it firmly non nuclear.
    No American troops in the former NORK.
    A demilitarized zone near the Chinese and Russian borders.
    And let the Koreans sort out all the rest. This will make everybody happy especially the Japs and the Chinese as Korea will be spending a lot of money to integrate the North into it's economy.
    If this does not happen and Yung Fat Kim gets the intercontinental missile with a bomb on top, then pinpoint strategic bombing of large areas should be performed by the Trump Air Force!
    DA!! Putin Trump Axis 2018-2025!! DA!!!

    Come on Z-man, you’re much smarter than that! Russia and China would be ecstatic to make a grand bargain to unify Korea and remove all American troops from the entire peninsula. Any move toward a grand bargain will result in the eventual removal of US troops; therefore, the US will NEVER agree to a grand bargain. The resulting peace would benefit the Koreans, the Chinese and the Russians, perhaps ever accrue some benefit toward the Japanese. It would facilitate even more Eurasian integration, with Russian gas and oil pipelines from Siberia to the peninsula, OBOR high-speed rail lines from China, through the peninsula and to east coast of Russia. Korea, the south, that is, would move from the US sphere of influence to the Chinese sphere, something that is already happening economically, but of course the political ramifications lag behind. Notice who does not appear on that list of beneficiaries: the USA. Yes, the good old USA, always ready to kick the table when the game isn’t going its way.

    Frankie P

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    Yes, I am very smart! (Grin)
    Trump wanted to remove the troops out of Korea in his statements during the campaign. Even if the Generals and Neocons have gotten him to change his tune the most the Chinese would allow is a reduced US footprint in the South. I want US troops out of there, just like Trump, and after a 'peaceful' unification they would be redundant and a waste of money. But then again when has the USA ever not wasted money.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    If you, and some other people reading/posting here want to know what I would want it's simple:
    I want to go to the beach, have a beer/coffee and do a bit of swimming/walking (not necessarily in that order).
    I'll actually do that when finish this post.

    As for NK/US possible conflict you are making a crucial error here: deterrent.
    In order to have a deterrent the Fat Boy does not need ICMB with nuclear warhead. All he needs is to develop mobile tactical nuke launchers and their infrastructure.

    As for

    So your view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will be Korean civilians.
     
    You are slipping into "moral play" here.
    Now....if that can happen to a British conservative gentleman we do have a problem here.

    So, I'll rephrase that paragraph without me or you. Non entities in this game, except as possible victims:
    So US Administration view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to majority of US public because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to majority of US public because most of them will be Korean civilians.

    Now, as for those numbers, I don't think they are that high.
    In the case of limited conventional war, which is most likely (as I said, around 80 %), the death toll would be in thousands in South Korea and tens of thousands in North Korea.
    Most likely below, altogether, 50 000.

    As for the paragraph with numbers etc. finishing with

    The situation is just too complex and the facts too murky.

     

    Agree.
    I'd suggest re-reading events leading up to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
    Estimates of time/casualties etc.
    There are even two pretty decent movies about it. It's good to re-watch meetings of The Committee itself and with the President and Chefs of Staff etc.

    You will undoubtedly respond that it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world might think, only what the US regime thinks.
     
    Yup.
    And US public after,say, a week of MSM "message".

    I guess this is the most important issue we are facing at the moment.
    How that is going to unravel I don't know.
    I do believe that my scenario is the most likely.

    As I did mention several times before, perhaps we, humans, simply developed weapons too powerful for our nature.
    Mr. Leo Szilard was probably right there and then.
    We have been too smart for our own good. Or, our nature and moral development didn't follow our intellectual capability.

    Whatever.....we'll soon see how all that unravels.

    As for NK/US possible conflict you are making a crucial error here: deterrent.
    In order to have a deterrent the Fat Boy does not need ICMB with nuclear warhead. All he needs is to develop mobile tactical nuke launchers and their infrastructure

    This is clearly false, since the US is only responding hysterically to the idea that NK might have a weapon that could target a US city. It has been relatively relaxed about the longstanding NK possession of nukes that can be used against SK. The reason for that is clearly that the US regime and elites do not care about potential deaths of foreigners or even, to a lesser extent, US military personnel (only that they themselves should not get undue amounts of blame for them in the US media), and hence would not, in extremis, be deterred by them.

    Though in this regard it’s what the NK leadership believes that counts, not what you or I might agree to be the situation. That said, however, the idea that attacks on foreign populations might not motivate the US regime sufficiently was a pretty commonplace issue in Europe in the Cold War and played a big part in justifying US tripwire and cruise missile deployments to Europe. The NK leadership would not be particularly unusual in recognising that (imo) reality.

    I’d suggest re-reading events leading up to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

    I recall in this connection an anecdote recounted by William Polk in the second part of the piece I linked in a reply above, regarding China in the 1960s, which I think probably applies to NK in spades:

    In the 1960s, I once was ordered to find out what the CIA might be able to do with this or a similar option to slow down Chinese nuclear development. The CIA was then sending agents into China from secret bases on Quemoy and Matsu. I asked what they found out. The responsible CIA officer replied that he did not know because none ever returned.

    Now, as for those numbers, I don’t think they are that high.
    In the case of limited conventional war, which is most likely (as I said, around 80 %), the death toll would be in thousands in South Korea and tens of thousands in North Korea.
    Most likely below, altogether, 50 000.

    As for numbers it depends heavily on two big issues (and a lot of other known and unknown unknowns, as it were). First, are we talking about direct combat-related deaths (including of civilians) or are we talking about overall excess deaths caused by the war, and second to what degree will the NK government choose to launch attacks designed to kill large numbers in retaliation, and how successful will the US military be in suppressing such attacks. The record doesn’t inspire particular confidence in US military claims for the latter.

    The estimates would range from almost none in the (highly unlikely imo) event of a smoothly successful US regime change operation (when did that ever happen before?), to imo at least hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in any limited war in which the NKs choose to launch significant attacks on SK and US military bases and the US military does not achieve miracles in suppressing them (to some extent it depends where we are drawing the line as to when a “limited war” becomes a “regional war” – I am assuming the latter occurs if and when China gets involved on the NK side). If the US uses airburst nukes and general heavy bombardment to suppress NK military operations, as some have suggested is being actively considered in Washington, then that in itself will likely cause excess deaths (military and civilian) in NK running into 6 figures.

    Bear in mind that one of your proposed scenarios is a failed decapitation strike that is then escalated to a limited war, presumably by the immediate NK response. In that situation the military initiative will likely lie with NK as much as with the US.

    You are slipping into “moral play” here.
    Now….if that can happen to a British conservative gentleman we do have a problem here.

    A fair warning against a genuine hazard in such discussions. In this case “you” can appropriately be replaced with the US regime, as you suggested it ought to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    This is how I see the most likely scenario, extremely briefly.

    The deadline around estimate that NK will have nuclear tipped ICBM capable of reaching Hawaii.

    Could be from now to 2 years from now. Apparently nobody knows.

    US tries "decapitation strike". Success, a new regime, under Chinese supervision.
    Failure, NK retaliates with conventional artillery and missiles. US/SK execute incursion into the "artillery belt" to remove that threat. Decapitation attempts continue with general bombing campaign on NK. Success, a new regime under Chinese supervision.
    Difficult points minimizing SK civilian casualties and ground fighting in "artillery belt" for US/SK.
    For China having huge influx of refugees.
    For NK people the shock of their world collapsing around them. Reorganizing all that back into a coherent state is a difficult point too. Also something for Chinese.

    Now.....should NK detonate one nuke only............well....plenty of tactical nukes on NK.
    The new world emerges.

    What kind remains to be seen.

    If/when comes to shooting there China will cooperate with US, IMHO.
    And Russia too. Actually it will be everybody vs Kim.
    Realpolitik: support Kim and maybe get into M.A.D. ....or...support US, get that over with and move on. Hard choice?
    And that's why coup or decapitation strike do have a decent chance of success too.
    Reality check: support him and his cabal and get killed with our families...or...get rid of that group and move on.
    And maybe even he is smart enough to realize all that. When the moment comes he simply gets sick and resigns. Keep some perks and live happily ever after somewhere in China.

    I do get why people wish that The Empire backs down.
    It will not.

    Either Kim stops that program or we are getting into that conflict.
    I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Randal says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    You have too strong arguments so I have to back of .
    I did try my best.
    Thank you!

    You’re very welcome!

    I’m off balance now. I’m not used to gracious agreement as the conclusion to an exchange…….. :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @peterAUS
    If you, and some other people reading/posting here want to know what I would want it's simple:
    I want to go to the beach, have a beer/coffee and do a bit of swimming/walking (not necessarily in that order).
    I'll actually do that when finish this post.

    As for NK/US possible conflict you are making a crucial error here: deterrent.
    In order to have a deterrent the Fat Boy does not need ICMB with nuclear warhead. All he needs is to develop mobile tactical nuke launchers and their infrastructure.

    As for

    So your view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to you because most of them will be Korean civilians.
     
    You are slipping into "moral play" here.
    Now....if that can happen to a British conservative gentleman we do have a problem here.

    So, I'll rephrase that paragraph without me or you. Non entities in this game, except as possible victims:
    So US Administration view based upon that is that in order to give the US special dispensation not to feel scared by one of its targets having weapons that can actually hit it, the world is expected to accept a 5% risk of basically the end of the world, an additional 15% risk of a regional war which would likely involve millions of deaths which don’t particularly matter to majority of US public because most of them will doubtless be Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese, and a 40% risk of a “limited” war that probably involves hundreds of thousands of deaths at least, which don’t particularly matter to majority of US public because most of them will be Korean civilians.

    Now, as for those numbers, I don't think they are that high.
    In the case of limited conventional war, which is most likely (as I said, around 80 %), the death toll would be in thousands in South Korea and tens of thousands in North Korea.
    Most likely below, altogether, 50 000.

    As for the paragraph with numbers etc. finishing with

    The situation is just too complex and the facts too murky.

     

    Agree.
    I'd suggest re-reading events leading up to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
    Estimates of time/casualties etc.
    There are even two pretty decent movies about it. It's good to re-watch meetings of The Committee itself and with the President and Chefs of Staff etc.

    You will undoubtedly respond that it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world might think, only what the US regime thinks.
     
    Yup.
    And US public after,say, a week of MSM "message".

    I guess this is the most important issue we are facing at the moment.
    How that is going to unravel I don't know.
    I do believe that my scenario is the most likely.

    As I did mention several times before, perhaps we, humans, simply developed weapons too powerful for our nature.
    Mr. Leo Szilard was probably right there and then.
    We have been too smart for our own good. Or, our nature and moral development didn't follow our intellectual capability.

    Whatever.....we'll soon see how all that unravels.

    Dear peabrain.
    US military option is out of question.
    Xi declared openly and plainly.
    He does not want a war on Korean peninsula.
    He also declared that if North Korea attacked China will come to North Korea help.
    Only if North Korea initiated attack China would stay neutral.
    If US would do any “preemptive attack” US would face China, and possibly Russia.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
    W O R L D W A R 3

    kapish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    By your saying that the US would never attack NK because it would face China, you have just proved that this is all NK's fault.

    That is, the US would never have attacked NK, and thus the development of nukes by NK was stupid.

    THAT is what has brought about this crisis.

    NK is entirely at fault for unnecessarily developing nukes in the face of no real threat of attack.

    The US was not going to attack NK way back when. Neither was SK.

    What people do not understand, and I suspect many Unz readers do not, is that NK foreign policy is the same as its domestic policy: totally sick and inhuman.

    NK's behavior is, by any standard, unacceptable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. I don’t really see why a regime that treats its own public so poorly (yes I’m talking about North Korea you histrionic queef) deserves any sympathy, especially when it does so because it can’t just back down and admit that it’s retarded ideas about a planned economy and state-sanctioned attacks on freedom of the press are, in fact, backwards and pathetic. I also don’t see why Kim feels the need to respond to President Trump at all, especially if he knows that China has his back. All in all, I’m skeptical that a nuclear confrontation is likely to happen, and I’m even more unconcerned with the continued existence of some dynastic narcissist’s hobo ‘republic.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Che Guava says:
    @exiled off mainstreet
    If Moon Dae Jin had the independence to offer to expel the yankee legions from his country, he could effect a settlement of the Korea problem and move things toward a positive equilibrium improving things for the entire Korean nation and for the surrounding countries who would now be free from foreign threats and/or thralldom.

    I think our Abe govt. Is preferring thralldom for now, as

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    As for NK/US possible conflict you are making a crucial error here: deterrent.
    In order to have a deterrent the Fat Boy does not need ICMB with nuclear warhead. All he needs is to develop mobile tactical nuke launchers and their infrastructure
     
    This is clearly false, since the US is only responding hysterically to the idea that NK might have a weapon that could target a US city. It has been relatively relaxed about the longstanding NK possession of nukes that can be used against SK. The reason for that is clearly that the US regime and elites do not care about potential deaths of foreigners or even, to a lesser extent, US military personnel (only that they themselves should not get undue amounts of blame for them in the US media), and hence would not, in extremis, be deterred by them.

    Though in this regard it's what the NK leadership believes that counts, not what you or I might agree to be the situation. That said, however, the idea that attacks on foreign populations might not motivate the US regime sufficiently was a pretty commonplace issue in Europe in the Cold War and played a big part in justifying US tripwire and cruise missile deployments to Europe. The NK leadership would not be particularly unusual in recognising that (imo) reality.


    I’d suggest re-reading events leading up to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
     
    I recall in this connection an anecdote recounted by William Polk in the second part of the piece I linked in a reply above, regarding China in the 1960s, which I think probably applies to NK in spades:

    "In the 1960s, I once was ordered to find out what the CIA might be able to do with this or a similar option to slow down Chinese nuclear development. The CIA was then sending agents into China from secret bases on Quemoy and Matsu. I asked what they found out. The responsible CIA officer replied that he did not know because none ever returned.
     

    Now, as for those numbers, I don’t think they are that high.
    In the case of limited conventional war, which is most likely (as I said, around 80 %), the death toll would be in thousands in South Korea and tens of thousands in North Korea.
    Most likely below, altogether, 50 000.
     

    As for numbers it depends heavily on two big issues (and a lot of other known and unknown unknowns, as it were). First, are we talking about direct combat-related deaths (including of civilians) or are we talking about overall excess deaths caused by the war, and second to what degree will the NK government choose to launch attacks designed to kill large numbers in retaliation, and how successful will the US military be in suppressing such attacks. The record doesn't inspire particular confidence in US military claims for the latter.

    The estimates would range from almost none in the (highly unlikely imo) event of a smoothly successful US regime change operation (when did that ever happen before?), to imo at least hundreds of thousands of excess deaths in any limited war in which the NKs choose to launch significant attacks on SK and US military bases and the US military does not achieve miracles in suppressing them (to some extent it depends where we are drawing the line as to when a "limited war" becomes a "regional war" - I am assuming the latter occurs if and when China gets involved on the NK side). If the US uses airburst nukes and general heavy bombardment to suppress NK military operations, as some have suggested is being actively considered in Washington, then that in itself will likely cause excess deaths (military and civilian) in NK running into 6 figures.

    Bear in mind that one of your proposed scenarios is a failed decapitation strike that is then escalated to a limited war, presumably by the immediate NK response. In that situation the military initiative will likely lie with NK as much as with the US.

    You are slipping into “moral play” here.
    Now….if that can happen to a British conservative gentleman we do have a problem here.
     

    A fair warning against a genuine hazard in such discussions. In this case "you" can appropriately be replaced with the US regime, as you suggested it ought to be.

    This is how I see the most likely scenario, extremely briefly.

    The deadline around estimate that NK will have nuclear tipped ICBM capable of reaching Hawaii.

    Could be from now to 2 years from now. Apparently nobody knows.

    US tries “decapitation strike”. Success, a new regime, under Chinese supervision.
    Failure, NK retaliates with conventional artillery and missiles. US/SK execute incursion into the “artillery belt” to remove that threat. Decapitation attempts continue with general bombing campaign on NK. Success, a new regime under Chinese supervision.
    Difficult points minimizing SK civilian casualties and ground fighting in “artillery belt” for US/SK.
    For China having huge influx of refugees.
    For NK people the shock of their world collapsing around them. Reorganizing all that back into a coherent state is a difficult point too. Also something for Chinese.

    Now…..should NK detonate one nuke only…………well….plenty of tactical nukes on NK.
    The new world emerges.

    What kind remains to be seen.

    If/when comes to shooting there China will cooperate with US, IMHO.
    And Russia too. Actually it will be everybody vs Kim.
    Realpolitik: support Kim and maybe get into M.A.D. ….or…support US, get that over with and move on. Hard choice?
    And that’s why coup or decapitation strike do have a decent chance of success too.
    Reality check: support him and his cabal and get killed with our families…or…get rid of that group and move on.
    And maybe even he is smart enough to realize all that. When the moment comes he simply gets sick and resigns. Keep some perks and live happily ever after somewhere in China.

    I do get why people wish that The Empire backs down.
    It will not.

    Either Kim stops that program or we are getting into that conflict.
    I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Ether you are out of your fu*ken mind or you are 15 year old child .
    US will solve the problem at UN and sanctions that will bring the fatso idiot Kim to his senses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    After end of Olympics US should introduce total embargo of North Korea, including the confiscation of all fishing ships. That should teach the Fu*cken morons of North Korea a lesson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Ether you are out of your fu*ken mind or you are 15 year old child .
    US will solve the problem at UN and sanctions that will bring the fatso idiot Kim to his senses.

    After end of Olympics US should introduce total embargo of North Korea, including the confiscation of all fishing ships. That should teach the Fu*cken morons of North Korea a lesson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @polskijoe
    Fat guy is bad and I no like commies, but hes not a pyscopath lunatic whos gonna start nuking the US or World,
    unless someone attacks.

    Cutting of their supplies is basically an act of war.

    The US did a similar thing to Japan in WW2.

    The US sanctions are keeping the country more poor than it should, and people starve because of it.

    Why not just back off? Why the US has to be in every corner of planet?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Z-man says:
    @Frankie P
    Come on Z-man, you're much smarter than that! Russia and China would be ecstatic to make a grand bargain to unify Korea and remove all American troops from the entire peninsula. Any move toward a grand bargain will result in the eventual removal of US troops; therefore, the US will NEVER agree to a grand bargain. The resulting peace would benefit the Koreans, the Chinese and the Russians, perhaps ever accrue some benefit toward the Japanese. It would facilitate even more Eurasian integration, with Russian gas and oil pipelines from Siberia to the peninsula, OBOR high-speed rail lines from China, through the peninsula and to east coast of Russia. Korea, the south, that is, would move from the US sphere of influence to the Chinese sphere, something that is already happening economically, but of course the political ramifications lag behind. Notice who does not appear on that list of beneficiaries: the USA. Yes, the good old USA, always ready to kick the table when the game isn't going its way.

    Frankie P

    Yes, I am very smart! (Grin)
    Trump wanted to remove the troops out of Korea in his statements during the campaign. Even if the Generals and Neocons have gotten him to change his tune the most the Chinese would allow is a reduced US footprint in the South. I want US troops out of there, just like Trump, and after a ‘peaceful’ unification they would be redundant and a waste of money. But then again when has the USA ever not wasted money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    This article is way off base.

    North Korea’s foreign policy must be seen as the same as its domestic policy: cruel, brutal, inhuman, hostile, and extreme.

    North Korea intends to impose itself on South Korea, something the South does not want.

    None of this is the fault of the US.

    The author cannot see North Korea for what it is: a sick, paranoid, totalitarian country that has been universally condemned and cannot be trusted to live up to any agreement.

    The author is about as blind and wrong about this matter as one can possibly be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Dear peabrain.
    US military option is out of question.
    Xi declared openly and plainly.
    He does not want a war on Korean peninsula.
    He also declared that if North Korea attacked China will come to North Korea help.
    Only if North Korea initiated attack China would stay neutral.
    If US would do any "preemptive attack" US would face China, and possibly Russia.
    ............................................................................................................................................
    W O R L D W A R 3

    kapish?

    By your saying that the US would never attack NK because it would face China, you have just proved that this is all NK’s fault.

    That is, the US would never have attacked NK, and thus the development of nukes by NK was stupid.

    THAT is what has brought about this crisis.

    NK is entirely at fault for unnecessarily developing nukes in the face of no real threat of attack.

    The US was not going to attack NK way back when. Neither was SK.

    What people do not understand, and I suspect many Unz readers do not, is that NK foreign policy is the same as its domestic policy: totally sick and inhuman.

    NK’s behavior is, by any standard, unacceptable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    You are absolutely correct. Not a slightest doubt about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @anonymous
    By your saying that the US would never attack NK because it would face China, you have just proved that this is all NK's fault.

    That is, the US would never have attacked NK, and thus the development of nukes by NK was stupid.

    THAT is what has brought about this crisis.

    NK is entirely at fault for unnecessarily developing nukes in the face of no real threat of attack.

    The US was not going to attack NK way back when. Neither was SK.

    What people do not understand, and I suspect many Unz readers do not, is that NK foreign policy is the same as its domestic policy: totally sick and inhuman.

    NK's behavior is, by any standard, unacceptable.

    You are absolutely correct. Not a slightest doubt about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Quartermaster
    There will not be another war, it will be a continuation of the original war touched by Kim's invasion of the south, encouraged and supported by Stalin. If it comes, it will be on Kim. The Kim dynasty has been trying to provoke hostilities for the entire time since the armistice.

    This article is simple minded BS.

    Taking your statement at face value, what’s wrong with invading other countries and trying to provoke hostilities? If the U.S. can do it, why can’t North Korea?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Simple reasoning shows that Orange Clown and his jew handlers are full of shit, with regard to North Korea, just as they are full of shit about everything else.

    If Orange Clown and his jew handlers are so unintimidated by Russia’s vast, modern nuclear arsenal (which can wipe “America” off the map in a half hour) that they are willing to provoke Russia, militarily, economically and diplomatically, on an almost daily basis, why would they be intimidated by North Korea’s tiny arsenal and questionable ability to deliver the nukes?

    With all of their posturing and all of their threats and all of their war crimes and the upgrading of the fuzing on SLBMs (to take out hardened targets) and putting Aegis Ashore missile launchers in Romania and Poland, and all of their published doctrines e.g., about seeking world domination and control, etc., etc., etc., Orange Clown and his jew handlers are doing the geopolitical equivalent of waving a gun at a cop while making threats.

    Orange Clown and his jew handlers have basically pushed Russia into a “launch on warning” situation as bad or worse than the worst days of the cold war, needlessly putting not only “America” but the whole world at great risk of extermination, and then the piece of sub-human excrement is going to stand up in front of the whole world and rant about the “threat” from North Korea? It would almost be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. polskijoe says:
    @Z-man
    Like I've said before China, Russia and the US should make a grand bargain to unify Korea and keep it firmly non nuclear.
    No American troops in the former NORK.
    A demilitarized zone near the Chinese and Russian borders.
    And let the Koreans sort out all the rest. This will make everybody happy especially the Japs and the Chinese as Korea will be spending a lot of money to integrate the North into it's economy.
    If this does not happen and Yung Fat Kim gets the intercontinental missile with a bomb on top, then pinpoint strategic bombing of large areas should be performed by the Trump Air Force!
    DA!! Putin Trump Axis 2018-2025!! DA!!!

    And why should the US be part of the discussions?

    Anglo imperialism is stubborn like no other. (okay the Zios are equal).
    US is bent on staying in Syria, even though they are illegaly there.

    Even the damn Soviets left countries more easily than Anglos do.
    Just ask the Germans and Japanese.

    Russians, Chinese, Koreans were having a meeting to improve sitaution,
    and then he pathetic Vancouver summit happened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. polskijoe says:
    @DESERT FOX
    North Korea was set up to be an excuse for war by the Zionists following WWII as was Germany, see the book JFK , the CIA and VIETNAM by L. Feltcher Prouty and General MacArthurs book REMININICES both can be had on amazon.

    The war in Korean could have been won, but the zionists who were in control of the U.S. gov told Truman to fire MacArthur.

    Good. Macarthur was dangerous. He wanted to use dozens of nukes all over the place.
    Eisenhower was a weirdo.
    And Truman and others same story.

    Anglo-leader or Jewish-leader, same danger.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. polskijoe says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    After end of Olympics US should introduce total embargo of North Korea, including the confiscation of all fishing ships. That should teach the Fu*cken morons of North Korea a lesson.

    Fat guy is bad and I no like commies, but hes not a pyscopath lunatic whos gonna start nuking the US or World,
    unless someone attacks.

    Cutting of their supplies is basically an act of war.

    The US did a similar thing to Japan in WW2.

    The US sanctions are keeping the country more poor than it should, and people starve because of it.

    Why not just back off? Why the US has to be in every corner of planet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Please do not talk nonsense to me.
    US cut out oil To Japan when Japan already was cleaning out from Manchuria all Chines population.
    Embargo of North Korea Is not Act of war, People are not being killed. All they have to do is tighten a little bit their belts,
    North Korea should give up their nuclear arsenal and Long range rockets program and we all will be back to normal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. dlee0 says: • Website

    the System, which profits from the current state of affairs is not going to upset the apple cart nor allow it to be upset. unleashing even a few nuclear weapons will upset the apple cart! The apple cart sustains the System!
    when will “independent” commentators ever get this basic fact into their heads?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. JGarbo says:

    A war on S Korea’s doorstep is too dangerous, besides N Korea is not threatening anyone really. The US MIC does need war to survive but the wars must be not be won, only fought, ie supplied. The US public not only are clueless and apathetic, their opinion does not count in a totalitarian society. They are blind and deaf and now drugged. Trump’s a puppet (as have been all presidents recently since JFK). They make no decisions, only announce them, though the latest puppet is so stupid he can’t even manage that coherently. War is going well in Africa (34 countries privately), Syria and Afghanistan (publicly). Profits are up, shareholders and CEOs of MIC corporations are happy. Why rock the boat in NK?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Malla says:
    @Anonymous
    lolz, another slave so confused by conspiracy twaddle on the interwebs he's unable to see the trees for the forest. Remember that the CIA helps those who help themselves to propaganda.

    You did not answer my question yet. Which one?
    On your answer, thou shall be judged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Then: OMG THE ORANGE CLOWN AND THE JOOOOOOOS WILL START WORLD WAR THREE! REEEEEEEEEEEEE! JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!

    Now: North Korea invites South Korean President to visit Pyongyang.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    Well of course they will. Why wouldn't they?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @polskijoe
    Fat guy is bad and I no like commies, but hes not a pyscopath lunatic whos gonna start nuking the US or World,
    unless someone attacks.

    Cutting of their supplies is basically an act of war.

    The US did a similar thing to Japan in WW2.

    The US sanctions are keeping the country more poor than it should, and people starve because of it.

    Why not just back off? Why the US has to be in every corner of planet?

    Please do not talk nonsense to me.
    US cut out oil To Japan when Japan already was cleaning out from Manchuria all Chines population.
    Embargo of North Korea Is not Act of war, People are not being killed. All they have to do is tighten a little bit their belts,
    North Korea should give up their nuclear arsenal and Long range rockets program and we all will be back to normal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @polskijoe
    I think North Korea should keep the nukes.
    Only thing which prevents USA from murdering countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and plenty others.

    US sanctions = more people in poor conditions in NK. probably starvation on some scale too.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Inque Yutani
    Then: OMG THE ORANGE CLOWN AND THE JOOOOOOOS WILL START WORLD WAR THREE! REEEEEEEEEEEEE! JOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSS!

    Now: North Korea invites South Korean President to visit Pyongyang.

    Well of course they will. Why wouldn’t they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. polskijoe says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Please do not talk nonsense to me.
    US cut out oil To Japan when Japan already was cleaning out from Manchuria all Chines population.
    Embargo of North Korea Is not Act of war, People are not being killed. All they have to do is tighten a little bit their belts,
    North Korea should give up their nuclear arsenal and Long range rockets program and we all will be back to normal.

    I think North Korea should keep the nukes.
    Only thing which prevents USA from murdering countries like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and plenty others.

    US sanctions = more people in poor conditions in NK. probably starvation on some scale too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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 Mike Whitney Comments via RSS