The North Korean slow-burn-since-1953 is the clearest example of the spiritual implications of foreign-policy theory and the real-world application thereof. If you don't recognize and appropriately address evil - directed at you - the situation will escalate to the point where all your options are grim.The Japanese government has issued a warning to its citizens after North Korea fired a missile over the country.It was launched from the Sunan district of Pyongyang, South Korea's military said.The missile has flown over Japan, Japan's NHK television said, but the government is warning citizens to avoid touching anything that looks like debris.It landed 1,240 miles off the cape of Erimo in Hokkaido island at about 7.06am local time.South Korea's defence ministry said it probably travelled around 2,300 miles and reached a maximum altitude of 478 miles after being launched near Pyongyang's airport.The North previously launched a ballistic missile from Sunan on August 29, which flew over Japan's Hokkaido island and landed in the Pacific.The South Korean and US militaries are analysing details of the launch, the South's Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.South Korea's presidential Blue House has called an urgent National Security Council meeting.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
Another one over Japan
North Korea is clearly not impressed with the UN Security Council's latest package of sanctions:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All our options were grim in 1953 too.
ReplyDelete2017: A conflict on the Korean Peninsula would not only be very disruptive in the region, but could potentially lead to World War III because of the U.S. security guarantee, so it would be internationalized overnight," Fordham told CNBC's "Street Signs" on the sidelines of the Milken Institute Asia Summit in Singapore.
ReplyDelete1953: 'All of us have heard this term "preventive war" since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war — what is a preventive war?
ReplyDeleteI would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.
... It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
There are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today's conditions that I thought it is no use to go any further.' Triple D
From a former Reagan staffer, last July. Peace comes from understanding your enemy:
Delete" If there ever was a case of a paranoid state having a real enemy, it is North Korea.Pyongyang officials point to this reality. Obviously anything said by the DPRK government should be taken with a grain or two of salt, but there is little reason to doubt the concerns they express over potential U.S. military action. When I visited the North last month, North Korean officials dismissed criticism of their nuclear program, pointing to America’s “hostile policy,” which has been highlighted by “military threats” and “nuclear threats,” the latter, in their view, dating back to the 1950s.
No doubt one purpose of the DPRK’s nuclear weapons is to defend against such “threats.” Nukes have other uses as well, of course, such as enhancing Pyongyang’s international stature, cementing the military’s loyalty to the regime, and creating opportunities for neighborly extortion. But long-range missiles have only one use: deterring U.S. military intervention against the DPRK.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/the-real-reason-north-korea-may-start-war-21672?page=2
The above sensible sense making sense was written by Doug Bandow--a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World, and coauthor of The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and South Korea.
ReplyDeleteAll of which bolsters my point. We didn't treat this like a mortal threat at the very first hint that NK had nuclear ambitions. That was the time to put the kind of sanctions squeeze on them we're attempting now. I'm not sure that there's a way out of this that doesn't entail mass misery. I pray that there is, but I don't see any kind of ray of light coming from even the fanciest strategic experts.
ReplyDeleteWell, if you can't see, you're blind. Reread what Ike said. There MUST be no war!
ReplyDeleteEver? Under any circumstances? How long has the human species ever gone without one? As Victor Davis Hanson says, it's probably the one real constant in history.
ReplyDeleteNow, this situation really only tangentially has to do with war - that is, the world had to respond to China and North Korea seizing Seoul in 1950. But the current issue - NK's nuke program - should have been handled with the kind of strangling sanctions we're now attempting to impose 35 or 40 years ago. Yes, I realize that would have meant the Reagan era, and there was a lot already on the nation's plate in those days, but that would have been the place to start. And of course, the Jimmy Carter-brokered Agreed Framework was a disastrous mistake, as was Madeleine Albright's visit over there in the late 90s. As were the W-era Six-Way Talks. For the life of me, I do not understand the thinking of W and Condi on that.
And this would be the time to pull out of the JCPOA w/ Iran and begin treating it like the enemy it is - diplomatically, of course. We could do that, since they don't have an actual bomb yet.
See, I'm an equal-opportunity blame-caster. My overall point being that you treat a rogue regime like a rogue regime. You don't negotiate with it about anything. You starve it of all possible resources.
And you do it within the UN which was involved from the beginning. This ain't no disco. There must not be nuclear war or anything leading to it. No war, and I don't give a shit that it's always been with it. No world war and there is no such thing as preemptive or limited war in this theater. Then or now.
ReplyDeleteBut you see Russia and China are waffling on each round of sanctions, with the effect that NK keeps testing missiles and bombs
ReplyDeleteYou want to blame everyone over the past 60 plus years. If we go to World War II I am blaming the President, his cabinet and advisers and all the Congressmen/women who are with him. And if we do go to war we do not go it alone. We do not go to war! I'll blame people like you too. I hear a lot of tough talk from all the fair weather hawks out there. This ain't no disco, certainly no party. No war! Deal with it or else! Just like over the past 60 plus years during this armistice.
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about other situations such as World War II. I'm asking you quite specifically about Chinese and Russian intransigence on the UN Security Council
ReplyDeleteWhat does "deal with it" mean?
ReplyDeleteAt no previous time during the last 60 years did NK have a thermonuclear weapon and ICBMs
ReplyDeleteDeal with it means deal with it. Without war. I don't care. Deal with it! And, believe me, there are a whole lot of citizens of the world that think the same as me. Deal with it without war! And just what do you think NK is going to do with those nukes? Preemptively bomb the piss out of whomever it wants? Do you really think so? They do not trust the US. Maybe the US should just get out of the UN and let the UN deal with it. Under no circumstances whatsoever is World War III acceptable. None.
ReplyDeleteThe propaganda within N Korea means we are ready for war, why, the regime will not survive otherwise, that is the only issue, the N Koreans live by a war footing alone. It really is let Russia and China deal within their own mess, protect from aggression, and let the "fallout" go where it may. It is Pakistan that worries me more.
ReplyDeleteDon't bet that the regime won't survive, Michael. And read the above linked article from the former special assistant to Reagan and maybe one or both of his books.
ReplyDeleteAnd listen to Terry Gross' interview with the New Uorker's Evan Osnos on this subject that "fresh aired" 2 days ago.on NPR. Dirty words to bloggie NPr and New Yorker.
ReplyDeleteFigures that this NK thing would come to a head early in this idiot president we have's term. There will surely not be another. Despicable! And much of the world thinks so too.
ReplyDeleteIt really comes down to two options, doesn't it? Either the US, South Korea and Japan lived with a gun to their heads for the next several decades and hope for the best, or force is employed to end the Kim regime, with the probability that it sparks the most horrific war in human history.
ReplyDeleteAs I've said before, if we squeak through this without a grim outcome, let us learn the relevant lesson. Get out of the JCPOA and squeeze Iran hard, and, yes, Michael, deal firmly with Pakistan.
But "deal with it means deal with it" didn't clarify things for me.
Barney, "deal with" from my perspective of Pakistan, Iran,.... might mean allowing the inevitable, a nuclear loss. They are their weapons not ours. Ours stand ready but never used. It is impossible to police the worlds catastrophic weapons. Listen with vigilance and with heavy stick. I do not think any country wished erased.
ReplyDeleteThat's one hell of a risk, Michael
ReplyDeleteNorth Korea's nuclear ambitions are defensive. Like everybody says theirs are. What part of a gun to their head don't people get? Here's the podcast of the Terry Gross interview of the New Yorker journalist I heard part of the other day. The journalist says North Korea has and will survive the worst. In a nuclear catastrophe that will is important. They are all gonna hole up in their subways made for that purpose.
ReplyDelete"Most of the people you talk to who specialize in this subject agree that we’re probably going to end up in a situation where North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is a nuclear state, and we learn to co-exist with it. And there are various ways that can look. You know, North Korea wants us to treat it like Pakistan, which is, after all, a member of the international community. It’s got nuclear weapons. The U.S. never acknowledged it, never celebrated it but learned to live with it and doesn’t treat it as a hostile threat."
http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/2017/09/13/550643119?showDate=2017-09-13
Deal with it you dicks. You think you got the whole world in your hands.
ReplyDeleteMr. Dings, I think you mistakenly believe I'm putting forth some kind of solid recommendation for what to do here. I have no idea where you get it.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that I do say there's wisdom to be gleaned from some hindsight. A few comments above, I say the time to look NK right in the eye and say, "Like hell you'll be getting nukes" was 30-plus years ago.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I assume you want war too much, you damn the UN and all previous efforts at peaceful resolution. You applauded the preemption of Iraq, with shock and awe and appear to embrace fire and fury.
ReplyDeleteYou bet I damn the UN. It's utterly worthless. The Iraq preemption was a good idea handled badly. Which is not to say that Iran and North Korea should not have been higher priorities within W's axis-of-evil framework.
ReplyDeleteSo we're left with Donnie's stupid red line beyond which is fire 🔥 and fury, grotesquely sickening shit..,,
ReplyDelete