In Kim Jung Un, Donald Trump has met his match in terms of
maturity, consistency and mental stability. The consequences may be disastrous for the world.
by Sean Illing
(excerpt by henrymakow.com)
To understand how close we are to full-scale conflict in North Korea, I reached out to Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. Lewis focuses on nuclear nonproliferation, international security, and disarmament, and he is the author of Minimum Means of Reprisal: China's Search for Security in the Nuclear Age.
Scenario 1: The North Koreans mistakenly believe that we are going to launch an attack on them, and Kim Jong Un does something crazy.
The big dilemma here is that, in North Korea at least, everything is organized around the fear that they will be invaded, and that Kim Jong Un will end up like Muammar Qaddafi in Libya or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But unlike Qaddafi or Hussein, Kim has actually acquired nuclear weapons, and if you look at the missile testing they do, a lot of these are tests that have already been conducted. What they're doing, in fact, is practicing hitting airfields or other targets that the US would likely use to sustain an invasion.
As far as we can tell, the North Korean theory is that on the first day of a potential war with America, if they just use a bunch of nuclear weapons -- in South Korea, in Japan potentially -- the damage will be so severe that we will be deterred from future aggression, or that the costs will be so high that a successful invasion will be impossible. But for this strategy to be effective, it means North Korea has to go nuclear first, to raise the stakes to an impossibly high level right at the beginning.
My worry is that Trump says or does something incautious or imprudent, as he often does, which North Korea interprets as deadly serious and decides to escalate immediately to deter a potential invasion. It's easy to see how things could get out of hand in a hurry. Continued
The North wouldn't have nukes if we'd kept our word in the past.
As I wrote for this magazine in January 2016, the North Koreans must be astonished to discover that US leaders never seem to grasp the import of their history-related provocations. Even more infuriating is Washington's implacable refusal ever to investigate our 72-year history of conflict with the North; all of our media appear to live in an eternal present, with each new crisis treated as sui generis. Visiting Seoul in March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted that North Korea has a history of violating one agreement after another; in fact, President Bill Clinton got it to freeze its plutonium production for eight years (1994-2002) and, in October 2000, had indirectly worked out a deal to buy all of its medium- and long-range missiles. Clinton also signed an agreement with Gen. Jo Myong-rok stating that henceforth, neither country would bear "hostile intent" toward the other.
The Bush administration promptly ignored both agreements and set out to destroy the 1994 freeze. Bush's invasion of Iraq is rightly seen as a world-historical catastrophe, but next in line would be placing North Korea in his "axis of evil" and, in September 2002, announcing his "preemptive" doctrine directed at Iraq and North Korea, among others. The simple fact is that Pyongyang would have no nuclear weapons if Clinton's agreements had been sustained.
Now comes Donald Trump, blasting into a Beltway milieu where, in recent months, a bipartisan consensus has emerged based on the false assumption that all previous attempts to rein in the North's nuclear program have failed, so it may be time to use force--to destroy its missiles or topple the regime. Last September, the centrist Council on Foreign Relations issued a report stating that "more assertive military and political actions" should be considered, "including those that directly threaten the existence of the [North Korean] regime." Tillerson warned of preemptive action on his recent East Asia trip, and a former Obama-administration official, Antony Blinken, wrote in The New York Times that a "priority" for the Trump administration should be working with China and South Korea to "secure the North's nuclear arsenal" in the event of "regime change." But North Korea reportedly has some 15,000 underground facilities of a national-security nature. It is insane to imagine the Marines traipsing around the country in such a "search and secure" operation, and yet the Bush and Obama administrations had plans to do just that. Obama also ran a highly secret cyber-war against the North for years, seeking to infect and disrupt its missile program. If North Korea did that to us, it might well be considered an act of war.
On November 8, 2016, nearly 66 million voters for Hillary Clinton received a lesson in Hegel's "cunning of history." A bigger lesson awaits Donald Trump, should he attack North Korea. It has the fourth-largest army in the world, as many as 200,000 highly trained special forces, 10,000 artillery pieces in the mountains north of Seoul, mobile missiles that can hit all American military bases in the region (there are hundreds), and nuclear weapons more than twice as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb (according to a new estimate in a highly detailed Times study by David Sanger and William Broad).
Last October, I was at a forum in Seoul with Strobe Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state for Bill Clinton. Like everyone else, Talbott averred that North Korea might well be the top security problem for the next president. In my remarks, I mentioned Robert McNamara's explanation, in Errol Morris's excellent documentary The Fog of War, for our defeat in Vietnam: We never put ourselves in the shoes of the enemy and attempted to see the world as they did. Talbott then blurted, "It's a grotesque regime!" There you have it: It's our number-one problem, but so grotesque that there's no point trying to understand Pyongyang's point of view (or even that it might have some valid concerns). North Korea is the only country in the world to have been systematically blackmailed by US nuclear weapons going back to the 1950s, when hundreds of nukes were installed in South Korea. I have written much about this in these pages and in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Why on earth would Pyongyang not seek a nuclear deterrent? But this crucial background doesn't enter mainstream American discourse. History doesn't matter, until it does--when it rears up and smacks you in the face.
First Comment by (House Satanist) AJ Fozdyke:
The Age of Stunts
Well, have you noticed how Donald takes the part of the Hellequin? No one knows what he'll do next - not even him. When last posted I stated, "In our tradition Trump is The Hellequin, 'a master of external and always internal disguise...The Hellequin teaches by encouraging emulation...then indignation'." The Epistle of Matthias; 'The Phoenix & The Harlequin'.
I also wrote, "When the crowd no longer sends [President Trump] the energies he needs he will become uncontrollable. "The Wand must be bedaubed. The Cup drained. The Sword dazzling. The Disc penetrated."" By way of hint, I then mentioned the late Dr. Stephen Ward. So here's another hint vis-a-vis that 1961 period: Prince Philip.
For the Alpha Lodge, this is the Age of Stunts. That's what the masses want: Stunts. The Phoenix is solar and regenerates through fire. I'm sick of mentioning in-your-hand, purity and weight stamped silver. Your readers know better. And Walpurgis Night is not yet here.
'The Hellequin's path is difficult, dangerous and lonely for he must engage continually by challenging the world to accommodate the expectations of his followers...salted with invitations to emulation but with a character designed to repel. Never able to give a meaningful explanation, his ideals and ineffectual means of attainment always attract followers as enemies...' ibid.
Anyway, enjoy what you can while you can, for Paymon is King of the west, who together with Abali and Beball are the infernal trinity. Enjoy! I only want to live long enough to direct the energies to be released and then I will be with Satan, in His world, with His bride...
Al Thompson suggests a shock collar for politicians that activates every time they break a campaign promise.
Looking at Trump as some kind of Messiah is a complete waste of time. He is what he is and I don't think anything good is going to come from his administration. Once another war is started, that will be an excuse to drop the income tax cuts that he promised. This Kim guy with a bad haircut is the dumbest leader I've ever seen. Most of the people in the government should be in street gangs because they aren't good for anything else. The people of the world get to watch these gang wars live on TV and the whole governmental process of doing things is but a sick joke.
I'm still wondering what was the real message of that?
The people who operate on the dark side love war. They enjoy stealing money from the workers and then spending it on themselves. They are rude, selfish, condescending, and they are more trouble than they are worth. Just remember, if you have any kind of a decent job that pays well, you can be comforted that 50-60% of your income is going to the government in some form or fashion. You get to pay for all of these wars.
The globalist agenda is just fine with Donald Trump. And one of his main points about staying out of the business of other countries has gone by the wayside and back into the chaos of the globalist agenda, which is worldwide communism for everyone.
But I have a solution. Everyone who is elected should wear a shock collar. When they break their campaign promises they should be put out of office and zapped on their way out. If people want a democracy they could actually have a way to make it work and to enforce the stupid laws that they pass. As it stands now, the people can be promised the moon but the reality is just the opposite. This is what makes democracy so frustrating; say one thing and do another.