Steve Bannon is right. We will not start a war to stop North Korea. The risk to Seoul is too great. The North Koreans have a trump card. They got us.
Still, I would not worry too much. North Korea is not going to start a war either. They know if they do that is the end of the Kim regime. No one will tolerate any aggression by North Korea, especially any launch of a nuclear weapon.
South Koreans are nervous, and rightfully so. But there is no panic there, nor should there be. North Korea doesn't gain much, if anything, by getting nuclear weapons. They will continue with the same tired posturing that they have done for decades.
Still, I would not worry too much. North Korea is not going to start a war either. They know if they do that is the end of the Kim regime. No one will tolerate any aggression by North Korea, especially any launch of a nuclear weapon.
South Koreans are nervous, and rightfully so. But there is no panic there, nor should there be. North Korea doesn't gain much, if anything, by getting nuclear weapons. They will continue with the same tired posturing that they have done for decades.
1
The Korean War in 1950 destroyed the economy and the crumbly infrastructure existent in the Korean Peninsula.
Hundred of thousands soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded. It took 50 years to rebuild the economy and infrastructure.
South Korea today has one of the most advanced economies and infrastructure in the world, particularly a state of art internet communication system.
The Trump administration talks of a ' preventive war' against North Korea's nuclear/missile programs in order to protect the homeland.
It appears the same rationale applied to the Vietnam War will now be used in Korea. In order to keep America safe, South Koreans will pay the costs and collateral damage of a strike against the North.
Curiously, the timing of this new doctrine coincides with Stephen Bannon leaving the White House. In a public interview, he said there is no military solution to the Korean crisis. He lost his job.
Is time to ask the South Korean people whether they agree or not with Trump's military doctrine of preventive war on the Korean Peninsula.
The Korean crisis is far from being over. Perhaps is just the beginning.
Hundred of thousands soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded. It took 50 years to rebuild the economy and infrastructure.
South Korea today has one of the most advanced economies and infrastructure in the world, particularly a state of art internet communication system.
The Trump administration talks of a ' preventive war' against North Korea's nuclear/missile programs in order to protect the homeland.
It appears the same rationale applied to the Vietnam War will now be used in Korea. In order to keep America safe, South Koreans will pay the costs and collateral damage of a strike against the North.
Curiously, the timing of this new doctrine coincides with Stephen Bannon leaving the White House. In a public interview, he said there is no military solution to the Korean crisis. He lost his job.
Is time to ask the South Korean people whether they agree or not with Trump's military doctrine of preventive war on the Korean Peninsula.
The Korean crisis is far from being over. Perhaps is just the beginning.
2
I'm getting sick of all these people saying that we as American people are starting this with North Korea whatever since they got their nuclear bombs capable of hitting our lands that is the only word coming out of their leaders mouth is nuclear war nuclear war nuclear war. I think if we sat back and did nothing about this the cost would be too great an American soil, I don't agree with a lot of things president Donald Trump says or does but I do believe we need to end this threat in North Korea before we have another tragedy on American soil we already know that North Korea their leader is not right in the head and he's very paranoid those are some bad combinations that have when you have someone that's in control of release and nuclear warfare. He's not just talking about regular War ever since he got his rackets working the only word he likes to use now is nuclear. I do hold that Trump and his team send our boys are soldiers our backbone over there in North Korea that we are a force to be reckoned with. While we sit here and try to make a diplomatic approach to this and settle things down is only given North Korea more time to plan their attack on Guam I hate to see our soldiers are boys go over there and possibly face death but that's what they signed up for protecting our country and the people in it so I do believe the strike on North Korea would be the best option before we have nukes coming our way.
Sounds like someone is in over his head.
As many of my progressive friends told me, cajoled me, badgered me, yelled at me, and unfriended me during the primaries: you must not vote for Hillary because she's such a warmonger.
1
Our exercise is considerably smaller than last year, local Korean TV reports. The North Korean observation that the US is hostile would be bellicose, but it wasn't.
I don't believe anything that comes out of this administration. The South Koreans have a promise that they would be consulted first.
I get my Korean information off the local airwaves. Listen!
I don't believe anything that comes out of this administration. The South Koreans have a promise that they would be consulted first.
I get my Korean information off the local airwaves. Listen!
Much endless time has elapsed since that nightmarish evening in November 2016, during which Trump has shown that he is not our president, nor anyone else's. There is no one home. Lets just take it for granted that the Orange Cheeto has nothing to do with the real decisions being made in Washington. Trump spouts policy as he is instructed unless he is engaging in those madman Tweets, his favorite and primary occupation. We should be asking who is really calling the shots from the White House. Trump himself lives in another Universe.
1
If the US can tolerate 200 or so nuclear warheads in Israel, right smack dab in the midst of that hair trigger landscape, then a few of same in NK doesn't look so terrible.
1
Donald pretended to have a foot injury to keep out of military service in Nam. Now that there is no draft, and he's much older, he's not afraid of nuclear war. He threatens this and that, and Kim blusters back. What should the Donald do?
Go to Seoul, South Korea, set up headquarters there, along with the nuclear codes, and see what happens. Don't let the 25 million South Koreans and our tens of thousands of American troops have all the fun. Show them your "courage" as you wait for whatever will be. Or you could send one or two of our generals, preferably including General Kelly, to negotiate (not an obscene word) with Kim.
Of course, if there is a conflict you can show everyone how fearless you are.
Go to Seoul, South Korea, set up headquarters there, along with the nuclear codes, and see what happens. Don't let the 25 million South Koreans and our tens of thousands of American troops have all the fun. Show them your "courage" as you wait for whatever will be. Or you could send one or two of our generals, preferably including General Kelly, to negotiate (not an obscene word) with Kim.
Of course, if there is a conflict you can show everyone how fearless you are.
1
I can't believe I'm saying this but I'm going with Bannon on this one
1
A string of Presidents kept us out of war with major nuclear adversaries ever since the dawn of the nuclear age.
Now we are asked to contemplate "preventive war" - the ultimate oxymoron - with tin-pot nation of dubious capability (remember WMD?). The geopolitical fallout from Iraq was bad enough but, it seems, no lessons have been learned by trump or his "adult" generals.
Now we are asked to contemplate "preventive war" - the ultimate oxymoron - with tin-pot nation of dubious capability (remember WMD?). The geopolitical fallout from Iraq was bad enough but, it seems, no lessons have been learned by trump or his "adult" generals.
5
North Korea is meeting with pressure and friction from every country surrounding it. We are not alone, but North Korea is.
Well isn't this interesting. Looks like the military-industrial complex is overplaying their hand.
"Preventive war" is not a big vote of confidence for our Navy (watch out for other boats!) or our very expensive and much-hyped missile defense system, is it? And if they don't have confidence in these parts of our military system, then why should anyone believe them when they say anything else about the other parts of our military system and how wonderfully effective it all is?
To steal from Ronald Reagan - the scariest words are "I'm from the military and I'm here to save you".
"Preventive war" is not a big vote of confidence for our Navy (watch out for other boats!) or our very expensive and much-hyped missile defense system, is it? And if they don't have confidence in these parts of our military system, then why should anyone believe them when they say anything else about the other parts of our military system and how wonderfully effective it all is?
To steal from Ronald Reagan - the scariest words are "I'm from the military and I'm here to save you".
1
Since the era of Cicero, the criteria for a "Just War" have been described. A preemptive war is not included in those time=honored criteria. Self=defense, for the most part, is the primary criterion. That moral criterion of self-defense has always been valid for persons, as well as nations. We are on a 'slippery slope' which originated with the abrogation of the Geneva Convention's rubric for humane behavior, even during a 'just' war. We began this fateful journey at Guantanamo Bay.
2
This Administration reminds me of characters in Stanley Kubrick's prescient masterpiece, "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."
H.R. McMasters is taking the optimistic view voiced by of Buck Turgidsen (played by George C. Scott in the movie), on nuclear war being not so bad...paraphrasing "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed, Mr. President... but it'll be 10 to 20 million casualties, tops."
One casting change - instead of the President being that mild-mannered soul of reasonableness in the movie played by Peter Sellers, Donald Trump has cast himself as the maniacal Dr. Strangelove himself... although Trump hasn't yet said 'Heil Hitler" in so many words.
We do not need to go down this path. North Korea has stood down from those crazy remarks about nuking Guam in the last 10 days.
Still, the military exercises (which McMaster and Mattis want to beef up with the overflight of of nuclear-capable aircraft!) is an extremely sore point - and talk of the Kill-Chain is just the thing to send Kim Jong Un, never mind some lowly general, down the path taken by Sterling Hayden's Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove.
Lunacy, indeed.
H.R. McMasters is taking the optimistic view voiced by of Buck Turgidsen (played by George C. Scott in the movie), on nuclear war being not so bad...paraphrasing "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed, Mr. President... but it'll be 10 to 20 million casualties, tops."
One casting change - instead of the President being that mild-mannered soul of reasonableness in the movie played by Peter Sellers, Donald Trump has cast himself as the maniacal Dr. Strangelove himself... although Trump hasn't yet said 'Heil Hitler" in so many words.
We do not need to go down this path. North Korea has stood down from those crazy remarks about nuking Guam in the last 10 days.
Still, the military exercises (which McMaster and Mattis want to beef up with the overflight of of nuclear-capable aircraft!) is an extremely sore point - and talk of the Kill-Chain is just the thing to send Kim Jong Un, never mind some lowly general, down the path taken by Sterling Hayden's Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove.
Lunacy, indeed.
6
Lunacy?
From someone who cannot even keep the roles of the characters in De. Strangelove safe.
Plot wise you seem to forget that the adversary there, Russian commies, were acting rationally and brought in to defuse the situation, but the doomsday device had been kept secret.
In would be in China's interest, or a Korean nationalist commie, to attack the US, as the US would be trrible damaged but China would suffer little damage and the two thirds of the Koreans who are in South Korea would be fine.
The argument that Kim with nukes is like any prior situation and is stable through containment is a bald lie by people so uninformed about history they know no better nor care.
From someone who cannot even keep the roles of the characters in De. Strangelove safe.
Plot wise you seem to forget that the adversary there, Russian commies, were acting rationally and brought in to defuse the situation, but the doomsday device had been kept secret.
In would be in China's interest, or a Korean nationalist commie, to attack the US, as the US would be trrible damaged but China would suffer little damage and the two thirds of the Koreans who are in South Korea would be fine.
The argument that Kim with nukes is like any prior situation and is stable through containment is a bald lie by people so uninformed about history they know no better nor care.
2
"PREVENTIVE WAR?"
3
Could it be that this war would be the ultimate distraction?
6
But.. but.. we have a shh.. secret weapon - President Trump will scold them into submission.
2
Act now, or reap the whirlwind later. Imagine North Korea and their dictator with a dozen nuclear weapons.
1
Reap the whirled now, or later?
The Trump administration has the childish approach to pressing issues of the day by organizing a week around them - education, transportation, infrastructure, nothing of substance came of these weeks. Let's hope as much comes of Military Adventure Week, though, with the support of so many generals who've embedded themselves in the Oval Office, it's likely Military Adventure Week will produce much 'strange fruit'.
2
Preventive war against North Korea?
Well, it would probably be quite profitable for Erik Prince of Blackwater.
Well, it would probably be quite profitable for Erik Prince of Blackwater.
I guess it's easy to gamble with other people's lives.
6
We may lose many thousands, but that is a sacrifice that Trump is willing to make?
1
McMaster is wrong on both departures from the past. Utter destruction is a deterrent for the North Koreans. Kim Jung Un is willing to sacrifice many of his countryman but not himself and his power base. He wants to be alive when the dust settles.
Also there is no real reliable and certain military option of a preemptive attack by the US that will fully take out North Korea's ability to respond and cause significant death and destruction in South Korea and Japan. That's because of the thousands of hidden artillery and missile installations pointed at Seoul and Japan.
It scares me that the Trump administration would make these statements.
Also there is no real reliable and certain military option of a preemptive attack by the US that will fully take out North Korea's ability to respond and cause significant death and destruction in South Korea and Japan. That's because of the thousands of hidden artillery and missile installations pointed at Seoul and Japan.
It scares me that the Trump administration would make these statements.
3
It is one thing to start a war. It is quite another thing to actually prosecute and conduct one. Can you even imagine Trump as a commander in chief, responsible for the hourly or daily decisions in an ongoing was. it is unimaginable. His basic ignorance, his non existent attention span, his temperament, and his massive dishonesty are such that, while a decision to take action might seem comprehensible given all the deliberations that might precede it, Trump as a leader in an ongoing conflict is simply unthinkable.
4
"Not since 2002, as the United States built a case for war in Iraq, has there been so much debate inside the White House about the merits — and the enormous risks — of pre-emptive military action against an adversary nation."
How was Iraq an adversary nation in 2002, and how is North Korea today in 2017?
Hows' that Iraq war going too?
How was Iraq an adversary nation in 2002, and how is North Korea today in 2017?
Hows' that Iraq war going too?
6
Hmm. North Korea threatens the U.S. near daily with nuclear war, and soon will have the resources to carry it through. Not to mention the actual war we fought against them in the 1950s, with 50,000 American dead. Oh, and the ongoing cyber attacks. If that's not an adversary to you, that's bizarre.
1
To answer your last question, refer it to T. Friedman who will no doubt provide a long winded, circuitous, unintelligible reply.
Are we looking at the potentially nuclear equivalent of the much abused "stand your ground" law? Do we trust President Trump to use the best judgement and caution before instigating the deaths of millions of South Koreans? What does our ambassador to South Korea think about this? Oh, that's right, we don't currently have an ambassador to South Korea.
2
Trumpists will always be looking for ways to divert attention from Russiagate, Trump's bogus election and his overt support of neo-Nazis. This will be their primary motive for justifying a "Trumped-up" war against any party.
6
As long as Eric and Don Jr sign up for the Korean front.
7
It is to counter the threat of 'real war' that has driven North Korea to pursue a nuclear program in the first place. Only a sociopath would play games with the lives of millions of Koreans. Indeed, since South Korea is in much more credible danger, perhaps we should follow it's lead?
2
"Preventive war" in 2017 means the same as "police action" in 1950: mass slaughter.
And the great statesman Trump is going to address the nation tonight on getting deeper in Afghanistan immune to the lessons learned by the British and Russian Empires: Don't mess with the Pashtan hill tribes for whom war is the national sport.
And the great statesman Trump is going to address the nation tonight on getting deeper in Afghanistan immune to the lessons learned by the British and Russian Empires: Don't mess with the Pashtan hill tribes for whom war is the national sport.
2
Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Senator John Edwards, like most other members of Congress, voted for the Afghan war resolution... which was also supported by a majority of Americans.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/5029/eight-americans-support-ground-war-afgha...
Naturally, as time goes by, liberal extremists (and their racists views) will reinvent history!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/5029/eight-americans-support-ground-war-afgha...
Naturally, as time goes by, liberal extremists (and their racists views) will reinvent history!
3
While we diddle over the nearly unavoidable future of NK's nuclear arsenal, the Trump administration's dysfunction over the DOE's mission and objectives have much more immediate consequences. RE: Micheal Lewis's article in Vanity Fair.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-micha...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-micha...
The odds of a nuclear showdown with N Korea have increased dramatically. As much As I despise Trump, this has been coming for along time. There has to be an all out attempt to create some channel of communication out of the public eye
- to avoid either Kim Jong-un or Trump from losing face -and bring the North Koreans to the table.
To do so requires Chinese leverage - and probably backing down on the threat of curtailing Chinese exports to the US. There is a paranoid part of me that wonders if China might want the US to attack, however - eliminating their unstable, demanding"ally" while leaving China to take the high road.
If we cannot contain this, millions of people will die. we managed - so far - with the Soviet Union/Russia, but that was when they had leaders who actually feared war as much as we did. This is different.
- to avoid either Kim Jong-un or Trump from losing face -and bring the North Koreans to the table.
To do so requires Chinese leverage - and probably backing down on the threat of curtailing Chinese exports to the US. There is a paranoid part of me that wonders if China might want the US to attack, however - eliminating their unstable, demanding"ally" while leaving China to take the high road.
If we cannot contain this, millions of people will die. we managed - so far - with the Soviet Union/Russia, but that was when they had leaders who actually feared war as much as we did. This is different.
1
This talk is sickening and so reckless. The world as we know it will definitely end if there is a first strike by anyone. Make no mistake, and look to the past, the scientists who regretted ever creating this disastrous weapon.
2
...preventive, right- now would be a good time while the navy is in an 'operational pause', because we can't figure out why our ships keep crashing into things.
Let me guess, another Kushner special? If we don't, how can we justify a 'preventative war' with Iran?
War is the ultimate recourse of dictators to conquer public sympathies. Thanks to the irrationality of nationalism, war never ever fails to deliver. For an immoral narcissist like Trump, the ultimate manipulator and Third World styled dictator, war is the obvious path to popular glory.
It is not just ignorant and racist Republican whites and his lackeys in Congress the ones who will fall for this oldest of tricks, but the American People in general will be seduced by the madness of patriotism.
When Trump sees North Korea on the world map, he sees himself in the history books. This country has fallen lower than anyone imagined, and is very far from the bottom yet.
It is not just ignorant and racist Republican whites and his lackeys in Congress the ones who will fall for this oldest of tricks, but the American People in general will be seduced by the madness of patriotism.
When Trump sees North Korea on the world map, he sees himself in the history books. This country has fallen lower than anyone imagined, and is very far from the bottom yet.
3
If not us, who? If not now, when?
No one. never. talk is cheap. nuclear winter is catastrophic. ignore the bullies and madmen, as it is attention they crave. MAD was a viable strategy and can remain one. China says chill, that's good advice. We have 7000 miles, DPRK has a handful. just enough to command the respect they have craved since America was "Great" before. You know, when we would tamper in elections worldwide.
4
Those who see a "preemptive" or "surgical" strike as possibilities are foolishly ignoring the fact that China and Russia both will likely respond, not to mention the millions of lives lost in both North and South Korea, and further, the tens of millions of lives lost if the nuclear theater expands, as it likely would. Even those "brave" ranchers and farmers quoted in a Times article last week, saying how they're probably in the safest part of America, would suffer the effects. Of course they would learn this too late.
But aside from the need to prop up our ego, how is North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons any different that those possessed by India and Pakistan, neither country boasting of stable leadership. Is Mr. Kim more unstable? Perhaps. Or perhaps he's engaging in brinkmanship, just like Trump? In any case, while he represents a danger to us, it's one that we have to tolerate, while watching closely and carefully. Meanwhile, we need to look for alternatives to launching "surgical" strikes, which will be nothing of the kind, not prevent a nuclear holocaust. If Kim does decide to launch an attack, then certainly we must be prepared to retaliate, but we should not be the ones to initiate what might well be the dawning of a global nuclear winter, and the extinction of mankind.
But aside from the need to prop up our ego, how is North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons any different that those possessed by India and Pakistan, neither country boasting of stable leadership. Is Mr. Kim more unstable? Perhaps. Or perhaps he's engaging in brinkmanship, just like Trump? In any case, while he represents a danger to us, it's one that we have to tolerate, while watching closely and carefully. Meanwhile, we need to look for alternatives to launching "surgical" strikes, which will be nothing of the kind, not prevent a nuclear holocaust. If Kim does decide to launch an attack, then certainly we must be prepared to retaliate, but we should not be the ones to initiate what might well be the dawning of a global nuclear winter, and the extinction of mankind.
1
Another poor quality NYT article, which is almost as bad as their opinion page!
Decades of failed negotiations and treaty violations has brought us to this point.
Folks, nothing can be done.
FYI: There will not be a war with North Korea anytime soon. What will happen is they will launch more missiles, which will cause more pointless world commendation and stupid reactions from Republicans and idiotic criticism from Democrats!
Liberals... Conservatives... get use to the fact that we've been snookered by the North Koreans!
Decades of failed negotiations and treaty violations has brought us to this point.
Folks, nothing can be done.
FYI: There will not be a war with North Korea anytime soon. What will happen is they will launch more missiles, which will cause more pointless world commendation and stupid reactions from Republicans and idiotic criticism from Democrats!
Liberals... Conservatives... get use to the fact that we've been snookered by the North Koreans!
2
So Agent Orange will start a war to prevent a war. He must think the world is as insane or idiotic as he is. It must be part of his plan to bring jobs back to the USA by destroying the Japanese and South Korean electronics and car manufacturers.
If North Korea wanted to attack America they would use conventional weapons against our bases in South Korea. It has always been very easy for them to attack us in that way. But they haven't because of the fear of retaliation. Nothing has changed.
1
Preemptive strikes -- what could go wrong?
What's to stop North Korea -- or any country on the globe for that matter -- from launching one under a perceived threat like a preemptive strike? Couldn't THIS be seen by NK as another challenge that must be met with force?
Does Trump, his family, or those in the administration have any financial stake in the defense industry, or is this another attempt at a "Wag the Dog" scenario to distract from his domestic problems? Tired of the warmongering, already. Tired of seeing our allies and territories put at risk. This is not a game.
We'd best be careful with Kim and NK. We could be playing with dynamite. Don't be lulled because this story's been pushed off the front burner of late -- we are just as much at the brink as we were two weeks ago.
What's to stop North Korea -- or any country on the globe for that matter -- from launching one under a perceived threat like a preemptive strike? Couldn't THIS be seen by NK as another challenge that must be met with force?
Does Trump, his family, or those in the administration have any financial stake in the defense industry, or is this another attempt at a "Wag the Dog" scenario to distract from his domestic problems? Tired of the warmongering, already. Tired of seeing our allies and territories put at risk. This is not a game.
We'd best be careful with Kim and NK. We could be playing with dynamite. Don't be lulled because this story's been pushed off the front burner of late -- we are just as much at the brink as we were two weeks ago.
We have no choice but to strike them now or be held hostage forever.
This happened on Obamas watch, he stood nay and did NOTHING! What a coward.
This happened on Obamas watch, he stood nay and did NOTHING! What a coward.
3
The term 'preventive' or "pre-emptive" war was, I believe, coined by journalists.
You cant pre-empt a war with a war.
Let's just have a war.
You cant pre-empt a war with a war.
Let's just have a war.
2
Whoever wrote, "What prevents war is diplomacy," lives in a fantasy land and only wears rose colored glasses!
Neville Chamberlain's diplomacy failed.
Diplomacy with the Taliban failed after they refused to hand over bin Laden.
Diplomacy with Saddam failed in the first Gulf war forcing us to liberate Kuwait.
We've been "NEGOTIATING" with the North Korea for decades which is like talking to naive liberal extremists - a complete waste of time!
North Korea couldn't even keep their agreements with the IAEA, which is just one example of failed diplomacy.
Ask the surviving crew of the USS Pueblo about diplomacy and North Korea... do we have that ship back?
What about the Cheonan sinking, do liberals even have a clue?
Diplomacy has failed with North Korea and despite the warmongering by the NYT, we are not going to have a war anytime soon!
Neville Chamberlain's diplomacy failed.
Diplomacy with the Taliban failed after they refused to hand over bin Laden.
Diplomacy with Saddam failed in the first Gulf war forcing us to liberate Kuwait.
We've been "NEGOTIATING" with the North Korea for decades which is like talking to naive liberal extremists - a complete waste of time!
North Korea couldn't even keep their agreements with the IAEA, which is just one example of failed diplomacy.
Ask the surviving crew of the USS Pueblo about diplomacy and North Korea... do we have that ship back?
What about the Cheonan sinking, do liberals even have a clue?
Diplomacy has failed with North Korea and despite the warmongering by the NYT, we are not going to have a war anytime soon!
2
Oh, for the good old days of a Cold War. Frightening, but with sane leaders.
On BOTH sides.
On BOTH sides.
2
Before we get in collective high-horse and start blabbering on about "preventive wars" to neutralize North Korea, let's just remember that the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was considered by the Japanese to be "preventive".
We have very little good intelligence about where the nuclear weapons are stashed in N Korea and in the time it would take to hunt them out and destroy them, millions of South Koreans would die from the non-nuclear weaponry that sits across the border from Seoul.
Our track record on this kind of stuff over the years is not good. Let's not settle on a course that could kill millions before all other options are exhausted.
We have very little good intelligence about where the nuclear weapons are stashed in N Korea and in the time it would take to hunt them out and destroy them, millions of South Koreans would die from the non-nuclear weaponry that sits across the border from Seoul.
Our track record on this kind of stuff over the years is not good. Let's not settle on a course that could kill millions before all other options are exhausted.
1
North Korea isn't going to nuke Seoul or Tokyo or Guam or LA or Nome. What would be gained? They have a few dozen missiles. We have thousands. They know that.
How I wish George Kennan's ghost would appear to remind us that American lives and American efforts are to be shed only when the stakes are really, really high. This all started because the USA decided to go north of the 38th Parallel in 1950, which turned out to be an overreach that led to thousands of American deaths, tens-of-thousands of Korean deaths and the military situation we face today.
Barack Obama didn't exactly have a doctrine, but he did seem to realize that everyone else sees the US as powerful, that such power is not to be used at every turn, and that many of this world's most horrific wars can't be solved by US military force - in fact some are so insanely fought that we can't really figure out where to parachute the troops.
Donald Trump does seem to have a doctrine: will they like me more if I lead us into war? It sounds crazy to say, but can anyone really deny that it's at least partially true?
How I wish George Kennan's ghost would appear to remind us that American lives and American efforts are to be shed only when the stakes are really, really high. This all started because the USA decided to go north of the 38th Parallel in 1950, which turned out to be an overreach that led to thousands of American deaths, tens-of-thousands of Korean deaths and the military situation we face today.
Barack Obama didn't exactly have a doctrine, but he did seem to realize that everyone else sees the US as powerful, that such power is not to be used at every turn, and that many of this world's most horrific wars can't be solved by US military force - in fact some are so insanely fought that we can't really figure out where to parachute the troops.
Donald Trump does seem to have a doctrine: will they like me more if I lead us into war? It sounds crazy to say, but can anyone really deny that it's at least partially true?
2
Says who? This so-called president?! I don't think so. We are not going to war based on this moron's assessment of North Korea. He is a liar and an idiot.
1
Maybe we would have greater credibility if our warships would stop knocking themselves out of service by running into unarmed civilian vessels.
2
usa999, I am not a sailor but how do you ram another boat with the SIDE of your boat? Of the 4 incidents this year all were hit in the side except the first one in January that the US ran aground all by itself.
Who is in charge of America' military?
A reality TV star ,who exhibits malignant sociopathy. has no attention span ,does not read, does not show any empathy or compassion (for anybody),has ZERO understanding of geo-politics or history.
What could possibly go wrong .....
A reality TV star ,who exhibits malignant sociopathy. has no attention span ,does not read, does not show any empathy or compassion (for anybody),has ZERO understanding of geo-politics or history.
What could possibly go wrong .....
5
Anybody remember Dr. Strangelove?
6
This trajectory of nuclear blackmail by a rogue regime like the Kims is going to end in military confrontation. China has not stopped it and negotiated agreements have never been kept. The only constant is NK's continued development of nuclear warheads and continued threats to America and its allies. I'm not going live or die under Kim's whim. We need to end this now.
1
Rogue regime? North Korea has been around since 1950 and has always been making noise since then. And nothing has happened other than incidents here and there. Now how about our own rogue president who wants to start a war. And if you are so gung ho about going to war, read about the Marines in a fighting retreat in below zero weather in the Chosin reservoir or the US Army on the brink of disaster at the Pusan perimeter and when the Chinese swarmed the UN forces in 1952.
I am flabbergasted at all the naifs who think that "diplomacy" is the way out of this problem. Wake up. Diplomacy is what got us into this problem in the first place.
In the case of North Korea, for decades we have talked and talked, and we have talked about talking, and the North Koreans have built and built nuclear weapons that will be able to reach us if we don't act before the window closes.
Diplomacy too often has served as an excuse for politicians who don't have the guts to make hard choices. How many people were killed in Bosnia because Cyrus Vance's almost religious fetish about keeping the "peace process" alive? Vance talked, Bosnians died. How many lives might have been saved in Europe if Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain (and FDR) had acted promptly and decisively against Hitler's breaches of treaties and aggressions against his neighbors?
Don't get me wrong. Diplomacy has its place, but it can only be as effective as the will of the President to use other "non-verbal" means. To paraphrase Clausewitz, "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means."
In the case of North Korea, for decades we have talked and talked, and we have talked about talking, and the North Koreans have built and built nuclear weapons that will be able to reach us if we don't act before the window closes.
Diplomacy too often has served as an excuse for politicians who don't have the guts to make hard choices. How many people were killed in Bosnia because Cyrus Vance's almost religious fetish about keeping the "peace process" alive? Vance talked, Bosnians died. How many lives might have been saved in Europe if Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain (and FDR) had acted promptly and decisively against Hitler's breaches of treaties and aggressions against his neighbors?
Don't get me wrong. Diplomacy has its place, but it can only be as effective as the will of the President to use other "non-verbal" means. To paraphrase Clausewitz, "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means."
3
Ok so you want the US to take military action now to solve the NK problem. Basically a preemptive attack of NK to eliminate launch sites and nuclear facilities? So what do you do about the thousands of hidden NK conventional artillery and missile installations aimed at Seoul and Japan that we couldn't be certain of fully eliminating. Also don't forget NK already has short and mid range nuclear missiles on portable launch vehicles hidden through out the country that could be fired on South Korea and Japan.
So I guess your willing to sacrifice possibly millions of South Korean and Japanese deaths?!
So I guess your willing to sacrifice possibly millions of South Korean and Japanese deaths?!
1
Re: "...Not since 2002, as the United States built a case for war in Iraq, has there been so much debate inside the White House about the merits - and the enormous risks - of preemptive military action against an adversary nation..."
If we're really, so concerned with an N.K. missile, (...with OR without an N.-W.M.D.), 'test' being a sneak attack, OR...far, more likely...going, off course as these things do, from time to time...
Perhaps we can get the U.S.N. to stop getting their missile destroyers run, over by commercial ships, 'N, park a couple of 'em off the N.K. coast with standing orders to shoot down ANY missile that hasn't been cleared by an international body; ...And/or, any missile flying a dangerous or 'attack profile'...on a course where it MIGHT be headed to Guam, Hawaii, etc.!!
The U.S.S. Vincennes has a proven track record of being able to hit flying objects...mistaking an Iran_Air A-300 Airbus for a U.S. manufactured F-4 Phantom!
{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Shootdown_of_Flight_65}
BTW: My country created / is the ONLY country to have used these infernal weapons; The U.S. is the ONLY country to have actually launched an armed submarine launched missile!
...I wonder what the U.S. would've or will do-/-say, if/when another country / group of countries threatens us, given all the N.-W.M.D.'s we've exploded in the Pacific-/-Nevada... just to see what our bright, shiny new war toys would-/-will, someday, do!
If we're really, so concerned with an N.K. missile, (...with OR without an N.-W.M.D.), 'test' being a sneak attack, OR...far, more likely...going, off course as these things do, from time to time...
Perhaps we can get the U.S.N. to stop getting their missile destroyers run, over by commercial ships, 'N, park a couple of 'em off the N.K. coast with standing orders to shoot down ANY missile that hasn't been cleared by an international body; ...And/or, any missile flying a dangerous or 'attack profile'...on a course where it MIGHT be headed to Guam, Hawaii, etc.!!
The U.S.S. Vincennes has a proven track record of being able to hit flying objects...mistaking an Iran_Air A-300 Airbus for a U.S. manufactured F-4 Phantom!
{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Shootdown_of_Flight_65}
BTW: My country created / is the ONLY country to have used these infernal weapons; The U.S. is the ONLY country to have actually launched an armed submarine launched missile!
...I wonder what the U.S. would've or will do-/-say, if/when another country / group of countries threatens us, given all the N.-W.M.D.'s we've exploded in the Pacific-/-Nevada... just to see what our bright, shiny new war toys would-/-will, someday, do!
Preventive war is an illusion, and the term is even more ominous than "preventive strike". In fact, a so-called preventive war may actually be an attempt, by way of distraction and fall-in-line patriotism, to prevent something else: deep scrutiny of the many ways this Administration is undermining our basic principles of constitutional government.
1
Not an illusion.
Real and necessary
Real and necessary
Even if he gets ICBMs, Kim's focus on self preservation means he wouldn't dare use them.
But in the time-honored tradition of failing oligarchs, Trump is itching for a foreign was to distract his critics.
But in the time-honored tradition of failing oligarchs, Trump is itching for a foreign was to distract his critics.
1
Shakespeare laid bare the myth of war in Troilus & Cressida. There is no glory. There are no heroes. There are only the dead, the dying, and the ones doing the killing.
That the current occupant of the White House imagines there is triumph in industrial scale slaughter lays bare his distorted concept of being human.
We have nuclear weapons as do other nations that have leaders who have never experienced the savagery of men at war. Should these other nations take preemptive action against us given the deranged rhetoric of our current leader? As the computer in the movie War Games figured out, the only winning move is not to play. "How about a nice game of chess, Professor Falken?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s93KC4AGKnY
That the current occupant of the White House imagines there is triumph in industrial scale slaughter lays bare his distorted concept of being human.
We have nuclear weapons as do other nations that have leaders who have never experienced the savagery of men at war. Should these other nations take preemptive action against us given the deranged rhetoric of our current leader? As the computer in the movie War Games figured out, the only winning move is not to play. "How about a nice game of chess, Professor Falken?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s93KC4AGKnY
To entertain the idea of a "preventive war" on the Korean peninsula is to contemplate mass murder. If this country had learned nothing else from the debacle that was the war in Iraq, i would hope we would have learned the folly of using notions of prevention as a justification for war.
2
Another option not mentioned, would be surgical assassination of the mentally unstable 'Dear Leader' and perhaps his immediate staff. One can only assume this strategy is in place..
1
Preventive war in Korea would be the reductio ad absurdum--the cherry on the sundae--of the boomer selfishness and narcissism so grotesquely personified in a funhouse mirror by Trump. Who cares if we get millions of Koreans, especially innocent a South Koreans, killed, as long as we "save" ourselves? The same kind of grossly amoral boomer selfishness that wiped out hundreds of thousands of Iraquis to make the Middle East "safe" for Israel.
2
Our Cheeto-in-Chief will look at this and think "they can't hit any of my properties, just a bunch of losers" and he will not hesitate to let the missiles fly.
1
The North Korean regime is no doubt populated with sociopathic criminals who care little about anything but their own survival and making themselves rich. People starving to death? Hey, whatever. Someone pass the wine.
And it is survival that they (like all of us) crave. They saw what happened to Kaddaffy in Libya when he voluntarily gave up plans for nuclear weapons.
The North Korean regime's thugs may be crazy bullies, but they are not suicidal.
What we Americans can do is to tell Mike Pence and his pals to stop talking about "regime change" in North Korea. It only makes the North Koreans more paranoid and crazier.
So let's everybody calm down so we don't miscalculate and enable two blundering fools -- Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un -- stumble into a nuclear war.
And it is survival that they (like all of us) crave. They saw what happened to Kaddaffy in Libya when he voluntarily gave up plans for nuclear weapons.
The North Korean regime's thugs may be crazy bullies, but they are not suicidal.
What we Americans can do is to tell Mike Pence and his pals to stop talking about "regime change" in North Korea. It only makes the North Koreans more paranoid and crazier.
So let's everybody calm down so we don't miscalculate and enable two blundering fools -- Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un -- stumble into a nuclear war.
3
I am reading Churchill's "A Gathering Storm" . If what I am reading is stated correctly, there were many opportunities to stop WWII before it started. Much ignoring of how the Germans were bypassing the WWI treaty and going about the business of growing their army, their navy, their building capacity. And then it was too late. A fascinating read and I wonder how much is relevant today. If there is relevance, it feels like where we are now is too late.
Then read Len Deighton's History of WWII, if you can find it whole, Churchill photo and all.
No, we can not go to war with this incompetent administration. It's so packed with generals now, and you know they live for this, and trump is easily manipulated. Just no.
3
The perfect time to go to war, that's what we need!
War is never the answer. Prevention, pre-emption, common sense, reason, logic, not war
2
A lot of wishful thinking here. Assuming that North Korea's leadership is logical is one example. Do we really think we can just talk our way out of this? Has it ever worked with them before? Decades of lunacy and so many of the commenters here are still in some kind of fantasy land about how we'll just be able to talk our way out of it.
Deeply irresponsible talk by men with a tenuous connection to reality.
2
The bluff and bluster of North Korea's threat to annihilate the US as they roll out successive missiles capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, is for defensive purposes. They would not attempt to do a pre-emptive strike on the US unless they thought the USA was planning the same. And there lies the real danger in this game of chicken that Trump is playing.
2
"Preventive War"
George Orwell was prescient, indeed...
George Orwell was prescient, indeed...
3
Jobs, jobs, jobs-trump is focused on jobs? South Korean factories close to the border manufacture components essential to the manufacture of most cars, electronics, aircraft, computers, appliances, you name it. A huge chunk of manufacturing all over the world would be shut down and the employees furloughed. The stock market would crash; your 401K would become a 201k at best. Bannon was right-there is no reasonable scenario for a pre-emptive strike!
24
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama failed and now our country must accept that North Korea has the bomb, including the required delivery systems. Folks, there isn't anything that can be done about those simple facts!
Both Republicans and Democrats will conveniently forget their own party's failures. Liberals and Conservatives will post damning commentaries on social media about each other's faults, while claiming only their side knows what's best.
The current administration, including future Presidents, will make bold proclamations which only distract the easily amused masses!
China will meet North Korea's needs and trade between them will continue to increase. As this goes on, China will become more assertive in the South China Sea until violent skirmishes occur. Tensions will also rise with India as the sleeping dragon evolves into the undisputed regional power!
The NYT will continue to publish stories that inflame Conservatives, while pretending to be unbiased and fair. Liberals will continue to claim the stories are balanced.
Violence by the 'Extreme Right' and 'Extreme Left' will continue. As this happens, our Freedoms will be traded for the false illusion of safety!
Armchair Generals (who never have all the facts) will be easily offended by comments they disagree with...
Life goes on!
Both Republicans and Democrats will conveniently forget their own party's failures. Liberals and Conservatives will post damning commentaries on social media about each other's faults, while claiming only their side knows what's best.
The current administration, including future Presidents, will make bold proclamations which only distract the easily amused masses!
China will meet North Korea's needs and trade between them will continue to increase. As this goes on, China will become more assertive in the South China Sea until violent skirmishes occur. Tensions will also rise with India as the sleeping dragon evolves into the undisputed regional power!
The NYT will continue to publish stories that inflame Conservatives, while pretending to be unbiased and fair. Liberals will continue to claim the stories are balanced.
Violence by the 'Extreme Right' and 'Extreme Left' will continue. As this happens, our Freedoms will be traded for the false illusion of safety!
Armchair Generals (who never have all the facts) will be easily offended by comments they disagree with...
Life goes on!
2
Mr. Kim of North Korea has made a brilliant move in developing nuclear weapons to hit US. Getting the US military out of South Korea is his goal. Now he has the leverage to make the deal. The Seoul government would be wise to develop a realistic policy in dealing with the North that does not depend on the US government.
3
I could just see Trump strutting across the deck of some warship off the coast of Guam below a huge banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" as the N. Koreans stated that they were not, in fact, going to deliver missiles off the coast, an action he had taunted them into threatening. He has made zero progress on what was the original goal - making them halt their nuclear program.
That's a neat trick. Taking the original goal and goad a country into a much more volatile posture, and then when they back off from their most dangerous new stance, back to the original one, call it a diplomatic and military success.
Yep. "Mission Accomplished" in North Korea. Just as valid as G.W. Bush announcing the end of major operations in Iraq on the deck of the USS Lincoln in 2003, long before the majority of money and men had been lost there.
Trump being Trump, I see him wearing the newly designed (by Ivanka) Commander in Chief Uniform, draped in so much gold that the President has to be brought out in a golden golf cart as he claims sole credit for the mission that was accomplished in NK - something no other President before him had ever done.
Or had to do, thankfully.
Let's hope this is not another Bush admonition and that we are not in NK 14 years from now - 2031. Such is the power of Presidents.
Vote.
That's a neat trick. Taking the original goal and goad a country into a much more volatile posture, and then when they back off from their most dangerous new stance, back to the original one, call it a diplomatic and military success.
Yep. "Mission Accomplished" in North Korea. Just as valid as G.W. Bush announcing the end of major operations in Iraq on the deck of the USS Lincoln in 2003, long before the majority of money and men had been lost there.
Trump being Trump, I see him wearing the newly designed (by Ivanka) Commander in Chief Uniform, draped in so much gold that the President has to be brought out in a golden golf cart as he claims sole credit for the mission that was accomplished in NK - something no other President before him had ever done.
Or had to do, thankfully.
Let's hope this is not another Bush admonition and that we are not in NK 14 years from now - 2031. Such is the power of Presidents.
Vote.
1
The moment some "preventive war" starts hundreds of thousands in South Korea and Japan will meet their doom. Preventive war with the DRNK? there is no such thing.
2
How is it possible that we let someone who avoided war due to debilitating bone spurs decide too wage a war that will get other people killed?
4
Read Mark Twain's biography of Joan of Arc for unseen hands arranging such a
thing, if you match my reading of a prolific author's most additive contrbution to history; along with Len Deighton's History of World War II and Winston Churchill's A Gathering Storm, volume one of his WW II history.
thing, if you match my reading of a prolific author's most additive contrbution to history; along with Len Deighton's History of World War II and Winston Churchill's A Gathering Storm, volume one of his WW II history.
This whole concept is an oxymoron. You don't go to war to prevent war. Bush thought he could kill Hussain with "shock and awe" but all he got was a long drawn out war and ISIS. The big difference is that Jong-un has nuclear weapons.
24
There is no preventive war. War is war. During Viet Nam, the sign in Austin said, "Fighting for peace is like procreating for chastity." Don't believe that line again......
3
Maybe it would be easier to teach mosquitoes not to bite.
1
The hypocrisy of this is staggering, as is the idiocy.
Hypocrisy because the world has been living under the 'protection' (if you were an ally) but the 'threat' (if you weren't) of American nuclear weapons since 1945 (and the USA is still the only nation to have actually USED these). In fact, you could argue that the USA has shown how useful having nukes is.
Idiocy because it's not like the DPRK received these devices yesterday, via mail-order. The opportunity to do something was there all along, during the development phases. Now that they have finally got them, there's a pre-emptive military option on the table. Duh!
If that option is used, Seoul is toast for sure, but how about North Korea taking out Tokio or hitting Taiwan in retaliation? Or the Malacca Straits? Not nearly as challenging to do as hitting the US West Coast, but certain to cripple the world's economy for decades to come. Or how about not aiming for a US population center at all, but chucking the nuke into the caldera at Yellowstone National Park and triggering the long overdue volcanic eruption?
Why did you people put the ginger-haired-one in the White House?
Hypocrisy because the world has been living under the 'protection' (if you were an ally) but the 'threat' (if you weren't) of American nuclear weapons since 1945 (and the USA is still the only nation to have actually USED these). In fact, you could argue that the USA has shown how useful having nukes is.
Idiocy because it's not like the DPRK received these devices yesterday, via mail-order. The opportunity to do something was there all along, during the development phases. Now that they have finally got them, there's a pre-emptive military option on the table. Duh!
If that option is used, Seoul is toast for sure, but how about North Korea taking out Tokio or hitting Taiwan in retaliation? Or the Malacca Straits? Not nearly as challenging to do as hitting the US West Coast, but certain to cripple the world's economy for decades to come. Or how about not aiming for a US population center at all, but chucking the nuke into the caldera at Yellowstone National Park and triggering the long overdue volcanic eruption?
Why did you people put the ginger-haired-one in the White House?
5
"I'd rather face thousands of casualties now than millions later"
But there WOULD be millions of casualties in this so-called "preventative war" (really just double talk for an unprovoked attack)--Korean people, in both the North and the South.
Or were you thinking that they don't really "matter" the way American lives do?
But there WOULD be millions of casualties in this so-called "preventative war" (really just double talk for an unprovoked attack)--Korean people, in both the North and the South.
Or were you thinking that they don't really "matter" the way American lives do?
3
Nice lede...Similar to 2002 run-up to Iraq, and a "last resort" to only be used should this administration fail to find a diplomatic solution...what could go wrong!
4
Launching a missile at the US is suicide. Kim Jung-un knows this. Plus, we have anti-missile systems in place that the Pentagon insisted we needed. So, what's the downside to diplomacy? Do we really think China would let NK launch on us, they're biggest customer? There are sufficient systems in place to prevent such a launch. What we don't have is a clear-headed President.
19
There is nothing "suicidal" about it. North Korea's adversary is the US not another version of itself. Everyone knows that even if attacked by nuclear weapons, the US would not retaliate by targeting North Korea's civilian populations. The laws of armed conflict would still apply - although its hard to fathom why no one calls out North Korea's threats against Seoul and Tokyo as potential war crimes.
In the real world, just look at how Hamas and Hezbollah operate against another Western-styled democracy. Each attacked Israel, bravely firing from behind their own civilian populations (with Hamas even located its erational headquarters in the basement of Shifa Hospital), safe in the knowledge that Israel would adhere to the conventions of responsibity and proportionality and not follow, for instance, the example of Russia in Chechnya's capital city of Grozny (which it flattened) or, more recently, the Iraqi Army in Mosul.
The only difference in coverage I anticipate between the hypothetical US-North Korea conflict and the most recent Israel-Hamas conflict is that the world press would hardly support the North Korean narrative as it largely did Hamas' and The NY Times would not post a daily scorecard of casualties.
In the real world, just look at how Hamas and Hezbollah operate against another Western-styled democracy. Each attacked Israel, bravely firing from behind their own civilian populations (with Hamas even located its erational headquarters in the basement of Shifa Hospital), safe in the knowledge that Israel would adhere to the conventions of responsibity and proportionality and not follow, for instance, the example of Russia in Chechnya's capital city of Grozny (which it flattened) or, more recently, the Iraqi Army in Mosul.
The only difference in coverage I anticipate between the hypothetical US-North Korea conflict and the most recent Israel-Hamas conflict is that the world press would hardly support the North Korean narrative as it largely did Hamas' and The NY Times would not post a daily scorecard of casualties.
The US, especially this White house, has talked itself into believing that Kim is an unpredictable dictator. If North Korea and its leaders were unpredictable, the armistice would not have been maintained. North Korea and Kim want regime survival. Absence the removal of American troops from South Korea, nuclear weapons are North Korea's only guarantee. This is much bigger than the Korea Pennisula, a pawn. It is a geopolitical power struggle between China (and Russia) and the US for control of the Western Pacific. Koreans, Japanese and Americans are being held hostage to a possible nuclear war to this struggle.
2
Congratulations NYT on an important article that gives the line of reasoning leading to this talk of preventative war credence.
And how wretched Susan Rice saying even before they had the missile delivery capability that we should accept a North Korean nuclear sword hanging over us as the US did the far greater arsenal of the the Soviet Union.
Do the American people really want to accept such an ongoing ticking time bomb threat from an inherently unstable regime?
What value does any assertion of US power currently have when the whole world knows American civilisation can be destroyed in a flash by one of the world's poorest most inept and isolated nations?
We are at a fork in the road now. The road of "peace", will embolden and strengthen China, Iran too. And lead to Israel attacking Iran preemptively.
And how wretched Susan Rice saying even before they had the missile delivery capability that we should accept a North Korean nuclear sword hanging over us as the US did the far greater arsenal of the the Soviet Union.
Do the American people really want to accept such an ongoing ticking time bomb threat from an inherently unstable regime?
What value does any assertion of US power currently have when the whole world knows American civilisation can be destroyed in a flash by one of the world's poorest most inept and isolated nations?
We are at a fork in the road now. The road of "peace", will embolden and strengthen China, Iran too. And lead to Israel attacking Iran preemptively.
Interesting story, but one that should have reached a bit deeper:
"General McMaster, a military historian, insists that the United States cannot count on containing or deterring North Korea the way it deterred the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. That runs contrary to the conclusion of past senior policy makers that what worked against large nuclear powers will suffice against an economically broken nation with a modest arsenal."
For the most part, the first sentence is true on its face—no matter what stunt Kim Jong-un pulls, the world is powerless if it values the safety and security of South Korea. While that may run contrary to previous "conclusions", senior policy makers are often (read: almost always) bound by political considerations to reach preordained conclusions that justify the administration's thoughtless pragmatism.
General McMaster is right, of course there are military solutions. There always have been, and that war should have been utterly finished in 1953. Politicians have foolishly let this fester for over sixty years and the chickens have come home to roost.
From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Libya to Syria, and beyond, the lesson to countries around the world: have a credible threat (Seoul) or get yourself nuclear weapons. Either one will reduce the worlds' politicians even further, limiting them to empty sound bites and mindless blather, but your country will be left alone.
"General McMaster, a military historian, insists that the United States cannot count on containing or deterring North Korea the way it deterred the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. That runs contrary to the conclusion of past senior policy makers that what worked against large nuclear powers will suffice against an economically broken nation with a modest arsenal."
For the most part, the first sentence is true on its face—no matter what stunt Kim Jong-un pulls, the world is powerless if it values the safety and security of South Korea. While that may run contrary to previous "conclusions", senior policy makers are often (read: almost always) bound by political considerations to reach preordained conclusions that justify the administration's thoughtless pragmatism.
General McMaster is right, of course there are military solutions. There always have been, and that war should have been utterly finished in 1953. Politicians have foolishly let this fester for over sixty years and the chickens have come home to roost.
From Afghanistan to Iraq, from Libya to Syria, and beyond, the lesson to countries around the world: have a credible threat (Seoul) or get yourself nuclear weapons. Either one will reduce the worlds' politicians even further, limiting them to empty sound bites and mindless blather, but your country will be left alone.
1
To those who have commented on this article: is it because you have led sheltered lives that you have so little understanding of how bullies think?
If Kim Jong-un is allowed to pursue nuclear weapons and missile development unchecked, he will eventually have hundreds of warheads - enough firepower to destroy the United States.
Blackmailing the U.S. would be the next logical step. And should he choose to carry out his threats, hero status would await him, minutes away, in a grateful China.
Don't you understand that in the context of such an asymmetrical relationship as that which exists between the U.S. and North Korea, "mutually assured destruction" simply cannot work?
If Kim Jong-un is allowed to pursue nuclear weapons and missile development unchecked, he will eventually have hundreds of warheads - enough firepower to destroy the United States.
Blackmailing the U.S. would be the next logical step. And should he choose to carry out his threats, hero status would await him, minutes away, in a grateful China.
Don't you understand that in the context of such an asymmetrical relationship as that which exists between the U.S. and North Korea, "mutually assured destruction" simply cannot work?
1
Imagine the scnerario: thousands of Amercans are evacuated from South Korea, then the US initiates a "preventative" military strike against North Korea delivering the promised fire and fury, the North Korean leadership is killed but not before they unleash a missile barrage on Seoul killing 10 million innocent civilians. If that were to occur, it would rank with the holocaust at the top of the list of the most heinous, immoral and corrupt events in the history of mankind.
3
"South Korea Faces an Uncomfortable Reality: A Nuclear Neighbor"
This was the headline below this article. There is of course the other uncomfortable reality. The U.S. is weighing whether or not to risk the lives of millions of South Koreans just because it can. Lindsey Graham said people here shouldn't worry because the mass carnage willis happen over there not here. This is the consciousness of those making these types of decisions. And that would be true of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the editorial writers of the New York Times. Somewhere in everyone's mind nuclear annihilation is a tragic but viable option. And with Trump and the "adults in the room," this option gains more and more traction every day. And even if it is just bluster, and it very well might not be, it is paving the way to make such an act more acceptable in the future.
This was the headline below this article. There is of course the other uncomfortable reality. The U.S. is weighing whether or not to risk the lives of millions of South Koreans just because it can. Lindsey Graham said people here shouldn't worry because the mass carnage willis happen over there not here. This is the consciousness of those making these types of decisions. And that would be true of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the editorial writers of the New York Times. Somewhere in everyone's mind nuclear annihilation is a tragic but viable option. And with Trump and the "adults in the room," this option gains more and more traction every day. And even if it is just bluster, and it very well might not be, it is paving the way to make such an act more acceptable in the future.
1
"Mr. Kim is more unpredictable than the Soviet Union was, aides to Mr. Trump have argued."
And Trump is the poster boy for consistency. Given how serious this situation has become, I think Trump should skip a few rounds of golf and appoint an ambassador to South Korea. The lack of such an ambassador is a good indication of the administration's low priority for finding a diplomatic solution. This is classic Trump behavior, more than happy to recklessly risk other people's money. Except, in this case, it's not millions of dollars, but millions of lives.
And Trump is the poster boy for consistency. Given how serious this situation has become, I think Trump should skip a few rounds of golf and appoint an ambassador to South Korea. The lack of such an ambassador is a good indication of the administration's low priority for finding a diplomatic solution. This is classic Trump behavior, more than happy to recklessly risk other people's money. Except, in this case, it's not millions of dollars, but millions of lives.
3
It was ever thus. (Mostly) men have gone to war for generations, centuries, millennia. Those trained for war are rarely satisfied without a war to fight. One way or another, one place or another, we'll have a war. Count on it. Donald Trump is.
1
I think it's interesting that McMasters states that Mutually Assured Destruction does not apply to North Korea. Based on what, that Mr. Kim is more unpredictable than the Soviets? OK but the Soviets had the ability to inflict massive damage on the US, Mr. Kim does not. What's Kim's motivation for launching an attack? It's the same argument that was used to oust Saddam Hussein. He was unpredictable, but like Mr. Kim the most important thing to him was self preservation and that would go out the window with any attack on the US especially given China's rejection of backing him up if he attacks.
1
"Preventive war" may sound nice. But the attendant risks make it a fantasy.
If we don't know where Kim's weapons are, how can we take them out?
If we don't know where Kim's weapons are, how can we take them out?
1
Generals used to be the first to argue against going to war contrary to public opinion. But the current crew is unfit if it thinks the military option is going to work in North Korea. It didn't work in Iraq nor is it working in Afghanistan. What would be the goal? Regime change? And who would be in charge after Kim? North Korea would spiral into chaos (because the US is not good at following up after military options) and become a gangster state that would make Russia look like a democracy. Currently North Korea is a corrupt state with an entrenched elite and military - once the formal trappings fall away and everyman for himself, several gangster factions would arise creating instability in the region. If that is Trump's goal he should quit while he's behind.
The DJT administration has president without a soul. They are willing to consider a Korean peninsula without a Seoul too.
1
Of course "preventive war" is lunacy. It is purely an oxymoron. Once war is prosecuted, it is the opposite of "prevented."
In fact, it sounds like a term out of Catch 22 or Doctor Strangelove.
I detest Steve Bannon, but even if a preemptive strike manages to take out all of North Korea's ballistic missile capability, Seoul remains a metro are of 25 million well within range of traditional artillery pieces. Bannon saw 10 million dead there.
Does President Moon really think he can trust the American government to allow him to veto an attack that would endanger his entire population? Good luck with THAT.
In fact, it sounds like a term out of Catch 22 or Doctor Strangelove.
I detest Steve Bannon, but even if a preemptive strike manages to take out all of North Korea's ballistic missile capability, Seoul remains a metro are of 25 million well within range of traditional artillery pieces. Bannon saw 10 million dead there.
Does President Moon really think he can trust the American government to allow him to veto an attack that would endanger his entire population? Good luck with THAT.
2
Just the NK use of conventional weapons is enough to wreak havoc on Seoul. It is beyond belief that a preemptive attack by the US could take out all of the mobile artillery pieces and short range conventional missile launchers before they deliver a devastating blow to the SK capital city.
Trump thinks there is a military option because there was never a case in his snake oil real estate sales when all options weren't always on the table. There was never an utterly devastating blow that could be struck by his opponents. His simple mind apparently can't grasp death and destruction if it occurs in Seoul, rather than the Trump Tower in NY.
Trump's military "advisers" simply nod wisely to the Commander in Chief because he is in their chain of command. Trump likes military minions because they don't disagree; they are programmed to agree with their commander.
Trump thinks there is a military option because there was never a case in his snake oil real estate sales when all options weren't always on the table. There was never an utterly devastating blow that could be struck by his opponents. His simple mind apparently can't grasp death and destruction if it occurs in Seoul, rather than the Trump Tower in NY.
Trump's military "advisers" simply nod wisely to the Commander in Chief because he is in their chain of command. Trump likes military minions because they don't disagree; they are programmed to agree with their commander.
3
Trade restrictions and international sanctions which may have worked to reign in dictators and dictatorial theocrats in the 20th century are obviously impotent and outdated in this age of ballistic missiles where a mad man or Imam can drop a destructive bomb or weapon of mass destruction at the doorstep of any capital on the planet.
Clearly with hard dictators such as North Korea and soft Dictators such as in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Russia there can be no 'peace in our time'.
Clearly with hard dictators such as North Korea and soft Dictators such as in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Russia there can be no 'peace in our time'.
"Preventive War" -- The doublespeak term used by Trump adminstration officials in 2017 for the military actions that led to the disasterous war with China and the final nail in Empire's coffin.
1
As far back as I can remember, I've been hearing talk about North Korea's mad regime. They're unpredictable. They're suicidal. That word - suicidal - has been used to describe the last two leaders of that country. Suicidal.
And yet, the regime endures. A nasty oppressive regime to be sure, but one that, contrary to US propaganda (including by this very newspaper) counts self-preservation as perhaps its most enduring attribute.
The Koreans know what would happen if their boastful saber-rattling goes beyond rhetoric. They're not stupid. They will continue to agitate and boast, but if the past two decades are any indication, it will remain just that (and history is generally a better predictor than US government propaganda).
Now as far as the US government goes - we've never had the combination of callousness, incompetence and narcissism in the White House before. It's the White House that the world ought to be worried about.
And yet, the regime endures. A nasty oppressive regime to be sure, but one that, contrary to US propaganda (including by this very newspaper) counts self-preservation as perhaps its most enduring attribute.
The Koreans know what would happen if their boastful saber-rattling goes beyond rhetoric. They're not stupid. They will continue to agitate and boast, but if the past two decades are any indication, it will remain just that (and history is generally a better predictor than US government propaganda).
Now as far as the US government goes - we've never had the combination of callousness, incompetence and narcissism in the White House before. It's the White House that the world ought to be worried about.
1
Is this anything like preventive executions? If so, it will fail just as our criminal justice system if failing.
"Preventive war" in this instance just means wantonly going to war to destroy another people at a cost to other peoples in turn all likely to be beyond comprehension.
Bush's Axis of Evil speech has been the father of so much mayhem and mischief. But then the grand heights of the neo cons and their efforts to encourage the Ukrainian coup led to a rogue nationalist Ukrainian oligarch to smuggle advance missile parts to N. Korea has pushed the controversy to the level of insane farce.
1
Talk of ‘Preventive War’ Rises in White House
[ This is complete and utter madness, appalling, terrifying madness. ]
[ This is complete and utter madness, appalling, terrifying madness. ]
9
The "wall" in DC has the names of 58,000+ of the dead in RVN a lmajority of who died because "politicians" who wanted to show how tough they were but never served. Here we are again with politicians who never served pushing to repeat the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield fiasco that left 4500+ Americans dead and an told # of Iraqi dead and the rise of ISIS. Having served 27 years in military I recognize the combination of civilian incompetence and overeager generals both active and retired. There is no such thing as a surgical strike, there is a shortage of actionable intel on locations and we have an ally that probably has deep cover agents to prevent surprise attacks. Is the THADD really as good as advertised or is this another Patriot system from Desert Storm which never hit anything but air despite all of the proclamations to contrary. The Iraqi war was a fraud and the politicians responsible walked away with no penalties for their lies and incompetence and the current crop expect to do the same. Will the neighboring countries sit still for this? Who knows?
8
Where is Bannon now that we need him? In one day we get escalation in AFG and talk of attacking Korea. I wonder what he thinks.
1
So, who will come to our aid this time? Do we think NATO will, or Brexit England? Germany? We will be in this alone, and we will be putting South Korea in profound danger if "preventive war" arises.
One would think that we would have learned our lesson through our invasion of Iraq, or even going to war with Afghanistan. What have we gained....thousands of our troops killed on the battle field, thousands more returning home with life-long injuries, both outwardly and inwardly?
I suppose if this event occurs this numb-skull of a president will be proclaimed a hero by his supporters. The military will applaud his "courage." But that is a weak man's way out, a bully's, a thug's. We are living in ominous times thanks to this occupant in the White House.
One would think that we would have learned our lesson through our invasion of Iraq, or even going to war with Afghanistan. What have we gained....thousands of our troops killed on the battle field, thousands more returning home with life-long injuries, both outwardly and inwardly?
I suppose if this event occurs this numb-skull of a president will be proclaimed a hero by his supporters. The military will applaud his "courage." But that is a weak man's way out, a bully's, a thug's. We are living in ominous times thanks to this occupant in the White House.
5
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
Just refresh my memory... are we at war with Eastasia or Eurasia?
Preventive war? Double ungood.
Just refresh my memory... are we at war with Eastasia or Eurasia?
Preventive war? Double ungood.
10
What a terrible moment in history for the US to have elected Trump.
6
We were much better off with Obama. Just just accomplished so much including North Korea
1
Whoever was elected would have to deal with the strategic imperative of this issue. Fortunately Trump knows he knows nothing about this matter and is relying heavily on professionals in the military and intelligence services to guide him.
1
Good Morning America, this is 'Captain Obvious'. In case few of you haven't noticed, we have a pattern under GOP leadership emerging:
1. Elect an incompetent and entitled man-child to the office of the president without a majority
2. Watch them flounder in office
3. Start a "preventive war" to "prevent" them from being removed from office
4. Pilage the national treasury through war profiteering
5. Repeat...
1. Elect an incompetent and entitled man-child to the office of the president without a majority
2. Watch them flounder in office
3. Start a "preventive war" to "prevent" them from being removed from office
4. Pilage the national treasury through war profiteering
5. Repeat...
15
Ah, so the man with little hands, emboldened by his coterie of generals and yesmen (and men they are) plus assorted family, decides to play conqueror, send thousands to their deaths, all because he cannot accept he is incompetent for the Presidency...
5
From an American POV - what was your last succesful war?
6
From an American perspective: what would Simon in Western Europe do if North Korea threatened you with nuclear weapons?
1
"Not since 2002, has the United States built a case for war"...so, this means what? It's time for a new pre-emptive war? That opening sentence makes it seem like it's been so long since we tried this and we've forgotten what a disaster we created with our pre-emptive war. Nothing good will come of striking North Korea. They are like a frightened animal and will strike out in any way they can if we attack them.
Iraq and Afghanistan have had nothing good come from our pre-emptive wars. Not a single thing that was promised has come to fruition from those wars. Our country is falling apart and we've spent trillions of dollars on these wars and destroyed countless lives.
Why don't we stop pretending to be the world's moral police and just deal with countries whose politics we don't like? We have a relationships with Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor records on human rights. Maybe the way to cool things off with North Korea is just let them be and then have a real trading and political/economic relationship with them? Obviously starving them hasn't worked so it might be time for a new tactic that doesn't involved the death and destruction of so many lives and cities.
Iraq and Afghanistan have had nothing good come from our pre-emptive wars. Not a single thing that was promised has come to fruition from those wars. Our country is falling apart and we've spent trillions of dollars on these wars and destroyed countless lives.
Why don't we stop pretending to be the world's moral police and just deal with countries whose politics we don't like? We have a relationships with Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor records on human rights. Maybe the way to cool things off with North Korea is just let them be and then have a real trading and political/economic relationship with them? Obviously starving them hasn't worked so it might be time for a new tactic that doesn't involved the death and destruction of so many lives and cities.
2
Thank you.
imandavis:
Maybe this is why.
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing" -- Neville Chamberlain, 1939.
Maybe this is why.
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing" -- Neville Chamberlain, 1939.
1
McMaster claims that the situation with North Korea is different than our cold war with Russia, which ended peacefully. That is true, but not in its most meaningful respect: Any nuclear attack by North Korea on the U.S. or its close allies is likely to lead to the nuclear annihilation of North Korea and Kim Jung-un knows this. We are back to a situation of mutually assured destruction. There are better paths out of this situation than a preemptive strike.
1
The reason to act now is to "prevent" a situation where North Korea attains the ability to put a nuclear warhead atop an ICBM.
I repeat: the North Koreans do not / not now have the ability to strike the US or its allies with nuclear weapons.
I repeat: the North Koreans do not / not now have the ability to strike the US or its allies with nuclear weapons.
2
This sounds like the buildup to the Iraq War. But this time we're looking into the nuclear abyss with a mentally unstable President and a national security adviser willing to help press the button. This is what any sane, rational human being should see as "intolerable."
2
More than 33,000 American soldiers died and more than 92,000 were injured during the Korean War. I understand it would dishonorable to the memory of their sacrifice on our behalf, to consider any option other than our forevermore commitment to pay any price and bear any burden in defense of the South Korean government. But there are options. It is our choice that we don't consider them.
The Term "preventive war, no matter how defined, is an oxymoron. Gen. McMaster knows very well that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy - and one lacking in real-time human intelligence information is even more apt to fail. War is prevented through diplomacy, compromise and, as with the Russians and Chinese, the principle of mutually-assured destruction.
Perhaps Gen. McMaster might clue us in to what his plan calls for in "acceptable" collateral damage? How many American and S. Korean troops, S. Korean and Japanese civilians (and N. Korean ones too) are considered sacrificial to his "preventive war?"
Perhaps Gen. McMaster might clue us in to what his plan calls for in "acceptable" collateral damage? How many American and S. Korean troops, S. Korean and Japanese civilians (and N. Korean ones too) are considered sacrificial to his "preventive war?"
"Preventive war", the nom-du-jour of "pre-emptive self-defense", is banned under the terms of the UN Charter. Article 51 of that document establishes "armed attack" as a prerequisite for taking military action against any sovereign nation.
On July 28, 1945, the U.S. Senate ratified the terms of the U.N. Charter. Thus, under Article VI of our Constitution, it has been a supreme law of the land for over seventy years, prohibiting "preventive war" under the terms of both U.S. and international law.
Notwithstanding that obligation, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq in 2003. Under any responsible interpretation, President Bush is a war criminal responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and soldiers in the act of defending their own country. In 1945 such crimes were punishable by hanging.
Perhaps we will restore our nation's moral leadership one day by holding all of the world's citizens accountable to the same standard.
On July 28, 1945, the U.S. Senate ratified the terms of the U.N. Charter. Thus, under Article VI of our Constitution, it has been a supreme law of the land for over seventy years, prohibiting "preventive war" under the terms of both U.S. and international law.
Notwithstanding that obligation, George W. Bush invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq in 2003. Under any responsible interpretation, President Bush is a war criminal responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and soldiers in the act of defending their own country. In 1945 such crimes were punishable by hanging.
Perhaps we will restore our nation's moral leadership one day by holding all of the world's citizens accountable to the same standard.
2
Our former presidents had 25 million reasons in Seoul why not to strike North Korea. We still have the same 25 million reasons in Seoul plus millions more more on U.S. soil and just under 200,000 in Guam. All of them human.
Other than everyone agreeing to extreme economic sanctions to be placed on North Korea, and to stand ready.
I guess there will never come a time on our planet when men will get tired of waging war upon others despite our world history of peacemakers who spoke eloquently and bravely for all of humanity, and about the value of each individual life and its right to exist.
Other than everyone agreeing to extreme economic sanctions to be placed on North Korea, and to stand ready.
I guess there will never come a time on our planet when men will get tired of waging war upon others despite our world history of peacemakers who spoke eloquently and bravely for all of humanity, and about the value of each individual life and its right to exist.
2
There are points made in this discussion about how unstable the leader of North Korea is, but I think that it should be pointed out that we also have an unstable leader in the United States.
Mr Trump is being isolated and pressured by recent developments in Charlottesville, his lack of progress on his legislative agenda, and the Russia investigation. A preventative war would 'trump' all those issues and might (according to his strange thinking) make him more powerful. We have all seen lately that he is more interested in how he perceives himself to look.
Remember, when he first became president he asked the question, 'if I have nuclear weapons why can't I use them?'
This is a very serious situation that needs to be monitored by adults, not the immature, reckless twitter master that we have in the White House.
Hopefully, a preventative war can be averted, although I am not so sure.
Mr Trump is being isolated and pressured by recent developments in Charlottesville, his lack of progress on his legislative agenda, and the Russia investigation. A preventative war would 'trump' all those issues and might (according to his strange thinking) make him more powerful. We have all seen lately that he is more interested in how he perceives himself to look.
Remember, when he first became president he asked the question, 'if I have nuclear weapons why can't I use them?'
This is a very serious situation that needs to be monitored by adults, not the immature, reckless twitter master that we have in the White House.
Hopefully, a preventative war can be averted, although I am not so sure.
1
It saddens me to say it but there's something to be said for this. Wish I could see the future but I'd rather face thousands of casualties now than millions later if North Korea develops nuclear weapons capable of reaching the US. And yes, I would serve. It's a shame and a sin that we don't have a better missile defence, the government has really dropped the ball on that in recent decades.
5
you sound like George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove. "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed!" Have you even thought about what a nuclear war would mean?
Apparently, we never learn.
What is it between the United States and North Korea that these people think is so necessary to kill for ? Since China has told America that if it fires first on North Korea, China will come to Korea's assistance in fighting back, and has told North Korea that if it fires first on the United States or South Korea, it will stay neutral, why the continuing talk of war ? What on earth is so necessary now to kill for ?
3
Bush Junior was reelected because he went to war after 9/11 by trying to blame the attack on Iraq and that they had WMD. People thought he was tough and patriotic. Trump may be trying to take a page out of that playbook, except he has no 9/11, only a few rockets launched into the Pacific, but there is WMD. Still, unless something major happens, I do not see how Trump can rationalize a "preventative war" with North Korea. There needs to be a real act of war first.
This dismal euphemism for what is essentially a preemptive war must stop.
America lost all credibility when George Bush started a premptive war based on a lie. America, which never believed in such things, always said, "we don't start wars, we finish them."
Our leaders can never be justified by taking out leaders or entire countries based on their potential for harming us or because we simply dislike a given leader.
Donald Trump and yes, Mattis and McMaster and Tillerson are taking the easy way out rather than working harder on diplomacy.
The US is sick of war. Trump is increasing troop strength in Afghanistan after criticizing his predecessor of the same and back pedaling on a campaign promise.
The fact this administration is seriously discussing these possibilities makes me think this will end very badly.
America lost all credibility when George Bush started a premptive war based on a lie. America, which never believed in such things, always said, "we don't start wars, we finish them."
Our leaders can never be justified by taking out leaders or entire countries based on their potential for harming us or because we simply dislike a given leader.
Donald Trump and yes, Mattis and McMaster and Tillerson are taking the easy way out rather than working harder on diplomacy.
The US is sick of war. Trump is increasing troop strength in Afghanistan after criticizing his predecessor of the same and back pedaling on a campaign promise.
The fact this administration is seriously discussing these possibilities makes me think this will end very badly.
9
Wikipedia is your friend:
Preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power by strategically attacking before the balance of power has a chance to shift in the direction of the adversary.
A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war shortly before that attack materializes.
Preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power by strategically attacking before the balance of power has a chance to shift in the direction of the adversary.
A preemptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war shortly before that attack materializes.
@Frank Haydn Esq: Wikipedia is decidedly not your friend or mine. These two definitions, when parsed, say exactly the same thing. The second definition simply uses more words. Both types of war are clear in one regard: they are based on assumptions that the other side is going to strike, and to gain advantage, they strike first. These are street gang techniques or worse, the types of wars launched by aggressor nations, such as the former Soviet Union, the current Russia, and Nazi Germany. The US used to take pride in not launching attacks, only resisting them.
If Donald Trump and his generals want to go this route, just remember this: they are fundamentally changing the nature of this country, and can no longer claim any "moral" high ground when it comes to war.
If Donald Trump and his generals want to go this route, just remember this: they are fundamentally changing the nature of this country, and can no longer claim any "moral" high ground when it comes to war.
1
You think that "this will end very badly." But no matter what the Trump Administration does, it was going to end badly, one way or the other.
That was the legacy of Trump's feckless predecessors, Clinton, Bush and Obama who let this problem fester to the point where it has reached catastrophic proportions. .
That was the legacy of Trump's feckless predecessors, Clinton, Bush and Obama who let this problem fester to the point where it has reached catastrophic proportions. .
1
Jared Kushner and Donny Jr. brandishing swords as they lead the charge against Pyongyang … more likely just more children of the poor being sent to die for the wealthy … don't Americans, even their for-profit political-military-industrial complex overlords, ever tire of this manure?
12
Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr. have nothing to do with this. You are invoking their names merely in an effort to discredit the discussion.
BTW, you may want to read some history books and you will see that there are times in the life of a nation when difficult choices must be made.
This is one of them, unfortunately.
BTW, you may want to read some history books and you will see that there are times in the life of a nation when difficult choices must be made.
This is one of them, unfortunately.
1
ho-hum - Korea the first time, Vietnam (Cambodia), Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Grenada, Bay of Pigs, Iraq, Afghanistan … although their influential parents initiated an assortment of blood-letting conflicts, ignoring less bellicose yet possibly equally useful alternative interventions, the sons of the leaders seldom if ever have anything to do with these tragedies - bully for them.
The concept of a preventative war is every bit as reassuring as the concept of an untested vaccine. . .in the hands of an unqualified, incompetent doctor, no less.
3
I hope these people are just mouthing off. A war wth north korea would be a disaster.
3
And a North Korea that can brandish nuclear weapons at the US and the world would be a disaster.
The question is how we minimize the harm. Averting a greater disaster may cost us dearly in the short run.
The question is how we minimize the harm. Averting a greater disaster may cost us dearly in the short run.
2
Since Bannon’s ouster the neocons are in ascendency.
As crazy as it may sound, Bannon’s “America First” agenda was strongly opposed to wars.
The Bushies and the NeverTrumpers and the McCains and the National Review will soon get their new wars.
As crazy as it may sound, Bannon’s “America First” agenda was strongly opposed to wars.
The Bushies and the NeverTrumpers and the McCains and the National Review will soon get their new wars.
4
Diversion option debate:
Venezuela, too small, but convenient
N Korea - maybe just right, though farther away.
Greater risks of world war - wazzat?
Venezuela, too small, but convenient
N Korea - maybe just right, though farther away.
Greater risks of world war - wazzat?
2
"Preventive war" has got to be the most absurd and misleading term they've come up with yet.
There is war or there is peace. Can't have both.
There is war or there is peace. Can't have both.
99
"They" did not come up with it. It is a concept that has been around since at least the second World War. And it is completely applicable in this situation.
We must act now to prevent a shift in the strategic balance of forces that will imperil our allies and our own homeland.
We must act now to prevent a shift in the strategic balance of forces that will imperil our allies and our own homeland.
5
Exactly what Neville Chamberlain said.
Mr. Haydn, what time is your flight to Korea?
1
It is not helpful to quote the disredited Susan Rice, or to give her space to write articles in the New York Times.
1
As long as the chicken hawk Trump and war monger McMaster schedule their family vacations to Seoul at a time that intersects with the commencement of their dimwitted “preventive war,” we should support it... Of course, we know under those conditions, their war would never happen, as the draft dodging coward Trump would no doubt develop another case of debilitating shin splints.
5
Please specifically identify the 'Warmonger' in this article... The NYT is merely publishing DIRECT QUOTES... We, the vast majority, who reside on "the other side," - the side of facts and reason, are waiting for your Hannityesque reply. Please include any military experience so that we can ascertain your qualifications to comment on this subject!
1
OMG... what a small-minded, angry and naive comment that does nothing.
So long as voters continue to support candidates who have never served in the military, our country will suffer!
So long as voters continue to support candidates who have never served in the military, our country will suffer!
1
I think N. Korea can be bribed to either begin dismantling their nuke-tipped missiles or sending them to China. The bribes would consist of billions of dollars of economic aid spread over a decade. President Un would also be bribed with millions of dollars. The bribes would be paid by the U.S., S. Korea, and Japan. Hopefully, China would lobby N. Korea to accept the deal. Conventional arms would remain in both Koreas, as would U.S. troops, in case the deal is rejected.
1
DAVE:
You think we haven't tried that? Our envoy to North Korea, the egregious Jimmy Carter, worked out a deal where the Clinton Administration gave North Korea two nuclear reactors and $5 billion. The North Koreans were cheating before the ink on the deal was dry.
You think we haven't tried that? Our envoy to North Korea, the egregious Jimmy Carter, worked out a deal where the Clinton Administration gave North Korea two nuclear reactors and $5 billion. The North Koreans were cheating before the ink on the deal was dry.
2
That was a long time ago. More serious threat now. Up to China to cause N.K. to act on everyone's behalf.
Amusingly, but not coincidentally, the UN is completely ignored in _all_ discussions (also Ms. Rice's chicken-soup-for-the-soul peace prescription).
That's an amazing vote of no confidence, given the UN are chief signatory to the current peace agreement. South Korea is not, and neither is the US, although a US general did sign on behalf of the UN. South Korea remains technically in a state of war with NK.
At any rate, we know this much: going forward, what South Korea or the UN think or do has little bearing. In fact, a peaceful solution's already been ruled-out both by the US and also NK. Consequently, it's no longer about peace, but war, not if, but how, when, where NK.
Because, out of the two other signatories to the Armistice agreement, one, the UN is universally deemed irrelevant, even by arch-enemy superpower US. The other, China, firmly on NK's side. So let's all first just shred the Armistice agreement, shall we, everyone agrees.
With that done, the US is left to ponder how NK will provoke. It could be a balloon on Guam or a real on Japan or a direct attack on SK. The good news, going by these accounts, is that the military is doing exactly that: pondering NK's next move, military-gaming, getting ducks in rows, heck, even schmoozing State.
If they do it right, they'll get in the history books, put Trump behind FDR, get his statue made, silence critics once and for all. If not...he'll fire them all, get there some other way. We just have to wait and see.
That's an amazing vote of no confidence, given the UN are chief signatory to the current peace agreement. South Korea is not, and neither is the US, although a US general did sign on behalf of the UN. South Korea remains technically in a state of war with NK.
At any rate, we know this much: going forward, what South Korea or the UN think or do has little bearing. In fact, a peaceful solution's already been ruled-out both by the US and also NK. Consequently, it's no longer about peace, but war, not if, but how, when, where NK.
Because, out of the two other signatories to the Armistice agreement, one, the UN is universally deemed irrelevant, even by arch-enemy superpower US. The other, China, firmly on NK's side. So let's all first just shred the Armistice agreement, shall we, everyone agrees.
With that done, the US is left to ponder how NK will provoke. It could be a balloon on Guam or a real on Japan or a direct attack on SK. The good news, going by these accounts, is that the military is doing exactly that: pondering NK's next move, military-gaming, getting ducks in rows, heck, even schmoozing State.
If they do it right, they'll get in the history books, put Trump behind FDR, get his statue made, silence critics once and for all. If not...he'll fire them all, get there some other way. We just have to wait and see.
1
So now we are missing Steve Bannon, as the voice of sanity and peace in the White House?
9
'Preventative War'? Ha! We now have the best example of an oxymoron since 'President Trump'.
8
Any good book about US history or the history of warfare on general will include a discussion of the concept. You ought to read up about it.
1
His biographer said Trump would use this option to detract from his own political failings just last week. Nice prediction. Unfortunately, innocent civilians and military personel may be losing their lives so Trump can save face from his dishonest and treasonous behavior. All of us who are not brain washed by faux news get it.
3
The only bright spot in this otherwise bleak picture is the South Korean's President assertion that he has veto power over any potential attack. I hope that's true.
General McMaster asks what history has to teach us about dealing with a regime like North Korea? Perhaps a better question would be what history has to teach us about American bombing campaigns. Millions dead in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos--that's indisputable. The numbers resulting from Afghanistan and the two Iraq Wars: arguably in the hundreds of thousands. Over the course of those five wars, the US can claim to have "won" Iraq I and we all know how decisive that victory was.
Another question McMaster might ask: What does history have to teach us about how to deal with exactly the same problem? General: please pick up the phone and call Obama for a refresher.
General McMaster asks what history has to teach us about dealing with a regime like North Korea? Perhaps a better question would be what history has to teach us about American bombing campaigns. Millions dead in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos--that's indisputable. The numbers resulting from Afghanistan and the two Iraq Wars: arguably in the hundreds of thousands. Over the course of those five wars, the US can claim to have "won" Iraq I and we all know how decisive that victory was.
Another question McMaster might ask: What does history have to teach us about how to deal with exactly the same problem? General: please pick up the phone and call Obama for a refresher.
4
President Gump would rather "distract" our populace with a nuclear war than be busted for his global money laundering scheme.
Bobby Three Sticks: Do you have the other set of books yet? If so, let's go.
Bobby Three Sticks: Do you have the other set of books yet? If so, let's go.
2
All is bluster, until S Korea begins evacuating Seoul and stops enabling the bad behavior of its northern adversary.
Suppose SK were to order an evacuation - assuming the NK leadership aren't idiots, they'd know that the war was already hot again and open fire with their DMZ artillery on Seoul as soon as the announcement was made.
They'd be absolute fools not to respond to what would obviously be the preparatory move for an invasion and regime change.
They'd be absolute fools not to respond to what would obviously be the preparatory move for an invasion and regime change.
"Mr. Kim is more unpredictable than the Soviet Union was, aides to Mr. Trump have argued."
Thanks. I needed a good laugh.
Thanks. I needed a good laugh.
2
Ron:
It's worse than you think. Kim Jong Un IS predictable. He used his uncle for anti-aircraft target practice and had his half-brother's face smothered with a nerve agent in the plain view of the world. Are you OK with that?
It's worse than you think. Kim Jong Un IS predictable. He used his uncle for anti-aircraft target practice and had his half-brother's face smothered with a nerve agent in the plain view of the world. Are you OK with that?
1
Bad idea. Meanwhile, a country with more terrorist figures than you can count, has nukes. Pakistan. No concern?
Preventive war surely cannot be to comforting to those most directly effected..South Koreans.
Seems as if we are playing poker with another guys chips.
Of course, that was also the case in Iraq.
Preventive war surely cannot be to comforting to those most directly effected..South Koreans.
Seems as if we are playing poker with another guys chips.
Of course, that was also the case in Iraq.
1
I'm pretty sure that any American promise to give South Korea a veto power over a war with North Korea is meaningless as far as Trump is concerned. It will depend on whether he needs some sort of distraction at the time.
1
I thought this crisis was winding down, thanks mainly to diplomatic efforts by China, South Korea, and probably Russia and other countries. For a few days, my flashbacks to the terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis (when I was 11) disappeared. Once again, the Trump administration is revving up the tension with talk of "Preventive War." In this context, the firing of Steve Bannon, who is against war with North Korea, appears ominous. General McMaster is a very dangerous hawk, as shown by his statements during the last couple of weeks.
2
we just can't bring ourselves to stop using war, despite knowing the useless death and destruction it causes.
what wrong with us?
what wrong with us?
3
This is what happens when you put three generals plus a bully in charge of foreign policy. It is the reason we shouldn't let the military run the government. They're not evil, they just think in terms of military solutions. It's what they're trained for. The saddest part of using American military power as a solution to this is that, as usual, many people in other countries will die, while Americans stay safe (excepting of course a few soldiers from poorer families). Americans cannot understand what it means to go to war unless they experience it directly. The Greatest Generation knew this but most of them are gone.
62
Please stop disseminating disinformation. Former President Obama warned Mr. Trump that North Korea would be his greatest challenge. If Mr. Obama were still President he too would be facing the same touch choices.
Would you prefer capitulation? If so, you'd be back here a year from now, attacking the administration for failing to pull its head out of the sand.
Would you prefer capitulation? If so, you'd be back here a year from now, attacking the administration for failing to pull its head out of the sand.
2
We will not be safe if we go to war with North Korea. Kim will lose in the end, but not without significant damage to the west or to Guam.
Do you think the choices available to us are only war or capitulation? And now that they have the technology, how long do you think we can keep them down if we try "preventative war"? Terrorists armed with nuclear technology take on a whole new meaning.....
Avoidable Naval ship collisions. Now avoidable wars. The likelihood of quick retaliation by North Korea means that anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of people could die. This will be mostly the lost of innocent human life. And how much will it degrade the ecosphere? Will North Korea actually set off a nuclear weapon? Will the US? It seems that maximum autocracy signals maximum chances of catastrophe. Where are the voices of sanity in all this? Peacemaking science teaches us that almost all violent conflicts are avoidable; the stakeholders just have to believe in the peacemaking (conflict transformation) process and be willing to welcome a win-win outcome. This is not recent knowledge ... it's old news.
So we poor human beings are stuck with people -- false leaders -- who regularly threaten catastrophe determining the likelihood that we will blow ourselves up or render the Earth uninhabitable? When will we in the USA wake up and resolve to depose these unduly-influenced plutocratic oligarchs who have seized control of our country? With undue Russian influence in the last US election, for the first time since the fall of the British empire we are faced with convincing evidence of a centrally-driven worldwide conspiracy for the continuation of white supremacy. There's nothing "super" about these so-called 'powers' -- the Peter Principle is holding full sway, and we have promoted people to their maximum level of incompetency!
So we poor human beings are stuck with people -- false leaders -- who regularly threaten catastrophe determining the likelihood that we will blow ourselves up or render the Earth uninhabitable? When will we in the USA wake up and resolve to depose these unduly-influenced plutocratic oligarchs who have seized control of our country? With undue Russian influence in the last US election, for the first time since the fall of the British empire we are faced with convincing evidence of a centrally-driven worldwide conspiracy for the continuation of white supremacy. There's nothing "super" about these so-called 'powers' -- the Peter Principle is holding full sway, and we have promoted people to their maximum level of incompetency!
4
Interesting that the instability of Kim is mentioned as justification for action when the instability of Trump is equally relevant. As we have witnessed recently, the President doesn't respond well to threats to his manhood. Of course Twitter attacks don't carry nuclear fallout, so thus far we've simply been embarrassed by Mr. Trump's peevishness. Let's hope there is adult supervision in the area of international diplomacy so Trump's next temper tantrum doesn't result in millions of fatalities among our allies who produce all those amazing smartphones, TV sets and automobiles American consumers love. I mention that because many Trump's supporters would be more disturbed about rising consumer prices than loss of life among people who don't look like them... sad but true.
4
That this Administration is considering a preventive war against North Korea doesn't make sense. North Korea is aware that the U.S. is much more powerful, and while nuclear weapons rights the balance of power to some extent, it knows that we could destroy its government and country.
If we put aside that reasoning and destroyed North Korea, what would be the cost: millions of lives lost in South Korea and possibly Japan; a confrontation with China and Russia that could lead to new wars.
The United States has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Its people are tired of foreign wars, and Donald Trump was elected partly because he denounced those wars. If he follows the advice of General McMaster and General Mattis and orders a preventive war, he may not have the backing of the people.
If we put aside that reasoning and destroyed North Korea, what would be the cost: millions of lives lost in South Korea and possibly Japan; a confrontation with China and Russia that could lead to new wars.
The United States has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. Its people are tired of foreign wars, and Donald Trump was elected partly because he denounced those wars. If he follows the advice of General McMaster and General Mattis and orders a preventive war, he may not have the backing of the people.
1
"Mr. Kim is more unpredictable than the Soviet Union was, aides to Mr. Trump have argued"
.....meanwhile in North Korea:
"Mr. Trump is more unpredictable than the Soviet Union was, aides to Mr. Kim have argued.
.....meanwhile in North Korea:
"Mr. Trump is more unpredictable than the Soviet Union was, aides to Mr. Kim have argued.
2
Channelling Orwell here:
Preventive War prevents war.
Preventive War prevents war.
2
Lets just say for the sake of this argument we switched positions with South Korea.
So if South Korea decided to bomb North Korea between 500,000 to 5 million Americans would be killed within hours or days of the start of the war.
Our Mothers, Fathers, Sister and brothers, families completely destroyed.
Would Americans like me be happy with that decision?
So if South Korea decided to bomb North Korea between 500,000 to 5 million Americans would be killed within hours or days of the start of the war.
Our Mothers, Fathers, Sister and brothers, families completely destroyed.
Would Americans like me be happy with that decision?
He surrounds himself with generals and we are surprised at talk of war? Can you spell military industrial complex?
That's why we had civilians making decisions in October 1962.
These people know nothing about history.
That's why we had civilians making decisions in October 1962.
These people know nothing about history.
61
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama failed and now are country has to accept that North Korea has the bomb and the delivery systems; there isn't anything that can be done about those simple facts!
Both Republicans and Democrats will conveniently forget their own party's failures. Liberals and Conservatives will post damning commentaries on social media about each other's faults.
China will meet North Korea's needs and trade between them will continue to increase. As this goes on, China will become more assertive in the South China Sea until violent skirmishes occur.
The NYT will continue to publish biased stories that inflame the other side, while pretending to be unbiased and fair.
As this happens, our Freedoms will be traded for the false illusion of safety!
Life goes on!
Both Republicans and Democrats will conveniently forget their own party's failures. Liberals and Conservatives will post damning commentaries on social media about each other's faults.
China will meet North Korea's needs and trade between them will continue to increase. As this goes on, China will become more assertive in the South China Sea until violent skirmishes occur.
The NYT will continue to publish biased stories that inflame the other side, while pretending to be unbiased and fair.
As this happens, our Freedoms will be traded for the false illusion of safety!
Life goes on!
11
What would you do? I mean, besides denigrating everyone you can.
2
I doubt the NYT inflames the other side, as I doubt they give it that much notice.
It does lead the media in the US in the direction of baying for war, neocon style, as it did in the Tonkin Gulf, as it did over WMD's in Iraq, as it did to intervene in Libya, and Syria, and wants more in Ukraine.
All the while, it postures as liberal. That's not liberal.
It does lead the media in the US in the direction of baying for war, neocon style, as it did in the Tonkin Gulf, as it did over WMD's in Iraq, as it did to intervene in Libya, and Syria, and wants more in Ukraine.
All the while, it postures as liberal. That's not liberal.
4
Question for Sceptic in the USA:
Please specifically identify the bias in this article... The NYT is merely publishing DIRECT QUOTES... We, the vast majority, who reside on "the other side," - the side of facts and reason, are waiting for your Hannityesque reply.
Please specifically identify the bias in this article... The NYT is merely publishing DIRECT QUOTES... We, the vast majority, who reside on "the other side," - the side of facts and reason, are waiting for your Hannityesque reply.
2
That horse done left the barn. Kim is already threatening the US. There is no such thing as preventative war. War is war. What prevents war is diplomacy not bombs. How willing are the European allies going to be to send troops to Korea? Why can a Canadian diplomat work with N Korea when the US can't. Where are Gort and Klatu when we need them?
14
"War is war. What prevents war is diplomacy not bombs."
Exactly. But they don't really mean war to prevent war. They mean war to prevent a worse war.
Let's examine that. Worse for whom?
South Korea? It would have millions dead, Seoul destroyed, its economy in ruins.
Japan? Missiles will land there. It would be worse if they were nuclear, but right now they could be.
And remember that China has said it would defend the Kim Regime if the US attacked. So what would China's actions mean for Japan? For South Korea?
Would this be China's time to attack Taiwan too? Quite likely.
So war to avoid worse war would NOT avoid a very, very bad war.
Exactly. But they don't really mean war to prevent war. They mean war to prevent a worse war.
Let's examine that. Worse for whom?
South Korea? It would have millions dead, Seoul destroyed, its economy in ruins.
Japan? Missiles will land there. It would be worse if they were nuclear, but right now they could be.
And remember that China has said it would defend the Kim Regime if the US attacked. So what would China's actions mean for Japan? For South Korea?
Would this be China's time to attack Taiwan too? Quite likely.
So war to avoid worse war would NOT avoid a very, very bad war.
4
The key is China. China must know that it couldn't come unscathed through a nuclear attack against North Korea and would probably be drawn into a wider war itself. As much as the Chinese might be enjoying America's discomfort with Kim Jong Un's threats, it's in their interest to make them stop.
28
China does not enjoy seeing the US suffer.
I have been to China many times for work. In my travels, I have seen the Chinese have a deep respect and appreciation for Americans. They send their children here. They want to build lives here.
During the Financial Crisis, China worked closely with the Fed to help bail out the U.S. and global financial systems. It could have created a bank run by selling U.S. assets but it didn't.
I have been to China many times for work. In my travels, I have seen the Chinese have a deep respect and appreciation for Americans. They send their children here. They want to build lives here.
During the Financial Crisis, China worked closely with the Fed to help bail out the U.S. and global financial systems. It could have created a bank run by selling U.S. assets but it didn't.
3
If the key is China, then that includes what China would do if the US attacked. China already announced that. It said it would fight in defense of the Kim Regime.
So who is bluffing on that one? The US going to the Yalu, India on its China border, and Vietnam on its border all called China's bluff before, and found out it was not a bluff. This time? Fourth time is the charm?
So who is bluffing on that one? The US going to the Yalu, India on its China border, and Vietnam on its border all called China's bluff before, and found out it was not a bluff. This time? Fourth time is the charm?
2
I lived in China. They are very smart and principled people. They don't foreign wars and they generally don't try to force others to be like them like we do. Barack Obama's Pivot To the Pacific was a ridiculous, self-defeating strategic miscalculation, that has made the world much less safe. It has angered the Chinese (rightly so) and driven them into Russia's arms and has made the Korean acquire 60 nukes. Both parties in America are guilty of WARMONGERING! -11B/JD
1
The United States has been able to contain the Soviet Union's (now Russia's) nuclear arsenal for 70 years. Can't we do the same with North Korea, a country with a broken economy and only a few bombs, which may or may not even work.
We have never met a general who saw a war he didn't like. As for a "preventive war," any soldier knows that an original battle plan is useless after the first shot is fired. World War I was ignited by a single shot fired in Sarajevo. And McMaster wants to fire missiles at North Korea?
We have never met a general who saw a war he didn't like. As for a "preventive war," any soldier knows that an original battle plan is useless after the first shot is fired. World War I was ignited by a single shot fired in Sarajevo. And McMaster wants to fire missiles at North Korea?
10
Nowhere in this article do I see mention of Congress, which has the sole authority to declare war. Attacking North Korea would in no way come under the "war on terror" provisions previously approved. Discussion of whether South Korea must approve, but not whether Congress must?
15
Absolutely correct. Trump and H.R. Haldeman, I mean, McMaster, have zero authority to start a "preventive" war without a declaration from Congress. That would be yet another violation of the oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
2
Kim is not an existential threat to us. We are to him.
So there is no justification to preemptively threaten tens of thousands of our troops and tens of millions of South Korean civilians, except that...........we have an amoral coward as Commander-in-Chief, whose fragile masculinity is ever needy. And, since that same amoral coward has an investigative noose closing 'round his neck (something to do with Treason), a major war could be a nice distraction for the country and a real hit with his political base. And, the military brass are the only people that the amoral coward will listen to.
Yeah, Americans should sleep very well at night - with bottles of scotch and Xanax on the night table.
So there is no justification to preemptively threaten tens of thousands of our troops and tens of millions of South Korean civilians, except that...........we have an amoral coward as Commander-in-Chief, whose fragile masculinity is ever needy. And, since that same amoral coward has an investigative noose closing 'round his neck (something to do with Treason), a major war could be a nice distraction for the country and a real hit with his political base. And, the military brass are the only people that the amoral coward will listen to.
Yeah, Americans should sleep very well at night - with bottles of scotch and Xanax on the night table.
10
...in a private, gated community with security guards.
1
There is no such thing as "preventive war". War is war. People get killed. In a nuclear war - which would no doubt happen in Korea - LOTS and LOTS of people would die. Various pacts would require China and Russia to get involved, then of course the whole world would join. There would be more dead than living in the aftermath. Radiation clouds would circle the Earth over and over for a long time, not only of people, but of animals and plants. For the first time since the Civil War, real war would come to America - the concept of overseas war would no longer be valid. America better wake up. It may already be too late: war is usually caused by people who have never been in a war.....such as Trump. Words and diplomacy are needed, not bombs and bullets.
7
If anyone acts, everyone loses.
6
What is it with our history that whenever a president is "in trouble", the result is usually a war sparked off somewhere to 'redirect attention'? Will this country EVER learn its lessons from previous attempts at this tactic? I guess not? And why was it good enough for the US and the CCCP to live by the policy of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) throughout the cold war that 'kept the peace' that this strategy is not good enough to be applied to the North Koreans? I wonder! Will someone please explain that one!!!
4
To concerned citizen: You are right there is no difference but we should all recognize that someday, somewhere, someone will not act rationally and mutually assured destruction will not dissuade him/her and there will be a cataclysm. It's not going to happen over North Korea. Of course I could be wrong.
Preventive War does not prevent war, it is an action to initiate WAR!
14
China has already said that if North Korea strikes first they will be neutral but if the US were to go in first they would not remain indifferent. So Trump is prepared to risk war with China just to look tough for the mid-terms? A word of advice to Mr Trump, don't go there. Let the diplomats do their work and play the long game. The fate of a lot of people hangs in the balance and an impulsive move at this stage would bring dire consequences. Bannon was right this time, although that's probably why he got the push.
98
Good points. Bannon was too dovish for the McMaster & Co. Hawks.
Just because these generals wear pants and have their ties straight doen't mean they think straight. They think like Hawks who have no sense that America has lost every war since WWII where the enemy shot back.
Just because these generals wear pants and have their ties straight doen't mean they think straight. They think like Hawks who have no sense that America has lost every war since WWII where the enemy shot back.
Your comment points exactly to the thoughts I wanted to emphasis.
Someone will please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that North Korea is a simple and quiet proxy for China's ambitions in the entire Asia Region and beyond.
From trade to aggressive posturing in attempts to seize long established territories and seas of other nations, less able to defend themselves. ie. South China Sea, Africa, Taiwan and India in particular.
You want to solve problems with North Korea?
Sit down at the table with China and discuss it.
Someone will please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that North Korea is a simple and quiet proxy for China's ambitions in the entire Asia Region and beyond.
From trade to aggressive posturing in attempts to seize long established territories and seas of other nations, less able to defend themselves. ie. South China Sea, Africa, Taiwan and India in particular.
You want to solve problems with North Korea?
Sit down at the table with China and discuss it.
So what if thousands, or tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands South Koreans die as long as the US is not "threatened?"
If this happens, the US will have very few allies left, as it would be clear that their people are easily sacrificed to alleviate American unease.
If this happens, the US will have very few allies left, as it would be clear that their people are easily sacrificed to alleviate American unease.
10
Anybody here interested in using our tax dollars to make sure that a million South Koreans die in some idiotically named Kill-Chain option?
7
Trump & McMaster have just begun a course of sanctions against NoK the likes of which have never been used. For Trump & McMaster to continue sabre rattling is unproductive and without need. Such bellicosity from a blow-hard president and his bald macho arm-chair general add to the difficulty in keeping USA's allies (including China and Russia) aligned with the goal of peacefully ridding the Korean peninsula from nuclear weapons and eventually making it into a demilitarized region.
Far too much old man testosterone in the WH to provide the world with a safe environment.
Far too much old man testosterone in the WH to provide the world with a safe environment.
5
"Preventive War?" Don't you mean, War Crime?
8
what have we become?
elected to the highest office in the land, and to one of the most powerful political positions in the world, a man clearly unfit for the role. belligerent, ignorant and racist -- and proud of it. and those supporting him double down.
again, i ask... what have we become.
elected to the highest office in the land, and to one of the most powerful political positions in the world, a man clearly unfit for the role. belligerent, ignorant and racist -- and proud of it. and those supporting him double down.
again, i ask... what have we become.
6
Maybe it is not what we have become but what we always have been. This guy just pulled the curtain back to expose some bad stuff.
I hate to think that Bannon was finally fired because he talked sense about making war on North Korea.
10
So you finished with a so called expert at the RAND Corporation. Has it occurred to anyone that we may have technology at this point, totally unbeknownst to the NYT or that expert, that could create an effective surgical strike. We know that tunneling tactics are ineffective by way of the massive weapon dropped from a huge American plane in the Middle East since the POTUS took office. North Korea's dictator would find it difficult to hide. We also know that an exquisite surgical strike has ended the gassing of children in the Middle East. As to well-kept military secrets Truman didn't even know when he first became the POTUS there was a Manhattan Project.
1
Wouldn't the tunneling and the damage, depend on where the tunnels are?
A bomb dropped on a tunnel, that is on flat ground, will be much different than one that is located on the side of a mountain.
A bomb dropped on a tunnel, that is on flat ground, will be much different than one that is located on the side of a mountain.
From a strictly technical point of view, 'preventative war' based on an attempt to destroy NK's nuclear program using conventional weapons is an impossibility. Despite the astonishing local devastation each conventional bomb or missile causes, that devastation is very, very localized. And NK's nuclear program is definitively not localized. Much also is protected or disguised. Remember, despite massive daily bombing by thousands of Allied planes during WW2, German GDP did not start to waver until 1944--five years into the war. Any short term attack by air by the US would be largely symbolic: look NK, see what we can do to hurt you. How stirring up this hornet's nest in such a way produces any certainty of a good result for the US is quite beyond me.
3
Actually, German war material production doubled in 1944, so get your facts correct.
2
Did I say anying about "German war material production"?
1
This is madness. Gen. McMaster is the hammer to whom everything looks like a nail and Trump might as well be his adolescent bag boy aching for a fight to show how tough he is. Meanwhile, millions of South Koreans (and North Koreans--they are actually people, too) and almost 200,000 Americans in South Korea are in the line of fire. Maybe if we actually had a State Department, career diplomats would be able to counterbalance the jingoism in the WH. But then, that would require a functional government, which we clearly have not got.
11
McMaster looked in his toolbox, and saw that he has a "crazy Trump" to work with. It looks as if he's decided to use that.
Problem -- Nixon was pretending to be crazy.
Problem -- Nixon was pretending to be crazy.
2
Another red-herring from Benedict donald.
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
PROSECUTE RUSSIAGATE!
4
I feel as threatened by Kim as I did by Saddam. Not much at all. Another plan to ignite fears in order to justify another military adventure to line the pockets of those running the military industrial complex. Never mind the civilians that will be slain by the hundreds of thousands there. Never mind the young American soldiers who will be sacrificed to the gods of war and profit.
Why am I not scared of Kim? He, like Saddam is a survivor. Attacking the US will guarantee demise. Kim is not suicidal. He is not crazy, but we are, if we go ahead with this.
Why am I not scared of Kim? He, like Saddam is a survivor. Attacking the US will guarantee demise. Kim is not suicidal. He is not crazy, but we are, if we go ahead with this.
20
I feel far more threatened by Trump than by Kim.
1
I find it ironic that the people most against war (libs), are those that are least patriotic, least likely to serve, and least willing to sacrifice.
Fact is, Republicans join the military at a 2:1 ratio over Democrats (despite Dems having a population advantage).
Fact is, Republicans join the military at a 2:1 ratio over Democrats (despite Dems having a population advantage).
3
Wait. "Least patriotic" in your mind means being against wars that kill the sons and daughters of other Americans?
4
You're confusing blind war fervor with patriotism.
They're not the same thing.
They're not the same thing.
5
And you have facts to back up these ridiculous claims? Our family is liberal and military and has been for generations. You, sir, are ignorant.
3
War, somewhere, to burnish the baby-emperor's wishes was inevitable. Just a matter of where and when.
3
Which baby emperor?
1
Is Trump trying to goad Kim into some sort of action that will be used to "justify" an attack? Could this be another Gulf of Tonkin scenario.
5
Oh well, as long as it's only horrible, a nice, pre-emptive little war is probably worth considering.
2
Oh, I guess we have to "destroy the village in order to save it" again.
5
Our President "knows more than the generals" and has a secret plan to defeat ISIS -- all by himself, but it's secret; he can't tell anyone.
Tonight Trump is going on TV to tell us about increased troops in Afghanistan. Sorry -- tell me again why any US citizen should listen much less trust a man who lies all the time? Has Trump come to his conclusions in a brief on a one-page memo with large print and mostly pictures during his 2-minute attention span?
Anyone looking at a map can see that any preemptive war will become a world crisis and we would be the aggressor. If Russia supported Trump to sow discord in the US -- they will get way more than they bargained for by the global chaos.
Generals: You don't trust this President either. Don't be misled into compromising with a man who loves big bombs and headlines. Tell Congress and the Cabinet you don't trust his competence; that is your responsibility to your nation -- not appeasing an unfit President.
You ask a surgeon for a remedy; he recommends the knife (it's what he knows.)
Tonight Trump is going on TV to tell us about increased troops in Afghanistan. Sorry -- tell me again why any US citizen should listen much less trust a man who lies all the time? Has Trump come to his conclusions in a brief on a one-page memo with large print and mostly pictures during his 2-minute attention span?
Anyone looking at a map can see that any preemptive war will become a world crisis and we would be the aggressor. If Russia supported Trump to sow discord in the US -- they will get way more than they bargained for by the global chaos.
Generals: You don't trust this President either. Don't be misled into compromising with a man who loves big bombs and headlines. Tell Congress and the Cabinet you don't trust his competence; that is your responsibility to your nation -- not appeasing an unfit President.
You ask a surgeon for a remedy; he recommends the knife (it's what he knows.)
7
Previous presidents have considered a military option "dangerous" because it is. We are now being lead by a man that is a bully, a blow hard, has no common sense, and has left the real military decisions to a bunch of war mongering generals both in the pentagon and by a general in the Oval Office. Trump abdicated that power after his fist military debacle where he blamed others for getting the special ops soldier and the civilian killed, for a laptop. A laptop that supposedly contained valuable intel, at least that's what a known liar in chief said.
Trump does this so one he won't have to take blame when millions of people are killed. He wants to bully with real world weapons, that have real world consequences both long term and short term. For those who voted for him and have brothers, sisters, fathers, uncles, in uniform, you could have stopped Trump and his band of merry war mongers.
You allowed yourself to be convinced that Trump is your friend, that the left and the media are your enemy. That only he can solve your problems and give you what you want or need. That only hard words and escalation of tensions is the only answer, that some how those nations are cowering in their part of the world. Think again, they aren't in fact they are thinking the same thing
For those of you that are having second thoughts about Trump, know this, you could have known the truth about Trump and the Republican Party, but you allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise.
Trump does this so one he won't have to take blame when millions of people are killed. He wants to bully with real world weapons, that have real world consequences both long term and short term. For those who voted for him and have brothers, sisters, fathers, uncles, in uniform, you could have stopped Trump and his band of merry war mongers.
You allowed yourself to be convinced that Trump is your friend, that the left and the media are your enemy. That only he can solve your problems and give you what you want or need. That only hard words and escalation of tensions is the only answer, that some how those nations are cowering in their part of the world. Think again, they aren't in fact they are thinking the same thing
For those of you that are having second thoughts about Trump, know this, you could have known the truth about Trump and the Republican Party, but you allowed yourself to be convinced otherwise.
6
Hey - it worked in Iraq, right??
Right???
Right???
14
Preventive War what like Iraq. How well has this turn out last time. We are still dealing with the mess that Iraq has created this was a preventive war too. This smells of the military industrial complex we need to sell and make more weapons lets have another war started forget the necessity of things. This has the potential to kill millions of innocent people and quickly escalate this new conflict into a bigger mess to possible include China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia. Is this really necessary instead of containment all this just to quell some idiots ego. More blood and treasure spilled because of some idiot trying to look tough I say no.
3
I am against starting any war. "Preventative strike" is just a euphemism for it. Do we say that Hitler was waging a "preventative war" when he marched into Poland, France, and The Netherlands? Do we say that the Japanese were waging a "preventative war" when they marched into China, the Dutch East indies and the Southeast Asian peninsula? And how about Mussolini & Ethiopia (which is the nearest comparison in terms the relative muscle of the two nations involved)? I am sure that the leaders of all three of the "preventing" nations told their citizens they were justified in what they did...but do we have to believe the same sort of horse hockey from our leader?
5
I understand that because the wall hasn't been built the north korean army is massing at the border with mexico. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
'Preventive War' may be the most Orwelliam Term I have ever heard.
Right after George Bush's "preemptive war" doctrine.
The one that gave us ISIS.
Right after George Bush's "preemptive war" doctrine.
The one that gave us ISIS.
11
Wait until North Korea turns into nuclear bomb making machine which gladly sells some nukes to our enemies like Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Iran, ISIS, Al-Shabab. Is that worthy of a war? Soon nukes will be in everyones hands, especially the religious ones. I fear the world had about 4-7 years before annihilation. We'll all look back and chat on CNN what we should have done, but didnt have the will to do it, if we still have electricity after its all over of course :)
2
Do you have any concept of what is required to make a nuclear weapon?
Guess what, you can't get the materials at Home Depot. It's a little more complex than that.
Guess what, you can't get the materials at Home Depot. It's a little more complex than that.
1
Trying to make this insane idea, sane, seems to be the goal. Taking out the leader, the top of the government, eliminate missiles and hopefully finding and removing nuclear weapons, without causing destruction of Seoul, seems to be a fantasy.
Sounds about right for Trump and two military guys who think war is the way to make change.
Sounds about right for Trump and two military guys who think war is the way to make change.
3
After the fantastic success we have seen in our two most recent preventive wars (of opportunity) in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is another no-brainer. Thank goodness we have a President with no brain, who can dive into this mess without a doubt or second thought. I am confident he is ready to send his two sons into battle to demonstrate his genuine commitment to the cause.
3
North Korea has the bomb. And soon, if not now, missiles that can strike most of the U.S. Those are facts we must accept. Prevention of a nuclear no longer is an option. Now our policy must be containment, deterrence, and no shooting. It's time to stop this reckless discussion about first strike military options. We must speak softly. Pyongyang knows we swing the bigger stick.
73
Oh good.
I was afraid we might have learned something from our decade and a half of pouring time, money, resources, and lives into the pits if Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a relief to know that the basic framework of stupid decision-making and sacrifice of the "little guy" for the sake of keeping the population a little afraid and divided is still intact.
Not to mention the steady stream of wasteful defense spending and endless profits for right sorts of people (wink wink).
I'm sure it will work out well this time with a reset in Afghanistan, and opening up new opportunities for patriotic Americans to find ways to die on the Korean peninsula and beyond!
I was afraid we might have learned something from our decade and a half of pouring time, money, resources, and lives into the pits if Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a relief to know that the basic framework of stupid decision-making and sacrifice of the "little guy" for the sake of keeping the population a little afraid and divided is still intact.
Not to mention the steady stream of wasteful defense spending and endless profits for right sorts of people (wink wink).
I'm sure it will work out well this time with a reset in Afghanistan, and opening up new opportunities for patriotic Americans to find ways to die on the Korean peninsula and beyond!
1
When you look back on the history of the U.S. after WWII you can see that the Generals often advocated nuclear war in places like North Korea, Vietnam and during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If only military leaders had held sway over our Presidents during that time we'd probably not exist today. Trump's ignorance combined with over reliance on military advice is a toxic mix. Working with the North Korea issue is a high wire act that requires a leader of knowledge, a calm temperament, and an ability to seek out facts and listen to all sides and seek alternatives. We have none of that now and if we launch a pre-emptive attack or preventive war on North Korea we will unleash a storm with unintended consequences that will rage across the globe. The chickens will come home to roost. I fear for the globe.
1
Lots of comments comparing North Korea to Iraq.
Iraq never tested nuclear weapons.
North Korea has. And has threatened to use them against us.
I could go on, but enough said.
Iraq never tested nuclear weapons.
North Korea has. And has threatened to use them against us.
I could go on, but enough said.
3
It makes sense to try diplomacy.
But it also makes sense to admit that proliferation is inevitable; once the genie's out of the bottle, sooner or later everybody (who wants it) will have it. (Indeed, therein lies the argument for diplomacy: How to make sure the N Korean government does NOT want it?).
The US and its allies should be working feverishly to invent a technology that renders weapons of mass destruction pointless. Imagine a combination of "detect-and-deflect" technologies, which can render all offensive military actions against the US subject to "turn-around, and go back to where you came from."
But it also makes sense to admit that proliferation is inevitable; once the genie's out of the bottle, sooner or later everybody (who wants it) will have it. (Indeed, therein lies the argument for diplomacy: How to make sure the N Korean government does NOT want it?).
The US and its allies should be working feverishly to invent a technology that renders weapons of mass destruction pointless. Imagine a combination of "detect-and-deflect" technologies, which can render all offensive military actions against the US subject to "turn-around, and go back to where you came from."
As much as everything bad going on in the world is blamed on Trump, this is one occasion where he truly inherited a problem from his string of predecessors, who universally kicked the problem into long grass and into the lap of the next president. Oh, yes, there were talks and some agreements which the North Koreans almost immediately and ignored. Now we have a North Korea that has nuclear bombs and the missiles to deliver them. If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton was prepared to act but Jimmy Carter interfered and effectively side line US Korean policy. Successive President did nothing making the dilemma into a nightmare. So what does Trump do? A direct military action, by whatever name, carries horrible and unacceptable risks. Putting aside conventional arms, the US would have to get every single nuke the North Koreans possess. Anything less is a disaster result. So the brains in Washington need to think again and come up with a game plan. Talks, trade and even humanitarian gestures will have little or impact on on Kim Jong-un. So forget trying, its a waste of breath. Therefore the problem and solution to achieving peace on the Korean peninsula is to focus on Kim, his regime and the Kim dynasty. That will take cunning, subtlety and patient sustained activity that Washington is not renowned for and Trump even less. However, for once, it would be worth using brains rather than brute force to crack this nutcase.
2
A 'preventive'. war in Korea would be a crime against humanity.
1
President Moon Jae-in of South Korea: “No matter what options the United States and President Trump want to use, they have promised to have full consultation with South Korea and get our consent in advance,”
Alas for South Korea. We know the value of resident trump's promises.
Alas for South Korea. We know the value of resident trump's promises.
7
Very impressive. The best oxymoron of the year. So far.
3
Preventive Psychiatric Treatment. With heavy medication. Bigly.
4
Any war against North Korea will be a nuclear war. That is why North Korea sought nuclear weapons in the first place: they are an effective deterrent against attack by the US. North Korea's regime has no intention of starting a war, because they fully understand that it would be suicidal.
It is reckless and foolish for McMaster to voice the absurd idea of "preventive war." He's talking openly about starting a war. Insanity appears to be contagious inside the White House.
It is reckless and foolish for McMaster to voice the absurd idea of "preventive war." He's talking openly about starting a war. Insanity appears to be contagious inside the White House.
3
I'm looking forward to the upcoming episode of this reality show administration when the so-called president screams for our troops to attack only to be muzzled and relieved of duty by the generals around him who know far more than he does.
The drama keeps us tuned in, but the poor ratings indicate the show should be cancelled.
What a disgrace.
The drama keeps us tuned in, but the poor ratings indicate the show should be cancelled.
What a disgrace.
3
Not to be trite because this scares the bejeebers out of me and no doubt the South Koreans way more so. But Mad Dog Mattis' nick name is beginning to sound rather ominous, given who he's required to take orders from. There can't possibly be a good outcome here.
1
Like my mother said during the Vietnam War...."let these politicians and their sons and daughters be first in line to fight another war.....and maybe we'll follow them."
3
Trump has surrounded himself with "my Generals".
When your only tool is a hammer, all solutions look like nails. Hence: "Preventive War".
When your only tool is a hammer, all solutions look like nails. Hence: "Preventive War".
4
How does one prevent war by waging war?
Trump logic trumps logic.
Trump logic trumps logic.
4
One good thing about Trump as president:
For the threat of preventive war with potentially millions of South Korean casualties to be a realistic deterrent, we would have to have a president who is known to be impulsive, cruel, and unhinged.
ipso facto.
For the threat of preventive war with potentially millions of South Korean casualties to be a realistic deterrent, we would have to have a president who is known to be impulsive, cruel, and unhinged.
ipso facto.
3
'The generals' (and45) sound pretty out of touch talking about a preventive war on the same day 10 sailors were lost because an anti missile ship "on watch" in the South China Sea crashed into a commercial tanker. If the military can't steer a ship, it doesn't inspire confidence they could preemptively strike NK's missile launch pads.
7
Preventive war against North Korea is insane.
China has told Kim to cool it and Kim has backed down.
Trump should just keep his trap shut.
If the US attacks North Korea what will China do.
Recall what happened during the Korean War when the US crossed the 38th parallel.
MacArthur told Truman at the Wake Island that China would not intervene.
MacArthur was tragically wrong.
China is helping restrain North Korea.
Why upset that co-operation.
China has told Kim to cool it and Kim has backed down.
Trump should just keep his trap shut.
If the US attacks North Korea what will China do.
Recall what happened during the Korean War when the US crossed the 38th parallel.
MacArthur told Truman at the Wake Island that China would not intervene.
MacArthur was tragically wrong.
China is helping restrain North Korea.
Why upset that co-operation.
3
"Preventative war"? Preventing life on the planet, perhaps.
9
The press, the media everyone joined the battle cry for the war in Iraq. Journalists embedded with troops, toppling of statues, what a news bonanza. Latter, the media focussed on the body count of the American soldiers.
How many of you have shed tears for the common people of Iraq? To this day, do we know how many Iraqi civillians died? How many displaced?
Didn't Iraq war pave the way for ISIS and suffering of the Yazidi women?
Now, one more war. War, war, war. Who is threatening whom?
How many of you have shed tears for the common people of Iraq? To this day, do we know how many Iraqi civillians died? How many displaced?
Didn't Iraq war pave the way for ISIS and suffering of the Yazidi women?
Now, one more war. War, war, war. Who is threatening whom?
18
Obama's message the trump, north korea is the highest priority. trumps highest priorities, trump ego, trump organization, trump family,
color of white house curtains.
color of white house curtains.
3
STOP NOW. This is a scam to keep the president in office as long as possible. Managed Democracy will give you the steps:
Divide the public
Tell them the news is fake
Create chaos
Exhaust the people until they give up
Start a war
Voila! Oligarchy in place, democracy becomes a falsity. This is what the president admires Putin for. Wake up.
Divide the public
Tell them the news is fake
Create chaos
Exhaust the people until they give up
Start a war
Voila! Oligarchy in place, democracy becomes a falsity. This is what the president admires Putin for. Wake up.
66
The only thing scarier than this comment is the fact people actually agree- as if the Illuminati created and supported Kim's nuke research, all in a diabolical plan to have Trump become dictator. Please pass the popcorn.....
Hi Mike.
Managed Democracy is a known formula to control a population. It may seem a conspiracy theory, but unfortunately, it is a simple method of manipulation. Sadly, this is what is happening in this country. Be aware of drinking the Kool Aid. A supposed billionaire that didn't pay workers, gropes women freely, is presently refusing to resolve conflicts of interests and prefers to pocket profits from tax payers as he lies on a daily basis is not your friend. Be well and With Respect, LuLu
Managed Democracy is a known formula to control a population. It may seem a conspiracy theory, but unfortunately, it is a simple method of manipulation. Sadly, this is what is happening in this country. Be aware of drinking the Kool Aid. A supposed billionaire that didn't pay workers, gropes women freely, is presently refusing to resolve conflicts of interests and prefers to pocket profits from tax payers as he lies on a daily basis is not your friend. Be well and With Respect, LuLu
I do not have access to US war plans, but here's what I do know:
Through a skillful propaganda, misinformation and disinformation effort spanning many years, the DPRK has successfully shaped the public American debate about whether -- and how -- to address North Korea's advance toward development of a deliverable nuclear warhead.
Kim Jong Un, like his father before him, has employed threats, bombastic displays of military might (parades, for example), asymmetric (cyber) warfare for one purpose: to frighten American voters into believing he and his regime are completely irrational, and will respond to any US exercise of military muscle in a regime-ending manner.
Most of us, it would appear, have swallowed this nonsense hook, line and sinker. The speed-of-light transmission via social media of Pyongyang's bluster facilitates the deception by orders of magnitude.
Now, whether you like him or not, Mr. Trump's simple rhetorical escalation a few weeks ago was enough to compel Pyongyang to release a Canadian detainee who had been sentenced to life in prison, and -- more importantly -- to deter Pyongyang from its promise to lob some missiles in the sea adjacent to Guam.
Coincidence? I think not. Pyongyang is terrified of the US.
Pyongyang is one year away from successfully putting a nuclear warhead atop on ICBM. Rather than address this problem, successive administrations have kicked the can down the road. We are now running out of road.
We need to act now.
Through a skillful propaganda, misinformation and disinformation effort spanning many years, the DPRK has successfully shaped the public American debate about whether -- and how -- to address North Korea's advance toward development of a deliverable nuclear warhead.
Kim Jong Un, like his father before him, has employed threats, bombastic displays of military might (parades, for example), asymmetric (cyber) warfare for one purpose: to frighten American voters into believing he and his regime are completely irrational, and will respond to any US exercise of military muscle in a regime-ending manner.
Most of us, it would appear, have swallowed this nonsense hook, line and sinker. The speed-of-light transmission via social media of Pyongyang's bluster facilitates the deception by orders of magnitude.
Now, whether you like him or not, Mr. Trump's simple rhetorical escalation a few weeks ago was enough to compel Pyongyang to release a Canadian detainee who had been sentenced to life in prison, and -- more importantly -- to deter Pyongyang from its promise to lob some missiles in the sea adjacent to Guam.
Coincidence? I think not. Pyongyang is terrified of the US.
Pyongyang is one year away from successfully putting a nuclear warhead atop on ICBM. Rather than address this problem, successive administrations have kicked the can down the road. We are now running out of road.
We need to act now.
1
Kim sees in Trump what Trump has projected... a bully who will lash out when backed into a corner unrestrained by "conventional" rules- whereas previous administrations and our allies similarly followed a script of hang-wringing and fake posturing.
They saw Trump launch missiles at a Syrian/Russian base while having tea with China's Premier....all without batting an eye.
This is the realpolitik which unnerves Kim...and why Trumps bombastic behavior will keep Kim in his box
They saw Trump launch missiles at a Syrian/Russian base while having tea with China's Premier....all without batting an eye.
This is the realpolitik which unnerves Kim...and why Trumps bombastic behavior will keep Kim in his box
1
War games may be a bargaining chip today, but no one can predict what Trump will do or what military action, if at all, he will order if he decides he wants to throw up another bright shiny object to distract the public to take their eyes off his recent Alt-Right pronouncements or the Mueller investigation.
Moreover, you now also have Mattis making the case for a “preventive war” declaring that “if American forces in the Pacific detected a missile launch by North Korea toward American or allied soil, “we would take immediate, specific actions to take it down.”
Sounds like a good old fashion George W. Bush, “we’re going to find any reason we can to go to war with Iraq rationale” even though the Pentagon has for months been trotting out military experts for TV interviews stating that the North Koreans lack the telemetry guidance systems required to deliver a missile(s) to a target with any accuracy.
This whole "fire and fury" "locked and loaded" brouhaha with North Korea was the creation of a man attempting to divert public's attention from the FBI's raid of the man he hardly knew (but had an apartment in Trump Tower for more than 20+ years), Paul Manafort.
Is it so difficult to believe that this President is so craven that he might order up an airstrike in hopes that the American public will forget who is really is and what he's capable of?
Moreover, you now also have Mattis making the case for a “preventive war” declaring that “if American forces in the Pacific detected a missile launch by North Korea toward American or allied soil, “we would take immediate, specific actions to take it down.”
Sounds like a good old fashion George W. Bush, “we’re going to find any reason we can to go to war with Iraq rationale” even though the Pentagon has for months been trotting out military experts for TV interviews stating that the North Koreans lack the telemetry guidance systems required to deliver a missile(s) to a target with any accuracy.
This whole "fire and fury" "locked and loaded" brouhaha with North Korea was the creation of a man attempting to divert public's attention from the FBI's raid of the man he hardly knew (but had an apartment in Trump Tower for more than 20+ years), Paul Manafort.
Is it so difficult to believe that this President is so craven that he might order up an airstrike in hopes that the American public will forget who is really is and what he's capable of?
8
Talk about a preventative war was exactly what almost plunged us into nuclear annihilation during the cold war with the Soviet Union. They, with some justification, firmly believed the Americans would begin this war and made plans to retaliate immediately upon any signs of aggression. Only quick intervention by chance in the middle of the night prevented such a retaliation when an exercise was mistaken for the real thing. And here we are again.
I'm not sure why it is necessary to make a front page point of talk in the white house around a preventative war. It's dangerous brinkmanship, given that the last volley out of Mr. Kim was conciliatory and I don't think its the job of any newspaper to engage in that.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should, is an axiom that applies not only to the creation of dangerous weapons, but also to a newspaper who has access to the inner workings of an administration through leaks. The public's right to know everything, especially about military matters is not inalienable.
I'm not sure why it is necessary to make a front page point of talk in the white house around a preventative war. It's dangerous brinkmanship, given that the last volley out of Mr. Kim was conciliatory and I don't think its the job of any newspaper to engage in that.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should, is an axiom that applies not only to the creation of dangerous weapons, but also to a newspaper who has access to the inner workings of an administration through leaks. The public's right to know everything, especially about military matters is not inalienable.
8
I'd like to say Trump is bluffing. However, Trump is the sort of person that will bluff his way into a war just to prove he isn't bluffing. I think McMaster miscalculates if he believes he can eliminate the inception of the idea. Once Trump believes war is possible, war is certainly a possibility. A horrific and ill advised possibility but a possibility all the same.
3
We really haven't progressed beyond cavemen.
6
The only progress is in technology. Sadly intelligence is going down for the count
2
Let's see now....Russia and China massively supported North Korea and thus created the two Koreas. N. Korea gets its new rocket tech from a Russian supplier in the Ukraine. China pretends to not know what to do even as it serves, via trade, to keep little Un's un-nation afloat.. The whole planet knows that Trump is the epitome of failure, weakness and absurd posturing, nifty new generals are gun-ho [sic] for more war and the pathetic GOP is sitting on their hands.
Lookin' for love in all the wrong places...
Lookin' for love in all the wrong places...
7
When asked if he could guarantee that a preemptive attack on North Korea would have the desired effect of precluding their use of nuclear weapons, a high-ranking U.S. general is supposed to have responded, "Can I use nukes?"
So, it would seem that any military action would result in tens of millions of dead civilians. But to some folks in the government that would seem to be acceptable, because most of them would be Asian.
So, it would seem that any military action would result in tens of millions of dead civilians. But to some folks in the government that would seem to be acceptable, because most of them would be Asian.
5
Trump's plan "hatred, diversions, ego and Trump Organization. Not in that order. Our Constitution and The People are on Trump's hatred list..
3
In just half a year President Swamp merited the title of worst modern-era POTUS, but now it looks like he'll be shooting to secure his historic position by playing W's worst greatest hits:
"Bogged Down in Afghanistan" and "Unchained Regime Change (Ready, Fire, Aim)."
Worst. (so-called) President. Ever!
"Bogged Down in Afghanistan" and "Unchained Regime Change (Ready, Fire, Aim)."
Worst. (so-called) President. Ever!
6
China, china, china. It is the only country that has not gotten the message. Any exchange of weaponry will almost overnight destroy their economic miracle and turn it into a nightmare. Not to mention there goes South Korea and their economic well being. The collateral damage will be widespread and I have not mentioned human costs yet. Perhaps it might be time to dust off an old Ronald Reagan playbook and start developing space based weaponry. The mere thought seems to have driven the soviets half out of their minds. As unpalatable as that may seem to some, it may be preferable to speak loudly and carry vague and meaningless hyperbole.
Preventative War?!
As usual with the GOP, up is down, down is up.
What's next ? First strike peace?
As usual with the GOP, up is down, down is up.
What's next ? First strike peace?
6
In the United States of Amnesia nothing is ever learned from past fiascos. Preventive War by the moronic G.W. Bush and his neocon cabal certainly made things much better in the Mideast, no?
Now, incredibly, the 'leadership' is even worse than then.
Now, incredibly, the 'leadership' is even worse than then.
38
This is the direct result of the GOP aggression towards education for Americans for the last 40 years.
The 'dumbing down' of the electorate on maters like US Government and our history has consequences that teachers saw coming years ago.
Instead of acting in an informed way, many people are simply re-acting in the only way they know how. Viscerally.
The 'dumbing down' of the electorate on maters like US Government and our history has consequences that teachers saw coming years ago.
Instead of acting in an informed way, many people are simply re-acting in the only way they know how. Viscerally.
Bannon the man who spoke against war with North Korea is gone and we all are oh so grateful. Nuts. Now we move the Generals into the inner circle. Does anyone out there realize how crazy this is (hey NY Times wake up). What is the editorial board going to do when the workers for the major industry in America are waiters?
2
NO
5
Thanks, your's is just the sort of comment that would win a state prize from Kim Jong Un.
1
There were two clear winners that emerged from our invasion of Iraq: Iran and al-Qaeda (and its progeny). Losers include everyone else, especially Europe which is struggling to deal with the refugees produced by the continuing civil wars throughout the Middle East, and of course the U.S. I don't see any winners in an invasion of North Korea, only losers.
Much has been made of the "adults" in the trump administration--the military generals. In our system, the military was supposed to be under the control of civilians, not the other way around. Unfortunately, military men have a tendency to see military solutions to most problems. I am not optimistic.
Much has been made of the "adults" in the trump administration--the military generals. In our system, the military was supposed to be under the control of civilians, not the other way around. Unfortunately, military men have a tendency to see military solutions to most problems. I am not optimistic.
178
I spent over 20 years in the military, and I, too, am not optimistic. War is War, no matter what word you put in front of it. Dying is dying, no matter if by bullets or nuclear missiles. America has too many leaders who have never been to war..................
3
Re: "...There were two clear winners that emerged from our invasion of Iraq: Iran and al-Qaeda (and its progeny)..."
As I've noted, before...
359 coworkers WERE NOT as lucky as I was, to be absent from my 1 W.T.C. office the day Islamic_apostates came to 'proselytize', via car-jacked airliner! I'd been 'Romany_Sized', (aka: outsourced), that spring...
Ironically...
The two heads of state who've gifted all 7+ billion of us with this 16 year, 'N, counting, corporate pillaging...will tell anyone, naive, (OR willfully, ignorant), enough, to listen, that they consider abortion to be 'murder', while the estimated 250-350,000 dead (Iraqi civilian), men, woman, 'N, children, killed, are mere...'Collateral's, Damaged'!
And the U.S. continues to set, ('Guinness World Book' like), records...in the 'most suicided service people' category!!
As I've noted, before...
359 coworkers WERE NOT as lucky as I was, to be absent from my 1 W.T.C. office the day Islamic_apostates came to 'proselytize', via car-jacked airliner! I'd been 'Romany_Sized', (aka: outsourced), that spring...
Ironically...
The two heads of state who've gifted all 7+ billion of us with this 16 year, 'N, counting, corporate pillaging...will tell anyone, naive, (OR willfully, ignorant), enough, to listen, that they consider abortion to be 'murder', while the estimated 250-350,000 dead (Iraqi civilian), men, woman, 'N, children, killed, are mere...'Collateral's, Damaged'!
And the U.S. continues to set, ('Guinness World Book' like), records...in the 'most suicided service people' category!!
1
Generals do war, not diplomacy. Trump has gutted the State Department that used to do diplomacy.
1
South Korea has 23 operating nuclear power plants containing at least 80 tons of radioactive fuel each. In the event of an all out war with the US, these 23 power plants would be destroyed and their massive amount of melting radioactive fuel spewing into the atmosphere and groundwater would contaminate not just Korea, Japan, China but the entire globe for decades. How easily our war planners forget to mention how this holocaust will be avoided!
58
More troops in Afghanistan? The graveyard of empires? And North Korea???
So we really do learn NOTHING!!!!!KA
So we really do learn NOTHING!!!!!KA
49
There is no such thing as a 'preventative' war. It is war. It is expensive in lives and money.
Do not be a bully and strike first.
Do not be a bully and strike first.
37
If, in what passes for strategic thinking in today's White House, there is the merest perception of existential military threat from North Korea, any war veto that South Korea believes it holds disappears in a heartbeat. We are living with two lunatics in this situation, one of whom might actually have some smarts -- the one whose uncle wasn't a professor at MIT.
7
Israel is America's client state. Israel introduced nuclear weapons of mass destruction into the Middle East, and is aiming hundreds of them straight at Iran and other enemies. America has said that is perfectly ok.
So, morally, there is no reason for North Korea to have to avoid building up its defense force to include nuclear weapons. Self defense is a perfectly good reason to have a defense force.
I have no admiration for N. Korea, but either be serious about getting rid of nuclear weapons, or wait for the inevitable horror of a nuclear war. I align myself, tiny voice that I have, with the non-nuclear nations in the UN who are fighting to get rid of their existence.
I wish the non-nuclear nations would just leave the UN and start another organization in another country, with the first requirement for belonging being that the nation has no nuclear arms. Either work for peace of wait for the hell of nuclear war.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
So, morally, there is no reason for North Korea to have to avoid building up its defense force to include nuclear weapons. Self defense is a perfectly good reason to have a defense force.
I have no admiration for N. Korea, but either be serious about getting rid of nuclear weapons, or wait for the inevitable horror of a nuclear war. I align myself, tiny voice that I have, with the non-nuclear nations in the UN who are fighting to get rid of their existence.
I wish the non-nuclear nations would just leave the UN and start another organization in another country, with the first requirement for belonging being that the nation has no nuclear arms. Either work for peace of wait for the hell of nuclear war.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
39
Well, Hugh, as is said - From your lips to God ears", but God isn't listening ...
1
Frankly, we have let the SK off easy for years with their posturing.....they are intentionally and completely ignored by the North for negotiation purposes, and the SK government has always tried economic inducements to keep the status quo- to disastrous results. But, SK and our allies expect us to defend SK against a regime that, but for our defense of SK, would be irrelevant to the US and its core interests.
Trump said it during the election....want to contain NK....get China on board....how do you get China on board? Threaten to give SK and Japan nukes.....the Chinese will have a conniption and only then they will be interested in a Grand Bargain...otherwise, NK has no pressure from China, who likes having an unruly cousin to serve their purposes and distract the world while they suppress their people, create a new reality in the SC Sea, and give the American fits.
Trump said it during the election....want to contain NK....get China on board....how do you get China on board? Threaten to give SK and Japan nukes.....the Chinese will have a conniption and only then they will be interested in a Grand Bargain...otherwise, NK has no pressure from China, who likes having an unruly cousin to serve their purposes and distract the world while they suppress their people, create a new reality in the SC Sea, and give the American fits.
1
The First World War was supposedly a preventative war, and we know how well that worked out. Besides increasing our troops in Afghanistan, we are now going to start a war in Asia. What imbeciles! Like the Roman Empire and many others, we are being destroyed by our military expenditures. Do you think Japan and China are going to continue to finance our debt to pay for all this?
12
America. You're the most aggressive nation on the planet. You have around 800 bases worldwide (secret and non-secret), conduct covert operations at will and have given yourself carte-blanche to drone strike most of the Middle East and Africa. Imagine your frenzy if any other country had the temerity to act similarly.
Now you're working yourself up into a lather about a tin pot dictator who at best might have a couple of "dirty bomb" warheads and a few missiles that couldn't hit a barn door from 12 feet away. If he was directly on your border I might take your point - but he's on the other side of the planet. He feels far more threatened by you than the reverse - hence his comically inept posturing.
Maybe you'd be a bit more circumspect if there was a threat of your civilians really being killed. As it is - these far off virtual wars seem hardly to impinge on your consciousness.
Now you're working yourself up into a lather about a tin pot dictator who at best might have a couple of "dirty bomb" warheads and a few missiles that couldn't hit a barn door from 12 feet away. If he was directly on your border I might take your point - but he's on the other side of the planet. He feels far more threatened by you than the reverse - hence his comically inept posturing.
Maybe you'd be a bit more circumspect if there was a threat of your civilians really being killed. As it is - these far off virtual wars seem hardly to impinge on your consciousness.
185
As an American I heartily endorse this comment.
2
As an American I resent this statement a bit, but I am also intensely conscious that there is truth enough in it to constitute a serious foreign policy fact in its own right. I am also deeply disturbed about the covert operations in which we engage around the world, using some of my own young relatives as bait and potential victims. Moreover, it is and has been done with utter contempt for the sovereignty and integrity of other nations. The intense hatred which all of this must generate particularly in the Islamic world penetrates the awareness of the American people almost not at all. Aren't we living blind in a thing that is worse than a bubble, namely, some kind of willful ignorance of the truth about ourselves.
3
True. We now have special ops forces in 70% of the world's countries (Forbes 2016) and that was before Somalia, Syria and Yemen. We sell more weapons annually than the next 7 countries combined (how better to set up the next military "hot spot"?)
Have we ever left a country after military efforts? Do we even know how?
Now there is the discussion of letting Betsy De Vos's brother use his mercenaries in Afghanistan. (What a great way to use up tax dollars while insuring the war never ends.) That's why the draft ended; the populace complains less about tax dollars than their men's blood.
In future hindsight, we will find our country ran itself into the ground supporting military actions throughout the world. And, thus, becoming the face of the enemy for much of the world -- we are truly the invading force for their countries.
Health care? Infrastructure? Corporation money subverting our democracy? Civil unrest is beginning -- and we all should be wary.
Have we ever left a country after military efforts? Do we even know how?
Now there is the discussion of letting Betsy De Vos's brother use his mercenaries in Afghanistan. (What a great way to use up tax dollars while insuring the war never ends.) That's why the draft ended; the populace complains less about tax dollars than their men's blood.
In future hindsight, we will find our country ran itself into the ground supporting military actions throughout the world. And, thus, becoming the face of the enemy for much of the world -- we are truly the invading force for their countries.
Health care? Infrastructure? Corporation money subverting our democracy? Civil unrest is beginning -- and we all should be wary.
2
Preventive War is an oxymoron. We have our own unpredictable Trump to deal with never mind Jung Un. Trump has gotten us into more destructive situations since the elections than any other nation in the world.
A small nation, like North Korea, cannot appear to look weak to the rest of the world. Trump has made the US, a powerful nation, look weak to the rest of the world. We have much more to lose than North Korea.
Of course the military would say let's be ready to attack. That is what a military does. Remember Iraq?
President Eisenhower warned us when he was leaving office to "Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex." Between the Bush Administration and the Trump Administration they proved him right. We need cooler heads to prevail.
A small nation, like North Korea, cannot appear to look weak to the rest of the world. Trump has made the US, a powerful nation, look weak to the rest of the world. We have much more to lose than North Korea.
Of course the military would say let's be ready to attack. That is what a military does. Remember Iraq?
President Eisenhower warned us when he was leaving office to "Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex." Between the Bush Administration and the Trump Administration they proved him right. We need cooler heads to prevail.
14
Right on point!
3
Trump lies. As the voice of our nation globally, the US now lies. And as Trump himself said, inadvertently truthful for once, "I stand for nothing."
4
Oh help me, Rhonda! This is ridiculous.
A preventive war to bring the ultimate diversion/preoccupation so Trump will have us scared and pliant as his feet and no one will notice when Mueller's report comes out. Yeah, sure, a war so we won't notice that we have a madman at the helm! A preventive war is a perverse variation on the disastrous decision by a mismatched couple who decide to have a baby to save the relationship.
A preventive war to bring the ultimate diversion/preoccupation so Trump will have us scared and pliant as his feet and no one will notice when Mueller's report comes out. Yeah, sure, a war so we won't notice that we have a madman at the helm! A preventive war is a perverse variation on the disastrous decision by a mismatched couple who decide to have a baby to save the relationship.
19
The "Trump administration's lean toward a preemptive strike are ridiculous. A preemptive strike would endanger the 26 million residents of Seoul due to the hundreds of guns hidden in the hills on the demilitarized side. Studies have estimated that 300,000 would die in the Seoul area within 3 days of a conventional war. What right has the United States to take military action when it is not realistically threatened. Any attack by Korea on the United States would result in the destruction of North Korea. This is what the United States gets for electing a man such as Trump.
13
"The patient died, but we got the cancer." Preemptive war on N Korea is the definition of rational insanity.
"That is the conventional view." No, that is the sane view. The notion that the United States has the right to balance the odds that North Korea has the technology to successfully send a beta-model ICBM halfway across the world to explode on its territory with the certainty that South Korea will be devastated in any pre-emptive attack is just plain crazy. Preventive War is an oxymoron. I took a course in Christian ethics from an advisor to President Carter when I was a freshman at Amherst College in 1979. He asked us to debate the morality of limited nuclear conflict and I laughed in his face. Morality in War? There isn't enough time in eternity to atone for the wars our country has already waged, many on the same false premise suggested in this article.
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide, in the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side.
36
Look at what our last "preventive war" got us. We are still living with the fallout from the second Gulf War. ISIS is one of the unintended consequences of that ill-conceived and unnecessary adventure --- not to mention the unnecessary loss of Iraqi, British, and American lives.
War is never a sure thing. Once the fighting begins, no one can predict the results. One thing is certain however, the consequences for our ally South Korea would be horrendous. Pyongyang and Seoul are not really further apart than Boston and Providence. If it went nuclear, ...
Some problems do not have convenient solutions and sometimes diplomacy actually works. Once one goes to war, the options abruptly narrow. A long time ago, I was a soldier and I still fear the fog of war.
War is never a sure thing. Once the fighting begins, no one can predict the results. One thing is certain however, the consequences for our ally South Korea would be horrendous. Pyongyang and Seoul are not really further apart than Boston and Providence. If it went nuclear, ...
Some problems do not have convenient solutions and sometimes diplomacy actually works. Once one goes to war, the options abruptly narrow. A long time ago, I was a soldier and I still fear the fog of war.
54
Bannon is right - there is no military option unless Donald is willing to throw 10 million South Koreans under the bus. Two or three salvos from conventional artillery already pointed (and within range) at Seoul would see to that. Kim knows it too. Paper tiger.
9
I'm surprised that we are even bothering with a label like preventive war. Take a look at W's invasion of Iraq. Our national security was not at risk. Masked as a preemptive strike to take out weapons of mass destruction, which most people knew did not exist, the Iraq invasion proceeded without prior UN approval At bottom, we invaded Iraq because we wanted to invade Iraq, and no one could stop us.
The rule of law is now the exception.
The rule of law is now the exception.
28
These euphemistic labels, pushed by interested parties and then embraced by the media ("take him out" being another example) are how we end up with a US president debating the moral high ground bw neonazis and those who died resisting them in an american city. If the imperative is so great, it will still stand up under an honest use of language
1
I have changed my view. The genie is out of the bottle. Whatever we say in the end the White House (and that means not just Trump, but Maddis, McMaster, the Joint Chiefs, Pence Cohn etc) will have to accept North Korea and, soon, Iran as full fledged nuclear powers with sufficient missile technology to cause mayhem (a euphemism for massive loss of life). The White House is using threats to get the best deal possible, or failing that, to appear strong at the moment. The rest of us must accept that preventive war is out of the question (one thing Bannon got right) and that in the fullness of time someone, somewhere will again unleash a nuclear weapon(s). From the time of cavemen using clubs through slingshots, bows and arrows, planes, tanks, submarines etc when a weapon is developed it gets used. Just a question of where and when.
1
There is one problem--a major one--with McMaster's preventive war scenario.
That problem is the position of China as mentioned in a Golbal Times editorial: "China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so."
North Korea, despite its threats of launching missiles towards Guam, has not yet done so. It would be foolish for the US to launch a "preventive war" considering both China and even South Korea seem to not want such a war.
That problem is the position of China as mentioned in a Golbal Times editorial: "China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral. If the US and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so."
North Korea, despite its threats of launching missiles towards Guam, has not yet done so. It would be foolish for the US to launch a "preventive war" considering both China and even South Korea seem to not want such a war.
13
War on the Korean Peninsula whether conventional or nuclear may seem rational from the Pentagon or the White House, but absolutely not from the perspective of South Korea and, or Japan.
A preemptive attack to ostensibly destroy NK ballistic missile and nuclear processing, manufacturing, and weapons capability could hardly be surgical given the apparent inability to pinpoint many relevant targets while other key installations are reputedly highly hardened. Such a strike would have to resort to massive overkill to have a viable chance of being effective.
Such action would surely trigger a massive NK conventional retaliation and incursion into the South — anything less and the Kim regime would certainly disintegrate.
Hard in this context not to harken back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, fraught with massive US miscalculations regarding the expected overwhelming effect of Shock and Awe and the total absence of a credible strategy and capability to deal with the subsequent massive chaos and insurgency that ensued contrary to all pre-invasion calculations and expectations.
Conversely, the notion of tolerating the ability of North Korea to successfully strike the US or its allies with even one nuclear armed ICBM is utterly intolerable.
Under the best circumstance of American governance this situation would represent a monumentally challenging threat. One wonders if the Trump Presidency is even remotely up to this intensely existential challenge.
A preemptive attack to ostensibly destroy NK ballistic missile and nuclear processing, manufacturing, and weapons capability could hardly be surgical given the apparent inability to pinpoint many relevant targets while other key installations are reputedly highly hardened. Such a strike would have to resort to massive overkill to have a viable chance of being effective.
Such action would surely trigger a massive NK conventional retaliation and incursion into the South — anything less and the Kim regime would certainly disintegrate.
Hard in this context not to harken back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, fraught with massive US miscalculations regarding the expected overwhelming effect of Shock and Awe and the total absence of a credible strategy and capability to deal with the subsequent massive chaos and insurgency that ensued contrary to all pre-invasion calculations and expectations.
Conversely, the notion of tolerating the ability of North Korea to successfully strike the US or its allies with even one nuclear armed ICBM is utterly intolerable.
Under the best circumstance of American governance this situation would represent a monumentally challenging threat. One wonders if the Trump Presidency is even remotely up to this intensely existential challenge.
5
Does Trump understand "consequences" should he make a bad choice?
3
It's a little late for Trump to start trying to understand something.
2
No, history has not shown that we can tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea.
1
Interesting no one ever got worked up into this much a lather over nukes in Pakistan, home to the countless jihad madrassas from which the Taliban are born and where Osama Bin Laden found refuge.
North Korea cannot afford a war. They will do what they can to avoid it. But they can be provoked. And they know what happened in Libya and Iraq. President Swamp's desperation to score some political points endangers the region and the world.
North Korea cannot afford a war. They will do what they can to avoid it. But they can be provoked. And they know what happened in Libya and Iraq. President Swamp's desperation to score some political points endangers the region and the world.
114
Maybe there is no lather because Pakistan does not threaten us weekly and is not developing ICBMs to attack us. Nor did they invade South Korea in 1950, and nor are they still at war with us.
Have you read the Korean Armistice Agreement? I don't think North Korea is living up to it. You seem to be one for "negotiating an agreement". We spent a year trying to "negotiate an agreement" with Japan with absolutely no progress. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki the progress was quite rapid.
Have you read the Korean Armistice Agreement? I don't think North Korea is living up to it. You seem to be one for "negotiating an agreement". We spent a year trying to "negotiate an agreement" with Japan with absolutely no progress. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki the progress was quite rapid.
3
Pakistan's nukes are mainly an India problem. For the rest of us the Pakistan problem is one of willful proliferation. That problem has been and is continued to be addressed, though the need for cooperation after 9/11 naturally watered down those efforts.
1
More bait and switch from Republican "leadership."
Listen carefully for the talk of regime change, because that's what they're really talking about.
Listen carefully for the talk of regime change, because that's what they're really talking about.
6
Will preventative war on Pakistan be next?
4
It has been proposed.
I don't think so!
Yesterday, I thought I was reading the same news as in June when an American warship crashed into a civilian ship. Nope, it was a new accident with 10 sailors missing and 5 injured. Is America prepared for war?
There is a crazy leader of the North Koreans who would easily sacrifice his army in order to fight America. And the way it appears now, I'm wondering out loud just how prepared America is for war, and countless deaths of South Koreans and Americans!
We saw how North Vietnam handled America, and then the Middle-Eastern wars. These enemies are willing to have countless numbers of their people die in a war. Is America willing to sacrifice their soldiers? Do we want Kushner and Ivanka counselling the orange mop-head to send Americans to die? I don;t think so!
Yesterday, I thought I was reading the same news as in June when an American warship crashed into a civilian ship. Nope, it was a new accident with 10 sailors missing and 5 injured. Is America prepared for war?
There is a crazy leader of the North Koreans who would easily sacrifice his army in order to fight America. And the way it appears now, I'm wondering out loud just how prepared America is for war, and countless deaths of South Koreans and Americans!
We saw how North Vietnam handled America, and then the Middle-Eastern wars. These enemies are willing to have countless numbers of their people die in a war. Is America willing to sacrifice their soldiers? Do we want Kushner and Ivanka counselling the orange mop-head to send Americans to die? I don;t think so!
47
"Preventative war.."
Like in Iraq?
Like in Iraq?
176
Preventing what? A true oxymoron.
3
There is a similarity in those who held the highest office-W who wanted to be a "war president", and Old Bone Spurs, that gallant warrior who made sure he wasn't sent to Vietnam, wishes to be remembered as our best, beautiful, the grandest president we have ever seen.
6
Big difference between Iraq and North Korea. Read history much?
As it states in the article - "Mr. Kim would (n)ever give up the nuclear deterrent that he views as his only insurance policy"
It is an insurance policy for the survival of the North Korean regime in its present form and to deter any American attempt to remove Kim Jong Un, to send him the way of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. There is no reason for Kim ever to use these weapons unless he is attacked by the United States, or he believes that he is about to be attacked by the Inited States, as their use assures his destruction, albeit at terrible cost to the region and the world.
So all this war mongering by Trump and his "regime", far from offering any hope of solution to the Korean problem, is actually pushing for a disastrous outcome.
Unfortunately, this foolishness has a much higher potential cost than even his support for White Supremacists - namely, Armageddon.
It is an insurance policy for the survival of the North Korean regime in its present form and to deter any American attempt to remove Kim Jong Un, to send him the way of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. There is no reason for Kim ever to use these weapons unless he is attacked by the United States, or he believes that he is about to be attacked by the Inited States, as their use assures his destruction, albeit at terrible cost to the region and the world.
So all this war mongering by Trump and his "regime", far from offering any hope of solution to the Korean problem, is actually pushing for a disastrous outcome.
Unfortunately, this foolishness has a much higher potential cost than even his support for White Supremacists - namely, Armageddon.
90
Well, it had to come to this... Man never fails to use the weapons he creates. It's our destiny to self destruct. Like or lump it...
16
...just don't again Trump it.
1
More than 'preventive war' with distant, tiny North Korea the US needs to be deeply concerned about the Fighting Fitness of its Military Personnel. The inability of Modern, Missile-Loaded, Sophisticated US Navy Destroyers to even steer clear of Slow, Large Merchant Vessels is making the US Military the Laughing Stock of the World. Clearly these US Navy Destroyers are manned to be mere sitting ducks. How will these US Navy Destroyers ever even know about an enemy aircraft streaking in to bomb them ? Or of supersonic enemy missiles coming to crash into them ?
21
What nonsense! Why are you trying to scare everyone? In a time of conflict, US Navy destroyers will obliterate oncoming large merchant vessels if push comes to shove.
How? By running into them?
I think two collisions in one month with big, slow moving merchant vessels legitimately calls into question the readiness of the crews of these destroyers. These are ships that are faster and more maneuverable than the ones they collided with, and are equipped with state-of-the-art electronics and weapons systems. If with all those advantages they cannot avoid a tanker or a container ship, what will happen in a wartime environment?
I think two collisions in one month with big, slow moving merchant vessels legitimately calls into question the readiness of the crews of these destroyers. These are ships that are faster and more maneuverable than the ones they collided with, and are equipped with state-of-the-art electronics and weapons systems. If with all those advantages they cannot avoid a tanker or a container ship, what will happen in a wartime environment?
10
What type of preemptive attack on the US nuclear arsenal would be acceptable? You have a leadership here that can actually envision murdering millions of people and who are threatening to possibly do just that in the near future.You have a senator in Lindsey Graham, who clearly represents a heartless genocidal impulse within the ruling elite, who says we shouldn't worry because the carnage will happen there not here. If preemptive attacks were ever justifiable, one here would certainly be.
In the meantime the populations of the world are captive to military fantasies and actions of insane leaders in their dance of death. Can we, how can we, will we be able resist the bloodlust, the power lust, the greed lust that drives them.
In the meantime the populations of the world are captive to military fantasies and actions of insane leaders in their dance of death. Can we, how can we, will we be able resist the bloodlust, the power lust, the greed lust that drives them.
64
This is what we get when the military is in charge -- also when we have a man in charge who hates to look weak.
131
We've had presidents who opted to negotiate with North Korea. The results? North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons.
In one year you will come back and chastise Mr. Trump for not acting in time.
In one year you will come back and chastise Mr. Trump for not acting in time.
It's not the military in charge. The mess was begun by the Neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) whose knowledge of anything outside the Washington beltway was minimal and whose knowledge of history was non-existent. Real soldiers understand the uncertainties and complexities of war. We were doing just fine against the Taliban in Afghanistan until Rumsfeld decided to take charge.
Too bad we now have a Commander in Chief who makes the Neocons look like paragons of knowledge and judgement. It's probably the military that are holding him back.
Too bad we now have a Commander in Chief who makes the Neocons look like paragons of knowledge and judgement. It's probably the military that are holding him back.
1
No.
39
Well.... that's the feel good article of the week....
Reminds me of the 'training' films we watched in the 70's as kids at school, with the air raid siren tests blaring outside.......
"In case of Atomic bombs, hide under the desk".....
Glad to see the leaders of the world are still making the kids feel safe in the world.
Reminds me of the 'training' films we watched in the 70's as kids at school, with the air raid siren tests blaring outside.......
"In case of Atomic bombs, hide under the desk".....
Glad to see the leaders of the world are still making the kids feel safe in the world.
54
Oh, they went back to that in the 70's? I graduated in '69. We hadn't done that since the 50's. Some schools had the kids go sit in the darkened hallways. Actually a better choice as in the older schools (most replaced by now) the windows went from the ceiling to almost the floor, the flying glass of any explosion would have cut everyone to ribbons. New schools have smaller windows. So maybe under desks would work, sort of. Time to come down off the ceiling, take a deep breath, & realize that if you live in mainland USA you are pretty safe from NK nukes. If they can miniaturize one nuke, put it on one missile (& have it go somewhere but in a circle landing on them), the mainland is still pretty safe. That one nuke crashing into the sea, will regrettably kill some sea creatures, but, probably NO people & we will have launched hundreds of conventional warhead missiles just after they do. I don't worry about people's lives who let their government throw nukes around, even yell about it. So, if NK goes back to the Stone Age & China doesn't want to take total care of them for say 1000 years, that is their problem, not ours. No a preemptive strike isn't a good idea, ever. Just ring them with ships carrying missiles to blow the missiles up, which we have done anyway. When push comes to shove, & the politicians stay out of it, our military does a good job, doing what it's trained to do....kill.
I'm not sure the prospect of massive South Korean casualties will deter a US preventive attack. American Presidents historically have been indifferent to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilian Asians. Truman. LBJ. Nixon. And Bush #1 and Clinton (Iraq is in Asia), since the sanctions resulted in what the then-Pope called a new form of biological warfare.
12
The sword of Damocles hangs over this nation of ours just as surely as it is said to have, over the throne upon which Damocles temporarily sat, as it did when King Dionysius arranged that a huge sword should hang above the throne, held at the pommel only by a single hair of a horse's tail. Damocles finally begged the king that he be allowed to depart because he no longer wanted to be so fortunate, realizing that with great fortune and power comes also great danger.
King Dionysius effectively conveyed the sense of constant fear in which a person with great power may live.
And in our present day scenario, North Korea is the sword, and China is indisputably the King, quietly and effectively letting us know that we are on a new playing ground, and American supremacy is exposed for what it is, illusory and fleeting, present only because of its ability to manage perception, causing a gullible world to dance with abandon to its pipers tune, and now the pipers tune has become incomprehensible middle of the night tweets, and the piper has gone mad.
Time to stop the adulation of this latest golden calf.
King Dionysius effectively conveyed the sense of constant fear in which a person with great power may live.
And in our present day scenario, North Korea is the sword, and China is indisputably the King, quietly and effectively letting us know that we are on a new playing ground, and American supremacy is exposed for what it is, illusory and fleeting, present only because of its ability to manage perception, causing a gullible world to dance with abandon to its pipers tune, and now the pipers tune has become incomprehensible middle of the night tweets, and the piper has gone mad.
Time to stop the adulation of this latest golden calf.
21
This seems to be the same argument that the "Antifa" and other left-wing groups are using against right-wing/alt-right organizations:
Namely, that violence is justified when it is used to quell worse violence.
"Preventive War" talk is also the essence of the Bush Doctrine, whereby any nation was authorized to launch preemptive strikes when it has intelligence indicating that it is itself about to be attacked.
So there's nothing new here, of course, except context.
Or political points of view.
Namely, that violence is justified when it is used to quell worse violence.
"Preventive War" talk is also the essence of the Bush Doctrine, whereby any nation was authorized to launch preemptive strikes when it has intelligence indicating that it is itself about to be attacked.
So there's nothing new here, of course, except context.
Or political points of view.
11
"This seems to be the same argument that the "Antifa" and other left-wing groups are using against right-wing/alt-right organizations..."
I don't know, Rolf; it looks to me more like the extreme intimidation tactics of right-wing/alt-right groups marching through a town with flaming torches, visible firearms, spewing Nazi-era diatribes about their non-white non-Christian neighbors.
I'm not a fan of radioactive fallout (except on Xbox), but if North Korea didn't have nuclear capability, we'd have 'regime-changed' them a week ago last Tuesday. And not because we're so concerned about the people of North Korea. We do business with numerous undemocratic, unsavory, repressive actors. It's because we're still of the domino theory mindset, in which we feel we have the right to do whatever is necessary to dissuade any nation from adopting any form of a Marxist economic/political set-up; sabotage any efforts if they do; and take them out if they don’t listen. It messes up capitalism. (It's too short of a context her to put a value judgement on that. Just calling it the way I see it.)
Mr. Kim may seem ‘nutty,’ but he also doesn’t want to end up like Gaddafi, whom he regards as having gone out like a sucker.
I don't know, Rolf; it looks to me more like the extreme intimidation tactics of right-wing/alt-right groups marching through a town with flaming torches, visible firearms, spewing Nazi-era diatribes about their non-white non-Christian neighbors.
I'm not a fan of radioactive fallout (except on Xbox), but if North Korea didn't have nuclear capability, we'd have 'regime-changed' them a week ago last Tuesday. And not because we're so concerned about the people of North Korea. We do business with numerous undemocratic, unsavory, repressive actors. It's because we're still of the domino theory mindset, in which we feel we have the right to do whatever is necessary to dissuade any nation from adopting any form of a Marxist economic/political set-up; sabotage any efforts if they do; and take them out if they don’t listen. It messes up capitalism. (It's too short of a context her to put a value judgement on that. Just calling it the way I see it.)
Mr. Kim may seem ‘nutty,’ but he also doesn’t want to end up like Gaddafi, whom he regards as having gone out like a sucker.
2
Antifa is not a state actor, duly elected and speaking for the citizenry. It is, by it's acts, a terrorist organization dedicated to the suppression of our bacic liberties.
What they may or may not say in any given context is irrelevant and adds nothing to the conversation. All it does is given them oxygen and that is not a good thing.
What they may or may not say in any given context is irrelevant and adds nothing to the conversation. All it does is given them oxygen and that is not a good thing.
Antifa? Are you kidding? Sweden is not a global player, and your commentary illustrates that fact.
4
So called "preventive war " will be no less a war than a War war but such a war may be needed to cut the head off the snake. If N Korea does not back down like a pajama boy retreating to his safe space, the US under Trump's mantle as Commander in Chirf of the most powerful force on the face of the earth must move quickly and decisively to crush them as the heel of a shoe crushes an ant. Stay tuned.
1
DPRK will not back down because they have no intention to willingly give up their nuclear program.
The crushing will commence. Time to be determined.
The crushing will commence. Time to be determined.
1
sure, we've already lost two ships and a bunch of sailors with Trump's brilliant Navy. To the ramparts!
1
We have contained Russia but cannot do the same with North Korea re nuclear weapons is ludicrous. We have a president who shoots off his mouth and from the hip and may very well get us into a nuclear war. Oh, and this guy wants more troops apparently in Afghanistan after campaigning against foreign involvement. This is an obvious ploy to direct attention away from all of his problems.
108
"It will be just a little war, and we'll be home by Christmas." Title of future article in the Annals of Stupidity (if anyone survives to write it)
133
“We don’t really know for sure where all their weapons are.’’
I certainly hope that you wouldn't say if you did.
Articles like this are not terribly useful inasmuch as the intelligence that might or might not allow for action must be secret. That is to say that this article is simply part of the ongoing head games that we play with the North. That, and it gives the Trump haters another opportunity to grind their teeth an virtue signal.
I certainly hope that you wouldn't say if you did.
Articles like this are not terribly useful inasmuch as the intelligence that might or might not allow for action must be secret. That is to say that this article is simply part of the ongoing head games that we play with the North. That, and it gives the Trump haters another opportunity to grind their teeth an virtue signal.
7
I certainly wouldn't assume they really do know, and it will all come out okay because hey, they wouldn't do something stupid.
so does that mean we must give him the time to hide 10 nukes to nuke 10 American cities because we don't really know for sure where all his weapons are
One crazy man named Mr Kim who controls everything that moves in North Korea hates us since we are the only nation that can stop his total control over everything that moves in North Korea because he believes China likes Kim to threaten us and someone who controls everything that moves in North Korea get nervous if he feels he's losing his grip so nukes that spread his wings our way ,well , you would think China would see him removed but maybe they are also waiting to when he has 10 nukes that can hit 10 of our cities and we do not know where they are
Yikes