“There is a military option: to destroy North Korea’s program and North Korea itself,” Graham told the “Today” show, relaying a conversation with Trump. “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here — and he’s told me that to my face.”
____________
Even if it were true that no one would die "here" (a BIG IF) in a nuclear war with North Korea, Trump has made it clear that he cares nothing for the lives of our allies the South Koreans and Japanese. Is it Trump's racism or just his general lack of concern for the welfare of others?
1
The obvious solution is to concede to reality and accepta a nuclear armed North Korea .then negotiate on terms closer to,parity. And work to support the emergence of a more rational regime..essentially a lessser cold war in Korea....Trump,of course, ignorant of history and fearful of being seen as he is, i.e. weak and insecure ,is willing to risk the slaughter of thousands in Korea and the us to support his megalomania.
Impeach him..where are the honest Republicans?
13
“If thousands die, they’re going to die over there."
So nothing new really. Standard US foreign policy.
16
Who in Bonespur’s family has ever served in the military?
He is not to be trusted.
13
Of course, Trump wants a war. A megalomaniac always sees a war as winnable and with few casualties. In Trumps paranoid mind I wouldn’t doubt he sees a war as a way to “Make America Great Again”, and to use it to rid him of the Russia investigation, as sick as that sounds to normal thinking. If we enter a war footing Trump would use it as an excuse to halt most of our remaining freedoms as well as halting elections. Scary times await us if don’t remove this insane president soon.
12
Why are US troops on Korean Peninsula? Any other foreign body have troops there?
Why did we commit to a divided Korea after World War II? Did Korea attack or go to was with the US?
2
This just in! This will NOT happen:
"If Trump attacks NK, NK will not only attack South Korea and Tokyo with nuclear weapons, but will very probably invade South Korea with its army."
I don't think anybody is going to attack anybody else. But if that does happen, one thing almost certainly will NOT happen: NK will NOT invade SK with its army.
When you have two "weapons," and one of them is strong (nukes, for example) and the other is weak (NK's "army," for example), the very last thing you want others to figure out is that your second weapon is very weak. There is no more sure way for everyone to figure out that NK's "army" is very weak than for NK to send that "army" across the border. That ain't going to happen.
2
“Stumbled”? How dare you, GWB wanted to invade Iraq before he even had an excuse. The US ran, full-tilt, into the war with Iraq. And still people think GWB was a better president than Trump is.
7
Something that troubles me greatly is that North Korea does not need an ICBM to deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States. By allowing certain groups access to one or more weapons, North Korea could create a situation in which the weapon could be smuggled into a U.S. port and detonated.
4
What's all this "we'll be nuked" nonsense?
It's rational for the NKoreans to pursue nukes, because we'd overthrow them in a second if they didn't have nukes (a la Saddam and Gaddhafi). Secondly, if Kim Fatty did launch nukes at the US, our antimissile batteries would likely intercept them, and we'd wreck NKorea inside a week while China would stay out of it.
A pre-emptive strike would set off a chain of events no one could control. China, Russia, and most of the Asian continent would insert itself, and we may trigger a global nuclear war. HOW can you argue that's the better option?
If we accept a nuclear NKorea, we could enforce another MAD policy like we employed against the USSR and Mao's China by deploying nukes in SKorea. Our SOFT power defeated the Reds twice before. Why not again?
5
NK isn't the only one who doesn't honor its agreements:
"Every student of history knows that dictatorships never keep the treaties they sign one second beyond it no longer serving their purposes..."
Nor do democracies, at least not the US. Indeed, one of our biggest handicaps is that NK will know that the US might renege on any "commitment" it might make, just as it reneged on the commitment it made during the Bill Clinton administration.
We shouldn't let some tin-horn dictator get more attention than he deserves by running out and getting nuclear weapons. We should make sure he pays a price higher than the benefit he gets from those weapons. But that won't be easy, in no small part because he'll know that the US may renege in a heartbeat on any "agreement" it may make.
2
Can you recall the last Republican administration whose wars were based on anything other than domestic political expediency? NK's behavior has little or nothing to do with this. The same goes for Iran.
The Mueller investigation continues. Many in the Republican Congress are now complicit in obstructing justice. It may even be that the Republican Party itself was involved in some capacity in the Trump campaign's traitorous machinations. The closer the noose tightens, the itchier Trump's trigger finger will get.
The destructive power of nuclear weapons are 'very important' to Trump. Using them will give Trump his dream photo op: he'll get to peacock around in a military uniform (perhaps never to take it off).
War is the Republican gift that keeps on giving. Trump's cult will be captivated while Republican congressmen will salute the flag with Herculean vigor. The majority of those who perish won't even be white.
The media will be distracted and swathes of it will fail the test against knee-jerk patriotic submission. The Republican donor class will tolerate war or welcome it, as the shock will allow their Republican functionaries to ram through their long-standing fantasy of a US composed of lords and serfs.
The argument against war depends on finding value in human life, understanding or caring about the broader repercussions of military action, or possessing a moral code. Who in our one-party government does this describe?
Trump wants war. He'll probably get it.
8
As Mueller's noose begins to tighten on Trump's perfumed pink neck, nuclear war becomes ever more "thinkable." It's the diversion to end all diversions. The only plausible path out of the maze is if China can use its substantial leverage with North Korea and superior insight into the situation to force a negotiated solution. You sort of know the end is nigh when a Chinese dictator embodies the world's best hopes for survival and the sanest guy on our team is a retired general called "Mad Dog."
Meanwhile, it would help if Congress experienced a moment of lucidity long enough to disempower a president from the sole authority to attack another country unilaterally. Would anyone besides Trump seriously object to that?
11
Nicolas, I wish you'd mention a precedent for peace, which nearly worked in 2000: normalization of relations (peace treaty, lifting of sanctions, etc.) for an end to North Korea's missile and nuclear programs. Unfortunately, Bush II reversed course immediately in 2001, and ratcheted up tensions in 2002 by declaring that NK was part of the "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran. Oh, and Bush II did not "stumble" into Iraq. He invaded it after planning to do so, even though there was no convincing evidence that Iraq was behind 9/11 or had WMD. The lesson NK learned from that war of aggression? Don't scrap your WMD if you want your regime to survive. That Trump is willing to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps millions, of Koreans on both sides of the 38th parallel, along with thousands of US soldiers, would make him an even worse war criminal than Bush II was.
4
Since the comments section is still open, I would like to report the suggestion that came out of a conversation I had in Palo Alto today.
"Convene a meeting of all the nuclear nations and include North Korea."
This reversed the "sanction and starve" strategy, and offers an equal hand to
Kim Jong-un. He's going to get the capacity to deliver nukes eventually. Why not bring him into the discussion as a legitimate nuclear leader?
3
Since North Korea has already been declared a rogue state, it's leadership can legally be taken out by targeted assassination.
Much preferable to all out war, Hopefully our government has this option available to it.
1
Susan of Maine wisely asks:
"Why ever would N. Korea sign a diplomatic deal with the US? We do not honor our own agreements[?]"
That indeed is a problem. We struck a deal with NK during the Bill Clinton administration, but never really performed. Though we didn't formally cancel that deal until Bush the Younger was President, we'd already breached it during Clinton's administration. Maybe NK will assume it would be different this time (and, indeed, deals struck by Republican Presidents DO tend to get honored longer, usually because subsequent Democratic administrations are at least as willing to agree to whatever concessions a Republican President has "agreed" to), but I certainly won't blame NK for being skeptical about US follow-through.
That said, we can't just let some tin-horn dictator persuade other tin-horn dictators that what they need in order to get respect from the US is a nuclear bomb or two. If NK's tin-horn dictator establishes that point, it won't be long before many other tin-horn dictator announce that they too have nukes and demand respect.
In short, our history of reneging on "commitments" to NK will make it tougher for Trump to cut a deal with NK, but the fact will remain that "might makes right." We can't afford to let some tin-horn dictator show other tin-horn dictators that a tin-horn dictator with nukes gets a lot more respect than a tin-horn dictator without nukes.
1
Obviously a preemptive attack on North Korea could and should be so overwhelmingly devastating as to destroy their ability to either attack us or do much damage to South Korea, and so eliminate the future danger of this "hermit Kingdom" of maniacs killing millions with a few missile delivered nukes or ones simply put in one of millions of "free trade" shipping containers our greedy 1%ers bring into our ports every year. A string of low radiation and fallout air burst nuclear strikes along the north side of the border would kill and destroy all the North Korean forces and weapons that threaten to shell Soul. And one supposedly as knowledgeable as Kristof ought to know that North Korea is a special case of an irrational actor in game theory. They are actually quite likely to shoot a nuke at us if they develop the technology, because that nation is an extreme example of a society so isolated, brain washed and self deluded that as Kristof has reported ... they think they could survive and win a nuclear exchange with the USA. Another proof of this society and their leader's extreme irrationality and likely hood to attack us or South Korea, or Japan with a nuke is their recent apparent fantasy belief they would somehow escape accountability for the in the full light of day, very public airport assassination of their God King's brother using a banned chemical weapons agent.
2
A commenter suggests :
"I'm OK with this so long as Congress declares war ahead of time. You know. like it says in the Constitution."
As the commenter probably knows, the last time Congress ever declared war was just after Pearl Harbor, when most of us weren't even alive. We've managed to fight many wars since then, and this war -- if it happens, which I doubt -- would just add to that already-long list.
2
Many talk about obvious consequences of military option therefore it'd be a bit interesting to imagine if we stay on sterile course of "peaceful diplomatic resolution".
We must realize two facts against our perceptions;
1 N Korea will never give up nukes, under no circumstances.
2 S Korea became North friendly, pro social-nationalist country(surprised?)
NK will agree on the paper to "freeze(not abandon)" nuclear armament under one condition; complete withdrawal of US from SK. This, we may accept because we've done it before. In early 1950, undersecretary Acheson declared pacific defense line abandoning Korean peninsula. Five months later, Korean War broke by North's invasion and 32000 US soldiers died.
After weakening US influence in SK, NK without a doubt will draw nuke again to use it as leverage to achieve the ultimate goal; unified Korea under its control. Shocking irony is that this is present SK government's goal too!
The present political spectrum in SK is starkly against popular perception in US; They gradually became far more anti America since the end of Vietnam war. The current SK government cabinet is filled with pro North activists including president Moon. Entire law enforcement agents and judicial branch are undergoing personnel transition like Robespierre on fire, wiping out conservatives in tsunami of indictments. Not to mention pro North conquered parliament.
So there is. Nuke armed, unified Korea with money and technology
And very very anti America.
Why ever would N. Korea sign a diplomatic deal with the US? We do not honor our own agreements with a change of administration (or with Trump, with a change of TV show). At the same time we hope negotiations are ongoing, Trump has been talking about backing out or changing the terms of our deal with Iran -- even though that means stiffing our allies along with Russia and China.
And look at Khaddaffi: he signed a deal, did not develop weapons and was killed.
With special ops forces (fighting men not embassy soldiers) it's very clear by our actions that we have chosen our fists over diplomacy.
The only thing stopping a pre-emptive strike is that we do not know how much nuclear damage N Korea can do at this point.
(And, rogue state or not, what would we do if a foreign military power was playing war games overhead and surrounding us with destroyers with nuclear warheads?)
5
Option 3 should not be an option. Why is the Trump Administration courting disaster. Just to prove they are bullies? For they are certainly not looking after Americans safety, nor the safety of the rest of the world. Sadly, Trump likes the attention he is getting as a strong, manly man. Real men do not court war.
And Congress should not allow it, period.
7
Can we cool it with the "Trump is a war monger" talk?
"A war will only serve Trump's ego."
Trump is boorish and has many other faults, but we'd be more likely to get involved in another foreign war if Hillary had won. It was Hillary, not Trump, who voted to attack Iraq, to offer greater military and financial aid to the Libyan rebels, and to impose a "no fly zone" over Syria, thereby risking thermonuclear war with Russia over a jerk-water Middle Eastern country that most Americans can't point to on a map.
So, can we cool it with the "Trump is a war monger" talk?
4
We all know by now that Trump is a malignant narcissist. Every day he fantasizes about the adulation he will receive when he "solves" the North Korea problem with a first strike. His voters will not care if a million South Koreans are killed. We are at the mercy of a mentally unstable man. Most frightening is that he can legally order a first strike. We are totally dependent on those around him to restrain him.
7
We’re going to go to engage in nuclear war with a country to a prevent them from getting nuclear armaments. Genius
7
This is the consequence in allowing a mentally unbalanced lunatic to office. He got to where he is because of his bellicose nature, supported by millions of non thinking bellicose people. Thay all cheered through his disgusting campaign, while the rest of us heard and understood what was being said about the dangers of a Trump Presidency. This creature draws us every day closer, & closer to war, and the Republican party, STILL refuses to cut out this malignant tumor from our government.
I am 76 years old, enjoying the twilight of my life. I have children who have lives to live. I fear for them.
I detest this horrible loathsome, creature, and those who have made all of this possible by infecting our government with this beast .
18
There are an estimated 150,000 American civilians in Seoul as well as up to another 500,000 from Europe, Japan, and China. I guess you just incinerate them all without a thought. Any attempt to withdraw this many people would be chaotic and tip off the North Koreans as to what was about to happen. And what about our 28,000 troops? Up in Smoke.
10
If a war is started by capricious, unscrupulous, and irresponsible Trump, it will be republican Congress's fault, for it's cowardice in not taking control, as a separate branch of government, and holding the power of the purse, in not stopping this vulgar bully in the WH from creating perfectly avoidable havoc.
7
What could be worse, two bullies with nuclear weapons flailing at each other.
8
Seriously, a war with NK can be won by bombing them with food and medical supplies. Would pull the rug out on the regime faster than nuking them.
2
What about South Korea? Japan? Some of those thousands of deaths will be South Koreans and possibly Japanese. Don't they matter?
4
"Trump didn’t create the problem, and it’s real: We should fear North Korea’s gaining the capacity to destroy U.S. cities." Exactly. For once, I do not blame Trump for a mess. Presidents, including Obama and going back to Clinton and beyond, have kicked this can down the road again and again. Now, in part because of the inaction and procrastination of previous US administrations, the North Koreans have the bomb and are on the brink of having the means to deliver it to the US mainland. How is this acceptable? Imagine the threats, the blackmail, we would be subject to from the North Koreans if this is allowed to continue. I hope that Trump, being who he is, may understand what it takes to deal with Kim Jong-un better than previous, more normal, presidents. Yes, it is a slim hope.
If there’s war — no matter what kind, it will take the spotlight off of Mueller’s investigation. War is likely because of this, if not also for what you’ve laid out here. But make no mistake, the rhetoric Trump spouts towards N. Korea is done for one purpose only, to save his own skin. War will mean we “rally behind the administration” — watch and see. Millions will die so that Trump can stay in office. Republicans in Congress should be ASHAMED of themselves for letting this crackpot run the show. I pray someone will stop this. But who? Not Kelly, our babysitter-in-chief.
10
Who are we, let alone anyone else, to threaten war on the Korean peninsular? Don't the Korean people have a say in the matter? They will be the ones to suffer massive death and destruction in any war there, not us. I have not read of any beating of war drums by "our" Koreans.
It is very bravely spoken to advocate war when it is unlikely you will suffer the consequences. What does Trump know of the war he advocates other than fantasies from "The Sands of Iwo Jima"? As Khzir Khan said about him - "You have sacrificed nothing and no one" but he is determined to sacrifice others.
8
And where are the American people? Holding vigils in the street? Demanding legislation to rein in Trump? No. Asleep.
4
Donald Trump is not the man I want making the decision about what to do about North Korea. Let's put Don Jr., Eric, Jared and Ivanka in uniform and send them to the DMZ. Then listen to what Trump says about preferring war over diplomacy. Right now, Trump doesn't have any skin in the game. Once again, he's "Bone Spur Donald."
9
If nothing else Congress must act with all feasible speed to remove the capacity of the president to conduct offensive military operations without express authorization. Full stop.
The United States has no right to attempt to limit what a sovereign nation can do within its borders; this is especially true where what the nation is doing is an obvious defense against what the United States has done in the region and worldwide for decades. You cannot provoke another party and them complain that they are defending themselves ("So unfair, unfair!").
Kim is crazy but not suicidal...he won't unilaterally provoke a war with the United States because he knows it will be the end of his regime. Trump is crazy and grossly ignorant of the consequences of his military adventurism. He is quite capable of of unilaterally provoking a war becasue he thinks there will be no consequences.
If he takes any offensive military action in the Pacific without prior congressional authorization even a single death should be grounds for trying him as a war criminal in an international tribunal.
8
It's amazing to think about military options being decided by a president who is a draft-dodger, a coward, and has never spent a day of his life serving anything other than his own self-interest. It's easy for Trump to send our sons and daughters to die while his children live a protected life of ease and comfort, and continue to exploit the Presidency as if it were a business opportunity.
10
NK and the US have a lot in common: Narcissist lunatics in control. The number of people that would be killed on both sides is incalculable; and I am thinking of of both NK and SK. Over time NK will burn itself out as I hope the US will as well. Saber rattling is only appropriate when we are actually using sabers. Just like Cuba, the US should be working to establish favorable relations with people who are unlike us. Things would change. Offer them something they want and see what happens. Only the people suffer from these international games.
1
1) Totally alarmist; so do nothing.
2) Load up Guam, South Korea, and Japan with USA nukes. China will force North Korea to end their nuke/ICBM program in exchange for our removing our nukes from its doorstep a la Cuban Missile Crisis.
3) Decapitate North Korea. Drop a MOAB or tactical nuke on one of North Korea's anniversary military parades with all its military and governmental leaders including Kim Jong-un in attendance.
My guess is that the leaders will engage in more sabre rattling and US public does its feckless handwringing, North Korea continues to develop its nuke capacity, and Trump does nothing other than encourage US Asian allies to bulk up their military. North Korea is basically isolationist and so is Trump. If the world can endure a nuclear Pakistan, then a nuclear North Korea will likely become status quo as will eventually a nuclear Iran.
2
I’m absolutely no supporter of Trump, but we should disconnect and evaluate separately the threat that Kim and his mad ambitions pose, from the threat that Trump and his childish approach to foreign policy represent.
There’s an incredibly worrying fact reported in this article: North Korean officials stating that a nuclear war is not just survivable, but winnable. North Korean officials never offer personal points of view, they just recite what Kim has decided is the official line.
It’s a terrible thing to say and I hope I’m wrong, but a few years from now we might regret not having acted now, instead of allowing the North Korean regime to perfect its nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and cause tens of millions of casualties.
We may be long past the point where we cannot expect the Korean War to resume. Blaming Trump won't change our dilemma. The problem is a bellicose young punk who thinks he can push anyone around and continue his quest for colonial imperialism. History tells us this is nothing new in the region.
Diplomacy has failed. Deterrence has failed. We now face the threat of our own cities being hit with nuclear weapons unless and until the North achieves its' goal of "unifying" Korea. In other words, they are still on a determined mission to win the Korean War for imperialist reasons.
It is unreasonable to expect the north to honor any kind of a freeze for freeze solution either because it would not achieve their goal of consuming the south. And now, due to blind faith in diplomacy and a fundamental misunderstanding of the north's goals, they have nuclear weapons to do so.
I can see we will have only one viable option left in the foreseeable future and we need to prepare for it as best we can.
I'm OK with this so long as Congress declares war ahead of time. You know. like it says in the Constitution. We're have more than enough executive/police action/illegal wars.
We the people, in the person of our representatives, should approve of this action. A draft should be instituted, appropriate money allocated, probably by an increase in taxes - you know, like we were a nation and not a gang of marauders. Let's at least pretend.
Then, when millions of people die, we all can take responsibility for it.
1
It is all about re-electing Trump to a second term. Americans do not like to change presidents in the middle of an ongoing war. Look for a full-out military conflict in the early fall of 2020. It worked like a charm for GW back in 2001.
2
The big question not mentioned here? What about China? Will they sit by and watch a war next door take place? Absolutely no. They will be part of it. Will China finally step in and do their best to prevent a war from getting started? Maybe yes. But time is running out.
I don’t have much hope of that happening, but maybe American liberals will finally understand that sometimes tyrants do seriously threaten the world and the only way to respond is be firm, including taking the risk of a devastating conflict.
I have read quite a few leftist criticisms of JFK’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis; he was supposedly reckless, because for a few days the world was at high risk of nuclear war. True, but what was the alternative ? Capitulating in front of the Soviet Union ? In that poker game, Khrushchev’s bluff was based exactly in this kind of reaction - the West is too weak to take real chances.
Of course, the sad part is that instead a JFK we are now led by a Trump, somebody that can’t be taken seriously, a president who contradicts his own Secretary of State on Twitter. And yet, this situation has to be dealt with, without just taking refuge in our personal ideological obsessions.
There are many tin-horn dictators around the world, but only one of them has nuclear weapons. He's getting a lot of attention lately, while the other tin-horn dictators are not. Do you suppose any of those other tin-horn dictators is asking himself: "Why is that guy getting all the attention -- what's he got that I don't have?
1
It is irresponsible to pretend to know the prospects of war with North Korea when so much about the country's nuclear program is unknown, First and foremost, we do not know if they have a weapon small enough to be mounted on a missile. Second, we don't know whether their bombs are hydrogen or something of less power. And third, we don't know how many weapons they have in their arsenal. Moreover, for decades we have been saying that their weapon program was designed to be marketed in exchange for cold cash. We don't know if that has changed.
Kim and his government continually make false threats and flagrant misrepresentations. Most of what we know about Kim comes from North Koreans who have defected. This editorial makes it appear that we have reliable information on matters where our sources are in no position to know the hard truth. Puttig a precise percentage on the prospects of war is ludicrous. Claims to know what Kim will do in various scenarios is equally ludicrous. It is also irresponsible and unduly alarming. I prefer analyses based on known facts.
2
If negotiations and sanctions don't work, and they never have for various reasons (NK cheating, China not fully cooperative, etc), then the US has no choice. We're talking about NK. Unfortunately we have Trump at the helm. Thank goodness for McMasters and Kelly.
A pre-emptive US first strike on Korea would draw China into war with the US. If that happens, it seems China won't go all out to destroy the US (we're their biggest market) but would anyone be surprised if they "re-established" control over Taiwan and other disputed territories? Who's going to stop them? The Seventh Fleet is a mess right now. Tactically, this is probably an ideal time for China to act, using North Korea as a pretext.
2
"War is an extension of policy." So wrote Karl von Clausewitz in the 19th century.
He, like de Caulincourt, was in Russia with Napoleon, and a witness to the effects of ignoring history. In these times of much-magnified ramifications of war compared with Kutusov's Russia, it does, nevertheless, seem worthwhile to retain an historical perspective, and not loose sight of the possibility of a blunder. The policy in question now is the U.S. unilateral insistence upon exclusive competency when referring to nuclear military capability. Is this rational when viewed in the light of the progress other nations have achieved in nuclear weapons development? The question needs an urgent answer, as the freeze for freeze solution seems to be the only rational thing about all of it. Historically, of course, North Korea could not be expected to ignore what happened to them as a result of U.S. weapons superiority in the 1950s, and so the judgment that they might not readily be amenable to the freeze for freeze solution seems more rational perhaps than the imperious U.S. attitude. However, to infer from this that war is immanent is to question severely the rationality of either or both governments. Is war a more rational action now than in the 19th century? Probably not. Are these claims of chance percentages propaganda? Let us all hope so.
Trump should be strapped in a chair and forced to watch (and pay attention to) "The Vietnam War" documentary recently broadcast by PBS. He does not have a clue what war means to people who fight or are caught in the cross-fire. He does not have a clue about how to conduct diplomacy. He bluffs, bullies, and lies - which apparently worked for him in the real estate world, but plays directly into the hands of America's international adversaries, who see him as the ultimate mark. That we Americans and the rest of the world's 7.5 billion people are expected to stand aside and wait for our man-boy president and North Korea's man-boy dictator to decide for all the rest of us whether we will endure and perhaps die in a nuclear war is an existential absurdity. Did the 20th century teach us nothing at all?
8
Apparently, some learned nothing. If this is true: “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here — and he’s told me that to my face . . . ” Trump is a mad man.
2
It is disturbing but not surprising that all of the debate in America over the North Korea standoff revolves around war with NK. Right and left, establishment and its critics argue over whether a war would be winnable, moral or politically wise. We are being poodles, led along by our post WWII history of making war the central feature of American foreign policy, to not even considering a non-military path to peace.
Instead of debating war, we should be debating the shape of a diplomatic, political solution. Let us stop believing that war is the path to peace. It is not.
And neither is war the only choice.
5
What's your solution then, Mr. Kristof? North Korea seems determined to "tease the tiger" here -- reminding me of what Japanese generals reportedly said after Pearl Harbor (that they had only awakened a sleeping tiger).
What if North Korea does indeed drop a bomb -- even a non-nuclear one -- on Japan? Japan has almost no defenses. We are obligated to defend Japan. Will we just sit by and twiddle our thumbs?
It would do you well to remember we did not enter Iraq or Afghanistan without WIDESPREAD approval by Democrats in Congress. Why? because terrorists had just destroyed the World Trade Towers and killed 3000 Americans in our largest city. It is easy from 16 years on to think we took that in a cool and levelheaded way -- but in fact, people were frantic at the time, wanting to hit out and punish SOMEONE for what had happened.
North Korea WANTS a conflict -- they are a poor country, with a miserable population and war would be a distraction. They don't care about loss of life. They don't care about South Korea. And Kim Il Jun wants very much to "poke the US in the eye".
So what's your brilliant take on this? Also consider that for the last year, you've been 100% WRONG on Trump, literally every time.
7
One fo this best comments of the week. Completely agree....
If they want a war, what's the sense of waiting? Lets hit them now! Buying time on,y helps them not us.
That CANNOT beat us in any theatre here or abroad. He begging for it.....
1
CC: Viewed from Europe, it’s the United States that looks like the poor country in need of distraction.
After consuming your American media, living in a country that rebuilt with funds from the Marshall Plan, no doubt.
The cowardice and irresponsibility of The Times and its writers is appalling, as is the refusal to publish any comment to that effect.
Once again we have an opinion column accurately identifying the fact that the emotionally and psychologically unstable Donald Trump now represents an existential threat to at least thousands of Americans, possibly tens of thousands, and probably hundreds of thousands of other people (we know you Americans really don't care about us at all, just making the point).
What we don't have is any suggestion, at all, of what we thoughtful readers are supposed to do about it. According to the Times, apparently, the best thing for us all is to sit on our hands and hope that somehow, the catastrophe the Times is predicting might not happen.
This is the most gross abnegation of responsibility. Opinion pieces are not supposed to be statements of the already apparent. They are supposed to be input to a debate from people somehow special enough to be paid to tell us what they think.
So far the Times has not published a single suggestion about what people should do to stop Trump starting a totally unnecessary war with North Korea.
This is just pathetic.
And, The US didn't "stumble" into Iraq, it launched a criminal and criminally stupid invasion despite years of informed protest by millions of people, me included.
You people need to stop filling space with statements of the obvious and let people with ideas have a say.
19
Yes, we did not stumble into war with Iraq, we were pushed.
1
So what's your idea, smart guy?
Unfortunately, our options for dealing with Trump are limited. Unless he dies or resigns, we must rely on the 25th Amendment or impeachment. Neither seems likely given that Congressional Republicans, by and large, are still afraid of Trump's base.
A pre-emptive nuclear strike on North Korea, meant to destroy "North Korea itself" in Sen. Graham's words, would be an atrocity of the highest order. There would be no moral authority left to claim, perhaps for a long time.
18
The US has no choice and must do it.
Soon.
And then, what? Pretend there will be no consequences?
You know the saying, "100 dead is a tragedy. A million dead is a statistic." Like a nuclear blast, it's hard to wrap your head around a potential war. Another thing that's hard to make sense of, is how we're all just whistling in the dark about Trump's impulsiveness with the nuclear trigger, and praying that our military leaders will countermand any Trump call for a first strike, a la the Caine Mutiny. Just like many of us hope our Republican leaders will start to put country before party, we would like to believe our military leaders would put country before petulant commander. I don't know what the odds are for that. Mr Haass? Ms. Duckworth? Anybody?
P.S. - No, Gen. McMaster, Kim isn't a rogue, and you should know better. Kim is a military dictator, like his father, who has been clear about his need for a nuclear deterrent - like Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran, etc. Our President is the only rogue in this equation.
10
If there is a US first strike on NK, China will defend NK as per treaty. We will find ourselves in a war with China. Of course it would be in China's interest to limit that, since they long ago figured out that the way to conquer us is economically, not militarily. Do not underestimate the patience of this ancient civilization; they are playing the longest of games. They would love to get us out of Asia and will use whatever circumstances arise to their advantage.
As to more immediate impact, the NK response to a US strike would target not just Seoul and Tokyo, but the very many US military facilities within range of their missiles (e.g., Japan, Guam and South Korea). It's not "just" soldiers stationed there (soldiers are combatants in a war); it is their families, and also DoD civilian employees and contractors, and their families, too. You could actually have a situation where sailors deployed on ships remain safe while their families back on base are killed. US bases are US soil. For Trump to say that casualties would only happen "over there" is both ignorant and cynical.
12
I believe the article is well intentioned but somewhat naive. I'm no supporter of Trump but I believe that his policy regarding North Korea is sound. He has isolated the regime in a few months far more effectively than either the Bush or the Obama administrations. The call that Kim is so unstable that he will start an unilateral war is misguided; these dictators are survivors first and ideologues second. Trump has exposed Kim for what he was going to do secretively: build nuclear capability and perhaps sell the technology to one and all, much like Pakistan did to North Korea.
With strong sanctions and with little opportunity to cheat in the face of global visibility, will bring down the regime finally, most likely with a whimper not with a bang.
11
Right, as shown by the behavior of Saddam Hussein -- dictators certainly know how far to go and avoid doing something that will get them kicked out or killed.
It is not Trump that has isolated North Korea by the way, it is the increasingly brazen testing of nuclear weapons by Kim. That said, there is nothing about the current sanctions that would cause the North Koreans to stop until they have the deterrent power that they want. Once they have ICBMs they can then offer a deal based on keeping what they already have.
It's certainly lovely to think so.
The flippancy of our president with regard to any potential war in North Korea is downright foolhardy. This will not be a war like the first Gulf War and our misadventures in Iraq. I also fear that our military is woefully unprepared for such a military action. It will be guaranteed that the amount of casualties in such a war will be, on a daily basis, as many dead and wounded as we lost during the entire cycle of fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the first Gulf War. There will be civilian casualties by the thousands, and perhaps the millions if our reckless president engages in the use of nuclear weapons with the North Korean military. If Trump secures an alliance with Japan, in this misadventure, China will step in, to defend North Korea, against any type of Japanese incursion on the Asian mainland. Trump is a fool, and Tillerson and the rest of the generals, I fear are either in over their heads, or unable to control the toddler in Chief. There are dark clouds on the horizon.
5
At this NK juncture, I must point out the naivety of liberals viewing the situation through 60's college kid's eye. To me, Kristof's elaborating freeze-to-freeze as the best option, even though he called awful, is no better than Jane Fonda's posture sitting on NVA's lap, waving flag, in the name of "Against All War". Three obvious flaws in it; 1. Any and all agreements with US will not have any value other than the purpose of deception. 2. NK will not stop at freeze of exercise but will demand the total withdrawal from SK. 3. Most importantly, NK will never give up nukes No Matter What! It is time that liberals to put off the anti-war beach glasses and look through naked eyes and ask honest question; "Can we give up South Korea to North with peace if
North agrees to abandon nukes?" That is the legitimate core to consider but it still tumbles over the 3rd flaw. North controlling unified Korea will never give up the nukes. Sadly, more than half of South Korean(!) population are now North friendly liberals and attracted to toxic nationalism of "Nuclear Armed Unified Korea", which has been the implicit propaganda from North Korea. For this reason, Jane Fonda did less harm to US than today's liberals on the issue.
So I will ask again. Can we accept nuke armed unified Korea( NK always have name for this new institute; "Unified Korea Federation"), that is governed by Kim Jung-Un? I am hoping our answer is No. Then can we seriously agree for the 4th option of forced elimination?
2
Being fearful is no reason to commit thermonuclear suicide.
There are many dangers in the world.
N Korea is not the worst.
The Trump Doctrine of, "fire, ready, aim", under the slightest stress, is my fear.
And congress dithers while we all wonder when a single uncontrolled mentally unstable person will hit the button over a missle guidance glich, or less.
How much presidential warring for political gain can we survive?
5
If the U.S., as seems possible, will sacrifice thousands or even millions of Korean lives just to prevent another country to threaten us with nuclear missiles, our moral standing in the world's will unreperably be reduced. It will also be the end of American leadership in the world.
60
If lives are to be lost are we wrong to choose theirs?
Yes. Who are you to say that lives of people in Korea, Japan, Guam, etc., are worth less than those of people on the US mainland? Who are you to so flippantly conclude that hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives lost, would have no consequences for the rest of us? Large parts of Asia in ruins, the world economy in a tailspin, survivors living in horrid conditions, a huge refugee crisis, nuclear fallout--all could result from war with North Korea.
2
How are you so sure it will be only their lives since nuclear fallout radiation could reach all of us.
He said, she said. There are 48 countries in Asia, and now imagine the future of nuclear proliferation on a continent. China alone shares borders with a dozen. The former Soviet republics in central Asia are weak, if not failing, and serve as the corridor between East Asia and Iran and the Arab world. The North Korea issue is an explosive global security problem, not some esoteric dispute within an ethnic group. It would take an all-out diplomatic effort of South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the U.S., among others, to prevent a future disaster. Fear-mongering like Mr. Kristof's piece helps nothing.
2
I told my hometown newspaper that I feared Trump was trying to goad Kim into making a provocative move that would give Trump the pretext for military action that could lead to serious war, conventional or otherwise. Is that what McMaster and Trump (and who else?) are trying to do?
The U.S. should re-instate the military draft. Maybe if more citizens had skin in the game they would pay more attention to what their government is doing and how they are doing it. Sometimes personal consequences assist in connecting the dots.
6
There is a direct correlation between the likelihood of war with North Korea and the Mueller investigation. As Mueller inches closer to directly implicating him those small digits get closer to the button of war. Anything to deflect attention from him is the main goal and if he is going down with ship what does it matter if the rest of us go down with it too.
6
I doubt that. If it's true, are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, National Security Advisor, and CIA Director also guilty of high-level charges to do with Russia and the 2016 election?
McMaster has said that "accept and deter is unacceptable", Dunford that war isn't unimaginable, but a DPRK w/ nuclear ICBMs is, and Pompeo (I realize that he's a Republican - but his involvement in the 16 election seems to be tangential) has said that "this leader is not one for whom containment is a strategy that makes sense for American national security".
These are all viewpoints that lead to war, if diplomatic avenues of denuclearization fall through.
Seems more reasonable to me that there's simply a divide in strategic thinking on national security - not necessarily a government infested with Russian spies and cronies like something out of a McCarthy-ite fantasy.
A couple of questions.
Has anybody asked What does South Korea wants ? After all it is their
country that would be destroyed by war.
One thing is to fire a missile into the ocean, quite another to a particular target. Does North Korea has the ability to pinpoint its target ? i.e. Guam ?
North Korea has been complaining about US provocation ( Its yearly War Games humiliating North Koreans )for over fifty years. Would it help if the US promises to never undertake those "Games ". After all North Korea is not crazy and would never start a war knowing full well the retaliatory power of the US.
Seems like we have heard the term " acceptable first strike" before.
Iraq, over a decade ago among others.
That should be enough to shut this argument down.
3
I just have one question for Mr. Trump: If U.S. policy toward North Korea has been such a horrible failure, than how many chemical/biological/nuclear wars have we fought with the North Koreans in the last 25 years?
Waging peace lacks most of the chest-pounding bravado found in war (especially in the beginning of a war). It doesn't have the power war has to distract a confused electorate from coming to understand that their President is corrupt or incompetent. Waging peace requires subtlety, flexibility, humility even, in order to set the framework of cooperation and compromise. Trump has not a scintilla of these laudable qualities.
The only thing peace has going for it is that is does not blast the bodies of young men and women into bloody pieces, or turn the minds of vulnerable survivors into horror shows of intrusive memories that take years to heal, if they heal. It does not destroy cities, towns, farms, communities, or poison the environment. It does not kill civilians, or destroy economies at the macro or micro levels.
All in all, a pretty good deal, when you stop to think about it. Too bad Mr. Trump doesn't know much about pretty good deals.
5
There seems to be no argument that Kim's motivation to develop nuclear weapons is to ensure the survival of his regime and is therefore non-negotiable. He seems to be supremely confident that he can achieve this without causing the US to attack, because he holds Seoul hostage to his nearby artillery. However, for the first time in decades, the US president is reacting to the threat in unique ways - tweeting blustery counter-threats, mocking Kim at the UN, threatening total destruction. Everyone is appalled and embarrassed by this behavior from the US president, but it must be deeply unnerving to Kim and his advisors. They've always been able to count on the US to be too mindful of the cost to innocent lives to ever actually decide to start a war. But Trump is behaving so differently, so recklessly - how can Kim figure out if he's serious or bluffing? The only way he can is to look for signs of the US preparing for an attack. Three aircraft carriers in the region is a bad sign for sure, as are increases in the number of stealth bombers, and increased amounts of munitions being delivered to Guam. What would really signal intent is to evacuate military dependents and other US citizens from South Korea. What if we did this? Would that be enough of a wake up call to Kim to make him realize that if he doesn't come to the table, he actually is facing imminent destruction? That Trump is actually crazy enough to do it? I think it's worth a try.
1
With this unilateralist Commander in Chief, I hope our military is working on options to repel a multi-lateral attack. God help us if all our nuclear-armed adversaries coordinated with their protégés Iran and NK (and let’s say, ISIS, for the hell of it to throw in some asymmetrical attacks). Who would want to help us, with the way Trump behaves? He has even alienated our neighbors to the North and South!
2
low cost oil stimulating the US and global stock markets can be traced to the war against saddam Hussain which led to Iran filling the void and scaring the oil rich gulf states into pumping at a rate that brought the price of oil down to record lows. The war brought death and injuries to thousands which is immoral if done for profit but that seems to me the outcome even as there were other motivations like ridding the region of a dangerous tyrant and the now seemingly laughable bringing democracy to the area. It's hard to guess Trump's determination to stop either Iran or north Korea from developing their nuclear weapons programs. If he could I suspect he'd like to take them both out doing whatever it takes as long as most all of the casualties were away from the USA. It would be politically popular but he probably will leave Iran be for now. I'd guess war with North Korea is as likely as not but in this I think hell take into account what his generals have to say. Mathis and Kelly seem to me to be a big part of the decision
The problem of a war on the Korean peninsula isn't really about the first couple of days or the first couple of hundred thousand casualties. Those would indeed be situated 'over there'. It's what comes afterward that worries me.
Even if the conflict could (initially) be kept non-nuclear, it is certain to disrupt trade out of the ports of Eastern China. This trade carries consumer goods destined for the West, but also components that are essential to industrial production in Europe and the Americas. If you think iPads and the like are overpriced now, wait till this war gets going.
There is even a concern regarding military hardware... Has anyone analyzed to what extent the US Military's equipment relies on bits and pieces that hail from South Korea or China or Taiwan?
Also, has anyone considered the opportunities initiating a war against North Korea would create for the US's other opponents? It is sure to suck in way more resources than originally accounted for (wars invariably do) and seriously compromise its ability to act elsewhere. Even you only have so many fighter planes or guided missile destroyers...
Furthermore, it would seem that the starting assumption is that no-one would side with the DPRK. What is that based on? Can you actually be sure not to find yourself facing the Chinese or, God forbid, the Russians? Can you even count on your NATO Allies, if the first shot of this increasingly likely war is fired from a US platform?
I could go on, but to what avail?
70
I truly understand the frustration in your last sentence. How do you take the tools of logic, reason, and humanity and use them to avert disaster when the person or persons formulating the disaster have no regard for logic, reason, and humanity? The orange one must be removed from the equation before there is no equation.
1
Trump’s attitude towards other nations and other people’s in the world have always seemed to me obvious. It’s far more than America First, it’s more “Americans are better, more valuable people than those dumb Europeans and those little Asians. They all speak foreign tongues and eat weird food. They are not American,and they are to be despised. So what if 300,000 of them die in North Korea. Who cares? Their lives matter little”. This is what you expect from the quintessential “Ugly American” who doesn’t read books, knows nothing about the world outside of New York, can only eat steaks and hot dogs, and is only focussed on making money. He is a vile, despicable excuse for a human being.
7
A recent high level North Korean defector has stated that any strike on North Korea will trigger an automatic strike on Seoul, which is on 35 miles south of the DMZ.
The way to a settlement with North Korea goes through China. Their price will be high, we should pay it. The alternative is unthinkable.
Unfortunately for us, we have a president who is so self absorbed that anything that doesn't effect him personally isn't real to him. A million deaths as a result of his decision is just a number. Mr. Trump, let me help you with this. If you go to war with North Korea and kill millions of people, you will be remembered in the same breath as Hitler as one of the biggest mass murderers of history.
6
There are no adults in this administration. graham is a fool.
8
Trump is devastating to America, more so than North Korea. The North Korea problem had been festering for decades, and their impetus for nuclear armament is to counter US threats--joining the nuclear club means safety and the protection of MAD--a nuclear nation is not casually attacked, like Iraq, Syria or Libya.
Trump for reasons of his ego has brought North Korea to a hot point--perhaps just to show his manliness. A war with North Korea will not only wipe out North Korea, but also South Korea, millions will die, and the US would not be viewed heroically. It would be an asinine move--no previous president wanted to actually go there, but now we have a moron like Trump, who may just make the misstep.
9
Neville Chamberlain brought "peace for our time" with Hitler and Germany in 1938.
World War II began the next year, in 1939. 50 to 80 million died as a result, including over 400,000 Americans.
Bill Clinton could have killed Osama Bin Laden in 1998 but failed to do so because "because an attack could have endangered innocent women and children in Afghanistan."
Three years later the US was attacked by Bin Laden in a war that we are still fighting. Clinton's decision to spare Bin Laden and 300 innocent Afghan lives led to 9/11 and the ultimate death of thousands of American lives let alone the half million or so deaths, many innocent lives, in Iraq and the Middle East.
War is terrible and horrible. Innocent people die. But if the decision is to take out North Korea's war machine now or allow millions in LA or Seattle or San Francisco to be nuked later, the decision should be obvious.
1
Stumbled into the Iraq war!? Hogwash! It was planned by the war pigs long before. You forget that in front of the whole world Bush himself called it a crusade. Get real.
11
This president came into office as a bad carny act and has mutated into a monster. He is hostile, ignorant and dangerous. He has provoked a small country into war mode and is working steadily at agitating the situation into full nuclear war. Why is this congress standing in the road like a dear in head lights?
95
The thought of a megalomaniacal, petulant, volatile madman with nuclear weapons is truly frightening......And then there's NK to worry about.
6
With this person as president, it is much less possible to even think about this. With this madman as president, it is impossible to contemplate.
1
Nothing like a good war to rally people 'round the Trump and distract all that attention from the Russia "problem."
7
If a war occurs, it will be entirely the fault of the US and the grossly incompetent moron Americans have elected President. The DPRK will not give up its nuclear weapons - Iraq and Libya proved that enemies of the US need a nuclear deterrent to keep the American wolves from the door. All that the DPRK has to ensure its security is the leverage of nuclear weapons. However, the DPRK can be bought off, bribed, and otherwise placated. That is the best option. At the same time, however, Americans will need to live with the fact that North Korea can now hit the US with nuclear weapons- just as Japan and South Korea have come to accept that reality, just as the US lived with that same reality during the Cold War. In other words, this entire situation is entirely manageable, but it does require Americans to readjust their understanding of their vulnerability and their role in the world. Unfortunately, Donald Trump is ignorant and incredibly dangerous. He also seems quite happy to have, potentially, millions of Asians die so long as the US is not at risk. While this may make sense to his base, it is a fact that Asians need to process and evaluate. Is an ally that would so carelessly throw away their lives really an ally? Or is it a major security risk and a fundamental cause of regional instability?
1
I am torn by the NK problem, a problem that has been kicked down the road for over three decades by previous administrations.
I can't help but think if the world (America) acted decisively when Hitler invaded Poland war would have been waged sooner but in all probability with less casualties. Appeasement of a dictator never works.
What to do with Kim.
If there is a nuclear strike the war will be over very quickly. If containment and sanctions are not working and the world allows Kim to fully develop his nuclear arsenal, we will all be held hostage to a backward nation that will have nothing to lose by launching a nuclear missile for any perceived threat to its sovereignty.
11
If the US should withdraw military from the Korean peninsula, would North Korea, or China for that matter, immediately seize the opportunity and invade the South? I am sure that won't happen considering South Korea's own military strenght. What on earth makes the South Koreans think they are better of as an US ally?
Important distinction to recognize between ROK, DPRK, and PRC: ROK (South Korea) is not a nuclear weapons state.
I doubt that Xi or the CCP would launch an offensive nuclear strike, but if Kim Jong-un thought it might provide him with some marginal net benefit (like those coming from reunifying the Korean peninsula), I doubt that he'd hesitate.
Tragically, I think Trump gets excited, pumped up over the idea of war with North Korea. It appears he is just hoping he can start one.
2
I find I find it amazing that people, not jus our President, think that this war will be fought "there, not here." Our allies in Japan and South Korea must feel reassured about that. Except that the next war will be nuclear and we will ALL lose. This is the doomsday president. (Watch "Dr Strangelove" if you don't get the reference.)
3
Everyone who has H.R. McMaster's book, "Dereliction of Duty," on their book shelf should returned it to H.R. McMaster!
The Germans were complicit. Will Congress continue to be complicit or finally do something before we have disaster on this planet.
3
"John Brennan, the former head of the C.I.A., estimates the chance of a war with North Korea at 20 to 25 percent.
Joel S. Wit, a Korea expert at Johns Hopkins University, puts it at 40 percent.
Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, says the odds may be somewhere around 50/50."
How do you calculate the chance of war, which is unknown?
Reportedly Mr. Brennan counted the buttons he could see on the soldiers in the attached picture and added a fudge factor because of the funny hats.
Mr. Wit took Mr. Brennan's 25%, doubled it, and decided not to carry the one.
Mr. Haas chose 50/50 because he thought that it communicated that he didn't have a clue.
Of course, they're all wrong. The correct answer is 13,255%. That's the line in Vegas.
1
Kristof writes:
"Trump didn’t create the problem, and it’s real: We should fear North Korea’s gaining the capacity to destroy U.S. cities...the U.S. must now choose among three awful options..."
Yet almost all of the comments here criticize Trump? Shouldn't
his predecessors, especially his immediate predecessor Obama, bear responsibility for kicking the N. Korea problem down the road?
4
So just exactly how do "you" think we should deal with a regime that has consistently avowed, for all most 65 years, THAT AS SOON AS THEY ARE ABLE the are going to destroy the United States.... you know, videos of Kim with maps, showing exactly the trajectories for the missiles, videos of the White House being nuked, ect?
Remember the Clinton deal , back in 1993. We gave them money, and technical help in building reactors, and they promised to stop their nuclear program. And they cheated. big time, the whole while.
And of course, remember how our wise and insightful intelligence agencies told us, just a year or two ago, that they were years and years from actually constructing an H-Bomb. WRONG
and similarly, how they were years and years away from having a missile capable of striking the United States. WRONG
And now we hear the same people, saying that, hey, deterrence worked with the Soviet Union, let's give it a shot with North Korea. Why not? What do we have to lose. Look at the alternatives!
Face reality, readers. War with North Korea, isn't 40%, 50%, 60%. it is ----unless Kim is assassinated real soon --- 100%.
And it is going to be horrible. It will destroy the world economy. Millions, probably tens of millions,will die. and, face it, if it happens NOW, most of those millions will be in East Asia, not here. Would you rather we share that toll?
That is reality.
Blame Clinton: in 1993, when only tens of thousands would have been sacrificed!
2
The title of your editorial should have read - Ignoring Our Way Toward War With North Korea: A History of US Foreign Policy through the Clinton, Bush and Obama Presidencies.
3
Here's the list of nuclear nations with ICBMs:
Russia.
India.
United States.
China.
France.
Israel.
North Korea in a year
What are the odds that a hacker could launch a nuclear tipped missile from any of these countries? Given the incredible hacks of late, I think it's at least as high as war with North Korea. To a terrorist, it won't matter where it's pointed.
1
War is obsolete. Civil war. Conventional war. Nuclear war. All war. The only reliable resource for security in the world today is relationship. Trouble is, America is at war with itself. Our congress is at war with itself. Our White House is at war with itself. And our President is at war with everybody. Heal yourself first, America. Then, and only then, can you speak of peace in the world.
2
Mr. Kristof fails to acknowledge the cold realities of the 21st Century.
1. Iran-Syria-Afghanistan...represent the stage in which our Military-Industrial-Welfare State finally did, in fact sell our enemies the rope they use to hang us. Our entire economy is now based on "endless war". Worse, "endless UNconstitutional Undeclared War"....war on terror.....war on drugs......war on poverty.......you name it. Whatever it takes to get patriotism to enforce our ilconcieved goals out-of-sync with modern times.......
2. The 21st Century challenge is to contain the Giant we deliberately let out of the box, all in order to sell our enemies cheaper rope( increases our bottom line)........China.
3. North Korea does nothing, No missile launches. No nuclear tests. Nothing,,,,without China's approval. When NK lauches a missile, it allows China to test US Missile Defense strategies.........
4. NK eastern coast has open water ports that RUSSIA covets...and would serve to cut China off from this northern area...........
5. It will become important to invade and capture this eastern side of NK, coincidently, where most of NK's launch facilities are located............
What stands between Trump and the start of a pre-emptivebattack?
The cabinet, the chief of staff, national security advisor and the military chain of command.
Our military and political leaders can be so apparently nonchalant about war with North Korea because “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here." Based on our past experience in Asia could it be that our underlying outlook is "Asian Lives Don't Matter." Racism seems to inform everything our government does, whether at home or abroad.
63
Shouldn't the American public be enraged that an American president, who avoided the draft during the Vietnam war, plunge this country into an unwinnable war on the Korean Peninsula?
90
I don't recall a lot of outrage about George Bush's assault on Iraq. Bush was in the reserves and in very little danger of being activated. Moreover, he found a way to shorten his commitment.
1
I don't understand several of the commenters who compare Chamberlain's 'appeasing' Germany after Hitler invaded another country to North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. North Korea is not violating any country's sovereignty; it is advancing a technology (albeit a terrible one) on its own land. When Hitler marched into the Sudetenland, that was a clear act of war and Chamberlain's appeasement was naive, and we all where that led. But in this case we expect North Korea to appease us by accepting our demands to deescalate their nuclear ambitions.
42
Dr.OutofArmor, we must not let a nuclear power be wielded by thugs who emaciate their own people; imagine the terror and harm he will do to others beyond his borders once he has the power?
Kristof makes clear that there is no unilateral way out for the US. Only diplomacy can avoid military conflict and Kim mortally fears nuclear disarmament.
So, it comes down to the potential for mass casualties in Seoul and possibly Tokyo or in San Francisco or another US population center. That unthinkable choice leads to a discussion of the probability of a non-nuclear decapitation attack by the US and it's South Korean and Japanese allies, with China passively standing by.
The preparation for this latter option is well under way, based on reports of the hacked US battle plan and the obvious concentration of US military assets in the region. In it's simplest form, such a plan likely would include dropping convert operators to capture nuclear weapons, disabling of command and control and a mother-of-all shock and awe barrage of rockets, missiles and bombs on North Korean conventional artillery and massed troops.
Risky? Of course. Everybody in the White House, State Department, DOD and Congress knows that. North Korean retaliation with nuclear arms would be a disaster.
Remember, North Korea is a template for nuclear armament by other belligerents throughout the world. Can the US tolerate global proliferation by every state sponsor of terrorism? This is a line in the sand.
Never since Castro and the Cuban missile crisis has the US faced such an irrational threat.
1
Mr. Trump seems to think that he's going to outwit and outlast an outlaw. What he needs to understand is that Kim's regime is capable of weighing our current domestic politics as well as our current global activities and obligations very well.
Trump is willing to play "chicken", thinking that Kim will blink at the last part-second. Possibly not. So, we need to remind Mr. Trump that it's our car he's driving, our military might he's touting, our security apparatus he's likely misusing, and our friend's' lives he's willing to use as bargaining tools.
As for assistance from Putin or Xi, that will come at great cost to us. Kim knows that, also. Whether he triggers arms conflict or not, he will believe that he has weakened the giant. He'll feel good.
37
Part of the problem is that so many Americans (including, perhaps, the President) believe that we could quickly “win" a war with North Korea. This belief is not justified. It is true that nuclear weapons could be used to utterly destroy the enemy’s cities and infrastructure. But the prospect of killing millions of civilians (and of a massive revulsion by public opinion around the world) makes this option untenable. If only military targets are chosen, the surviving portion of North Korea’s huge army would invade the South. A land war would be difficult and prolonged, with the outcome by no means certain. Very likely, a bloody stalemate would ensue. The inevitable brutality of the conflict, and mounting American casualties, would empower a growing anti-war movement. Our country, already deeply divided, would face the prospect of social collapse. In that situation, the only possible solution would be some kind of truce and, eventually, a peace agreement with no clear winner. Of course, the above description of events is just speculation. But it could happen. The conclusion today must be: we have to avoid war in Korea at all costs!
56
If Trump attacks NK, NK will not only attack South Korea and Tokyo with nuclear weapons, but will very probably invade South Korea with its army. To stop it from taking over SK we would have to send troops to South Korea as we did in 1951. And if Trump completely destroys NK, who will govern that "country", if it could be called a "country"? Not the US. Not South Korea. China will invade North Korea and control it, not the US. IMHO this would be a disaster for the region and for the US.
45
Why would the Kim Dynasty invade South Korea? Using your own scenario that would lead to the end of the Kim Dynasty.
North Korea can not win a war with the US.
A strike from the US would bring a limited response from the Kim Dynasty.
You don't know the particulars of the North Korean situation. Nor do I. What I do know is that the Trump administration is attempting to roll back their nuclear capabilities. I also know that the "freeze" idea is completely unacceptable based on the options we would have in the event the Kim Dynasty launches an ICBM at the US, their past violations of agreements and their treatment of their own people.
I've always thought that the best option is a soft exit for the Kim Dynasty. Convincing them that this is their best alternative is a monumental task that is only recently being pursued. How could it ever possibly occur? crippling sanctions? the threat of nuclear annihilation? Chinese and Russian cooperation? coercion of bad actors like India, Pakistan and Iran? Ending their export of slave labor? Targeted assassination?
Avoiding "rattling the cage" is not an option because the Kim Dynasty is guided purely be self interest.
James-
Kim would invade SK, as it did in 1951, because it would be at war with SK and SK's ally- The USA. That's their historical reflex.
And BTW, neither we nor NK "won" the last Korean war. It was a draw.
In a nuclear exchange between the US and NK, there would be no "winners", only millions of dead humans and nuclear fallout for decades.
Do you think that it's worth killing millions of people in NK, SK, and Japan to eliminate the potential threat posed by NK having nuclear weapons? If so, would you have favored a US attack on the USSR in 1960 to eliminate their nuclear threat?
The real question is whether NKs army could sustain a long-term war. Look at the photo accompanying this article and look at the fit of the uniform on the "general" standing next to Kim Jong-un. The man is skinny as a rail. The only fat man in N Korea is Kim Jong-Un. Nobody else eats. Need more? Look at the man over the "general's" shoulder, the one on the first bleacher. His uniform is also too big. The mal-nourished military would fail quickly.
Thanks to the ineptitude of previous administrations, Democrat and Republican, we are left with a stark choice: decisive war or capitulation. I’ll explain.Putin and the Chinese have been preparing this bear trap in north Asia for years. They plan to use North Korea to force Japan and South Korea to accept “beneficent” Chinese hegemony. Putin benefits whenever the US is distracted from his plans in eastern and central Europe.
Unfortunately, the succession of Kim Jong-Un to lead North Korea has put this weapon in unsteady hands. Jong-Un appears willing to challenge Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Some in the Kremlin and Peking are beginning to think that unraveling MAD might be a good idea with a weakening bond between the US and allies abroad: this is foolish idea.
The great nightmare in the world will occur when the US backs down after Jong-Un nukes an ally and the Chinese back him. This will embolden the Communist to think they’ve won. Instead of winning, this will eventually yield a genuine complete nuclear response to their aggression. This is the real fear in a nuclear confrontation in North Korea, which the author misses completely.
Given this logic, it is in best interests of all major power to remove Kim Jong-Un from power.
1
This is why all patriots should demand that Trump step down and work toward that goal! He has shown that he does not understand diplomacy and the prospect of two bullies confronting each other is a recipe for disaster. We can't remove Kim, but we have the ability to remove Trump---and replace him with someone who understands diplomacy and our Constitution.
4
"Sagan says the odds of war “are certainly greater than is widely recognized by the American public.”"
I think Americans do recognize the risk. But they know that the deaths will be mostly Koreans, so they don't care. In the same way that gun fanatics don't really care that much about mass shootings in the next state: it won't affect them personally. We've become so totally inured to war and violence that nothing moves us. A bloody war with North Korea would be more like watching the Super Bowl to us.
Can someone get more chips?
1
We have no guarantees that, in the event of a nuclear exchange between North Korea and the United States, China, Russia or both won't align with Kim. Once the missiles are in the air, all treaties regarding nuclear development, stockpiling and deployment will be null, void and moot.
The only silver lining on this cloud is that once the war is, it will be several millennia before another world-wide war will take place.
Your article is to the point. It is very worrisome how often a war with Korea is brought up rather nonchalantly in the media and how often the nuclear war option is mentioned without immediately mentioning what this would likely mean. (The NYT being a much needed exception.) Even off millions get killed, it does not mean that the situation will improve.
Anybody talking lightly about war with Korea should beef up on history's lessons by watching for example the recent documentary series by NRP on the Vietnam war. The Vietnam war was a complete mess with millions killed and nothing achieved for the U.S. A complete failure of leadership at the highest levels. Imagine all that money invested into healthcare and improvements of our infrastructure!
When finally the war ended with the hasty departure of U.S. troops, relations normalized over time, and now we have pretty normal relations with Vietnam. That could have been achieved with much less bloodshed and violence.
1
Trump will start the war and then say: "Nobody knew it would be so terrible, let me tell you. A lot of people said it would not be that bad".
3
"The U.S. must now choose among three awful options: 1) A “freeze for a freeze” deal, which Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seems to be pursuing; 2) Long-term deterrence, just as we have deterred North Korea for decades from using its chemical and biological weapons; 3) A conventional war that might escalate into a nuclear exchange."
No, there is fourth option, and the only one that matters and one never mentioned in the US press by those 'in the know' such as the author of this article.. Sign a peace treaty with North Korea.
2
I would be interested in some analysis of Trump's leather bomber jacket, with some explanation of the origin of the insignia, and some comments on the name tag. Does he really need a name tag identifying him as the commander in chief? Sad.
2
Another Republican administration, another war. What happened to the isolationist agenda that Trump has been bellowing about?
2
North Korea might give up their nuclear weapons if the USA, the two Koreas, and China agreed on and signed a peace treaty ending the formal still "active" Korean War. A part of that could include recognition of North Korea as a nation. There would be a clause in the treaty guaranteeing that the USA would not attack North Korea. Of course, after the way Trump has cancelled existing agreements in the matter of trade and climate, neither North Korea nor other nations put all that much stock in American promises.
The problems involving North Korea, a client state of China, are immense and complicated. Trump is not the man to deal with either diplomatic subtleties or negotiations. Nor is he a man of peace. He wants a war for the same reason as Dubya did. He would depend on that to give him the crown of being "a war president". And he thinks that this would raise his ratings. CNN to the rescue - again.
Buy the way, the author's view that America semi-accidentally slouched into a War on Iraq seems over-generous to the Bush-Cheney regime. They wanted a war at all costs and forced it through with the same lie as now for North Korea that Iraq was an imminent nuclear threat to American cities.
Does anybody have a clue what China would do with a war on the Korean Peninsula? They certainly don't want US troops with strategic weapons at their door step.This is why they have allowed N Korea to build up it's military all these years, to maintain the buffer state. Likely they would get involved to further partition N Korea; meanwhile, S Korea would be in ruins, with a global financial meltdown, and we would be a global pariah for causing all this to happen. Any sober analysis leads to this conclusion. The net benefit of the war becomes negative, to say the least.
1
They used to say that North Korea was developing the bomb in hopes of marketing the technology. Now they tell us that North Korea is planning to go to war. North Korea is the most secretive country on planet earth. Nobody has any idea why they do anything. The change in the story line has nothing to do with anything Kim has said, because he never reveals anything about the country's policies. The sudden change in theory is based on the instinct of so-called experts. These were the people who used to tell us who was in power in Russia based on where they were standing in a crowd. They were often wrong then, and they're probably wrong now.
For all we know, North Korea could indeed be secretly marketing nuclear technology to rogue powers in exchange for hard currency. When it comes to North Korea, the real experts are the ones who admit that they don't have a clue.
I am expert enough to read kiloton info and missile range and warhead capacity.
Is there some other issue?
Despite my daily disbelief and stupification over the past two years, I resist thinking we will engage in war. But, if we do.
President Trump will relinquish control of the parameters of the war to the military, potentially very dangerous. Never heard of our military deciding to limit our engagement, usually they are clamoring for more freedom to act.
War protests will lead to President Trump calling for a state of emergency and will issue sweeping suspensions of our bill of rights.
Perhaps, with the support of a republican congress, the president suspends 2020 elections.
The authoritative take over will be complete, and millions will be dead
1
Sadly, the mistake was made decades ago, when India and Pakistan became nuclear powers. North Korea sees that this is the only way to get other countries to leave you alone. This is what most worries me. Our leaders are not acknowledging this reality.
2
If his own handlers can't control Trump's insanity, it's clear that us ordinary civilians can do nothing but wait to find out when war starts. The feeling of helplessness is painful. A 50% likelihood of a worldwide conflagration is truly horrifying.
1
A foreign war is the perfect opportunity for Trump to combine his two passions: grifty business and circus barking. His base will support him bombing NK, then Iran, then anyone who disobeys him. He's already embarked on a domestic war, to kill democracy and replace it with autocracy.
I fear DT and his circle of ghouls are salivating for the chance to destroy life as we know it, to create chaos and desperation. A New World Order in which they have complete control over a nation of frightened people, fighting each other for basic resources, to be doled out via the cruelest and most humiliating ways imaginable. The ultimate game show, highest ratings ever.
I also have no hope for Congress to be on the side of humanity, and reclaim its duty to ratify war. It would make them unpopular with their corporate sponsors, who no doubt will profit from another war.
2
What is truly frightening is not that North Korea's leader believes that a nuclear war is "winnable," but that our leader and President believes it, too. As the dazed apathy of the American citizenry continues, we will all soon be sleepwalking towards Armageddon.
1
President Clinton's 90's agreement with NK had IAEA inspectors and video cameras in the NK reactor building to monitor and prevent use of fuel for bombs. Then George W. called NK a member of the Axis of Evil in his SOU in 2002, and then he invaded Axis of Evil state Iraq and in 2004. NK responded by kicking the cameras and the IAEA out, and was testing nukes by 2006.
1
I’m with Randy Newman on this, let’s drop the big one see what happens. After all it’s obvious there are NO adults in the room and all that nonsense about the ‘generals’ is just that: pure nonsense.
Kristof claims that the US has three options in dealing with Kim and North Korea. 1. Freeze. 2. Deterrence. 3. War.
Every one of these options have been pursued in the past in one form or another and they have lead to the current situation. Let's remember that the Korean War has been stewing for seventy years - Armistice is the current status.
So, let's consider a fourth choice. 4. Nothing.
Let Kim develop all the nuclear weapons he wants. Biological and chemical, too. He's going to do that anyway, so why bother to pretend like anything the US does, short of a nuclear holocaust, is going to change his behavior.
When North Korea achieves nuclear parity with some of the minor nuclear players such as India, Pakistan and Israel, perhaps it will feel it has too much to lose by indiscriminately firing off its limited arsenals.
At any rate, Freezes, Deterrences and Wars haven't worked very well. Let's give apathy a shot.
Trump wants to go down in history as America's greatest president ever. What better way than to be the first president to win a nuclear war.
If a war breaks out, it’ll be nuclear. N Korea and much of the surrounding area will be uninhabitablewill affect for a long time, and fall out
1
Kristoff begins by quoting Brennan, a man who lied to Congress leaked classified information during the Obama Administration. The article goes downhill from there, quoting mostly non-military people on the odds of war with North Korea under the Trump Administration... but never mentioning how the United States allowed N. Korea to become a nuclear power in the first place.
In less than 100 days, South Korea will host the Winter Olympics within range of North Korean artillery installations. Sources in a position to know tell me that Trump is not a fan of a freeze-for-freeze option.
The White House has laid out a Red Line for North Korea. If North Korea does not cross that Red Line, the regime can continue to sap off the struggling North Korean economy, enriching themselves, and maintaining a good quality of life.
The calculus for North Korea seems to be extremely skewed towards not crossing the US red-line (at least not on purpose). War is likely to come about as a result of an accident or miscalculation or miscommunication, but not as a result of a tangible decision by either side.
1
Is that you Dr. Kissinger?
Chins has staked an enormous claim on a huge blue water land grap encroaching on it's neighbors territory and on the treaties America has with various nations in the Pacific Ocean.
Obama's total lack of force, both personal and military has allowed this situation to become very dangerous. Kicking the cans down the path until he left office many times richer than when he entered, has allowed Kim to make ICBMs out of them.
The options open to this President would be the same options no matter who occupied the White House. I'm thankful the occupant isn't Hillary Clinton.
1
Mr. Kristof, if you read all of the posts, first a big "thank you" for writing about this. Here's a couple of possible remedies:
1) Repeat and amplify the Chinese science assessment that if Kim Jong-un does another test (underground) he risks massive fallout and destabilization.
2) Send a delegation to meet with Kim Jong-un and negotiate the possibility of reunification with So. Korea -- on a graduated basis -- as he reduces his weapons.
3) Appeal to his ego, he loves Western movies, tell him one should be made of him and invite him to experience more cultural exchange and trade; isn't this cheaper than war?
3
We can buy our way out of this. A few billions per year from both us and the South Koreans would stop the NKs from their advanced weapons pursuit.
When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you have a big military engine, everything looks like a military problem. In reality, we need to massage the NKs and convince them over time that we do not threaten them.
The estimates of hundreds of thousands of deaths in the first days of a war in Korea are vastly underestimated...millions would die in the first twenty-four hours. The apocalypse looms.
4
"North Korea may also inflame the situation with provocations such as firing a long-range missile into the sea near Guam, or conducting an atmospheric nuclear test." One or both of these things is almost certain to happen in the next three to six months. War in Korea is more likely than not, as is the first use of nuclear weapons in combat since 1945. The press seems far more interested in the daily political theater in Washington than in pressing the White House and the Department of Defense on how they will respond to future weapons tests by North Korea. And what of the 28,000 U.S. troops in South Korea and the 130,000 U.S. citizens who live there. What will be their fate if there is war on the Korean peninsula?
1
Those U.S. citizens are neither in New York City nor Florida. Therefore, they do not exist in Trump's event horizon. His addiction to Twitter is proof positive of his pathological egomania.
There is nothing wrong with seeking Russia's help as long as we are not selling our soul. Wouldn’t it be interesting if North Korea all along was part of the plan to remove the heat from Trump’s election and Russian interference?
2
With every year that passed during prior administrations, the potential carnage from confrontation with N.K increased exponentially.
Trump has been handed another bad hand with this dilemma and so far has played it as well as any of his predecessors.
The Monday morning quarterbacks are wrong, he does not seek war but cannot shy from one that is not of his choosing.
Raising angst within the totalitarian supporters of Kim Jong-un is the surest way to force them to action.
N.K. IMHO will not and cannot go unilateral because Trump insults them. They do have powers to contain them. Trump is playing them just fine, the odds are no greater than last year and probably lower.
his predecessors didn't threaten a first strike
Maybe Little Kim saw the movie "The Mouse That Roared". In that movie a tiny nation in the boondocks of eastern Europe decided that, to solve their financial woes, they would declare war on the US, and lose. Then Americans would pour in money to rebuild that country. The problem is that the movie was made when there were adults in Washington, not schoolyard bullies.
1
Why is stopping nuclear proliferation only an American problem? These days, there is little mention of a collective response from the world community or substantive effort from the UN to defuse the situation. This is no massive troop build up or major shift in troop levels so one can assume that doubling down on sanctions will be played as a bargaining chip. If the US wants to double down, they should recommend that US consumers boycott Chinese products.
2
Fifty-fifty seems about right. Sums up Trump's thought process exactly: Depending on which side of the bed he got up from; whether he mistakenly caught a snippet of Morning Joe while surfing towards Fox; and whether one of his many lunatic sycophants managed to catch his ear before a hovering general (the right one we hope) steers our beloved leader to a Breitbart breakfast.
That such a devastating scenario does not play on American minds resides in most Americans very comfortable detachment from war. To most, the closest they've ever gotten to experience loss in war is a photo of a proud youthful face, or two, on someone else's mantle. America's warriors traditionally come from the same families over and over, who know all-too well the cost of war. Whereas those on the periphery, benefiting from that sacrifice, reap the blissful profits in ignorance of the bloody cost. They will. however, express thanks for the service to make them feel better.
6
Once Kim has a weapon that is deliverable even without testing, he could attack the South with conventional arms and dare Trump to retaliate. Such would kill many including US forces. Depending on what we do before and after, the horror show would then begin in earnest. So no, we won't die here at the start but it is likely we will at some point.
3
We can do this amazing thing: call our representatives and Senators, and A. make it powerfully clear that we do not want to stumble into yet another war, especially one initiated by a completely unqualified leader, and B. ask them to support the Chris Murphy bill. Chris Murphy is my senator; when I called weeks ago to ask what we can do about preventing this disaster, his staffers made it clear that feedback from constituents is vitally important. Your senators and representatives need data from their constituents to help them act. Look up the name of the bill, call your reps, then call your friends and family across the country and ask them to light up the phones, people....
2
Trump had better enjoy his visit to South Korea because the next time he wants to visit, it could be covered in a nuclear winter that no living thing can survive--and I'd gladly chip in to help him make that visit, along with a cadre of his advisers who think nuclear war can be "limited".
1
Legislation is clearly needed. We have an unstable, know nothing president blundering us into a devastating war with the NK dictator. Trump choses war, so what? He does not have legal authority to make that decision, Congress alone does.
This wanna be dictator has abused his power from day one and has acted as though he was above the law. Furthermore it is abundantly clear to the majority of Americans that this dangerous, incompetent man had joined with a hostile foreign power to attack our democracy to achieve power. There is the old saying that a stitch in time saves nine. Now is the time to return to sanity and impeach both Trump and Pense (there are good grounds) and if we must swear in president Ryan as a caretaker until 2020. The message should be clear: Start a war without congressional approval first and impeachment with swiftly follow and the Senate trial within the week.
6
When two inferior heads of state are both suffering from the same lack of experience, and intelligence surrounding global political realities, they begin to mirror each other. In fact, it is probably the case that these two inept loners have literally agreed to work together in developing their mutual image. Two weak ideologues dogmatically holding on to a simplistic world view are working in total collaboration.
1
1. Should we, or should we not, accept a nuclear armed North Korea? (Seems to me we already have. There is not military option.)
2. How can we defend South Korea when it has allowed itself to be taken hostage by the North? (We can't really.)
3. Six and a half decades after the Korean War, shouldn't a nation with 3x the population and 10x the economy be taking point on its own defense? (Yeah.)
4. Could it be that Trump with his sable-rattling is trying to nudge the South to step up? (Because of there were a war, they would likely suffer the most.)
5. Given that China is on inexorably on the rise and North Korea will not give up its weapons (why should it? look what happened to Saddam and Qaddafi), maybe it's time to consider that the US should step into the background of East Asian defense, and
6. Maybe consider that Japan and South Korea with their own nukes might give the North and China something to consider.
7. The non-proliferation regime is already in tatters.
1
@Stephen
So your solution is to abandon our allies?
Sadly, this article like so many ignores a primary reason China, NoKo's benefactor, has repeatedly protested the installation of THAAD and Aegis missile defense batteries in SoKo. In a WSJ opinion article Sec of Def Mattis recognized this issue.
An individual possessing intellectual curiosity will look at the Cuban Missile Crisis for potential approach to resolve the NoKo problem. USA had placed missiles in Turkey and Italy, USSR was displeased and complained. USA ignored. USSR sent missiles to Cuba. USA and USSR agreed to
remove disputed missiles.
Meanwhile Trump-Pence pursue their 'dead cat strategy' and the neglectful opinion writers in USA journals focus upon the 'cat' alone.
3
I can't stand it anymore.
Taking into consideration President Trump's remarks, his boasting, of what he'll do to North Korea because of their threats or an infraction, I would lijke to knoow when I'll hear in a press conference with the president, someone ask him something he's surely researched, the numbers of American dead and injured as a result of either a conventional attack or a nuclear attack. How big does this elephant in the room have to be to get addressed?
6
The responses of most people here seem to see only nuclear war as a possibility. But NK has huge amounts of chemical and biological weapons that are just as horrible, just as deadly. And looking through these and other comments and columns and responses made by ordinary people, legislators, those who are experts in international affairs I have yet to see one proposal that addresses any of the “demands” of the NK leader — the main one being that he wants nuclear weapons.
Since NK always sees itself as the victim and wants to be on par with the US there is little that we can offer them. The leader of NK wants what he wants and nothing less than nuclear capacity to reach the US will satisfy. With that it figures to blackmail its way into whatever else it wants. I’d say this makes war using all means in its power inevitable no matter what the US wants to do. This is the “thought process” of all bullies, including our own: give me what I want or else.
1
We need to pass a constitutional amendment that if any President enters the United States into a war he or she must send his children and grandchildren, age 18 or older, as part of the first wave of combatants and for a one-year tour of duty.
1
Even the idea of a nuclear war is terrifying. Haven't we learned anything? From the beginning there should have been talk about negotiating to reduce the stockpiles of nuclear weapons rather that escalating the tension. We already have enough such weapons to blow up the planet we do not need to spend trillions more to increase our capacity. That money should go to social programs esp. health care. Instead of war-mongering Trump should invite Kim Jong-un to Mar el Largo for a chat!
1
it's not completely clear which one is the "rogue regime"...
5
People want a full and public debate in Congress of our options and an authorization for any direct military or diplomatic action.
Americans may not be afraid of war, but only because we don't understand the president can order a strike with no deeper thought than his morning tweets.
We need Congress to engage our impulsive leader and limit his unilateral actions. Policy must be deliberate.
14
The President, any President, might decide to launch, but then what happens? Specifically? Hoe can he execute?
What are the intermediary steps?
Trump is extremely selfish and callous: "If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here." He has been extremely mean towards South Korea in recent months, threatening to end the US trade pact with Seoul, seeking to sell more arms to the South etc.. South Koreans know that Trump is willing to sacrifice their lives in his pursuit of destroying the North.
Currently in Japan, Trump demonstrates chumminess towards Shinzo Abe, ahead of flying to Seoul and staying there for only 24 hours. Given the historical sensitivities between Japan and South Korea, he should bring them together, instead of evoking South Koreans' resentful feelings towards Japan. Mass demonstrations are expected during his visit in Seoul.
14
The sign of a psychopath -- zero regard for the loss of innocent human lives. What are Americans doing tolerating this man as the commander in chief of their armed forces? And then commentators throw scorn on conspiracy theorists when doubts are raised about the end game Washington is seeking with North Korea and Iran.....
Mr. Kristof does good service here (again & as usual, my typical silence is agreement, my comments, well dander up).
The thing armchair generals and wargamers often overlook is the affect of civilian panic on combat effectiveness. I think of St. Exuberry's book on the collapse of France (as seen from a plane) in April 40. The flight of civilians clogged the roadways preventing supply and reinforcement for French armies in the field (similar to what happened in Poland, Holland, Belgium somewhat).
A conventional response by NK after a US "surgical" strike (we are still at war, legally) would have civilians running for the exits screaming fire (and if NK enhanced the panic, intentionally, with small nukes, well...) which would swamp out effective conventional defense (mobility and supply blocked) which would leave only escalation (failure will be no option).
Yet the big stick is not our only tool... we have sanctions withdrawal, and indeed a peace treaty at last, to dangle...not small potats in the big picture view...
4
War games, I'm guessing, assume rational decision makers....rational in the sense that we understand the term. That is a problem here.
If current sanctions are not working, what, exactly, do you propose as "deterrence"? If that's the most second preferable option, what IS it?
1
@Patricia
The withdrawal of sanctions, a permanent peace treaty, high level diplomatic meetings between SK, NK, the US, and China. And putting a lid on Mr. Trump's nasty tweets, belligerence, and name calling.
2
If there is a war it will become nuclear and N Korea and much of the surrounding area will become uninhabitable for a long time. Fall out will affect the entire world.
Will that change world politics as the unthinkable becomes reality?
9
"Will that change world politics as the unthinkable becomes reality"?
Yes. It would unleash other countries with nukes to begin using them. The genie has left the bottle. We are at the precipice of disaster. The nuke clock is at 11:59:30 and counting.
Do not forget the strategy that if you want to get re-elected you should start a war. It worked for Cheney, and Trump has already begun his re-election campaign. That makes the likelihood that's he will start this war, in which millions will die, much, much greater. Only Mueller can save us.
10
Harry S Truman said it best about North Korea:
"Now, once in a while, I get a letter from some impatient person asking, why don't we get it over with? Why don't we issue an ultimatum, make all-out war, drop the atomic bomb?
For most Americans, the answer is quite simple: We are not made that way. We are a moral people. Peace is our goal, with justice and freedom. We cannot, of our own free will, violate the very principles that we are striving to defend. The whole purpose of what we are doing is to prevent world war III. Starting a war is no way to make peace."
President Truman's' Farewell Address to the American People
January 15, 1953
At the end of the day, China will defend North Korea that paradigm has not changed. Trump is playing a very dangerous game solely to take the focus of Mueller's headlines. Sad!
12
Truman said that in 1953. I wonder what he would say today (if he could) after we've had Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. The only moral presidents we have had since 1953 were JFK and Carter. Even Ike helped take down Iran's elected government, an immoral act that has led to a lot of our problems in the Middle east, and Obama immorally murdered Yemenis with drones.
The leadership of North Korea and the United States are a sad commentary on our belligerent, insane species.
On this day, the Times also has an article which recounts how humans are torturing apes. Perhaps, instead of people putting apes in cages, apes should put people in cages.
Apes don't make nuclear weapons.
5
Given the quality of the recent movies about a planet of apes, I'll stick with humans.
If the current president orders a strike on North Korea without the express approval of the Congress, then you may rest assured that we have devolved into a military dictatorship.
12
Yes, simple as that. (Well stated.)
That's exactly what Trump wants--dictatorship--he wants to control the media, the military, the DOJ, the treasury. SAD.
1
OK- so here we are calculating and posturing and weighing the "what Ifs" if someone pushed "the" button. There was a movie out years ago, WAR GAMES with Matthew Broderick in 1983 where a computer was given a problem to solve in a set of circumstances that led it to think there really was a nuclear war about to happen. It was high tension and nail-biting to say the least!
In the end War was avoided, but just barely and in the end, you had to sit back and wonder, "Why on Earth, would any country want to start a war absolutely NO ONE can win.... not if you count death and destruction and nuclear fall-out for decades to come....horrible DNA damage to our future generations, the economic damage alone would be devastating to any country involved- no matter who might actually "win", however you measure that. So in the end, what on Earth is the point of the whole exercise? My Missile is bigger than your Missile? Really? You boys have come down to that level with your childish, irresponsible egos? You both are acting like children- dangerous children and in many ways adults need to step in on both sides and take over the rhetoric, the threats, the accusations and the sanction threats and get real! No one wants North Korea- absolutely no one- Kim Jong-un can have it- all of it. The ego and appalling immaturity that has lead to this name-calling stand-off is breath-taking and it needs to stop- right here and right now. GROW UP! Please the World begs you!
6
It is not about anyone “wanting North Korea”, as one writer puts it. It is about North Korea wanting the entire peninsula, and South Korea be damned. Is ANYONE on this thread willing to allow that to happen? I think the reality is the Kim will do nothing that would risk his iron fisted regime, including an aggressive strike against The South. Today is not 1950. The other reality is that NK has nukes. The sane response for the US and its Asian allies (including China) in that equation is strategic deterrence to prevent greater ICBM capability from and by North Korea.
Someone needs to impress upon the President that if a war with North Korea begins, golfing and weekends off are off the table. People will be criticizing him non-stop, and he'll be working a full schedule all the time.
9
Asif--Trump is playing golf today with Abe--Japan's PM. Yesterday he "visited" Trump tower Hawaii--no conflict of interest there!
Once again the GOP is marching us to war with someone else's kids as cannon fodder. Trump is using NK as a diversion from his problems with Mueller. Wait and see.
9
At least people like NIck Kristoff are sounding the alarm! But when you have a chief executive who is incapable of feeling the plight of anyone but himself, it seems there IS no deterrent. WHAT CAN BE DONE? The article outlines the choices. But they necessitate someone sane in the US driver's seat.
5
Just like the photograph of "Dear Leader" in the article, please notice that every time our "Dear Leader" Trump makes some sort of public appearance, he is applauding for himself. Is this some sort of required behavior for dictators, or wannabee ones?
4
US tough push back against NK was inevitable once their nuclear weapons card was in full play, which it is now. This is the result of decades of ineffective US efforts to thwart North Korean rogue behavior.
Kim Jung un has made a dangerous but also daring play at checkmating US direct military intervention against the the north.
The notion that Kim will now simply step back from a massive NK effort to bring full nuclear capable intercontinental ballistic missile capability into play based on even the most severe sanctions regime seems totally unlikely absent a robust, full out Chinese intervention. Even that might be too little too late, and precipitously destabilizing the current NK regime could very well trigger all out war on the peninsula.
Putting Kim and North Korea on stern notice regarding threats to the US was clearly necessary. Demonstrating strong American military resolve was also a must.
What is not needed are Trump’s brand of bombastic rhetoric, degrading commentary regarding rocket-man Kim Jun un and fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen.
Much cooler American heads need to prevail. Congress needs to quickly put the brakes on the President’s worst inclinations.
4
What about the thousands of Americans and American troops in South Korea? Don't they count? Does Trump think missiles and bullets are selective? But as though as a war isn't "over here", it's OK. What a chump.
8
"Let me tell you, the one that matters is me, I'm the only one that matters because when it comes to it that's what the policy is going to be,..." Trump, Thursday, on Fox News.
He's talking about State Department vacancies, but the quotation displays his naked egoism for all to see, on a variety of topics, including propelling the US into an aggressive nuclear attack on North Korea.
6
No one needs a war more that a president whose popularity is plummeting.
5
We can’t figure out how to take away Trump’s first-strike capability. We can’t figure out how to prevent North Korea from developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons.
We also can’t figure out how to take away the first-strike capability of crazy people armed with assault weapons in the United States. And we can’t figure out how to prevent gun manufacturers from developing ever more powerful weapons.
We can’t figure out how to stop mass shootings in this country. Will that eventually serve as a wake-up call, in persistently hitting people where they live, at home? Apparently not. It hasn’t yet. Would setting off micro-nukes, or a real nuclear bomb, affect them at all? Anywhere? Or poisoning a city’s water supply with stolen nuclear material? Or setting off a dirty bomb? Somewhere? Maybe? I really don’t know anymore.
But we need to take this to the People. That’s for sure. And where it really hurts.
I suggest we start running long ads in the middle of their favorite sports events and TV shows explaining how to properly prepare for a thermonuclear holocaust. Duck-and-Cover kind of stuff. With plenty of gory details. During their “relaxation” time. Their “family” time in the early evening. When they’re savoring their much-needed “decompression” period (while simultaneously being on edge worrying about the imminence of their next lousy day at work).
Now … maybe … that will get them thinking.
5
Maybe Trump's evangelical pastors can give their congregations mock nuclear drills--although they are probably building or have already built their bunkers.
1
Don't worry. Our infant president won't be dropping any bombs around or near any Trump hotel/property.
Some people will be spared.
2
Hopefully, the South Koreans and Chinese are working together on the "Decapitation" option, which while frightening if even slightly unsuccessful, is surely the best end to the North Korean nuclear problem threatening the planet.
The entire Kim crew and their weapons must be removed.
Dear God, please save us from these bombastic fools. And if not God, please let eh spineless republicans in congress step up, save us all and save their party (hint hint, it's self-serving!).
THE DUCK THAT COULDN'T QUACK--UH--TWEET STRAIGHT. Donald Duck the Quack President, can't Quack or Tweet straight. Given his gross inaccuracy and distortion of information in those formats, he is NOT to be trusted to make competent decisions about when to use NOO KYUH LER weapons against North Korea or any other country, for that matter. What Trump does most reliably includes: Lying, Having Tantrums, Tweeting, Insulting, Verbally Attacking and Verbal Abuse.
3
Nuclear weapons or global warming. Take your pick.
The End Times are upon us. It won't be pretty.
2
Thirty five years ago Margaret Thatcher was an extremely unpopular leader, even within her own party (the "wets" as she saw them). Then came the Falklands/Malvinas crisis, instead of talks she went to war and became the heroine of the Empire. Sound familiar? The only problem this time is that the enemy has enough bombs and missiles to start WWIII!
2
It also was not a "nuclear" war.
Certainly the most primitive and underdeveloped a society is the most capable is to survive catastrophic circumstances; from pandemic disease to nuclear holocaust. The simple fact of how dark NK is in nocturnal satellite pictures, is an assertion of its greater survival capability. I wont dare to think that a single blow, war, will be of any use, a patient approach, that is to procure that every NK citizen has electricity and somehow start knowing what lies outside its borders, is much more practical, but it takes time and patience, and this is contrary to our capital sin in our Western World, our habitual request of wanting "Instantaneous Satisfaction", in this case instantaneous victory, something simply impossible.
2
Besides needing adult babysitters, spoiled boy Trump and Kim the Young'un are both couch potato sociopaths who have no real empathy for even those closest to them yet alone anyone else. To determine that the safety of our world is dependent upon the whims of these two adolescent screwballs seems as crazy as they are.
This is why you don't put a feral, socially illiterate, skill-less, experience-less D-list reality tv personality in the White House. Especially if we could've had a Secretary of State who helped being down Osama bin Laden and had an over 60% approval rating. Secretary's of State live, eat and breath international politics not D-list reality tv personalities.
if the Witch had a 60% approval rating, why did she lose the election?
(and no, the big bad Russians did not hack any voting machines... they only...tricked 65 million Americans into voting for her opponent . . NOT)
Mr. Kim relishes the day a mushroom cloud is rising over Los Angeles. The North Koreans are reminded everyday of how the Americans destroyed their entire country through aircraft bombs during the war. Most Americans do not understand their hatred of the wolf face yankee. The question is why did previous presidents allow North Korea to develop nuclear weapons to launch at our cities. The North has checkmated the US.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the nuclear rhetoric of NK seems to have escalated "bigly" since a certain D-list tv idiot has taken over the WH. Sad.
What's so awfully ironic about this terrible situation is that our "leader" in this is a man who has not only never served in the military, but who ran away from serving his country fifty years ago by pretending (FIVE times) to have physical ailments. These foot problems didn't, however, prevent him from waging war on blacks, immigrants, and young women up to this day. He is a dangerous, but cowardly, excuse for a real man who may, with his usual arrogance, drag the world into a conflagration that could easily kill tens of millions of innocent men, women and children all over the world.
Is there NO ONE in our government who will stop him - any way they can -from starting the world's first nuclear war?
10
In exchanges so reminiscent of those trashy window decals featuring a boy urinating on another vehicle mark--or someone or something else--Trump is doing his childish utmost to egg on Kim. Trump welcomes a war that would permit him to arrogate imperial powers to his person and office, and doesn't reckon with complexities like consequences. After all, he's Donald Trump.
3
OF COWBOYS AND KINGS
The Narcissist-in-Chief will want to appear
strong, decisive, important.
He loves the military, like the father he never had.
This is his chance to Drop Bombs,
forge a fierce international policy.
He's been advised to visit Asia, to show
he "tried everything" before becoming fully adorned
in his Commander-in-Chief Costume.
His Dictator Finest.
Sad, for humanity.
2
Sen. Graham should have reminded President Trump that it would be Americans dying over there. Thousands oj them.
6
Canada and Mexico
"We should fear NK's gaining capacity to destroy US cities"
I wonder how Canada and Mexico are dealing with such a threat. Probably relying on Trump to save them, I guess.
1
What does the looney left want Trump to do. Obama for eight years did absolutely nothing regarding North Korea as they continued to build up their nuclear weapons Not a word was mentioned by him or the leftist media regarding this danger. Just as he allowed the Iranians to basically control the Middle East through their proxy miltias who are now on all of Israel's borders and is likely to result in a major war Doing nothing abour these issues is the most dangerous policy of all but typical of the left. Doubtful Trump will unilaterally attack North Korea but a show of strength and some backbone may be helpful and certainly better than doing nothing
3
Obama did nothing? He kept us out of war. I'd say that's a pretty big something.
The U.S. has be become the Great Provocateur, War is it's business along with killing innocent women and children. No! the U.S. has no SAY in what North Korea has to do to protect itself and its people. The North Koreans have stated they will DEFEND their Country against a U.S. military strike. The U.S. is thousands of miles from it's borders provoking other countries. Let's take the blinders off and stop wrapping ourselves in the American Flagg. America does not own the MORAL HIGH GROUND on PLANET EARTH. America has BECOME THE GREAT SATAN on this PLANET. I'm A Former Psychological Operations Specialist who has seen the REAL FACE of THIS GREAT SATAN and It's NOT PRETTY. Heaven help us all. May Almighty God protect the People of Asia from the GREAT SATAN.
2
The NYT commentariat is exceptionally expert here today. To a man they should be working for the administration. I'm sure they could solve the world's problems in less than an hour. I'm mystified why Obie the Wonderful (rather like Quinn the Eskimo) didn't avail his administration of this talent.
We so casually throw around these figures: 300,000 to 1,000,000 people killed on only the FIRST DAY OF WAR.
This is unspeakable! America and the world would never be the same again.
Americans have to speak up loudly and forcefully to restrain this dangerous idiot called Trump and the ignorant Republican Congress that supports his irrational ideas.
3
North trump means business. Better war now than later. We can reduce them to an ash heap in a NY minute. They can only reduce California and Seattle to an ash heap. We win.
Let's make sure we know who the bad guy is here. It isn't Trump (that's a hint libs). The bad guy is Kim Jong-un. He (and his father before him) have been on a mission to become a significant nuclear power. That means one that can strike the US and that has a 2nd strike capability. Once those things happen, we will have absolutely no leverage with Kim. He can intimidate our allies in Asia and perhaps force us to abandon them under threat of a nuclear exchange.
The thing that differentiates NK from other nuclear powers is that it is an economic nonentity with no hope of advancing -- other than annexing S Korea. So the threat of nuclear annihilation means nothing. They have little to lose. And if they've built bomb shelters in the mountains in the north, a nuclear war may be survivable for much of the population.
So what options do we have? No one wants war. At the same time you have to weigh the risks of war now vs the unacceptable situation that the future will bring. Yes, let's do everything we can now to avoid war and have N Korea stop their missile program. But if they won't stop, what real choices do we have?
2
You seem to miss the point; this is very illogical.
Why should the USA and France, England, India, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel have nuclear weapons and not North Korea? They can become a nuclear power if they want. They say they are doing it to protect themselves from us which is certainly understandable.
By the way, with this knowledge of why they want nuclear power, we can approach them and take away their fears. Very simple actually. But humans and Trump just react in the incorrect way, scaring NK even more; giving them more and more reason to build their bombs and missiles.
1
Boy Frank, am I glad you ain't in charge of foreign policy. 1) we have a vested interest in ensuring nuclear weapons do not proliferate; 2) N Korea is a rogue state. Letting them have nukes will simply embolden them.
None of my Republicans neighbors seemed concerned at all, not at all. I do try to bring it up between their plans for cruisers, what they are watching on Netflix, the purchasing of a new car, and upcoming trade possibilities for the Cubs, but those bored looks they give me---big deal, a war---back to how they will spend monies from Trump's tax break.
4
If we get into a war, I vote that every one wearing a MAGA hat be drafted first for giving us this monstrosity. And one wonders what those bored Republicans think is going to happen from the nuclear fallout that will spread east on the prevailing winds after the West Coast is gone. They'll be more upset that their hair is falling out than that millions died so Trump could finally get a win of any kind.
1
The world's worst nightmare - nuclear war. Unfathomable yet possible. God help us all. I realize a third of the American public love Trump but can the other two-thirds march in the streets and raise their collective voices in a loud chorus of "NO" to nuclear war..
6
"Fourteen years ago, America stumbled into a devastating war with Iraq without thinking through the consequences."
No. The Bush Administration, supported at every turn by people like Judith Miller and the pundits AT THIS VERY NEWSPAPER, pushed the U.S. into war with Iraq. Meanwhile, millions and millions of Americans took to the streets to protest the war before it started.
Rarely has a sentence in an op-ed piece revealed as much smug insularity—or made me as angry—as that sentence by Kristof.
5
War: The perfect deflection from Mueller as he closes in on Putin's Puppet. Take note of what happens when Trump meets his master in Vietnam and gets his next set of treasonous instructions. All we can hope for is that the Russian dictator isn't in the mood for a nuclear war on his borders.
3
Graham actually said "Thousands would die"?
Well..... he might be a wee bit off. And this first strike we are talking about would entail????
Anything less than a full out obliteration of North Korea would leave open the chance of them firing their own nuclear missiles at Seoul or Japan......and a full out invasion of the South....with Seoul only 50 miles from the border.
Now the question about that; how do you isolate a full out nuclear attack to conform to the established borders of North Korea? Answer; You cannot. That means that South Korea AND China would also be hit. What about the huge ckoud of radioactive fallout. Where would that go?
What about the world economy? How would that house of cards hold up to a sudden disappearance of the South Korean economy?
The Japanese economy? The Chinese ability to ship goods?
What camel backs would break from these straws? Devastating the world's economy might cause nuclear war or conventional war to break out elsewhere. Pakistan and India, for instance. Russia and Europe?
"Thousands would die", huh? Lindsey might have to get Trump to re-think that estimate.
3
If Mrs. Trump wishes to oppose bullying, she could start with her husband's bullying with genocidal threats smaller, weaker nations than our own. This is called imperialism.
3
I doubt Trump listens to anything Melania has to say. She is there to be a lovely item in the background--so other leaders can be jealous of him the way he clearly was of the French president's wife who is still in "such good shape". "Pig" doesn't begin to describe him--and is an insult to quite intelligent farm animals.
Notably absent from this column is any mention that the US and North Korea are still engaged in the Korean War. The armistice signed in 1953 is only a cease-fire agreement. You can't start a new war until you finish the first one.
Also absent is any discussion that North Korea might really really want to sit down with the US (and South Korea, China, and Russia) and negotiate and end to that war, with recognition of a divided Korean peninsula. The only participant holding out on that is the US; everyone else is willing.
Finally, what is so awful about a "freeze for a freeze" deal? What's the real need for all these "military exercises" by the US?
Surely Mr. Kristof knows better.
2
“He is not going to permit this rogue regime, Kim Jong-un, to threaten the United States with a nuclear weapon. And so he is willing to do anything necessary to prevent that from happening.” The problem is, that is not Trump's decision to make. He might be the Commander in Chief of our military, but he does not have authority to start a war. Where are all the Constitutional purists to point out that only Congress has this authority? And what is Congress doing at this time?
2
There have been reports that Kim Jong-un loves American movies. I have often thought, as a former film location specialist, that what we need to do is create "movie diplomacy" by opening up North Korea to film production. Don't laugh. I think it could be the carrot that bring North Korea to the table.
2
Trust me. I fully appreciate the risk of war. Trump isn't bluffing. He might back down but he isn't bluffing. Trump wants the military option. That's his first choice. He even undermined Tillerson's efforts at diplomacy. If we know anything about Trump, we know Trump speaks most honestly when revealing his own desires. Trump wants war. The human catastrophe part is apparently outside consideration. As long as the deaths aren't attributable to Trump, he doesn't seem concerned.
This is what has me truly convinced. Both sides are already vying for moral superiority. They're both using false and distorted narratives. However, you don't actively demonize someone you eventually want to partner with. The rhetoric is completely off. You don't have to be friends but these exchanges are not good-cop, bad-cop tactics. Even when diplomats are committed to negotiation, the strongman conversation at the top clearly signals hostility. Both leaders are positioning to blame war on the other side.
Trump's unsympathetic public reactions to South Korea's potential destruction are telling revelations. Trump doesn't think he can be held accountable for the deaths of foreign nationals. Placing aside the many thousand of US citizens placed at risk even without an ICBM, Trump doesn't seem to understand the definition of war crimes. Perhaps he does but he doesn't believe they apply to him personally. Sadly, in the context of his 5th Avenue statements, a large portion of the country agrees with him.
1
Why would anyone make a deal with Trump knowing his past and present history of negating those deals?
2
"Fourteen years ago, America stumbled into a devastating war with Iraq without thinking through the consequences." Please. "stumbled?" No, we deliberately entered that war under the false pretenses of looking for WMD's that did not exist. We entered that war because George W. Bush wanted to outdo his daddy. We entered that war because Saddam Hussein was a soft and easy target. But we created a vacuum. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum, so we sowed the wind of Hussein's removal and reaped the whirlwind of ISIS.
North Korea is a different kettle of fish as they are actively developing a program that can strike the US. Plus they have a leader who enjoys going "mano a mano" with Trump. It's good internal propaganda, Kim's "David" to Trump' "Goliath." That they think they can win at a nuclear war is delusional. But perhaps they can win by always holding the proverbial "Sword of Damocles" above the world, daring anyone to take it from their grasp. But remove it we must. How to do so without catastrophic loss of life and major damage to the environment is the challenge. China may well have a role in this, for North Korea's missiles can easily be pointed West, as well as East. Also they don't have to travel nearly so far. Meanwhile the drumbeat of war continues.
1
I have long believed that our financialized economy, based on making money with money (none of it backed by more than “full faith and credit”) , consumerism, and entertainment, rather than making durable goods and investing in transformational technology, is doomed to collapse.
A war with North Korea would ensure that outcome sooner rather than later. Under this sociopathic charlatan and reality-TV host, the odds of his starting a war somewhere are 100%. May it not be with North Korea, China, or Russia!
Nicholas, I am disappointed in you. Trump has a very difficult problem with North Korea and really badly needs American support. It seems to me that "threatening" North Korea is the right thing to do, although attacking it could be a mistake.
But a threat is not credible if there is no POSSIBILITY of an attack.
Trump is (or seems to be) following a strategy which is actually perhaps the best possible. Threaten North Korea, make sure that the threat is credible, not actually attack North Korea, but visit Asia to try to get support.
And yet all he is getting is flak. Too bad.
3
Have you ever heard of the 'Carrot and Stick Policy'??
The problem with Trump, is that he's all 'stick' and no 'carrot.
As for strategy, he has only one...to win.
But in case of nuclear attack, no one will be winning.
Hence the flak.
When you go to China, you are much more likely to see a sign for Cartier than for the communist government. The Chinese talk about this century being theirs and they aren't taking about world military dominance.Their talking about economics. They have to know that a war between North Korea and the U.S would have a huge effect on them Recently the warned NK that if the continued to do nuclear testing from a particular site it could blow the top of a mountain off spilling a huge amount of nuclear waste on China. So why would it be in the best interest of China to have war going on next door, especially nuclear war. The top trading partners are the US, Hong kong, South Korea, and Japan. We owe China $1.102 trillion, They are not going to get that back if we, the South Koreans and and the Japanese are turned into nuclear ash. It doesn't make sense or cents. We have to hope that China decides commerce is a much better option than Kim Jong-un. Einstein was asked what would the next world war be fought with, He said he didn't
know, but the one after that would be with sticks and stones. One thing for sure, we don't want to take over North Korea. It would mean we would have to pay the bill to fix it after a war. The worst case is that North Korea gives up its war machine and tell us they surrender and then hand us the bill to bring up their country to a thriving economic state.
Nicholas Kristof: “There is a military option: to destroy North Korea’s program and North Korea itself,” Graham told the “Today” show, relaying a conversation with Trump. “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here — and he’s told me that to my face.”
Trump's statement and underlying attitude, presented by Graham above, is how we end up with unimaginable yet disastrous incidents like 9/11 and other mass suicidal homicides. Terrorists and their sympathizers are emboldened and justified by the #1 World Super Power's arrogant and crude words, while we are over reaching and pursuing all our interests over there already and causing much chagrin, pain, and suffering in most of the world regions, Niger (Sub Sahara), MENA, Asia, Europe, and so on. We're a globalized country and many of our citizens and their next generations are from over there. Our people and national interests are not confined within our borders. Geographical boundaries mean little these days esp. when we live in a Digital Nation and our hostile counterparts' attacks and infiltrations have been most effective and destructive when they did it in the cyber space. What happened in the cyber space affected our real, physical world immensely. Besides, the "thousands" possibly killed over there could be our own soldiers and personnel (human cost), called the collateral damages - $$$, environment, broken communities/families, and political and cultural civil wars on our streets.
1
"...just as we have deterred North Korea for decades from using its chemical and biological weapons"
You must be kidding. We have deterred nothing. NK has continued and even accelerated its buildup of nuclear (and probably chemical) weapons in the past decade. More "deterrence" will equal more buildup. Any other conclusion is either insane or dishonest.
1
I think DT is bluffing with house money. He would never do anything that would jeopardize him his family and their wealth. Bottom line for him is him.
The general to the left of Kimmy has the same adoring expression on his face that Pence has in the presence of Donny. Tells one a lot about what the great leaders require. It would be a comedy if Kimmy and Donny weren't spoiled children playing with grenades.
1
I so appreciate Nick Kristof's frequent writings on this subject. The orange Rough Beast slouches not toward Jerusalem but Pyongyang. Every day I fear the stubborn idiocy of both these leaders, wondering why saner voices are not prevailing now. We literally haven't the foggiest idea of what might happen in such a war, except to dimly imagine the terrible human sacrifice involved. And for what?
1
The risk for war with North Korea is because the US. cannot accept the idea that North Korea can fight back.Why would North Korea launch an attack on the U.S.It would result in total destruction of NorthKorea/they are not insane,Whom has North Korea attacked?Only South Korea,one cannot fault them for trying to put their country back together.Grow up America
We did not “stumble” into war with Iraq. It was premeditated, as here.
It's has been rumored that trump plans to sell out Taiwan to china if Chinese puts an end to NK missal lunches. Our allies should take note...
I hope Donald Junior, Eric and Jared are prepared to defend the honor of our country. I'm counting on them!
1
We ARE slouching towards Bethlehem, alone with that rough Beast. HE is currently taking the long route, with a detour thru Asia.
Thanks, GOP.
1
I'm afraid NK has another strategic advantage that I didn't realize until I saw the photo headlining this article: The soldiers are too cute to kill. They all look about 4 ft tall. They wear their pants extra long hoping to grow into them. I kind of just want to straight-arm my palm on their forehead and let them swing their punches away.
The great fear is that Comrade Trumpski will use the contrived pretext of war with North Korea to declare a state of emergency and crackdown on political opponents in this country.We should be very vigilant and fearful of this outcome.
"if thousands die, they are going to die over there". How heartless can an individual be? SAD!
Also, I hope someone (preferably, one of his Generals) will remind this man with such a "great memory" that there are over 20,000 American military personnel in South Korea who may "die over there" too!
Thinking about the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang, South Korea and Kim Jong-un plotting to disrupt them and Donald John Trump not beneath threatening to disrupt them. Two bloated madmen who'll stop at nothing to steal the show by starting a war.
1
They will have to institute the draft - I can't imagine why anyone would volunteer to help Mr. Trump and his thoughtless and ignorant agenda. Many will go for their country and fellow Americans, but this President has been so ugly and divisive to so many who have or are serving now, that it will be hard to muster up the desire to put one's life at risk -- look how he and his Chief-of-Staff treated minorities and look how he's treated the transgender folks who have fought and given their lives. And this from a man who deferred serving his country at least 5 times and for bone spurs -- disgrace is the only word I can come up with.
1
Trump will do whatever Fox News prods him to do.
2
The US needs to invest in missile defense , hyper sonic weapons, and kinetic orbital strike . Arms race North Korea out of existence.
Also pressure China to send North Koreans who run away to South Korea instead of North Korea which could destabilize the regime of Kim Jong Un. See what happened to East Germany.
Sobering thoughts, Nick, and, if we undertake military action in North Korea, we'll be under the Dick Cheney dictum, "You break it, you fix it", meaning that Trump supporters are going to write some checks to restore North Korea after that war. As with Cheney's war, we're talking trillions of dollars.
And maybe we'll need a draft. That should raise the hackles of millennials. It depends on China's rôle in such a fiasco. If the U.S. has to do it alone, it will require cannon fodder. Even if we believe that releasing a nuclear weapon over Pyongyang thwarts the North Korean aggression, someone is going to have to hike into North Korea to reestablish and remediate its infrastructure. That means fighting hostile North Koreans.
But even if North Koreans surrender unconditionally, Trump supporters are going to have to feed, clothe and house them. Get out your checkbooks.
Were China to intervene in a constructive way (whatever that would be), the war could be shortened. But I don't think that China will pay to fix the destruction that we caused.
North Koreans might be brainwashed, but they'd accept a higher standard of living. If they just gave in to the conflict, we could join North and South Korea and have the South Koreans pick up some of the tab along with our funding. China might not be all that happy with this solution. We'd still have to clean up any nuclear bomb damage.
We just can't seem to get out of the twentieth century. We're not even trying.
1
Great. Staring Armageddon in the face and we are depending on a braggart with a pea-sized intellect to figure it out.
15
Want to destroy the world's economy in one swell foop? Start a war so you look manly. Trump and Kim Jong-un are both psychopaths and fools. This is putting us all on edge. Will China continue placating Kim? Their economy will tank as well.
Reminds me of Fred Neil's song: "They will probably drop the big one the day my ship comes in".
3
No solutions to N.Korea. Despite Trump's lack of diplomatic experience, he is
leading the country to a nuclear confrontation. Consider: Churchill was 65
when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. Trump is 71 today, leading America
toward a nuclear war. Trump is leading us into a murky future.
. Another problem is
that Trump is not visiting Australia, our closest ally in the Pacific. The
Australians fought and died with us in WW1 and WW2, and they
belong with us now.
3
If your hero hadn't been so feckless, we would not find ourselves in this situation. As the threat grew you said nothing, while traveling the world looking for rhino horns and kidnapped Nigerians. Now you have an opinion. Just shut up Neville, and thank your stars the adults are in charge, come what may. Better an exchange over there than here - THAT's the legacy of the previous, criminally ignorant administration. Let the Asians complain to him.
1
Do you really think it's okay to encourage a war to begin as long as it is "over there"? Do you not know that there are millions of human beings who are our allies living where this war you think is "better over there than here" would take place?
Administrations have been addressing North Korea as a serious foreign policy issue for decades. Your foolish shots at them do not help. Nor do they support your claim that the adults are in charge. If there is one thing Trump is not, it is an adult. And his decimation of the diplomatic corps of this country is close to treasonous in my opinion.
As for trashing Mr. Kristof, he has traveled to N. Korea earlier and also recently. Do not dismiss this caring and intelligent reporter/columnist with your ill-informed comments.
Is everyone in the people's republic of vermont this addled? When you cannot rebut with facts, trot out the crying towels. Per usual.
This time the deferment will be for brainspurs
6
This is so scary. The only winners if a war starts will be China and Putin. Kim will pass on some of his nuclear warheads to the Jihadis who will smuggle them into our harbors and detonate them. South Korea and North Korea will be destroyed possibly Tokyo too. The 24 destroyed South Korea nuclear reactors will be spewing radioactive lethal gases into the atmosphere for decades. The world's stock markets will crash and a depression will ensue. Plus a draft will be inevitable. It will be a world disaster. Give Kim something. Stop the annual military war games. Give him incentive to modernize his economy a la Communist China. Assure him that his murderous family will not be overthrown. Let him keep his atom/hydrogen bombs just like Pakistan, China, Israel, India, Russia, etc. Nobody is going to use them anyway. If war breaks out, Americans, thanks to the mentally ill Trump will go down in history like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., as Mass Murderers.
4
Granted, an anomalous thought, but a different headline on Saturday from NYT tells of Saudi Arabia's government arresting senior princes, "including a billionaire" (!!!) to consolidate power in the designated crown prince. I am no apologist for Donald Trump in the least bit, au contrare, but North Korea does pose a threat of its own making, seemingly for the promotion/protection of the Kim dynasty. One wonders whether North Korea's long-standing ally, defender, and supporter in Beijing (where some/many N. Korean military "princes" must have friends) might be given a gift subscription to NYT online in order to read all about Saudi Arabia in hopes the idea of implementing some sort of extra-legal solution to the Kim problem from within NK might not be considered, for the common good of mankind. Does Comrade Xi Jinping really want to leave this in the hands of DJTrump? Has he/have we no choice? Only a "yes" answer to the latter stands between mankind and complete despair.
My worry really is less about Kim, who is essentially a pouty little mobster who comes from a criminal family obsessed with keeping power. To do this, they rattle nuclear sabers at the world in order to keep their people locked into a perpetual state of compliance and non-revolution. No, for me, that far greater fear is a childish, narcissistic, little lord Fonduroy for a president who cares more about his "I Win" brand than his own nation. In order to escape his own growing scandal, he would push the button and destroy this world. Let's see those coal jobs come back then, Red State.
3
If only a cool rational mind such as Robert Mueller or Adam zschiff were in control, we would not have to worry about imminent warfare with North Korea. But, we have a hotheaded, irrational quick trigger with no capacity for listening or negotiating. Once again, G.O.P. You are to blame
3
And if the war is started by what turns out to be an illegitimate Russian puppet, then his nuclear apocalypse would be as illegal as his ersatz Supreme court pick.
It would be a planet-altering high crime by a bogus commander-in-chief.
3
Congress can pass a law forbidding Trump from first strike with out consent, however Trump has never followed law.
His track record reflects consistent disrespect for laws, and he prides himself by flaunting his imprudent lack of understanding as a virtue.
Odd’s on for the hideous of all wars, his sure way to get reelected.
I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
1
How in God's name has it come to this? How did we get here? By a broad-based failure of American institutions that allowed an unstable psychopath to get his hands on the nuclear codes. That's how. And so now we have a gangster president utterly incapable of empathy (because that's who psychopaths are) stating, without batting an eye, "they'll die over there, not here." A million dead. On the first day. A million human beings reduced to radioactive ash. And the babies too. Stop this man. Stop him.
5
nice way to start the day
This is one big joke. Worse than Ringling Bros. Let's put on our clown costumes and play that circus music.
1
Of course, something could happen to Kim Jong-un before anything happens.
2
He best be careful not to get caught in a conflagration while he's there.
If we start a war with North Korea , who is the bad guy?
1
No American president regardless of his political party or ideological persuasion (or the lack) can allow North Korea to develop a live-fire, deliverable, nuclear or biological weapons capability. If the Kim regime continues down that path then the only outcome will be war — a full-blown war of annihilation, precisely what Asia and Europe experienced with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during the 1930s and 40s, sooner or later — and probably sooner.
I hate to say “it’s that simple”, but it is.
That.
Precisely that.
2
~
Thanks Bernie supporters that did NOT vote for HRC. You really showed us with your Yosemite Sam logic. This statement was true yesterday, is today, and will be true tomorrow and all of eternity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Experience is a good school, but the fees are high."
Heinrich Heine
5
War is coming, I guess.
If that idiot we have to suffer through as the president wants a war, I expect that narcissistic nincompoop to be right at the front lines leading the troops. Also I would strongly recommend that any troops being selected to participate in the suicidal mission be ready to head to Canada at a moments notice.
If war comes it will be engineered by a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats and military generals bucking for a star, no matter what the cost. Just like Vietnam, probably the biggest fiasco in our history and 58K lives lost for absolutely nothing!
J
3
"America stumbled into a devastating war with Iraq"???
Yea, like a belligerent, aggressive drunk "stumbles" into a bar fight.
We attacked a country which had not attacked us.
Put down the Kool-aid.
3
Mr Kristof, wonderful, disturbing allusion in your title.
Pass me 500 mg of OxyContin
2
As a liberal democrat, I detest war and my disdain for Trump can't be articulated here since there's not enough room. But here's the rub. "North Koreans repeatedly said a nuclear war with the US was not only survivable but winnable" If this is the case, they clearly have no understanding of mutual assured destruction like the Russians did during the cold war and that position is detached from reality. Moreover, they have little or no idea how quickly they could be completely destroyed in a nuclear exchange. If they continue to refuse to include their nuclear program in any negotiations they'll eventually have enough nukes and the technology to strike U.S. cities. I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that situation given no one else in the nuclear club ever mentions a "first strike" scenario. Should they get to that place it would be like going to sleep each night with a shotgun cocked and pointed at your head.
I don't know how diplomacy can work with a nation that believes their dear leader is God-like and have now for three generations of "Kim" leaders in North Korea.
Given the history of mankind and war, I fear at some point we'll have to address this and would prefer to do it when North Korea is not armed to the teeth with nukes and perfected delivery systems. I don't have the answer here but know it's better to be alive than dead. Complacency is not the answer as Mr. Chamberlain could attest to were he still alive.
I just don't know the answer.
1
Hard to imagine how this DOESN'T escalate at this point. It's also hard to imagine how this is revelatory given the original Korean War never technically ended, and the cosmic pendulum has finally swung to where two psychotics are now in charge of overseeing the residue of only an armistice generations later. We've known for decades that the psychosis would continue to roll down the generational hill on their side, but who could have foreseen the Amercan fascist excrement that will sacrfice 30,000 U.S. troops stationed there in order to veil its high-level orgy with Russia.
People, America is, at best, on life support. If we can't see this, we'll never SEE again. The stock answer that "we vote" in order to dig out is no longer viable, obviously. We may be left with few options that would have been unimaginable only a short time ago. Probably time to give ourselves some help imagining it.
1
Trump will start a war in order to pass his blue state punishing tax bill
1
Jimmy Carter, we need your peacemaker skills.
4
Trump is obviously a bully- and there is no doubt he will bully anyone and any state he deems necessary to boost his own ego.
It just happens that North Korea is also ruled by a narcissistic bully, possibly a psychopath who has nuclear weapons. That makes two little boys with the ability to kill millions of people if they lose their temper.
1
As he has on every other issue, Trump is playing to his base, the chest-thumping, high testosterone, gun loving, tough guys and gals, who believe that John Wayne was a great American patriot and why can't we all be like him? And how dare a tin pot dictator like KJU threaten the US of A? We'll show him. Trump is leading the charge, just like he did when he was in the military...wait....no never mind he wasn't in the military.
The majority, the vast majority of commenters here, refuse to even see the problem-- North Korean ICBMs with nukes targeted on the US and Japan that Kim is making and promising to use to get his way, which means ending South Korea and teaching Japan who is boss. So who will stop him?
and refuse to see a fact, what North Koreans want is IRRELEVANT to Kim, China, Russia.
so how many of the holier than thou went to save the poor North Koreans when this was going on? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_famine
not one. zip. nada. To Americans foreigners are just toys to play holier than thou with. next week, new toys. China will gladly see every North Korean die if it achieves communist Chinese imperial goals. Kim could not care less how many North Koreans he is putting at risk.
but go on commenting like you are the one who puts North Korean lives first by ranting about Trump, the fascist buffoon who is president because he had opponents like these commenters and the situation is the legacy of Obama, and of Hillary, who it turns out pissed off Putin by interfering in his totalatarian state for no good reason so he started showing the world he is boss of Ukraine and of American elections and apparently Kim has nice Russian style solid fuel rockets for his ICBMs
Americans belong in the psych word. Most of all, the holier than thous with the narcisstic attention span of a gnat.
2
It's difficult to imagine what people in Japan and South Korea must think when they read this. But, one thing is obvious - trying to negotiate is, by far, the least bad option, done while maintaining the utmost vigilance, which I am certain is being done. However, how intelligent is it for the president to undercut his Secretary of State even as he tries to engage in dialog, while simultaneously walking away from an agreement with another would-be nuclear power? The answer is frightening, but, as Mr. Kristof explains, that is precisely where we find ourselves. The world is at the mercy of narcissistic lunatics.
15
There is a valuable message in M. Scott Peck's book, The Road Less Taken. He points to a belief that people have that if you do not do anything about a problem then it will just go away.
All of Clinton, Bush and Obama followed this strategy. They did nothing about North Korea and the problem did not "go away." Now Trump is handed this problem on a silver plate and no matter what he does, it will be bad. He can leave North Korea alone or he can act. Neither strategy is particularly good.
But surely Clinton, Bush and Obama did have better options since North Korea's program was less developed. But they did pretty much nothing. They followed the same strategy of "peace" which Chamberlain followed in Munich.
So here we are. But NYT readers should celebrate. Because no matter what Trump does, it will turn out badly, and they can, once again, bash Trump with their morning cup of coffee. Isn't life wonderful?
2
Party pooper.
What could possibly go wrong if you start a war with an adversary with nuclear weapons?
5
Clinton did not have to deal with an adversary with nuclear weapons. He could have taken some EFFECTIVE action. Because Clinton,Bush and Obama did too little, Trump is handed this problem.
2
NK has virtually no ability to attack the US other then through the successful
deployment of ICBMs.
If I were President I would have formed a secret " Manhattan Project " with our
best and brightest hackers, and computer elite to develop the capabllity to turn
any ICBM around and redirect that mother to hit KJU's current abode.
I can only hope that the USA already has such a capability.
Other then a Seal Team 6 mission to liquidate the KJU family with prior Chinese
approval I cannot see how this ends favorably in any other manner.
1
It wouldn't be surprising if Trump gets it into his head that a war would save his presidency. His recent famous and eerie quote "I am the only one who counts" applies to everything he does. That statement alone should have scared enough of the cowards in Congress to remove him from office. He's stupid and dangerous.
He has plenty of dangerous morons around him, egging him on. All of them are cowards.
17
.
Why is the U.S. threatening war with N. Korea instead of pressing for negotiations? The short answer is Trump’s desire to distract public attention away from the Russia investigation which has taken an ominous turn of events with the possible investigation into Trump’s financial entanglements with Russia which Trump Jnr admitted were substantial. Kim Jong-un and P. Trump are cut from the same cloth. Both will do anything to survive. N. Korea has every right to be wary of US intentions. Saddam Hussein paid the ultimate price for not possessing WMD’s and Kaddafi gave up his nuclear arsenal and paid with his life. Bill Clinton launched missile strikes in East Africa to distract from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Trump’s war of words, belittling Kim Jong-un, whose finger is on the nuclear button, is totally irresponsible and plays into Kim’s playbook, depicting the US as the nasty aggressor. We need a diplomatic solution to the problem not hell fire and brimstone! We have threatened military strikes and imposed tight sanctions and nothing has worked. Why don’t we try something different? Bombard North Korea with acts of unconditional kindness – drones packed with food to remote areas to feed N. Korea’s impoverished people to counter Kim’s shrill anti-American rhetoric. This would generate good will, defuse tensions, promote pro-American sentiments and may eventually topple N. Korea’s one man rule.
2
"The short answer is Trump’s desire to distract public attention away from the Russia investigation which has taken an ominous turn of events with the possible investigation into Trump’s financial entanglements with Russia which Trump Jnr admitted were substantial"
I see. So did Trump call up Kim Jong-un and say, "please fire some missiles over Japan so that I can distract the American people who might otherwise look into my Russia connection?"
I understand that you hate Trump. But still, you need to come up with a less bizarre theory.
3
All Mr KIm wants is to be told he is mot going to have to give up his leaderhip and we aren't going to invade, and we will sign a peace treaty with his nation, and then he can be welcomedin to the nuke family, we could work onha ving them not spread the tech out to others. But if we got o war to stop him rattling his saber, we just kill a lot of people when we don't have to.
Trump and any other war hawk are idiots. We never signed a peace treaty and kept the zone hot for no good reason far to long. Maybe we just like selling guns not butter. But we don't havet o be war hungry...
2
T-rump at this moment is far more dangerous that the loony in North Korea who is firmly in power..while T-rump is under the gun. A catastrophic war would be right up his alley to 'DIVERT ATTENTION' from his traitorous conspiracy with Putin. It may all be as simple as that for this amoral oligarch, draft dodger,racist, ...oh one could go on and on. A pox on the Republic. Sadly his base would be waving flags while thousands die.
2
There is a dreadful inhumanity and blatant racism in considering a military solution in the Koreas. Whether or not it is possible to decapitate the North Korean regime, the City of Seoul will be obliterated with massive casualties. Do these fellow humans not matter because they're 'just asians'.
I am appalled! I expect this from the moron and psychopath that is Trump, but to hear H R McMaster's statement is disturbing.
4
WELL, Nicholas. Our inability to do what needed to be done in 1994 has come back to bite us, hard. When will the West learn you can never ever trust tinpot dictators to adhere to agreements, especially about Nukes?
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49319
The Clinton agreement in 1994 ranks right up there with Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" as he gave away the Sudetenland to Hitler. "Only" 60 million people died because the isolationist West (USA) refused to act. Just Churchill was sounding the alarm.
We could have taken out N. Korea's nuclear ambitions with some surgical strikes as Israel did to Saddam. But we did not. Why not? Because the West is desperate to avoid conflict until it is forced upon them. We don't believe in preemption. So, how many million are going to die this time because of our unwillingness to do what needed to be done?
This mess was kicked down the road by Bush II and Obama. They have dumped it in Trump's lap. Put yourself in his place. WHAT WOULD YOU ACTUALLY DO THAT WOULD WORK!!!??? Remember, your oath of office is to protect the citizens of the USA.
I can say with certainty that the West does not learn from History. The Iran Accord is proof of that. Five years from now, maybe sooner, Iran will have nuclear tipped missiles. Then what? More hand-wringing?
1
Recall what Fred Trump Sr. said/taught to Liddle Don, "Be a King and be a Killer". Donny boy
want's to be an autocratic King except for a piece of paper called the U.S. Constitution. He has already proven to be a killer ie. MOAB dropper. He's going
to drop the big one on North Korea. When Mueller get to close he's going to snap and war will be his biggest a final diversion. We will all pay dearly for having this sociopath elected.
1
Slouching towards Bethlehem, with an demented poseur " leading" the Caravan. Thanks, GOP.
5
“If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here"
If Trump really did say this, how is this different from the mindset that sent the Jews to the concentration camps because they were "untermenschen"?
3
Trump is placing the pressure where it belongs, on China and North Korea. Let them sweat for a while. Neville Chamberlin taught us that all appeasement does is empower a bully like Hitler to start a world war. Trump may be the man that keeps our world at peace.
2
It's the South Koreans that are going to pay the price for any American first strike. They'll have to get out of the way in this quarrel between North Korea and US and cover their behinds somehow. The only way not to give the North a reason to retaliate by attacking the South is to break the alliance with the US. That Trump/Graham think that thousands of Korean lives are not worth living with the North Korean threat is all the more reason to do so.
2
Ask yourself : how North Korea get nuclear warheads and new ballistic missiles that can fly to the US, which was not even a year ago?
Such a breakthrough in technology is impossible in such a short time.
... in Russia everyone knows the answer to this question: - North Korea has received this new level of technology directly from Russia! ...
and even know why: - Putin deliberately "tossed" Kim these toys to WEAR a North Korean jerk with an American idiot - "Let each other be bombed a little", because Putin's main task is to inflict maximum damage to the USA !!!
and our naive "President" Trump just confirmed that he expects to meet with Putin on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam, later in the trip.
It's dangerous !!! because Trump is absolutely NOT ready to deal with this "genius madman"!!! Trump is too stupid for this meeting! Putin will easily deceive him!
Trump voters: you put this idiot Trump in charge of the nation's nuclear weapons. LOL, you thought it would be hilarious, right, to freak out those "elitist" (aka more educated than you) types, and feminists, by putting this orange clown in office. Well, if and when nuclear war begins, please let every single death sit on your conscience, will you? Because the fault will be 100% yours, you bloody fools.
8
You're forgetting all the folks on the left who just couldn't vote for the most qualified candidate, mostly for fake reasons, so they didn't.
1
There is always hope in cultural exchange. Let these two outstanding world leaders spend some kwality time together. Maybe they can get together and watch the telly. These two fine gentlemen can share some porn flicks and maybe the leader of the free world can show his host pictures of his trip to Russia, unless Chris Stelee has not returned them.
1
Resurrect Chamberlain! Impeach the halfwit who's currently running your country and put someone in who doesn't use schoolyard, bully-boy tactics as 'diplomacy'.
2
A game of nuclear-chicken is indeed ruffling feathers at the highest leadership levels of all countries involved. Exacerbating the problem is America has an (at best) amateur Commander-In-Chief who is so delusionaly cock-sure of himself that he can't even perceive his own ignorance and lack of experience regarding this critical, world-threatening issue. I for one, would surely feel much more confident about avoiding this potential catastrophe if we had former Senator/Secretary of State Clinton at the helm. Her critics be dammed. Trump needs to be impeached and if warranted, locked up as soon as possible for all of our sakes.
3
Donald J Chaos & Co. are not making things safer for anyone in the world right now. The Kim Jong Un regime is hell bent on completing their nuclear missile program. While Kim Jong Un is certainly murderous, I don't believe he is suicidal. Nuclear deterrence has worked for many years. We have had no nuclear wars. We do not need to prevent NKPD from achieving their nuclear goal. Kim knows if he launches a nuclear strike. no matter how limited, against the US or one of our allies, they will suffer a nuclear response on their own homeland. We should not fearfully assume that if he gains his nuclear capability, he will use it. If we strike first, we will only be accomplishing what we say we fear from NKPD. There will be fallout repercussions for us all if we take that step. Congress should step in and exercise their role in our Constitutional government and educate Trump about his role. We do not all have to let fear override our intellect.
1
We have come very close to war with North Korea on a number of occasions. Trump loves to accuse previous administrations of doing nothing, but we almost blew their missiles up on the launch pad when they started their testing. It would have triggered a war that started with the leveling of downtown Seoul with no time to evacuate. Our troops there are not just ready to fight, they are ready to fight tonight, November 5th, and it's been like that for years.
And we almost had peace with North Korea too, the start of a Marshall Plan, or at least aid, to assist them in recovering from the devastation of the Korean War. That was all worked out under Bill Clinton by Bill Perry and others, but it was nixed when George W. Bush took office.
5
Maybe it's time to end the Korean War.
Might be a good first step.
Make Bubba the head negotiator.
One should opine when listing options: that an attempt be made to shoot down a missile, or hasn't the writer heard that billions of dollars are being sought in appropriations to develope the ability to do just that?
...and not very reliably.
Obviously, the problem is that if you try to shoot down the middle and miss the North Koreans become more confident and everyone on our side less so. This only ups the ante.
What a pity that we live in such dangerous times that Mr.Kristof's scary morning commentary is a whitewash. Yes, Kristof's cautionary note is rather Pollyanish, even though it is perhaps the loudest alarm rung yet at the Newspaper of Record (or the Post).
On direct humanitarian consequences it does not consider those of a nuclear attack on South Korea, much less Japan or --if only via sneak attack by shipping container, or the like-- on the U.S. Moreover, it does not consider the catastrophic global economic consequences of such uses of nuclear weapons (world Depression). Stepping back to lesser economic consequences, it does not, except for an allusion to "financial markets," even deal with the dire economic consequences of a Destruction of South Korean production.
Some reference to the risks of Chinese or Russian intervention in reaction to the U.S. merited attention as well, although the nature of the larger risks of this contingency will be clear enough to those who lived through the Cold War.
Commentary from others, on the quality of present US leadership and policy orientations will not be lacking.
3
As tough and sarcastic as it may seem:
"You voted for Trump, you wanted Trump, now live with him or get rid of him"
The rest of the world has to and did not even have a say in this madness.
The US is - again - threatening to play Armageddon with nukes.
It is still the nation ever to use nukes in a war and it will stay so.
North Korea has a history of threats against real or imagined foreign enemies and a balance of these threats that ensured an uneasy but somewhat stable situation between the two Koreas.
Trump does not understand this game as a game it is.
North Korea does not have a plan to commit suicide it only needs a sabre rattling foreign enemy, not one that sends bombs and rockets, but "pays respect" in the form of food and energy supplies.
That has been the game for decades and it worked.
Since Trump is too stupid to understand this, remember his "As we have all these nuclear bombs, why don't we use them?", you can do the world a big favour, get rid of Trump by invoking whatever legal means necessary.
If that fails, use all means necessary.
8
We have a book by some 50 psychiatrists underscoring that Trump is a crackpot with paranoid leanings, and urging people not to make excuses for his madcap behavior, but to take it as prima facia indication of his madness. We should have a resolution from Congress prohibiting Trump from undertaking a first strike except as a proportionate response to a strike from North Korea. It is, after all, Congress who declares war, not the President.
Let's not forget the other significant deficit the US has in attempting to resolve this crisis- a depleted State Department headed by a Secretary of State on a significant learning curve with no support and even undermining from his idiotic boss. Bad news all around for diplomacy.
5
Even Bannon has the common sense to know that war is not a viable option. The potential loss of life could be the most catastrophic since WWII.
Further, anyone who believes that China will simply sit back and allow a preemptive strike on NK is delusional .
The ease with which historically illiterate Americans embrace the prospect of war is chilling. Sadly for us, many such now reside in the West Wing.
3
Seems like POTUS would wait until at least after the 2018 Winter Games. That gives Congress/Cabinet a few months to remove him. I thought his Chief of Staff would prevent anything stupid like this happening, but I'm not so sure now. I'm getting out of stocks soon.
I see a direct connection between the possibility of trump starting or instigating a war with North Korea and the Mueller investigation. As the heat is turned up on trump, war is more likely. (Wouldn’t that be the ultimate distraction? )Our representatives in congress must see this as well. Legislation to limit trump’s ability to engage in war or launch a preemptive strike, should be everyone’s top priority. Let’s face it. Tax cuts won’t seem important if we are engaged in a nuclear war.
3
One can't avoid the chilling premonition that, before we are rid of Trump, we are going to be at war with somebody. The inevitability appears all the greater since we, as a nation, are at war with ourselves. The leader of our government has done little to bring us together, and a great deal to further animosity and distrust. Any foreign military adventures will likely not be the unifying force of WW I or II, but rather be as divisive as Vietnam.
Recent bungling mistakes by our Navy does not inspire confidence in our military preparedness for sustained conflict with a competent, inspired adversary.
Wall Street is raking it in seeming utterly unconcerned and unaware. Who will be the lucky few who are first to cash-out and head for safe harbor when the first shots are fired, leaving the rest of us holding an empty bag. At that point the notion of tax reform will seem quaintly irrelevant.
And the band played on.
6
NK's beef is with the US, not it's neighbors. It's foolish to think SK and China will pressure NK on our behalf. Like most of the world, they see US aggression as the root of the conflict. And they're not wrong.
With a pre-emptive strike by the US mass casualties will be a certainty. With a policy of containment mass casualties will be a possibility, and a remote one at that.
Instead, what we have now is an air of inevitability due to the ignorant bluster of Trump. He has do do something in order to save face. For me and the vast majority of Americans, a war waged for the sake of DT saving face is absurd. Remember: war is the failure of government to protect its citizens from harm.
1
I place the odds of conflict at well above 50%. Why? Mueller. As the noose tightens with the investigation, and it will, Trump will get more desperate and then pull the trigger. At that point he has nothing to lose.
Only the Republican Congress can stop him, and their all in hiding. McMaster is already rattling his saber. Kelly is now just another puppet. So who can stop this insane march to war? No one that I can envision at moment. Absolutely frightening to say that, but it's the way I view this idiotic Administration.
3
Donald Trump is a dangerous fool and should be stopped by Congress before he does the most stupid thing in his power. Provoking war that could result in nuclear exchanges or ordering a first strike with nuclear weapons is as reckless an act as can be imagined in this world and would have far-reaching consequences, but it is certainly not beyond belief in Trump's world. If he does this, I think it would most likely be a cold, calculated act to sidetrack the attention on his administration from Mueller's investigation, and as such, would be the most egregious act of obstruction of justice and one of the most immoral acts any president is capable of.
If Trump goes down that path and the GOP does not remove him from office, there will be another war in this country that will likely tear us apart. No joke. The Republicans would be wise to take steps now to limit Trump.
5
It is my considered opinion that George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq has been the stupidest foreign policy decision made during my lifetime, which began in 1952.
To start a war with North Korea would be even more stupid.
The scary thing is, I genuinely think Trump is more clueless than Dubya. I hope Duckworth's legislation passes asap!
4
It may already be that moment when America becomes the rogue nation we used to fear, or at least rooted against in the movies. If our actions result in millions of lost lives in Korea and/or Japan will we still think of ourselves as benign leaders of the free world? Do we really buy into the argument that it is acceptable to lose a California's worth of Oriental lives to prevent loss of life in California? If the possibility of nuclear war as a possible strategy doesn't wake us up to the realities of our own defective leadership, what will?
2
Americans have been told since 9/11 that we're in a state of permanent war, which is necessary for our survival. What's one more front more or less?
1
I would assume we are watching via satellite and other sigint means. If NK moves half their massive army back to the mountains in the north, this conflagaration will commence. The last time we chased them north, the Chicom became engaged. The US would have to reinstitute the draft over-night. A lot of bad scenarios with bad endings. And all of this is without the nuclear question ...
Iraq was a mistake, with the false a priori conclusion that Iraq had WMD. North Korea has WMD, and agreements to freeze the status quo have been blatantly violated by that country time and again. It's time to stop the missiles and nukes by whatever it takes. Sometimes war is necessary.
The ramping up of this and the proximity of the Russia probe are not coincidental. Look to see a strike or close-to-strike call if the arrests in the investigation start to include family or seizure of his personal financial records. This is his blackmail. He lives in an alternate reality where his 'winning' is all that matters.
3
Official quote on Trump:
“He is not going to permit this rogue regime, Kim Jong-un, to threaten the United States with a nuclear weapon."
Come now, rogue regime? Compared with Trump's having lost the popular vote by 3,000,000 voters?
North Korea needs nuclear weapons in self-defense.
Trump's unspeakable threat to destroy North Korea when speaking before the UN has drawn far too little comment.
If war comes, we too shall be struck -- seems plausible.
2
I have read many of these responses and one thing strikes me. Intelligent, thoughtful readers seem to be discussing a rational event, variable options for ordinary human events. The black hole at the center of all this wildly irrational and terrifying nonsense is Donald Trump and his equally mentally unstable counterpart. Both frighteningly incompetent little people think they have our entire globe's destiny in their hands. And the reality is that they do!!! I would like to hear someone in power speak to the dangerous mental illness involved here, not just the military options. We need to DO SOMETHING before we are all blown to bits.
3
The fact that Kim wants to have a nuclear option to use against us is understandable, but stupid. However, whatever we may want to do, we've absolutely no basis upon which to attack North Korea. They've tested a variety of weapons, but haven't used them. We have the power to watch them closely, and to react to any attack they may instigate, and that's exactly what we should do. It would help if Trump wouldn't goad them into any suicidal action.
Clearly, Trump is more dangerous than Kim Jong-Un: the latter will just keep building up his deterrence, while the former says he will strike if the deterrence activity does not stop.
Striking NK first is being the evil death raider, anyone who starts a fight is automatically the bad guy.
Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his base would still support him. Has anyone considered how ridiculous that now sounds when Trump might shoot hundreds of thousands or millions to the sounds of his base cheering?
Everything Trump has done that has been noxious, disgusting and appalling will be forgotten the moment he becomes a war president. There can be no question as to his motivation to start a war with NK. Ironically, this act will be indefinitely worse than all he has ever done combined, but it will make him more powerful than ever before, remembered for ever, and we won't be able to ever ignore him.
3
This is what happens when incompetent, arrogant, ignorant and corrupt forces converge within the United States government, the most powerful and potentially destructive force on Earth, and plays chicken with the most secretive and nuclear capable society on the planet. Which leader is more dangerous at this point, Kim or Trump? I suggest it is the one with the least experience.
The president is being gamed by so many delusional people within and outside of our country. Is there no one who can bend the curve in the other direction, even a little?
2
I'm amazed that no commenter has mentioned the thousands of American Military Service members are in S. Korea and Japan who would go 'poof' in a nuclear attack from Kim. How does Trump figure that one out? Are we to just accept the fact that they would go 'poof'? And radioactivity doesn't respect borders.
It is unbelievable that we have this bully as the leader of our military. A blowhard, indeed. If anyone is going to go 'poof', I want it to be him.
3
It's so easy for dt to sacrifice other people's lives for his fantasy of strength. Not just sad but sinful.
2
Trump diddles his tweets while the world suffers. His present bigly trip to former TPP rising-sun countries is shutting the door on intelligent foreign policy. Trump rules. We burn.
2
Narcissistic and sociopathic behaviors have no boundaries, I’m afraid Trump will do anything to get out of the mess he created for himself. The republicans in the house and senate have become complacent, selfish and corrupt to a point where most of them do not care for America. A war with North Korea which in turn will be war with Russia and China, would be of unimaginable consequences.
1
Kim will be a threat to us when he has the capability to hit us with nuclear weapons. All of your worries are based on his having such a capability.
He does not yet have that capability yet. If we move against him now, he can't hurt us.
If we wait until he develops that capability, he will hit us first. Then we will destroy him, but millions of Americans will have been killed.
The rational choice for an American president is clear to me. I don't understand why it isn't to you.
Apparently, you need mountains of incinerated Americans before you will allow any defensive US action. What is wrong with you?
You need to read up about mutual assured destruction (MAD). Kim knows firing a missile our way will destroy him and his country. He is not crazy. You also need to look at geography. Our friends in S.Korea and Japan are very close and would suffer greatly in a war. AND nuclear radiation will blow across the Pacific to North America, eventually getting us all. There are no winners in this.
"If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here." Think about that. Try to look at the consequences of such incoherent war mongering as deeply as possible and from as many perspectives as possible. Think about what could possibly go wrong.
Then, try to imagine a reason why such talk is anything but the starkly lunatic raving of an ignorant madman with a death wish engulfing a far greater swath than "over there.” Even in a fantasy world where the carnage is geographically limited to "over there," thousands of those dying folks are our folks.
4
Lots of good comments here. the horror that the war would bring seem so distant and unimportant to the war mongers who are running us policy. Both parties have embraced permanent imperial war as a standard condition. This is draining us financially and politically. Thhis discussion is realistic but insane.
1
We Americans should be terrified by the fact that, on your last visit, "North Koreans repeatedly said that a nuclear war with the U.S. was not only survivable but winnable." Something tells me, Mr. Kristof, that if you queried the Americans who voted Mr. Trump into office, they, too, would believe that sad and scary fantasy. So, what differentiates Trump from Kim Jong-un? Far less than most Americans are willing to admit. And not only can this lead us to a third world war; it can lead us to the end of life on Earth as we know it. If that doesn't scare the living daylights out of every American, then we are surely doomed.
4
We need to establish an effective containment policy... of Trump.
5
Everyone, while clearly focused on the immediate threat NK poses, seems to have forgotten where key technologies were gotten to get Kim where he is today.
Russia for the ICBM.
China for the fuel.
1
Trump seems to think as if this is a version of The Trolley Problem:
Track One is do nothing but stay on a Diplomacy Thru Sanctions route but Kim will get the bomb and kill lots of Americans, so no Track One.
Track Two is we sacrifice hundreds of thousands of South Koreans via the North's artillery fire literally overnight as a direct and guaranteed result of a first strike by the U.S.
Maybe it is not The Trolley Problem but a Trump Train Wreck.
1
Good comment. It is the job of media like the NYT to incessantly explain to people that war on the Korean peninsula will be nothing like the limited, „watch from afar and get on with your daily lives affairs“ in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article correctly states that one of the better options involves hundreds of thousands of South and North Korean deaths plus (not mentioned) major disruptions of global supply chains. To illustrate, just check SK‘s percentage of value creation in an iphone. That will affect everyone in the West. The worst scenarios have millions of dead, nuclear fallout drifting around the globe and a PRC that feels it cannot just stand by while the U.S. annihilates an ally. Remember in that context that PRC nukes are already able to and will reach every major population center in the U.S.
1
If war is inevitable, better sooner than later.
The Patriot missile defense seems to be working, at least in Saudia.
Even "limited" nuclear war is suicide. Let me count the ways. First, the mass casualties and vast radioactive poisoning, which would be suffered everywhere. Let's imagine we bomb NK and they bomb Seoul or Tokyo. Really imagine it. The horror. The unspeakable atrocity of it. The utter, lasting ruin of an entire country, whose survivors will envy the dead.
Second, the loss of peace and stability everywhere. All anyone will be able to think or talk about or spend money on will be war. There will be more violence everywhere, instantly. Because restraints will vanish in this violation of humanity.
Third, that other horseman of the apocalypse, climate change. It will continue to worsen, and the environmental insult of nuclear fallout will hasten it. Crop failure. Water contamination. Giant storms and fires. We won't be able to plan for it, budget for it, cooperate in fighting it, care for climate refugees. Our chances for survival are already slim. This would end them.
Fourth, the unbearable grief, rage, and guilt. People talk about this as though it wouldn't be the end of joy. As though you could look at your children and talk about the future and teach them to be good in a world where we can see everywhere the miserable consequences of our cruel hubris. As though you could enjoy your car or your TV show or having sex.
No camera will pan slowly over the ruin of our world while wrenching music plays. Only our own eyes, and this will be the last thing we see.
3
Kim Jong-un and Donald J. Trump share some important characteristics. Neither has much use for democracy or civility. Both run a family business - called the political leadership of their respective countries. Both are mainly playing to their domestic political base and thrive on the "cult of personality."
One, however, lives in a big, important country and the other lives in a small, peripheral country.
So, to establish his domestic credibility, Kim decided to arm himself with nuclear weapons. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Nukes, he reasoned, would give him instant attention internationally and earn him geopolitical respect.
Like Trump, however, Kim has trouble with "the second chapter," or "what's next." So, when it became clear that the US was not going to play his game, Kim has become nervous, isolated and dangerous. Accordingly, when Trump blusters, Kim has only one choice - unilateral nuclear disarmament or increased bluster.
If Trump were to offer him some goodies - a seat at the table (any table) and some opportunities for foreign trade - something useful might follow ... but Trump isn't interested in "useful." So, there's the other option - capitulation. Here's the problem: both countries which accepted the US demand that they rid themselves of WMD wound up with their leader (Saddam Hussein and Moammar Ghadaffi) slain and their countries in ruins.
So, now, will someone PLEASE let the adults into the room ... ???
1
I'm embarrassed to say it, but I get why the NK dictatorship won't negotiate away their nuclear weapons program: If they didn't have the nukes, Trump would have invaded months ago.
Where is Rodney King now that we need him.
I'd estimate Trump's motivation for initiating a war is 50/50 to rescue his presidency and avoid impeachment. The man is, at minimum, a sociopath and he may actually lean into the psychopathic spectrum. He is devoid of empathy and could easily justify an unthinkable loss of life to secure his miserable legacy. This is not to say North Korea is anything but a threat, but traditionally their posture has been to bluster and threaten for effect. Our only sane course of action is diplomacy, a strategy "the master negotiator" does not seem to comprehend. If its war he wants, he better watch our back. Current communist friends could quickly become opportunist enemies to an America preoccupied in a major war.
1
A war is the ultimate "shiny object" to deflect attention and guarantee job security. We don't change horses mid stream in times of war.
1
A war would be the way to consolidate power.
There is one way Donald Trump could redeem himself. It is perhaps the most impossible Hail Mary since Chamberlin's good intentions.
Donald Trump could go to the truce village of Panmoonjon and sit across the table from Kim Jong Un. The dealmaker could slide a peace treaty across the table at him. Open the most direct channel of communication with the young leader. Talk it out.
Can't be much more difficult than smooth talking whole neighborhoods of lower working class people out of a plot of land that once held their thriving neighborhood.
Can't be much harder than sitting before a table of creditors who never should have backed you in the first place, Donald.
Can't be much harder than any other number of times you've sat across the table in a deposition for some wrong doing.
Can't be much harder than, going way back, sitting across from your parents as they tell you that your latest stunt has resulted in banishment.
Oh, what a little Ritalin could have solved, so many years ago, has come down to two spoiled rich boys with silly haircuts, trying to cut a deal.
What has the world come to?
1
If America has the capability to strike any, ans parts, of North Korea, fair minded America will agree that North Korea has the right to develop and possess Nuclear Weapons that can reach all parts of America.
----
MAD is a doctrine to which America subscribes. The basis of MAD is: "Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full-scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state"
----
If sauce is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.
On a bully would want to have its potential adversaries disarmed, before striking them.
North Korea doesn't need an ICBM to deliver a nuclear bomb on a us city. It could be launched from a fishing or freight boat near our coasts. Of from a submarine.
Or a nuclear warhead could easily be smuggled into the US. After all well over 90% of drug shipments make it in undetected.
2
America did not stumble into a war with Iraq but instead entered impetuously with conscious intent in a misguided attempt to overthrow Saddam and exploit Iraq's oil reserves.
Donald Trump and a significant number of almost exclusively white Americans are concerned only about posturing and garnering a marginally greater amount of security against North Korea no matter what the cost in human lives as long as they are not directly exposed to enemy fire.
The difference between Trump and Obama is that Barack Obama cares about all human life and Trump cares only about his own. Trump understands that the dead do not protest their death and that the living engrossed in the act of living are ultimately unconcerned about the human cost of their security.
Like most war, it is a scintillating prevarication - edgy and sexy - moving to simplify a largesse-complicated enterprise.
The odds are 100%.
Trump will use nuclear weapons in a first strike against North Korea. Millions will die.
World War 3 will begin. China will fight to gain control and limit US influence on the Korean Peninsula and Putin will push into Eastern Europe for the same reason. America will be fighting a global world war in Asia and Eastern Europe. Its a sure thing.
2
The prospects of war between the US and the USSR reached well over 50% during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The prospect of war between Israel and Iran has reached as much as 50%, as has the prospect of war between India and Pakistan. What has always happened, though, is that the fear of mutual nuclear attacks has resulted in cooler heads prevailing.
Mr. Kristof is of the view that Trump and Kim are hot heads who are totally unpredictable. If you agree with him, the apocalypse may be upon us in countless ways. There are no limits to the possible. Kim could nuke South Korea, Trump could nuke Mexico, and they both could nuke their own countries to consolidate their power. If you truly believe both are lunatics, we could all be dead tomorrow. The percent chances of this or that aren't worth computing. The bottom line is that Trump and Kim are both out of control and willing to risk the apocalypse for whatever present benefit they choose to pursue.
If Donald Trump is such a great negotiator, why can't he convince North Korea to abandon their nuclear program?
Not everyone is oblivious to the risk of a war with North Korea. Some of us understand that our nation is in the gravest danger we have ever been in, and that our very survival is dependent on the intellectually and mentally deficient U. S. president, Donald Trump. What a horror to contemplate.
War with North Korea may not be inevitable, but the likelihood increases every time Trump says "North Korea." Previous administrations were unable to stop North Korea from strengthening their military and working toward the development of nuclear weapons. Donald Trump is not the man to do better. The only way North Korea will give up its goal of having nuclear capability is if it's leaders are replaced with men who understand that a war with the United States would kill the vast majority, if not all, of their own people, and render their country unlivable for centuries. Comprehending that they would not live to see the terrible harm they inflicted on the United States just might bring them to the bargaining table. If not, then we, and they, are on the edge of participating in the destruction of mankind as we know it, brought on by two of the worst leaders the world has known.
What can ordinary U. S. citizens do to prevent such a catastrophe? Nothing. It is too late. The time to right the ship was November 7, 2016. That opportunity was sqandered. But with a huge amount of sheer luck, the gods who protect fools might give us another chance in 2020, that is if we get to live that long.
That Trump callously brushes aside the extent of deaths and devastation that would result from either a conventional or nuclear war with North Korea, because they will occur “over there” is further evidence of Trump’s deep seated racism and sociopathy. Congress must act now, and not wait until he has provoked something that is irreparable. Once the conflict starts, it may be impossible to stop.
WIth approval rating as much 12 % points worse than Bush's, Trump needs some catastrophe much bigger than 9-11 to turn his fortunes around. Lets hope he does not go there.
2
This is likely to really heat up when Mueller brings the next bunch of indictments. I have little doubt that Trump would approve an action that kills 50,000 people just to distract attention from the investigation.
At some time in next year, he is is likely to seek an "Enabling Act" to enable him to control FBI/Justice and rest of government, and we'll see if the GOP has turned into the "Party Of Treason".
Maybe a naive question, but assuming it's technically feasible, how about shooting down all missiles that leave North Korean air space?
So "the White House hints that it would rather have a war than allow North Korea to become a nuclear threat."
North Korea already IS a 'nuclear threat'. In fact, North Korea is in a race to develop an Armageddon-ensuring nuclear capability before the U.S. considers bombing it. The ease with which the U.S.A. has employed nuclear weapons in the past, and bombed 'unfriendly' dictatorships that don't possess them, have guided North Korea's M.A.D. strategy. And who can blame them, especially in view of U.S. treachery in recently invading and bombing 3 nations that agreed to renounce nuclear weapons and leave their military facilities open to U.N. inspections?
So the U.S. has the choice to either bomb North Korea right away, ensuring the retaliatory destruction of South Korea and probably Japan, or accept the 'fait accompli' and learn to live with a fully nuclear North Korea as it does with the Taleban- and Al Qaeda-infested Pakistan.
depressing but not surprising. Capitalism has failed and brought about dead oceans choked with plastic. It was only a matter of time before the people decided to kill off everything on the land as well with the devastating application of nuclear weapons everywhere. The planet will be a smoking heap of rubble. I can't understand it.....the planet was so beautiful, so green and blue, but we can't be satisfied until it is as dead as Mars or the Moon.
To go to Wikipedia on North Korea or read about Pyongyang is to realize they have GOP governance. A stainless steel city with no graffitti, no poor, no sick no old. no infirm, just healthy fit beautiful cookie cutter people to lend a startling contrast to the strange looking fearless leader.
We have no alternative but destroy Korea before someone figures out what GOP actually looks like. Pyongyang and North Korea have a 4% GDP growth rate and with access to US Capital growth may be triple digits.
The drumbeats of war is the sound of saliva dripping from Wall Street.
"H. R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, said on Fox News. “He is not going to permit this rogue regime, Kim Jong-un, to threaten the United States with a nuclear weapon. And so he is willing to do anything necessary to prevent that from happening.”
McMaster should be reminded America will be the real rogue regime if US attack N Korea based on fear alone with no imminent threat justification.
N Korea firing off a test missile into the Pacific to sharpen her ICBM capability is not enough reason to attack N Korea. US may shoot down the test missile in international air space but certainly not attack it inside N Korea territory.
Further if US engage in entrapment to find excuse to attack N Korea, Trump should be impeached pronto.
This entrapment could be something like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident where US bait her enemy to fight back and advertise to clueless American public N Korea initiate war. Of course everybody know this is a blatant lie as no small weak nation deliberately choose to go to war with US.
One can therefore infer that any war with N Korea will be US initiated and Trump deserve impeachment for harming US security interest.
An attack on N Korea unilaterally, dragging S Korea and Japan into it for supporting role is not protecting homeland security but is reckless behavior by Trump with dictatorship 'executive order'
Only a concurrence by majority Senators and Cabinet members can justify an attack on N Korea.
Good of you to get your boots on the ground over there, Nick. One knows what the first casualty of war is, and your efforts help prevent it from happening.
When Trump starts to feel truly threatened by Mueller he may go for the nuclear distraction.
1
We should also consider that Trump, in a fit of impotent rage, will provoke war to solidify his hold on the presidency as Muller's investigation closes in on him.
1
It appears that the entire nation of North Korea and its leader have been brainwashed into a suicidal delusion that nuclear conflict is winnable. The arms race between Russia and the United States led to tense stand-offs like the Cuban Missile Crisis, but both sides shared the fearful memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fully understood the consequences of nuclear war. The North Koreans have no memory or fear of nukes, only a sense of empowerment and progress.
It's too bad that Hollywood has not produced a Spielbergian epic of the holocaust that engulfed Japan to bring about the end of WWII. The world, and particularly the North Koreans should bear witness, in widescreen, 3D, surround sound to the catastrophe of annihilation, sickness and agonizing death that nuclear war represents. It would the horror movie to end all horror movies, so much so that audiences would stay away in droves, but it would be a reminder of our human frailty.
I'm sure Trump sees war with North Korea as a Win Win Deal.
It is human nature for people to rally around their leader when they are at war. Remember how Bush has a 90% approval rating after 9/11? Well Trump know this and that almost no-one will care is he fires Meuller is a war with North Korea has just started.
And as long as the casualties are "over there" and not white caucasians his base won't care about them.
1
The war in Iraq got George Bush re-elected. Hopefully Trump is not looking at that as an object lesson.
1
The estimates of casualties here are ignorant. Just the North Korean artillery in range of Seoul would kill upwards of ten millions in the first hours using nerve gas shells. Adding 20 nuclear missile hits on US bases from South Korea to Japan to Hawaii would kill millions more in the first hour. That does not include the millions immediately dead from hundreds of US nuclear warheads hitting North Korea. Slightly delayed radiation casualties would be in the millions. To all those tens of millions add another Billion from starvation from global crop failures, from the climate effects that have been estimated to result from the smoke from 100 nuclear explosions over cities. To the immense casualties from chemical and nuclear weapons add the incalculable harm for biological weapons that could ignite a global vaccine resistant smallpox pandemic that would kill billions more. The effects of war with North Korea that escalates into nuclear chemical and biological warfare would easily kill half the human race in a matter of months.
Millions of people dead because of a war most will see as precipitated by a reckless and incompetent American president - the U.S. will be a pariah state to the world. There will likely be severe political instability within the U.S. The global economy will be wrecked. Debri and dust in the atmosphere will lead to food shortages where millions more will die. And that's a best case scenario where China and Russia, whom border N. Korea, are not pulled into the fray.
This madness must be stopped. Until more people take this for what it is, a life or death situation requiring action, the unimaginable will happen.
Trump is looking for Putin's help with North Korea. That is one way to go WITHOUT war but will the Russia haters in Congress allow him to be friends with Putin?
2
Trump always wants to win, he has said it in many interviews.
Actually everybody wants to win.
But there is a saying, 'if you want to win, you should learn to loose'.
Winning at any cost may return us to a stone age again. Little miscalculation and we are all history at another instant.
“If thousands die, they are going to die over there.” These “thousands” include not only our allies, but thousands of our soldiers in South Korea.
Please remove Mr. Trump from the office or take away his war powers through legislation before he kills our soldiers.
If congress does not act then defeat every warmonger in 2018 election.
Nick, if Trump believes that a war with North Korea is winnable then he should pour over our history books and find out for himself which war that our country fought in the recent past that was winnable.
The war in Vietnam where Trump is travelling now while avoiding it in the 60's draft,on his 12 day Asia trip, was not a war that we won.
George W. Bush and his father Bush Sr.,won three wars among themselves with two wars against Saddam's Iraqi regime who had nothing to fight against us with.
If George W. didn't lie about Saddam having 'weapons of mass destruction', we wouldn't have lost more than 3,000 bravest men and women of this world into an useless war for nothing.
Even the war in Afghanistan which we're fighting for the last 16 years can be called a sham war because Bush Jr.,knew long before that it was the 16 Saudi hijackers with no Afghans who were being trained by our pilot training schools all over the country.
Yes,Bush then and Trump now know who downed our planes on our buildings killing more than 3,000 of our citizens on 9/11.
And the Saudi Royal family who arrested 11 of their own princes yesterday with Trump being totally silent,was complicit from the very beginning of that 9/11 plot but neither George W. then or Trump now will never wage a war with the Saudis because they spend billions of dollars with us and Trump Inc.
But Trump will be too stupid to strike North Korea who has missiles and artillery that can wipe out South Korea and Japan in one day.
South Korean and Japanese firms should start to move their intellectual, R and D, and manufacturing assets to safe havens just in case.
I suggest CT offer safe haven for semiconductor
and defense companies, as well as , financial corporations.
We have a capable workforce, plenty of facilities, and far out of reach of a North Korean nuke.
The one thing Trump likes to do is to destroy his enemies. He considers the North Korean regime an enemy, hence, he will move to destroy them, sooner or later.
This very good country is currently in the midst of an immense and possibly permanent breakdown. The ignoramus who purports to be the only one who can fix it is off on a 12 day golf vacation to Asian countries he has never heard of before and couldn’t locate on a map marked in big black letters with the names of these countries. It goes without saying that he will take along with him many volumes of State Department briefing papers, most of them in the form of comic books, because he is incapable of reading, and it bores him.
While in Asia, he will doubtless take the time to hurl some threats and insults at Kim Jong-un, his current partner in threatening the peace of the world.
There have been 300 homicides in Baltimore so far this year. Most of Puerto Rico still has no electricity. Obamacare is being purposely wrecked, with the idea of leaving millions of Americans stranded without health insurance. We apparently held an election last November, the outcome of which Vladimir Putin had a major role in determining. Trump's solution and the Republican solution to these problems and all other problems is major tax reductions for the very rich.
Unless the Constitution is a suicide pact, every one of the aforementioned problems is a potentially impeachable offense. Mueller, schmueller. Let’s get on to it now.
1
If the risks are that high, which I believe they are, and given the fact the GOP will do nothing to rid us of this madman, isn't it incumbent on the US citizenry to hold a general strike, to shut the country down, in order to prevent the probability of a nuclear war? Millions upon millions of lives are at stake. For no other reason than we are continuing to allow this infantile megalomaniac to remain in office. Forget Congress. What is OUR moral imperative?
Best option for the United States: Leave South Korea and let the locals deal with North Korea. The neighbors are more than capable of doing that.
2
From an imagined future news article,
"In the midst of an unrecognized, nationwide, affluenza epidemic the U.S.A. was unable to respond effectively to threats, domestic and foreign. The election of a paragon of greed, the known vector of affluenza, motivated leaders around the world to openly and secretly seek the conquest of this once great nation."
"Fourteen years ago, America stumbled into a devastating war with Iraq without thinking through the consequences. This feels like déjà vu — only potentially far more devastating." We elected one draft-dodging incapable republican president leading us into a devastating war before. Trump's comment as reported by Session: “If thousands die, they’re going to die over there. They’re not going to die here — and he’s told me that to my face.” is appallingly inhuman. This one is far more incompetent, the consequences will be far worse.
There is something insidious and psychologically manipulative in Trump's recurrently bellicose stance towards the North Korean dilemma. By drawing out the wait until a probable preemptive strike against Pyongyang, he is gradually conditioning world opinion to 'just accept' such an atrocious measure as something 'inevitable' in Trump's world. I have to admit that I am now fully conditioned to wake up in the morning and expect to read about a 'surprise' nocturnal US attack on North Korea on my tablet-- it really seems to be a given now. But 'après moi le déluge' as another autocrat in France once said about his posterity....
When experts tell us the odds of war with North Korea are 20, 40, 50 percent, what percentage is due to Trump and what is due to Kim? The United States must not be the cause of war. Unfortunately, Trump is dialing up the rhetoric and seems determined to force a situation in which he can justify attacking NK. This is incredibly foolish. While Americans at home might not die, Trump doesn't mention that thousands of South Koreans - our allies - will. Are they irrelevant to his thinking? What say do they have in the matter?
George W. Bush invaded Iraq, but was not prepared to conduct the war or deal with the consequences. The Trump administration has been incompetent in everyyhing they've done. Does anyone a war with North Korea will be any different (even with his generals running the show)?
Pulverize N. Korea's military, leadership, and nuclear facilities. Our conventional weapons are now so accurate and powerful, we need only a fraction of the ordnance that we used in Desert Storm to produce many times the destruction.
And as the dust settles on a liberated N. Korea, China's regional ambitions will evaporate.
Looking forward to the war.
Trump could start a war just to get the Russia investigation off the front page. He is cruel and vindictive and says things without thinking. Someone should confiscate his phone so he can't tweet us into a war.
Kin Jung-un has to see the writing on the wall that his days as dictator are numbered. He would go to war to distract his people from trying to overthrow his dynasty.
While I agree, in the main, your statement " America stumbled into a devastating war with Iraq without thinking through the consequences. " is wrong in part. The NeoCons wanted a war with Iraq, and had Bush push for one through lies, deception and propaganda. The results were terrible and we are still mired in that swamp.
The SCP came into office looking for a fight - aided and abetted by the same NeoCons who did not learn from Iraq. The same propaganda mill is spinning, and the same idiocy drives this march towards war.
It's really too bad America thinks of itself as the end of the rainbow as justification for electing a leader who eagerly would take the world into darkness over "the enemy of the day" such as North Korea.
At age 77 and not senile, my question remains: What would happen instead if our president were to open his remarks to Kim with: "What can we do to help your country?"
I think it's you that has underestimated the current global social order. Destruction of the DPRK would be a final triumph of that order: a worst case few million casualties a bracing reminder of its (the social order's) seriousness, and the subsequent reintegration of korea, other follow on biz, would provide a general upnotch and resolving purgative that it can easily process.
Creative destruction is itching for expression here.
Is there a real chance of a major war with North Korea, or are we just hearing a continuation of the idle threats and rants from both sides? The trouble is, if either Donald Trump or Kim Jong-Un makes a stupid decision, which they are each capable of doing, things could rapidly deteriorate. Not only that, but what if a US military plane on a practice mission accidentally ventures into North-Korean air space and is shot down by North Korea? Then what? South Korea has the most to lose if the US and North Korea stumble into war. Hopefully this will just continue to be a war of words.
Doesn't anyone wonder what South Korea thinks of this?
After all, ROK is literally under the guns, 20,000 or so of them and there wold be many thousands of casualties in Greater Seoul in the first minutes of a war.
Or does anyone care?
The outrageous electoral college system, established as a compromise with slave states in America, allowed Donald John Trump to be President, and so this debacle with North Korea is largely America's fault. Every day, I grow more and more revolted over this so-called American "democracy".
1
forty years ago the usa fell on its backside into war, when the people's congress slipped on the bush/ cheney/powell banana peel, a calculated lie that many americans, far more acutely observant than most media outlets (talk about complacency!) saw through before they flashed their photos.
no such lie here now, but for sure a wake-up from decades of complacency, again, rather yours and our distracted electeds'...one recalls predictions of this when truman fired macarthur.
when the press begins anything with a smarter-than-thou pose it brings nothing to the table but an unhelpful disdain for a state of distraction that may indeed exist to the degree that it has been fed by media that have shown more interest in shooting down a president than the kim family's missiles.
now the alarms are too loud to ignore, the cold war clock, a more cogent measure than the percentage (of what?) scale herein, is at 11:58...one successful test from a new day.
and, of course, north korea will continue its testing, rather motivated (as post ww1 germany) than intimidated by sanctions which, btw, signal a far-from-complacent north korean public that nuclear success is necessary for their survival.
the freeze is certainly the best option but it won't be had by "reductions" in sanctions or u.s.-soko military exercises, way too late for that, thanks...it will require "concessions," compensations and guarantees that will protect interests they think they need the nukes for...just ask, fast!
nucs are billed as a deterrent to an attack. if true, it applies to N Korea as well as to the US; ... so the more everybody has, the better for everybody.
Insanity.
We are the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons against another country. We have more nuclear weapons then anyone else on earth. Combine that with having a President who is blinder then a bat. Our goose is cooking folks. There will be no coming back from this one should it get started.
1
Alas! If only his heel spurs would not keep Mr. Trump from visiting the DMZ on his big trip, he could put a stop to Kim Jong Un's posturing with one long peek through binoculars and a strong tweet. Oh, those heel spurs! If only Mr. Trump could have taken his great brain to Viet Nam when he was a young man. Think of the tragedies, the suffering, the deaths he could have prevented!
We need a massive government response to cure heel spurs!
It is beyond repulsive to say that the deaths will be "over there" not over here. We are talking about tens of thousands (non-nuclear) to millions (nuclear) Korean deaths in the South. Unacceptable.
History, and Asians in general, will never treat us kindly again.
The way to deal with North Korea is to impose sanctions on China. Start by suspending student and work visas of Chinese nationals, and see how fast they reign in their puppet state.
There is no possibility of a conventional war with North Korea. If it starts, it only ends with total destruction on both side of Korea not to mention Japan and the surrounding areas. There are two bullies involved in this: Trump and Kim. It really doesn’t matter who starts it: The consequences are horrible.
How to stop this nonsense? Get rid of Trump would be a good start, but that’s not going to happen, plus the alternative to Trump right now is probably just as bad. In other words, we somehow have to hold on until 2020 when we can elect a sane politician; Democrat or Republican.
1
As Einstein said : Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe!. Albert would’be bewildered to see the strange world we live in where the weirdest and most corrupt minded people such as Donald Trump and Kim Jong un are deciding for the fate of millions of innocents, and the bravest and most reasonable human beings such as Tammy Duckworth are left voiceless but at least some are trying. History will remember who was complicit in this slow-motion catastrophe happening before our eyes and the emergence of global idiocracy. But the saddest feeling is when you fantasize a summit between Trump and Kim Jong un on a boat and the ship sinks. Would’ the world really be saved ?
Few years ago i would have liked my kids to grow well-educated and smart and knowledgeable. Maybe now I should encourage them to bully smaller kids, grope and berate girls, Betray or attack friends, tcheat at exams or elections, and take lying lessons. Isn’t it was leadership in this new world is about ?
What is it with GOP Presidents and wars:
Nixon: Vietnam and Cambodia.
Bush: Afghanistan and Iraq
Trump: N Korea (And who knows who else)
There is just something wrong with these people. Is it inherited?
What is it with Democrat Presidents and wars:
Woodrow Wilson - World War I
FDR - World War II
Truman - Korea
LBJ - Vietnam
Oh, and interesting to note that it was GOP presidents who ultimately brought the peace at the end of Korea and Vietnam (Eisenhower and Nixon).
Value truth over petty party politics, friend.
This is a smart community. Let's take a stab. First, KJU makes Trump look like Mister Rogers. Second, there is probably a group of hundreds within NK who are close to the Dear One's power structure, but who live in daily fear of being the next one to be strapped to the muzzle of a cannon and blasted off into eternity, or worse. Within that group are good people who do not want war, don't want to die, and would jump at the opportunity to be free of the sick and dangerous dynasty. I believe the South Koreans, Chinese, and our intelligence agencies know who they are. By pre-agreement with the U.S.,the Chinese, in exchange for billions in aid to the North, "disrupt" KJU's government with our hands off approval, send him off to a safe exile with or without his Pleasure Squad and debauched lifestyle necessities, caretake the North, and broker a voluntary peace between North and South. Trump is not a stupid man. He is not Rolling Stone imbalanced. He does not want war, but his first obligation is to protect Americans. KJU cannot have nukes that can reach our shores. Trump did not create this problem. It was giggled away by The One, for whom I voted twice.
1
It's only a matter of time: another new Republican President - another war.
1
McMaster says #45 "is not going to permit this rogue regime, Kim Jong-un, to threaten the United States with a nuclear weapon." Too late. The stupidity of the man at 1600 is constantly on display along with the stupidity of those with whom he surrounds himself. We are already being threatened. A threat is a promise and the unpleasant little man in North Korea is promising to follow through on his aggressive words. Anyone with half a brain would realize that Kim has nothing to lose. His family business is tyranny but you need a nation to rule over for the business to succeed and North Korea is existing on borrowed time. So, he might as well go down fighting. Unfortunately, #45 cares as much for the people of the USA (including his own family) as Kim cares for the people of NK. Millions of people on opposite sides of the world will die due to the psychosis of two men and those same millions of people are doing absolutely nothing to try and save their own lives.
Unfortunately, both Kim Jong Un and President Trump have the capacity to launch a nuclear war, but neither of them appear to have the wisdom, history, compassion, decency, discipline, understanding, commitment, or skill to prevent an unintentional or intentional nuclear war. Rather than allowing a world-wide nuclear holocaust to be set off by tweets, testing, tantrums, and threats, the U.S. and North Korea must quickly engage with each other and with other nations to create conditions that all can tolerate. The U.S. must show that we will honor the Paris Climate Accord and Iran Nuclear Agreement. North Korea must demonstrate that it will not take over South Korea, nor launch nuclear attacks on others.
President Trump's threat to totally destroy North Korea would potentially result in the deaths of 25,410,924 men, women, and children. Whether the U.S. or N.K. attacks first, it is likely that North Korea will attack South Korea with a potential 50,721,267 people killed. There are 126,040,759 persons living in Japan who could also be in great danger. We do not actually know whether North Korea can send its nuclear warheads to the U.S. mainland where 324,996,461 of us live, and some or many could die. The Union of Concerned Scientists reminds us that our nation has 4,600 nuclear weapons, all under the control of the President. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists may move their symbolic Doomsday Clock closer to midnight -- if they have the time.
War in the Korean peninsula is not only just probable, it's inevitable with the career military personnel in the executive branch. They want war, with all the glory, admiration and the fast job promotions.
When it comes, it means more government borrowing and deficits. The Fed will have to reverse course and issue more bonds, not by buying them back. The markets in S Korea and the US seem to have priced only peace and not war. All will change with the nukes flying. I predict it will be before 2020, unless Trump resigns before that.
Trump's "tweetomacy" of saber-rattling has not helped to contain this situation. If Trump chooses a military 'first strike' option, and triggers a war that kills tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands in the first few minutes, that blood is on Trump's hands. If Trump chooses a military 'first strike' and triggers a nuclear conflagration that kills millions, that blood is on Trump's hands. Trump cannot choose a 'first strike' option - any deaths that result from North Korea's reaction to that must be considered caused by Trump. Only if North Korea, on their own, takes a military action can the United States retain a moral imperative for military action. If Trump fails to understand this, Trump must, after all the dust and fallout have settled, be tried for war crimes against humanity. In this, as in so many other areas, Trump is in deeply over his head, and just blithely blunders forward, grandiosely ignorant of the consequences. Unlike so many other times in his life, if the worst happens with North Korea due to Trump's incompetent diplomatic failures, he will not escape the consequences. There are no good choices with North Korea. That is not a mandate to eagerly make a bad choice.
143
If N Korea is self-destructive enough to fire a first strike at the US, we are in war but we have the world as our allies. If we fire a pre-emptive strike, we become the pariah nation that N. Korea now is with the entire world against us.
Why are you so optimistic as to think that Trump will not escape the consequences? That is his forte!
Why do anything except sanctions. Any diplomatic agreement with north korea will be broken. Let them say and act as crazy as they want. Even north korea knows that a nuclear attack against us or south korea would mean total annihilation for them. The more we engage in tit-for-tats insults creates a bad situation. Put more pressure on China, economic pressure.
1
Every day North Korea builds more and more powerful nuclear weapons and perfects its ICBMs as the fall out from its nuclear tests waft across Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and beyond. Then there are the millions of North Koreans being tortured in prison camps. The Korean Otto Wombers with no names.
Korean nukes are now up to 150KT. A strike on NYC would kill 600,000 and injure 1,500,000.
Liberalism is an ideology in search of a point. This search brought Kristof to North Korea where he chatted with North Korean officials and purports to have gained first hand insight. I suggest he was willfully a North Korean plot.
As for the "experts" who claim that a freeze (when North Korea will have how many 150 KT nukes?) is the worst situation. Firstly, North Korea developed nukes under the nose of inspectors, secondly, anything that impedes sanctions will allow North Korea to develop more weapons, and finally we can't ignore the brutality of the Kim dynasty simply because it is "over there"
11
What's your point...and your conclusion?
1
And who will be blamed for "brutality" if Mr. Trump provokes a war in which hundreds of thousands are slaughtered like cattle? Nobody doubts that Kim is a despicable tyrant. Nobody believes that this White House has a sensible and airtight strategy for dealing with him that will escape the hatred of the rest of the world for generations to come if the current strategy does in fact lead to war. What is more hard-nosed or realistic than that?
1
James - I can't disagree with a single comment you have made, but I don't see the path forward that emerges from your observations. Are you calling for a first strike? Even Steve Bannon calls this unthinkable and unwinnable.
2
A war will only serve Trump's ego. His antidote to Mueller and all that. And if it happens the whole country will have been complicit, by letting this spectacularly horrible and mad imitation of a human being stay in an office where he has no business. The Germans were complicit. Now it will be us. Trump cannot think himself to the end of a complete sentence. How is he going to think himself and the rest of us and the other nations involved to the end of this catastrophic misadventure? And America will have become the newest pariah nation, deservedly so.
256
And your suggestion for handling North Korea is what?
Those of us who are actively resisting Mr. Trump will not be complicit in his path to war, though we will surely suffer because of it.
It is the people in Congress who refuse to stand up to Trump that are complicit. Meanwhile, they can pass a bill that prohibits him from firing nuclear weapons without Congressional approval. As much as Congress has tried to push through bad health insurance bills and a bad tax bill, there seems to be no rush to pass this important bill.
2
And your suggestion for handling North Korea is what?
You want to tell Trump what not to do, but decline to offer an alternative policy.
Since Trump took over I have figured there will be a war by this fall. It will start soon after the Asia trip. The main reason it will start is fear of survival in both Trump and in Kim - survival of a different sort of both leaders. The only thing that will stop it is the removal of one of the leaders.
The best way to remove Kim is to do a deal with China. China removes Kim and the US lets them keep the country communist. The best way to remove Trump is to let Mueller do it.
5
"Legislation that would prevent the president from making a pre-emptive strike...barring an imminent threat"?
Pre-emptive MEANS imminent threat.
Otherwise, it is preventive - which is illegal.
1
I do not believe that under the current conditions that exist that the President has the legal authority to order a first strike against North Korea. A first strike might be lawful if there was hard intelligence that North Korea was preparing to launch an attack. In that event, a proportionate response might be lawful under international law. The UN Charter requires the US to go to the Security Council, unless of course, an attack is clearly imminent. The power to declare war rests with Congress. If the President is contemplating a strike against North Korea, he must go to congress and seek an authorization for the use of military force.
Mr. Kristof writes: “Yet we’re complacent: Neither the public nor the financial markets appreciate how high the risk is of a war, and how devastating one could be.”
And neither, for that matter, does Donald Trump, who has no clue about the power of badly chosen, inflammatory words; the danger of an unstable leader in a primitive nation; and the importance of exhausting every avenue of diplomacy, negotiation, and containment, and the enlistment of other concerned countries in the region to help achieve those ends. The man has absolutely no clue as to high the stakes are here.
With Trump in charge, I am more fearful than ever that I will see a nuclear war in my lifetime, because any conflict with North Korea will not be conventional. The bullying that he mistakes for strength is putting millions at risk.
7
The US has been slouching in and out, but never far from war with NK for 70 years. Progressive dogmas -- odd-fanciful notions really, have not been able to bring about a peaceful dialogue; exaggerating the slouch. Our mercantile President is a welcome change for that reason, alone. What NK and China do know, is that 8 years of Trump wont last forever. If the purge of the establishment is not effective so as to abolish past dogmas, slouching against progressiveism will likely resume.
Short of war, if we improve our anti-ballistic missile technology so that we can intercept any missile launched by NK, we will have significantly reduced the threat to the US and region. In turn, this will consolidate our position and strength with respect to China in the region. NK will be merely a pawn in our geopolitical struggle with China. However, if we go to war, the outcome is entirely unpredictable.
1
There is a way out of this, a less "awful option." With Chinese help we can combine a "'freeze for a freeze'" with "long-term deterrence." We need to commit to preserving the status quo on the Korean peninsula in exchange for partnering with the Chinese to contain and control North Korea, while providing Kim Jong-un with real incentives for beneficial participation with the rest of the world. If we stop the provocation of the joint military exercises with the South Koreans, and disavow short term North Korean regime change to insure Chinese that there will not be U.S. troops on their border, we could partner with China to insure the status quo for the immediate future. In addition to having an economic stranglehold on North Korea, China is capable of making things easier for North Koreans to leave, and otherwise destabilize the country. Kim Jong-un realizes this.
I suspect the Chinese are ready to be welcomed as serious partners in the security of the Western Pacific; such recognition would acknowledge their status as an emergent World Power, and perhaps bode well for resolution of South China Sea difficulties.
I would love to see Kim Jong-un reacting to news that Trump had just suspended joint military exercises with the South Koreans and begun planning them with the Chinese.
3
Nice, all those estimates of the odds of the US attacking North Korea. Now please go back and ask those same gentlemen two more questions: what is the chance that such an attack would result in war with China and what is the chance that it would result in World War III.
The reason that the public and the financial markets are complacent is that they expect that it worst it will be something like the Iraq invasion: something far away that won't affect life in the US. They may be wrong.
4
This scares me to death, but there is a remedy. Even I fear we are once again hurtling toward a war with North Korea. This plus all the other military activity, we are involved in around the world, leads me to conclude that Congress must reassert itself. Only Congress should have the right to make war, and these adventures elsewhere must be stopped.
2
Why is it acceptable that a few countries have nuclear weapons, and these countries are determined to prevent others from "nuclearizing"? Being someone from the "enlightened" part of the world, I have been led to believe that "those other countries" cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
It should be clear though, that those seeking to acquire nuclear weapons are making the argument that the nuclear states are not to be trusted, and thus nuclear deterrent against them must be pursued.
Certainly, my preference is the status quo western position, but I suspect it is informed by bias. Dropping that bias, I have to hold the view that nations do not have to enter into any world alliance, and as sovereign nations, they should retain the right organize internally as they see fit. Objectively speaking, preemptive strikes should not be defensible, unless the evidence is overwhelming (the count down to nuclear launch has begun) that such a strike would be defensive.
How many Americans would sanction a North Korean preemptive strike upon the US, even if North Korea sees America as America sees North Korea?
Great column.
Until someone comes up with a new strategy, I like the freeze-freeze option. But I am concerned that on this current trip something will happen that will send President's Trump's heel spur ratings even lower and he will feel the need to order a quick strike as AF-1 fly's in the B-2 formation over North Korea with cameras rolling.
History shows that war is good for politics. Remember the Iraq invasion? and what that did for President George Bush's ratings. I think everyone admits that he could not have been elected for a 2nd term without that show of America's strength from the air.
It is difficult to understand the rationale of killing and injuring 100's of thousand's --military, civilians, women, children, old people, babies and pregnant women -- and take North Korea back to the stone age, just to change the mind of a leader.
As a retired Navy, It seems illogical that humanity has not yet developed a method for changing the minds of the ruling class without killing their population.
Maybe this is a job for a UN or an international court war crimes delegation to pay a visit to Kim Jong-un and determine the nature of his problem. He may just be trapped by the North Korean Military Industrial Complex. It happens.
Judy Woodruff's interview of the former N. Korean Ambassador to the UK who defected years ago was illuminating. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/north-korean-defector-says-even-a-limi...
2
Does anyone read the Constitution? Democrats and the few rational Republicans and Independents should unite and make clear that any pre-emptive strike is a violation of the Constitution which mandates that only Congress can make war. The armistice does not change that. And a Trump attack without congressional approval would be an impeachable offense. Let "Bone Spurs" chew on that before he condemns hundreds of thousands of Koreans and many Americans to death solely to deflect attention from the other investigation, yeah the one looking at his collusion with Russia.
6
"...And there’s a constant risk of miscalculations and incidents that spiral out of control." If there is anything that has characterized DT's term in office thus far, it is "miscalculations and incidents that spiral out of control". Legislation preventing him from launching a first strike must be passed as soon as possible. If congress backs him, they will go down with him. Kim is of no greater danger with a weapon he cannot use for fear of reprisal and obliteration than he is with conventional weapons that can reach the US - in fact, he's safer. This is a bid for respect. He is convinced that the US is out to destroy his regime, and uses it as an existential threat to keep the country together. The US cannot make that threat disappear, as it is an illusion, unless it is willing to welcome the DPRK into the nuclear powers club and reward bad behavior - thus encouraging the same sort of behavior from other states. It's time to face reality - this is a lose-lose situation.
2
Of all the issues addressed everyday in the Ny Times and elsewhere,this is by far the most important. In addition to the enormous loss of life and human suffering which would ensue should the US and North Korea go to war,the world as we know it today would never be the same again. Without question,the framers of our Constitution never intended that one American alone can decide the question of when or whether or not we should in effect declare war on another country. Obviously,since the beginning of the Cold War,this central principle of our Constitutional system of government has been eroded if not eliminated. Congress must now act to take back what has always been its power alone:The power to declare war.
3
Having read 'The Sleepwalkers. How Europe went to war in 1914', I'm getting more and more alarmed at the way things are going now re. North Korea.
The parallels are striking. Politicians trying to secondguess the opposing side; popular opinion influenced by governments and in its turn influencing government officials; leaders thinking that an all out war can be won.
History doesn't repeat itself one on one. And yet.....
3
The regime in North Korea (NK) is scared that they will be eliminated by the US, which is why they pursue and have a nuclear-ballistic capability to deter them from being overthrown. We did not do well by Libya recently, unfortunately. So we, the US, with China can do the following: NK relinquishes their nuclear-ballistic capability with China guaranteeing the regimes protection as long as the regime opens their markets to help their people do well. Long term, people in NK are smarter than we give them credit for. We are all only human :)
I thought the basis for invading Iraq—continued development of WMD in violation of U.N. prohibition—was at least grossly mistaken (Bush) if not known to be just plain false (Clinton).
The situation with North Korea is not the same. It has nuclear weapons and missiles and will not “freeze” improving such weapons no matter what deal it may say it agrees to. Unlike dealing with the Russians in 1962, the North Korean regime cannot be trusted to honor any deal it to purportedly agrees to. Meanwhile, ever greater sections of our territory will be exposed to nuclear attack.
JFK was willing to take us into nuclear war over the Cuban missiles. The Russians knew it. But the Russians and Cubans were rational actors who would abide by the terms reached over Cuba. North Korea is much more dangerous because it is not rational. The fact North Korea thinks we would allow it to survive a nuclear attack we launched on it, or any attack we launched against it, makes it the functional equivalent of a rabid dog.
Do we let North Korea hold South Korea hostage and thereby give North Korea the time to improve its missiles to reach all of the U.S., or take it out now knowing hundreds of thousands of South Koreans, perhaps millions, will die?
Normally I oppose war as a solution. But we also know there are still times when it is unavoidable. The fact I don’t like Trump doesn’t factor into the equation.
I believe the best strategy is to keep talking and keep North Korea at check and patiently wait for regime change to arrive in North korea as it surely will. Ours is not the task to start war but to prevent war from happening and helping regime change to occur.
2
One of the received wisdoms regarding a possible war with North Korea is that the mega city of Seoul is too vulnerable with millions of residents to even consider it. This of course is what the crime family that runs North Korea like its family business wants us to think. It is in effect, its ace in hole, but it could be negated with the evacuation of the city. Yes it would take weeks if not months to achieve but, once it was done, North Korea would have far fewer effective cards to play and I am guessing, be far more willing to negotiate an end to its nuclear weapons program.
If you are yourself or, if you have draft age children get ready for boot camp. I got drafted during the Vietnam war and it was something we all thought about when we were in high school. Many people , our current Predident is a good example, were able to avoid military service using loopholes which were unfair. I hope that if a draft begins again that will not happen. Young Americans and their parents today are not even considering the possibility that in a very short period of time they may be fighting on the front lines in Korea. We all should be not only be considering this we should be discussing it with our elected representatives. Many young people today are extremely divided on whether they support President Trump or not. I find it kind of ironic that they may soon find themselves in the military fighting a serious war together.
1
There’s a fundamental difference between Iraq and North Korea. In Iraq we understood that the power vacuum created by our overthrow of the government could come back to bite us. We spent many billions in the hope that the end-game would go our way.
Contrast this with North Korea. A power vacuum will likely be filled by China (which we can live with) or South Korea (which we’d be very happy with). Sadly, I don’t see Americans giving much weight to the humanitarian costs of war. As in Iraq, most are convinced that any change would benefit the populace. Furthermore, removing the problem of North Korea's nukes would be welcomed by most in the international community.
Sadly, Kim Jong-un does not seem to recognize how precarious his situation truly is.
It's tragic that we elected a man with a mentality of a child who enjoys the fun of playing at war. I remember well, in 1995 when he did this by providing some funds for the 50th anniversary parade for a half century since VJ day. It It was he who received the salutes of those who had fought in combat marching down Fifth Avenue -- as described here.
https://www.opednews.com/articles/Donald-Trump-the-fictiona-by-Al-Rodbel...
Humanity naturally is in conflict, it's a quirk of evolution that requires destroying enemies. Civilization can be seen as the attempt to transcend this, something we never evolved to do naturally. Thus the resonance with Trump among so many who viscerally feel they now have a leader.
2
I figure Trump's plan is to provoke the North Koreans into detonating a missile launched hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere over the Pacific during his visit to South Korea. In response, Trump will order the US troops in South Korea to invade the western coast of North Korea up to the 39th Parallel, which runs just south of Pyongyang. The ROKs will have no choice but to join in such an invasion, since Seoul will be under artillery and rocket attack. Indeed, one can expect the ROKs will be desperate to overrun the NPKA artillery and rocket positions, to save what remains of their capital. At the beginning of the invasion, the U.S. and South Korean air forces will establish air supremacy over North Korea, and together with drones, establish total aerial surveillance of North Korea in the areas not invaded. Any NPKA missile launch preparations, or other military activity, once detected, could be immediately bombed out. This aerial dominance would only be possible, of course, because Trump, a sociopath, had accepted the partial destruction of Seoul. Once the ROK army reaches the 39th Parallel just below Pyongyang, the ROKs will be in artillery range of Pyongyang, and in a position to threaten Pyongyang with destruction by artillery if denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is not acceded to.
The resulting permanent solution would be a demilitarized, truncated North Korea ruled by a chastened Kim, patrolled on the ground by UN nuclear inspectors, and in the sky by U.S. drones.
1
Students of history know that a classic move on the part of national leaders when facing political turmoil is to find an external enemy to rally the citizens. The closer Mueller gets the percentages for conflict rise.
2
I am definitely not complacent. My only daughter and only grandchildren are military dependents living in South Korea. And I myself sit in the midst of any potential radiation cloud from an atmospheric nuclear detonation. Every single day is a struggle. Like so many others, I feel trapped in a nightmare, created by my fellow Americans who thought Trump was a good idea for president. I find it impossible to forgive them. It's life and death - how does one forgive that? If it was just ignorance it would be bad enough, but there seems plenty of malicious intent involved. I despair.
It's not looking too good. And the odds of making a military strike only increase with each provocation and responsive tweet.
That would be disasterous for all involved.
And no matter what this administration says, the reality remains that a densely populated Korean Peninsula would make a 'surgical strike' on North Korea all but impossible without causing immediate harm allied to South Korea and Japan.
This is something to think about.
No doubt if Kim Jong-un attacked a U.S. territory, or the mainland, it would be on -- but that is entriely different from this country making the first strategic strike.
As long as diplomacy isn't factored into ameliorating the situation, the end results look the same.
And anyway you look at it, that's not looking too good.
1
The talk of war in the US is so familiar, even of a nuclear war when the president is Donald Trump.
The (difficult) questions American policymakers should be asking before a conflict:
How is the US standing in the world after a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula?
Will it increase the safety of the American people? Will it enhance American-based corporations' interest in the global economy?
2
It should be obvious by now that North Korea will destroy one of our cities if we do not take whatever measures are necessary to prevent it from doing so. Too late equals forever.
There is a fourth option, and it should be talked about more: Getting China to cut ALL fuel deliveries, all commercial exchanges with NK. NK cannot keep launching missiles for very long without imported fuel.
All countries should form a coalition to stop all trade with China if that's what it takes to get them to stop the flow. Better option than a war for sure.
Not to make light of this issue, but I sure do miss the good old days when the most important issue on the first Saturday of November was whether or not to stay on Daylights Saving Time.
What difference would it make if people really"appreciated" the real, non-negligible risks? From this-distant- standpoint the most dangerous thing right now is the US emphasis on its own risks and not enough on those facing its regional allies in the front line. Some umbrella!!
It's been reported that Trump will seek Putin's help with North Korea. Aside from whether you may think that is a good approach and how it fits in with his ideas about a better relationship with Russia would such an approach actually be admitting his weakness after all his rhetoric about America first and great and how he alone can solve all of our problems as well as knowing more than the generals?
The estimates of potential casualties in the event of war with North Korea seem drastically underestimated. The population of Seoul is 10 million. Does anyone believe that in the event of nuclear war, casualties would be kept to 10% of the population of that city, let alone the broader Korean peninsula? My lay guess is that casualties will be many millions immediately, with many more in the aftermath.
At this point, there is no non-nuclear option for North Korea. They have bet their credibility and their survival on their nuclear program. Estimates of their current nuclear stockpile range to as many 60. This is nowhere close to parity with the US, so they know they can't bluff us with Mutual Assured Destruction. Their only hope is to raise the casualty level in the South and possibly in Japan and elsewhere to unacceptable levels, and this can only be achieved by using whatever they have. In that case, 60 nuclear weapons is certainly enough to destroy Seoul and other industrial centers in the South, and then some.
My guess is that Trump will launch a war with North Korea sometime within a year before the 2020 election, under the assumption of a quick win with minimal casualties on US soil (in his mind, who cares about millions of lives lost on the Korean peninsula). He will see this as his ticket to re-election, since his racist base also will not care what happens in Korea; they will only see that Trump fulfilled his promise to Make America Great Again.
I share Mr. Kristof's concern that there is a greater risk of war with North Korea than currently recognized by the general public, and that such a war could be catastrophic.
Mr. Kristof does appear to underestimate the risks in one significant regard, however. He suggests that the US has 3 options: a "freeze" deal, long-term deterrence, or a conventional war. Unfortunately, I think he may have overlooked another possibility.
If convinced that sanctions were not working and that North Korea was close to possessing an ICBM with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons upon targets in the continental US, the Trump administration might conceivably consider a fourth option -- a massive US nuclear first strike against North Korea. Given the risks that a conventional US strike could trigger an enormous North Korean artillery attack on Seoul; that it might place Guam, South Korea and Japan at risk of a nuclear response by North Korea; and that a conventional war with North Korea could drag on for years with huge casualties; a massive nuclear first strike against North Korea might appear, at least at first glance, to offer a way to avoid those risks.
Such a strike would risk not only nuclear retaliation by any surviving North Korean forces, but also the risk of drawing China and Russia into a nuclear war with the US. President Trump and his administration, however, appear sufficiently ignorant, inexperienced and reckless to choose this option despite such major risks.
The US has WAY too many military family members and non-combatants in South Korea and they need to be told to leave right now. To attempt it when the war starts will be a debacle, with fighting soldiers frantic about their loved ones and real immediate danger of nuclear and chemical weapons impacting Seoul. A 40% chance of this occurrence is too much, and McMaster knows it. Trumps belligerent strategy has consequences now, and if he really cares about US troops and their families, he'll bite the bullet and evacuate non-combatants.
So Trump didn't create the problem, and it's real. In other words, previous administrations kicked the Nork can down the road and here we are; a real problem with no 'good' solutions. Prediction: one way or another- economically, militarily, regime change, whatever- this administration will deal with North Korea and, reflexively, Kristof and others will criticize the actions taken rather than criticize the inactions of previous administrations that made action necessary.
1
It's like something out of Alice in Wonderland:
Trump is considering a pre-emptive strike against Kim to prevent Kim from developing the weapons that would deter Trump from launching a pre-emptive strike against Kim.
There's a real risk that we will witness the deaths of millions of people in Seoul or Tokyo.
North Korea is our chess piece as well as it is China’s. The best course is to let it stand. If the US does nothing, it is very possible nothing significant will happen. If we do something militarily, we will certainly hand China strategic control of Asia. Big mistake, Mr. Trump. Really big. China will determine any outcome. The difference between 1950 China and 2018 China is enormous. They know the stakes as Russia knew the stakes with the Ukraine but they are smarter and more ambitious than Russia. They are waiting to flex their muscle until they have the leverage to act. In a conflict initiated by the US, Japan and South Korea could easily be occupied and US bases eliminated. If North Korea acts first, China can occupy North Korea within days. Even a scorched earth Nuclear assault on North Korea would leave China in control of the whole area — China is close, they have twice as many soldiers as the US and they are conscripts. Would Americans be willing to go fight China to gain control of a nuclear wasteland? No, Mr. President. War will certainly backfire.
1
nice example of the coward analysis that may match Xi's
the current nasty problem ONLY exists because Xi assumes cowards will give him what he wants
the road to peace?
yeah yeah
Yes, the United States stumbled into war with Iran fourteen years ago without careful consideration of the consequences. Many predicted that the war would serve Iran's interests. They were right.
War with North Korea will serve China's interests. China entered the Korean War in support of North Korea over 60 years ago, created a stalemate and preserved a communist regime in North Korea. And for over 60 years China has subsidized that regime. The North Korean nuclear weapons program conflicts with China's interests in forcing the United States out of the East China Sea and the Western Pacific and creating an Asian trade bloc dominated by China.
Nothing would serve China better than a preemptive strike by the United States. If the US resorted to nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, the US would make itself a pariah in Asia. If the US uses only conventional weapons, a US strike would lead to a bloody, long and costly war that would serve China's interests. Such a war would destroy South Korea's economy. Victory would force the US to choose between installing a South Korean regime in North Korea or occupying North Korea. China would at once be free of a regional economic rival, free of a troublesome regime that it supports but cannot control, facing a United States weakened by years of war and more unpopular in Asia than ever. China would then able to establish an Asian trade bloc that it can dominate.
2
Well, Hillary warned us about this, didn't she? Did we listen? Noooooo. Rather, we said, "I don't like Her." As if she was asking us to invite her to dinner. As if we needed to like her, in order to do the more sensible thing.
1
To be fair, at least Kim Jong-un is a tangential threat to U.S. national security, unlike certain other someones (Mr. Assad, Gaddafi, etc.)
It is inconceivable that a unilateral US attack on North Korea would not ignite a general war on the Korean peninsula. That being the case, there is no military option without the South Koreans. So I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere everywhere the issue of war with the DPRK is brought up. 95 percent of military forces in South Korea are South Korean. They would be doing the majority of the fighting. South Korean civilians would suffer huge casualties. What right does the Trump administration have to launch a war that would be fought and suffered predominantly by other people?
Kim Jong-un tells N. Koreans that he is building up their nuclear capacity to deter an American invasion. The fact that we have 30,000 troops stationed just across the border in S. Korea suggests to N. Koreans that we are planning to invade. (Our large military presence there probably worries the Chinese as well.)
The North could not continue to justify its current diversion of a large percentage of its resources into a nuclear program, to its own population, if we withdrew most of our troops. We should negotiate to substantially decrease the number of our troops, on the peninsula, in exchange for an end to N. Korea's nuclear program.
repeating North Korean propaganda is a good thing?
American troops are not there to invade for pity's sake
they are there to die and make America involved if North Korea invades
AS IT DID TO START THE KOREAN WAR
but the right of every American is to just make stuff up and feel holier than thou for doing so
1
In deed,
Wouldn’t you agree that to successfully negotiate with another party (be it a person, company, or country), that it is necessary to understand how the other party sees the situation?
I am trying to look at the situation from the North Korean perspective. The Kim dynasty has been able to justify its diversion of the country’s limited resources to its military machine by claiming that this has prevented a U.S. invasion, and would even allow N. Korea to prevail in a nuclear confrontation.
Our understanding of this N. Korean perspective, as ridiculous as it is, could help us negotiate an end to the N. Korean nuclear program.
I grew up in the States but have lived in Russia for over 20 years. And honestly, I'm more than a little worried about what I see happening.
We all know that North Korea is a major problem. But the more immediate threat is the man in Washington. He's itching for trouble - and manages to create it in literally every aspect of his life. What happens when he brings that penchant for stirring up chaos to North Korea?
This article does not mention another terrifying possibility - that China and/or Russia could join the fray if they feel threatened by the fallout (literally) on their immediate borders. (Would the U.S. stand idly by if a war of this magnitude were waged on its borders?) And still worse, if literally dozens of U.S. missiles come flying from all directions at the Korean peninsula, Chinese and/or Russian air defense systems could mistakenly identify that as an attack and initiate a massive counterstrike. Once you light this fuse, there's no telling how much of the world's vast arsenal of conventional and nuclear munitions will ultimately be detonated as a result.
Yesterday was the right time to strip Trump of the ability to launch such a war. Today is better than never. Tomorrow might be too late.
1
Dear Mr Kristof,
I say this in sincerity: If worse comes to worse, I hope our talented officers and brave soldiers will mutiny. This conflict is not worth a single human life.
NK learned its lesson after Iraq and Libya. After WMD and Gulf of Tonkin, have we learned ours?
1
mutiny?
who hasn't learned their lesson from Syria? Libya?
Or the 1920 1930 and 1940 Chinese warlords?
Such contempt for democracy, America and humans in favor of fantasy land morality.
War can not bear any kind of good knowledge for any man,country or nation.We only exchange sorrows by any because we have past experience.So I think war not solution to solve the imminent danger. There is so brilliant persons in their Congress.They have to think the best way to solve the problem.
Personally I think Trump is the only one equipped to handle this issue.
I've never seen Kim Jong Un or North Korea back off from their threats like Guam past summer when Trump threatened fire and fury.
He caught a lot of North Koreans off guard. They're not used to such a direct, yet hard to read president. I think that's part of the strategy that seems to work a bit.
One of the few things I like about Trump is the different approach he's taking. All other approaches failed, traditional politicians failed, only Trump has come anywhere close to confusing the North Koreans.
Most other things about Trump I dislike, but on this issue, I can see what he's trying to do.
1
The odds of war “are certainly greater than is widely recognized by the American public.” I think that is true. We have a lot of sand on the West Coast. I'm sure lots of people have their heads buried in it. Mine isn't. Senator Feinstein's isn't. We're not alone. Some of us are better at focusing on our everyday lives and excluding fear of nuclear missiles raining down on us. I really wish I could do that but I can't turn off the memory of images of atom bomb explosions and the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their citizens--old people like me, young people, mothers, fathers, children. I think the flow to nuclear war indicates collective insanity and there's no tranquilizing pill or drug to control it, much less cure it. I doubt there is even the will to cure it, given the political leadership of our country and that of North Korea. My only hope is that We the People wake up soon!
1
Trump thinks that war with N.Korea will be as simple as dropping bombs on Raqqa and defeating ISIS there. He needs to be instructed by his generals that a pre-emptive strike is unconscionable and that diplomacy, such as being pursued by Rex Tillerson, is the only way to proceed.
The North Koreans are afraid of war with the U.S. and Kim Jong -Un just wants to remain in power.
War will cause unspeakable destruction and death in South Korea and possibly elsewhere such as in Japan.
The Japanese should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons so that they are able to defend themselves. This may not please the Chinese, however, it might encourage them to be more willing to co-operate with the U.S. in dealing with N. Korea.
The war drums are getting louder. President Trump seems to be in a race with KJU to see who can be more scary.
I don't think war is likely. The third lead in this horror movie, China, has too much to lose. For one thing, there are thousands of Chinese citizens working in Seoul who will be toast if the NK artillery starts firing. Astonishingly for a nation which was wiling to sacrifice any number of soldiers in Korea during the war - Mao's son died fighting there - the Middle Kingdom has become very risk averse when it comes to an adventure which can get its people killed. The country has basically not gone to war since 1979.
Secondly, a war would almost certainly turn nuclear, leaving the Dragon to deal with the fallout. Finally, the economy of East Asia going for a toss as a consequence would ruin the thousands of party officials who have worked so hard to steal money from the state and build their business empires. After putting in so much of efforts to become a prosperous nation, I am pretty sure that the Chinese leadership won't allow a crazy leader - or two - to take them backward.
On the other hand, there were probably as many logical arguments against war in Europe in 1914, before Archduke Ferdinand's entourage took that fatal wrong turn in Sarajevo.
Since tRump is a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, hopefully a way can be found to deny him re-entry to the US at the conclusion of this trip.
2
Stop the train! I want to get off! Too much, too much, and it's fairly or quite likely. I lived through the cold war -- I was born during the cold war. I remember Kruschev banging his shoe on the table, I remember air raid alerts (only alerts); I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis; I remember Czechoslovakia 1968, and had cousins trapped there; I remember going to Poland in 71, where there were lines everywhere, very little to eat and lines, lines and more lines. Wars don't solve problems, but they do cause a lot of deaths, and considerable destruction on [someone's] land. It will solve nothing. It will cause much destruction and greater ill-will.
1
Sadly, given the way the public reacts to military situations, at least at first, Trump's popularity will shoot up no matter how bad the consequences are. The American public rally's around the President in time of war - that's why there was so much support for Bush to invade Iraq over false charges. Frankly, Trump will do well no matter how it turns out. If he could diffuse the situation diplomatically, he would deserve credit for success. Maybe it's also possible that the North will respond to his wild threats and rants. But if war does break out, no matter how bad, the US public will support it for a while at least.
1
What's truly missing from the discussion of attacking North Korea is that China will unequivocally protect North Korea. China was North Korea's benefactor even before the Korean War began, but American ethnocentrism then like now, ignores this salient point about China.
HR McMaster, Trump's current head of the NSC, wrote a Vietnam War book, titled, Dereliction of Duty, where he stated, "[A]lthough the President should not have placed the Chiefs in that position, the flag officers should not have tolerated it when he had.” Will McMaster vote with his feet if Trump decides to foolishly attack/invade North Korea?
The reality is that North Korea's war of words benefits Kim Jong-un and Trump. For Jong-un the drama plays to his propaganda and for Trump its another thing to throw at the wall of distraction from his poorly performing presidency. Such "winning" indeed.
That being said, despite probabilities, there is no way America will attack North Korea over nuclear weapons, or else we would have done it years ago. I'm guessing HR McMaster will either abide by his own book and resign or he'll reissue his book with a new title, "Tired of So Much Winning."
Kristof keeps pushing this and I have to wonder why. This is the second time he's written about it in as many weeks and the issue was kind of put on the back burner or behind the scenes. Give it a rest for now ok. We don't need any self fulfilling prophesy. North Korea is not a threat to us unless we want them to be. Unless we keep provoking them. If we keep pushing their backs to the wall with ever more increasing sanctions. Which by the way aren't working, and they never will. Let them have their weapons, they have them anyway. Deep down this admin. knows what would happen if we strike, even Trump can grasp that. Something like this could escalate very fast. And as far as all the death will be over there, I am not so sure about that. China is not going to want 20 million refugees coming across their border after N Korea is destroyed. And if the South is destroyed or unlivable, you can add another 25 million with nowhere to go. China is not going to want radiation after effects blowing into their country. Also as I and others have written about before it's not just nukes, it's chemical weapons. Which can be delivered very easily into this country by agents of North Korea. War really is not an option, so stop pushing it please.
1
Option 2, Freeze for Freze is a non-starter period. South Korea and the US decide to stop doing exercises that at least prepare for the possibility of a conflict? Who could possibly see that as an option at all? That’s like paying Mafia protection money on a promise they won’t raise it or I back on their word. My bet is that things go on about as they are now.... a level if serious distrust and occasional threats of more. But war will be a disaster on a scale probably hitherto unthinkable and we cannot countenance the loss of a US city. So my guess is that nothing will happen and we continue this same basic state of affairs well into the foreseeable future.
It has been widely reported that North Korea's "crazy like a fox" totalitarian leader values survival of his regime, particularly his young self, above all else. Thus, while he may continue with his provocations, these will be tempered, at least in his albeit limited judgment, so as not to provoke an actual military strike by U.S. and South Korean forces. My great fear, however, is that if Trump's paranoia and fear intensifies either as the result of increasingly damaging revelations by the Mueller investigation, the start of an impeachment consideration by Congressional Republicans, or both, any such "tempered provocation" may pre-textually be manipulated by him to launch an initial strike, thus unleashing a North Korean response followed by a rapid, horrific descent into total conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
Trump has already in his early presidency shown himself to often be the practitioner of a crude deflection, employing any available "shiny object". From this tactical habit, coupled with his impetuosity, sole concern for self, angry and revengeful persona, and disregard for consequences, the thought that he would order such military action to deflect attention from threatening domestic problems is certainly possible. With this deeply flawed individual, all personal reactions to these circumstances are conceivable.
And to think that the commonplace misperception of Dear Leader Kim Jung Un is that he is the "crazy" one.
Are we strong or are we weak? Are we willing to be the world’s number one country or not? The time has arrived for us to take our place in the world. Fight or Flight ? If we fight and win, we maintain superiority. If we flight, Kim Junn Un will attack South Korea, Japan, Guam. American privilege is over, as we sink to third world status. The time has arrived to stop dedicating time, money, effort to petty national differences. Can we remain a true international super power?
Japan lives at the mercy of the US, Russia, China, and now of North Korea in the sense any of these countries must bear malice somewhere to her and has the one-sided ability of devastating her of no chance of recovery. (I am talking about only the possibility and I do not know whether the expected repercussions hesitate them to do so or their conscience or goodwill.) The peril the US faces against North Korea is nothing like that. So why can the US government not tolerate the situation and pursue a peaceful settlement? Is this not an arrogance often shown by a country falling from hegemony?
Everyone I talk to is terrified. I envisioned a world, based on the FACTS that many things were getting a whole lot better in the last couple of decades (despite the recession), that would be an even better place with progressive, intelligent generations evolving. I have grandchildren, and saw a world that was edging towards peace, clean air, clean water, greater educational opportunities, more tolerance toward LGBTQ's and even a decrease in racial tensions. Then when Obama was president, racial bias boiled beneath the surface, women's rights stalled as the Christian Right gained political influence -- church & state boundaries blurred. Now with a totally GOP Executive, Legislative, and the highest court in the land under their control, we are embroiled in chaos that I have never seen in my 70 yrs. Although I was brought up with a generation that had schoolchildren drilling under desks in anticipation of nuclear fallout, and listened to the C-130s at Ft. Bragg on full alert with engines running during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and even when I could foresee generations of anti-sentiment toward the US coming when we hit Iraq with shock and awe, I never imagined that we would face the multiple crisis points we now have. Next time, America, vote with intelligence instead of embracing empty campaign rhetoric with momentary adrenaline that released resentments and divisive actions. We are at the edge of an abyss, but can change course with elections.
I teach in an international school in Ghana, which makes me a part of a relatively small group of international teachers that move from school to school, country to country, around the world. Generally about 10% of the teachers at a school like mine move on at the end of the year. I just heard about a really good international school in South Korea that is losing about 60% of its teachers, for obvious reasons.
I work with someone who lived & worked in Damascus before that war began. She is heartbroken at what's happening there. Two very good friends of mine live & work in Busan right now.
What DT, Republicans, and many in the American public do not seem to grasp is that "those people" "over there" are just like you and me. They get up in the morning, they go to work, they send their children to school, they go out exploring on weekends. Bombs and war destroy all of that. Bombs and war create death and destruction and pain and misery.
And when you are not comfortably ensconced in the gated community called "America," you experience firsthand the sort of fear America hasn't experienced since 1865: the fear that the bombs and war will appear at your home. That your children and your aunts and your cousins will be the next victims of this insanity we call war.
Just as his predecessor 14 years ago thought killing "those people" would keep America safe, DT is determined to kill North Koreans in an attempt to do the same. And many people will die.
Sad.
This President is a symptom, and;
This Congress is a symptom,
Of failing governance.
Although they are accountable,
If this is a government by the people,
Then WE are responsible and must act, And soon.
1
Trump should convince China to terminate the North Korean leadership and allow for unification pathway. In return the US would pull out of the Korean peninsula over time, nearly completely. The Chinese would avoid nuclear proliferation, nuclear war, catastrophic consequences. Innocent Koreans would not have to perish and world economy and value would not crash.
But the Chinese with maybe help from Korean agents would need to decapitate the regime. Should be doable. Better than war.
I certainly don't want to alarm anybody however.. Trump had a 30% chance of winning the Presidency...
China has clearly stated that if Trump launches a first strike against North Korea, then China will consider this an attack on China and respond accordingly. The Chinese DF-41 missile is the longest range ICBM in the world. It travels 20,000 mph andcan hit a house anywhere in the US. It carries 12 nuclear warheads.
North Korea almost certainly has weaponized small pox which it purchased at the collapse of the Soviet Union. Contagion is almost 100% and vaccinations do not work. It is almost 100% fatal. It was once released by accident in the Soviet Union and was barely contained.
Trump cannot handle this. He is going to involve us in a horrible war. One that will be fought on US soil as well as overseas. And recall that we lost the last Korean war. An almost impossible land war in the mountainous terrain.
Mueller needs to study the lesson of Civil War General George McClellan. McClellan had the outnumbered Confederates trapped outside DC early in the war. He could have ended it then and there. But he would not move until every "i" was dotted and "t" crossed. The Confederates got away and the war drug on for 3.5 more years. 600,000 people died. This time it will be a lot worse. Better to move with a few undotted "i's" then to be interrupted by a nuclear war.
North Koreans believe that a nuclear war - not “just” an exchange of non-nuke bombs - with the U.S. would not only be survivable but winnable. A nuclear war with the U.S. would totally wipe out a country of 20 million + people. Obviously, their leaders have not been honest about the devastation. But N.Korea will launch a counter attack and while the damage may not be as severe we are still talking a major human toll in the South.
With the nunclear weapon arsenal we own comes a responsibility to limit use to the most dire situation. Too many N. Koreans have no idea what an unleashing of our arsenal would do to them. It is our responsibility to avoid use especially on a people who know nothing of what their plight would be. Congress has been too reticent to challenge Trump. With his childish temperament and narcissistic emotions Congress cannot allow Trump to attack N. Korean people with nuclear weapons without their consent.
The Pentagon just issued a report stating that taking our North Korea's nuclear sites would require a ground invasion by U.S. troops, and that those troops would be potentially targeted by chemical or biological weapons in combat. This is in addition to the potentially hundreds of thousands killed in South Korea, including American troops and their families. This is insanity. The fact that Trump is recklessly taking America onto a collision course with North Korea should be reason alone to impeach him. We will be bringing on the very outcome we are trying to prevent, which is a nuclear war.
1
Trump uses rhetoric about North Korea with no thought to the consequences.
He lightly threatened North Korea with 'fire and fury, the likes of which the world has never seen,' with no sign of appreciating what that destruction would entail.
Trump told Rex Tillerson he is wasting time by using diplomatic channels in North Korea, never mind that personal contacts are a buffer against warring parties.
Trump visited the UN and used the mocking reference of "Rocket Man," disregarding that one should speak seriously if they are to be taken seriously - and international cooperation is nonnegotiable for containing threats from North Korea.
Trump's irresponsible words up the ante for catastrophe with North Korea.
1
I have it on good authority that nuclear war is averted in season one of The Apprentice President. However, it will be a real cliffhanger and will get killer ratings.
But you need to know that season three will be a blast you will never forget.
1
Among the thousands dying "over there" would of course be many, or most, or in the nuclear scenario perhaps all, of our thousands of troops stationed in Korea. Evidently they are of no concern to Trump.
Additionally North Korea can threaten us right now without any missile program at all; they can put a warhead on a fishing trawler and bring it into San Francisco Bay.
There is plainly no rational military solution. Unfortunately we have an irrational commander-in-chief, and every day we fail to legally remove him from office we drift closer to catastrophe.
1
What scares me to the core about Trump is that I know, I absolutely know to my core, that regardless of any and all arguments, strategies, plans presented to him, discussed with him, his only filter to assess all this information is: what will it do to my poll numbers with my base, will they love me, will they applaud.
Heed Bob Corker's warning that there is no strategy, no good cop/bad cop or otherwise; it is only cult personality chaos, with scrambling staff and generals trying to keep brush fires from turning into conflagrations.
He needs to leave office sooner rather than later: he is the leader one can count on to start a war if his re-election is looking grim...and "postpone elections due to war", and send the military into the streets to quash the protests. Democracy and the rule of law are incomprehensible to and too constraining for Trump: he's a dictator by nature and/or early childhood training.
I hope he gets food poisoning sufficient to require cancellation of all his speaking engagements: every time he opens his mouth he makes things worse...and I prefer he not do it on N. Korea's doorstep.
NK has some nuclear weapons today but is rapidly developing the means to strike everywhere in the US and building more WMDs. Kim Jung Un was even willing to authorize using WMD nerve agent to murder his step-brother.
If we ignore the direction NK is going they are going to push their aggression, likely including sharing nukes with other US enemies like ISIS to use as their front men against the US and/or other democracies.
Best would be if China acts to get NK under control but the longer China cannot decide the greater the threat to China from Kim Jung Un becomes. So if China lacks the will to act themselves then the only other responsible thing would be for China to clearly announce that they are going to stay out of the conflict completely.
If China declares they won't intervene then NK will be more isolated and might negotiate. And if NK continues on their current course then at least there is hope that the destruction might not escalate into a nuclear exchange involving more than North Korea.
North Korea never had a legitimate need for nuclear weapons to attack US cities. They already had so many conventional forces that there was never any real risk of either South Korea or US forces attacking them.
If NK continues their insane threats along with ICBM R&D then whenever they seem to be actually making any nuclear attacks the US will need to respond with such overwhelming force that there is no need for a second strike. Because Putin & China will make threats.
Trump has already been stopped by his staff from launching a nuke at North Korea. How that intervention occurred will be the stuff of memoirs. For now, we should know that Trump has been restrained by his Generals. What really stopped him was knowing that the Trump "brand" would forever be equated with genocide.
This is the real deterrent, currently. What would it mean for Donald Trump?
Always calculate what it would mean for Donald Trump.
As Mueller's walls close in, the likelihood of Seoul, Pyongyang, Tokyo and Okinawa disappearing from the globe increases.
There is no upside to America starting war with North Korea (NK). There is never an upside to fighting a nuclear war, or a typical war for that matter. Ask any 10 American combat veterans who "wins" a war. The majority will say no one. People on all sides are killed. These same veterans may stress we should rigidly question our political leadership before allowing America to start another war. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea... there were no winners. Wars don't solve geopolitical dilemmas, they only enrich the military industrial complex (MIC).
SOLUTION? - China and South Korea are border nations most involved/concerned. Russian, Japan and Southeast Asians nations have a keen "local" interest. Let these nations negotiate with NK. American can withdraw troops from South Korea because we can strike at anytime and within hours of need using B-2 bombers, aircraft carriers, submarines and an array of ICBMs. If our presence on the Korean peninsula contributes to this NK aggression, why stay? Do the local nations need or want America there?
In a related aside, America spends $700 billion every year on its military. More than the next eight countries combined (including China and Russia). America has military bases in 80 countries worldwide. Why? Would America allow a foreign nation a military base on our land?
America being the world's police force needlessly costs American tax payers, needless puts our troops in harms way and only serves to enrich the MIC.
Let's looks at the facts: On one side, the United States; on the other an Asian country with a strong nationalistic tradition. The United States then announces that if the Asian country does not stop its aggressive activities, there will be severe consequences, and imposes sanctions that actually are having an effect.
The result is to back the Asian country into a position where it has only two alternatives. The first is to back down and lose face, and indeed increase the threat to its government's continued existence.
The alternative? Well, we know that from something that happened slightly over three quarters of a century ago. For those readers who may need help with math, think December 7, 1941.
Except this time, think it with nuclear weapons.
(Of course, that will mean that the survivors will not have to worry about global warming, as we will have decades long nuclear winter.)
IRAQ really did not have weapons of mass destruction,
but clearly NK does.
And threatening to make them more threatening, and threatening
to use them against the USA.
Big difference between Iraq and NK.
No one can be sure how to avoid war with NK in the long run.
Grimly, it's the "without thinking through the consequences" that ought horrify us. Trump is obviously at the Comic Book understanding of War.
Someone must show him a half-hour relentless video of maimed child after maimed mother after maimed soldier. "Collateral damage" is a euphemism for "maimed children."
(News stations ought show the maimed, over and over -- not hide them away in coffins and morgues. Every night. Wars on our Planet would end in six months -- but as the Right insists about so many Other Matters, we are too politically correct ..)
1
There will be nuclear war one day - perhaps in the not to distant future - maybe over NK maybe something else. Why? Because we are just chimpanzees with advanced technology. We flatter ouselves that we have culture and civilization but a rational species would never choose leaders like Kim or Trump. Violence is in our nature. War is in our DNA. Nothing will change.
Mr. Kristoff has used OrwellIian imagery to describe NK. in '1984', war is used to keep the yoke around peoples' neck and focus on external threats while ignoring internal problems. This is the world of Donald Trump and Kim jon-Un.
If it comes to war, Trump will say, as every warmonger in history has said, that we had no choice. And, of course, that will be a lie. How about formally recognizing the N. Korean government? How about opening up trade fully, including a KFC or McDonald's on every corner? How about Trump himself personally flying to North Korea, maybe in company with Dennis Rodman? Any of these options -- and dozens more -- would be preferable to war. And if we do have war, let us place a good hunk of blame on the Republicans in Congress who will not support Duckworth.
As one comment has it: accept North Korea as a member of the nuclear club. I agree and would add: encourage Japan, if not South Korea, to quickly obtain their own nuclear weapons and missile shields. That. plus our own nuclear forces should deter Kim for the foreseeable future.
In this situation, Trump may be right. The apparently worst option may be the best option.
Mueller has not been fired, which is not like Trump, indicating something is up. Now we have an extended Asia tour.
20%, 50%, no. More like 95%.
There will be a massive nuclear first strike. Followed by a massive nuclear second strike 10 minutes later.
Whether this is the best option depends on how you project the consequences of no action. No action guarantees another invasion/destruction of South Korea, followed by an invasion/destruction of Japan.
The comments go on about how unthinkable and risky it is to destroy North Korea, and how psycho both nuclear war and Trump is. Yes we know that. You are repeating the obvious.
Where are the articles presenting a cold analysis of the consequences of no action (or war alternatives) that thoughtfully projects the current realities into the future?
All I've read on this critical crisis is fear mongering and bloviation.
While I understand the ramifications of a nuclear war, a nuclear war on American soil is a lot less palitable than a war on foriegn soil. While again noting that the Democratic Senator from Illinois is trying to take the powers away from the President, not gonna happen, we are already in a position in which N Korea is threatening the United States. How much more imminent does it need to be, short of dropping a bomb on L.A. San Francisco, Portland or Seattle just to name a few. What does it take to make people understand negotiating with this guy is NOT going to work. He has been playing this game forever, meanwhile, continuing on his evil path of destruction. He'll say whatever it takes to get sanctions lifted but turn around and sucker punch us again. Jeez people how many times do we have to fall for that one. It is unfortunate that Trump has been forced into a corner by previous administrations failures, Republican and Democrat alike.
Unless the regime can be decapitated then war is inevitable. North Korea may have gleaned enough information from their tests to date to proceed with thermonuclear warhead weaponization of an EMP device which doesn't have to re-enter Earth's atmosphere but which could knock out much of the US.
In the meantime the "Can" is being kicked deeper into the increasingly thorny scrub at the end of the road. No-one wants to be responsible for a war that might kill a million people tomorrow ... but a war in five years (that no-one wants to talk about) could kill 100 million and cause massive environmental damage.
It's a pity this dictator with his concentration camps wasn't dealt with earlier by previous administrations but they didn't want the bad press of casualties.
North Korea's statements threatening the US and its allies with nuclear destruction leave Trump with little choice in this situation.
Forget the whimper. The World will end with a bang. A Big Bang, and that's not just a theory. It a high probability.
Thanks, GOP.
2
I am an American. The odds don’t seem small to me at all. It has been quite clear to me since Trump declared that North Korea would face fire and fury (or whatever the words were) for their non-compliance, and told Rex Tillerson that Tillerson was wasting time (or whatever the words were) in making diplomatic efforts to reach a deal with the Kim regime, that Donald wants to lead the country into war.
When you give a teenager fireworks, he will always ignite them. He cannot resist, he has not the discipline of mind, or the cognitive ability to understand the danger. More precisely, if you give a teenager a firecracker and a stick of dynamite, he will ignite the firecracker first and then the dynamite. This is what Donald is going to do, unless someone, hopefully Congress, or the Generals, takes the dynamite away from him.
But Congress will not do it. So it falls to the Generals. If they fail, there will be a catastrophic event, because of one narcissistic, peevish unhappy bully, which has been more or less the history of war since Biblical Times.
1
I would presume that if Kim deploys nuclear,chemical,or biological weapons against U.S. or our allies the physical existence of the Korean Peninsula ends and maybe a large part of Japan.an act of murder/suicide.If South Korea really doesn't want to be forcefully subjugated by DPRK they ought to seek to convince Trump that they are ready ,willing,and able to deploy at least non nuclear effective deterrence.The U.S.will gain nothing on the strategic defensive and aggressively should provoke Kim till he chooses murder/suicide by cop or backs off.To allow Kim nuclear parity vs U.S. Is unthinkable.
Until recently, the biggest threat North Korea posed was the possibility that it fall apart, releasing its weapons onto the black market and into the possession of other rogue actors. This was a problem that required patience and skill - and cooperation- to solve. Trump has managed so-far to get a threat from China that if he strikes first, they will come to the aid of North Korea. Not an auspicious start for a strategy.
To the people who think Trump’s strategy of threats and underminig Tillerson is helpful: you and your children can die in Trump’s fire and fury. Maybe we should move the millions of South Koreans who would otherwise experience war over here, and you can move over there. Experience the risks and benefits of your strategy first-hand.
All of Trump's other attempts to distract from his legal problems are not working, what's left but to start a war. My fear is that he'll start two - one with NK and one with Iran....all the while with Fox cheerleading the effort and Congressional Republicans sitting idly by as the destruction rages.
1
There are other factors which should be considered when estimating the odds of war.
First, most of the victims would be Asian. Trump has consistently shown white supremacist sympathies. I don’t think he conceives of their deaths as the deaths of human beings — parents, husbands and wives, children — as much as body counts in a ledger.
Second, hostilities could lead him, with the support of “my generals” operating without normal civillian control of the military, to declare martial law and suspend constitutional rights and protections. It would give him a quick path to authoritarian rule, which he admires and desires. The Russia investigation would be terminated and, citing national security, the Justice Department could be directed to go after his perceived enemies — the free press, Hillary Clinton, liberals.
Third, North Korea will not go quietly. I would be surprised if it hasn’t targeted nearby countries to sow as much chaos as possible, leading to a world war. An alliance of Russia and the U.S., the two greatest nuclear powers, which Trump has long promoted, could result and create a new and permanent global order.
I know how this sounds. But Trump has managed to stay in office despite actions which would have removed others. It would be a mistake not to consider the darkest scenarios.
War is fine, with one provision. We use a draft system that makes absolutely sure that our armed forces fairly represent all segments of our society, including the sons and daughters of Congressional Representatives and Senators, and makes no deferments for the wealthy, the connected, the students of elite colleges, and people with bone spurs on their heels. War will be fine then, because it won’t happen.
274
Spot on. And don't forget immediate implementation of a progressive war tax. Enough with putting conflict costs on the tab.
Why is this a NYT pick with only one thumbs up?
While I understand the idea of a draft making a congressional declaration war more responsive to the people, that is completely irrelevant to the current situation.
Trump will bomb or not bomb (or whatever) based on his insecurities and ego and whether the armed forces included draftees would not make a difference.
Absolutely, if any troops are necessary after a nuclear conflagration.
1
Any analysis of war with North Korea should include a mention of South Korea. Would South Korea allow us to use their bases and our troops stationed there to attack, when the northern response could well be to put Seoul in peril? If we could not use South Korean facilities, would a land war be militarily feasible? If we could not use South Korean or Japanese airports, our air war would have to be carried mainly by our navy, with a few missions from Guam.
The last time we invaded North Korea, we quickly wound up fighting China's army.
If we are attacked by North Korea, we can push for help or at least cooperation from our allies in the area. But if we make the first move in some sort of preemptive strike, there seem to be many possible developments that would not be in our favor.
207
Hokkaido. Abe.
It makes no sense to suggest we'd go to war with North Korea, and not involve the many troops we have stationed in South Korea (for the last 65 years!) nor Japan. Japan has already been threatened by missile flyovers. My guess is that it would make more sense to North Korea to attack Japan, which has no military defense, than to directly attack the US. But in any event, I believe both nations are obligated by treaties for mutual self-defense.
2
If we're attacked by North Korea's nuclear weapons it will be too late to ask for help. It is well known their nuclear arsenal can reach our interior lands.
"Despite all the standard accounts of the buildup to WWI, which include 'mounting tensions' and 'escalating crises,' the conflict came as a surprise...We looked at the historical prices of imperial bonds, which normally include investor's anticipation of government's financing needs and decline in expectation of conflicts since wars cause severe deficits. But bond prices did not reflect the anticipation of war."
Nassim Taleb, The Black Swan
I read that to mean we should not be surprised if Wall Street doesn't anticipate a war started with a conflict over the Korean peninsula.
54
Trump is desperate for any substance whatsoever and what could be better than a "short" war against an evil empire. Some would say, "May god help us". But as we have all grown up with, "God helps those who help themselves"...
Then what on earth are we waiting for? Get him out of that chair. Now.
I'm scared. Are you?
192
J Norris. Stupidity has no fear.
1
First - there will be no freeze or freeze deal.
Second - there will be no deterrence. Period.
Third - There will be no conventional war but only a nuclear war.
This is because we are dealing with an extremely volatile leader Kim Jong-un who knows they have nothing to lose anyway. Sanctions have crippled North Korea. There can be no deterrence, a lesson learned from our incapacity to hold our end of the Iranian Deal. Besides, he already has nuclear weapons ready to fire, not at the uranium stage. If Trump thinks ha can preemptively strike their nuclear installations, North Korea will also strike and destroy all all his neighbors who are our allies. As A matter of fact, they will be sitting ducks for Kim Jong-un. And Trump saying that if thousands are going to die will die there not here shows the ultimate in callousness towards are allies. At this moment in time, North Korea's only trump card are his nuclear weapons. It is suicidal Kim Jong-un who will kill 100s of thousands before we shoot him dead. But as Trump put it is there
not here. What a great global leader we have!
82
NNi makes are great error with regard to Iran and the fact that (11) Iran is upholding its end of the bargain, (2) it is agreed to limit its uranium refinement to 3%, far, far below the level required for any weapons grade. It is the US that is failing to uphold it end of the bargain. And just for those uninformed people - such as the US leader - the billions of $ returned to Iran were their own dollars seized in US banks. With any luck the Iranians will use a portion of that to buy Boeing over Airbus planes, enriching the US economy. Seriously, the US has a problem finding the truth on so many levels.
3
In point of fact, the DPRK cannot yet put a nuclear warhead of reduced size on a missile reliably, so a nuclear conflict is highly unlikely in the short term. How else they might deliver a weapon against the ROK is unclear. Thus there is impetus for taking action sooner than later.
Of course there can be deterrence.
While the Trump damage to America's credibility in the Iran deal makes it harder to make a deal, no one doubts that we would strike hard if North Korea attacks.
The biggest threat to deterrence is if Donald Trump convinces Kim Jong Un that the United States will destroy him personally. At that point, he will have nothing personally to lose.
1
Terrific. And who do we have in charge during this most dangerous period in our existence? The most dangerous person ever to take an oath of office, a simpering child who believes name-calling is statesmanship. A serial draft-dodger who loves nothing more than to pretend to be a military strongman. A wannabe dictator looking for something to distract the country from a very real threat to himself, i.e. the Russia investigation.
Stick a fork in us--this potato is over.
369
Did you even read the article? If so, what is your comprehension problem? It isn't about Mr. Trump, but a real situation he inherited with an aggressive madman, totally aside from his domestic issues. What would you, with your expertise this international relation do? Advise us of your real solution, please.
1
You know, I don't know how to stop it. Trump doesn't think things through; he listens to Steven Miller and Jared Kushner for guidance; his foreign policy is overseen by generals and an understaffed State Department. And no one in Washington seems to consider North Korean citizens, or South Koreans for that matter, as real people. Just the "them" in "It's us or them."
I can shout all I want but unless I appear on Fox and Friends my shouting has no impact. I can call on my legislators, but they are Democrats and voiceless.
The Obama Doctrine was "Don't Do Stupid Stuff." Trump has reversed every other thing Obama has said or done. We can expect a foreign policy of "Do Stupid Stuff." That makes all of us nervous.
447
14 years ago another republican told us that war was necessary because of weapons of mass destruction. Think about it.
We have another lunatic in office that continues to lie and lie again.
And mine are Republicans. The senators are, despite being Republicans, relatively sane. My representative is Marsha Blackburn, and beyond useless to call.
It appears there is great peril in elevating ignorant snotty brats to the most powerful job in the world is not to be recommended and could threaten civilization.
We really can't compare Iraq with North Korea. Bush talked the rest of the country to go into Iraq after WMDs and after creating links between Iraq and 9/11, but neither were true. We had UN inspectors with US personal declaring that there were no WMDs but the US went in anyway, and found that there were no WMDs. There is no question that Korea has WMDs, they have stated that they will use them, so it seems to be more of a question of when, not if.
Do we wait until they increase their yields, their ability to strike targets at long range? That is what we've done to date and here we are, talking about kicking the can down the road some more. After all the bluster about comparing some right wing extremists with Hitler and needing to stop them to prevent another rise of a Nazi state, we see the same people willing to appease another rogue state which has the ability to do serious damage.
Asian neighbors need to understand what is at stake, that most of all it is in their interest to get North Korea to stand down. If they don't the US may be forced to.
43
Did we go to nuclear war with the Soviet Union because they had nuclear weapons that could reach us? No. Wiser heads prevailed. The idea that we can handle North Korea in a war is preposterous. First, hundreds of thousands would die at least. That eould be a war crime. Second, even if such strategy were to work for North Korea, the strategy could not work indefinitely; it would only up the ante for the next time.
"we see the same people willing to appease another rogue state which has the ability to do serious damage."
Except that the rogue state is ourselves, the once & former USA.
US must show legal authority to attack N Korea or US will be the real rogue nation.
US at this stage is actually abusing S Korea in particular and Japan as well as N Korea make it clear they will be collateral damage if US attack her using their soil as launching ground to attack her.
Without US involvement, N Korea at most engage in nuclear blackmail, not real attack on her neighbors and this does not justify US attack on N Korea.
US commingle her own security with her allies, trying to deceive the S Koreans and Japanese it is in their best interest to attack N Korea. Of course this is a lie as they will be hurt first. They should be presented the complete truth and let them decide if they are willing to sacrifice for 'ally' US.
This is an international matter and as long as no imminent threat to US exist, US have to get clear UN resolution to attack N Korea. No more simple resolution in UN that gave Bush excuse to attack Iraq based on 'yellow cake uranium' which turn out to be lies.
The real story here is US N Korea animosity, not N Korea vs S Korea or Japan. No amount of story telling can deceive the public the N Koreans will run over S Korea or even attack Japan. At most N Korea could engage in nuclear blackmail which of course should be dealt with counter nuclear threat perhaps of a tactical kind as well. Other than that, there is zero chance of N Korea attacking S Korea or Japan to take over their land.
Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. No way, no how. North Korea most assuredly is. They must be stopped.
38
PL, so 'N.Korea most assuredly must be stopped'. but how? at what cost? who pays? the devil is in the details, friend. the world has paid too heavily for US aggression in Iraq... and now, once again? does history teach us anything? or does the myth of US exceptionalism excuse everything? as of now, apart from bluster (on both sides), nothing much has happened. let the 2 bully boys throw spit balls at each other ... N.Korea knows it is safe because of its nukes. didn't the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction keep the world from a head-on nuclear holocaust, in the recent past ... what's changed now? or is it that now most of the lives lost and damage done will be in Asia?
1
Stopped from what?
2
Trump is a threat to United States as he has provoked North Korea incessantly.
1
A rational analysis .... that ignores the two “wild cards” - the two Jokers in charge of their nuclear arsenals.
49
There's either one rogue regime or two involved in this confrontation. If there's only one, it's not North Korea.
45
While no one doubts that Kim Jong Un may be irrational and overreaching, there is little balanced and well modulated tones arising from the American side. Even a limited/non nuclear war would result in tremendous casualties for South Korea and any escalation would likely and quickly take the conflagration to Japan. What is alarming is to hear Trump's hyperbole and threats - always a sign of - if not the bully - at very least someone who has not thought fully through a sequence of possible consequences.
Trump needs to have the military clearly set out the end events to him: there is not way to completely destroy the North Korean military in a fast and bloodless series of strikes and Trump needs to be roundly disabused of the notion that the US has a proven and confident missile shield that can provide better than 50% protection from any North Korean missile. Those two certainties need to be at the front of the conversation and repeated back by Trump to ensure he understands them.
71
Currently the US does NOT NEED a missile shield.
Pathetic.
Refuses to even see the issue.
A firm and steady deterrence and a calm, quiet voice seem like the only rational course. The DPRK will break any deal, but pre-emptive war is clearly a disaster. That leaves deterrence.
The power to declare war, or in today's lingo, to "authorize military force," belongs to Congress. If Congress fails to assert itself, Trump et al. will take those powers to themselves. If Congress asserts itself and insists on its constitutional powers, it will greatly lessen the chance of war. Avoiding monarchic war was precisely the reason the Founders gave this power to Congress.
This is a no-brainer - another no-brainer on which this Republican Congress is failing.
138
'The DPRK will break any deal, '
Are you entirely sure?
How about the US? Is there any possibility that we will break a deal? No way, right?
1
Rational is good if both parties are, but nk is not. Deterence works on rational people such as Russians. They did not wish to see their children incinerated. Kim does not care.
Well, you have a point. My mind has not fully been dragged into the Trumplight Zone, so I guess I am thinking out of date. But the fact that we now have a President, for the first time who has made a life out of breaking deals, and is more likely to renege than to come through on anything, doesn't change the fact the Kim-Jung Un can't be trusted. So both are liars and dealers in bad faith, which makes it still a no-go on negotiation as such (as opposed to just communication in the background).
Also, this President is not temperamentally capable of the policy that I advocated. So I guess it's academic.
With friends like us, South Korea doesn't need enemies. We don't need enemies either, at this point, as we are now our own worst enemy. No foreign nation can hurt us as much as we are hurting ourselves.
"Fourteen years ago, America stumbled into a devastating war with Iraq without thinking through the consequences. This feels like déjà vu — only potentially far more devastating."
Stumbled?
Bush didn't stumble into invading Iraq. He swaggered into it. He was convinced he was doing God's work and that there would be no US casualties. Please, Mr. Kristof, let us not revise history.
350
The people on the "Project for a New American Century" fabricated the weapons of mass destruction, fabricated Saddam doing 9/11, and convinced Bush 2 to believe these lies. It was not a stumble; it was a deliberate deception.
Their names are Feith, Perl, Wolfowitz, Libby (nee Leibowitz), Kristol, ...
1
29 Democratic senators voted to support the war, almost 70% of the public believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, the NYT and other mainstream media promoted support for the war, as did columnists like Nicholas Kristof. I agree, don't rewrite history.
Perhaps he meant "bumbled."
Making any country “great again” will always involve war and nationalism. soldiers will die, the factories will work extra hard and the war will cause an economic boom. How many mothers in the hospital delivery rooms would exchange the gaze of their babies for shiny new cars and other baubles? Will we ever be given a choice? No. Because war is chosen by those in power, those whose children will never be sacrificed. No matter where you live, the warmongers are always the enemies of mothers. No matter where you live, a large country picking on a smaller country will always be bullying. And no matter where you live, people will be sold the dream of war in glorified terms, until they bury their children and realize all their dreams are gone.
273
And the trains will run on time.
1
NYT, please make this an NYT pick.
You are so right on. I often think, those who love and yearn for war are the exact people who promote higher birth rates, i.e. no abortions. After all, they need all the cannon fodder they can get.
There is one possibility not discussed in the article. The US offers Russia and China a deal that has the US militarily withdraw from the Korean peninsula in return for unification of the Koreas. Mr. Kim can run for the presidency of the new nation, in a free election, if he so desires. It amazes me that the US regards Kim as a bigger threat to it than to its two largest neighbors. The biggest reason for Russia's and China's continuing support of North Korea is to have a buffer against the continuing presence of US forces in South Korea. The mentioned plan would be a win for the US, Russia and China and I doubt that Kim could resist the pressure if the latter two joined in advocating the unification.
26
Right, because both China and Russia would welcome a nuclear-capable US-client state on their borders instead of Kim's regime, and Kim will be happy to allow his people to vote in a democratic election that could result in its removal. Sounds like a plan.
That might have been a solution in 1954, when the truce was signed. But 60-some years later, the NKs have been inculcated into believing in the divinity of their leader(s) and will not easily accept "democracy" as we know it. Look how much trouble we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to install a system foreign to their experience. Foolish to intervene in that way again.
You can not be serious with this idiotic fantasy
Much is said about there being "no good option" in the DSA's dealing with NK.
Actually, a pretty "good" option is to respect NK's Right to build whatever it wishes to build as a sovereign state. The DSA can easily monitor NK and respond immediately and appropriately to any legitimate aggression by NK.
This is not just about NK. A nuclear strike on NK would have "fallout" effects throughout the region which would likely contaminate millions of people for generations as a way of "protecting" them from NK. It's Trump type thinking which would play well with his supporters, but perhaps not as well with SK, Japan or China who would end up living with the consequences.
If Congress doesn't forcefully act to curtail Trump's impulses over NK, its obvious the planet's survival will be in greater jeopardy than it already is in.
It's also obvious that if the Divided States of America can co exist with Russia, China and Pakistan in particular, rationality suggests It should be capable of doing the same with NK. The real problem is the short supply of rationality in our current government.
107
KB wrote: "...respect NK's Right to build whatever it wishes to build as a sovereign state."
Hey, that's right! Everybody quit criticizing their death camps!
Looking forward to the war and the destruction of the Kim regime.
Mr. Trump will never back down and will likely keep pushing North Korea toward war, since Mr. Kim is much the same. Both have egos that are more important to them than the wellbeing of their citizens.
But here's a radical idea. What if we were firm but pleasant toward North Korea, acknowledging their fears, founded or not. Mr. Trump has the power to do that. Does he have the will?
19
NO
1
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a critical foundation for world security for decades, has, in the case of North Korea, failed. To restore balance in the region, we need to seriously start talking about abrogating it, at least to the point of providing South Korea and Japan with nuclear weapons.
The reason is simple. Kim wants to be be able to threaten our cities so that when war breaks out, we won't dare nuke Pyongyang, for fear of losing (at least) Seattle or San Francisco. So the defense of Seoul and Tokyo can no longer be in our hands; they must be able to counterstrike on their own. We have no choice in this; it is the only move Kim has left us in this chess game.
The Chinese will be apoplectic at this idea, as they should be. We should impress on them that we don't want to see a nuclear South Korea or Japan any more than they do, but we see no alternative. We might add that Kim has no love for China and could easily turn on them too.
Beijing has already hinted that they won't join North Korea in any offensive action. We need them to go farther, and make it clear to Pyongyang that the Chinese interest is in peace and stability on the Korean peninsula above all; and that therefore China will respond forcefully to any aggression by EITHER side. We need them, further, to place enough troops and materiel on their Korean border to make the threat credible. If they will do these things, we won't need to violate the NPT by giving nukes to Seoul and Tokyo.
22
Kim has boxed himself in. He cannot use the weapons he's developing without having his country removed from the map, himself along with it. Half the time it reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where Cleavon Little takes himself hostage to escape the crowd of angry townspeople. The question is, does the US help him out of his box by respecting him, welsoming him into the nuclear club, and demanding that he now follows the same regime of inspections and protocols that pertain - and in so doing encourage bad behavior by others - or does the US bide its time, or does it act proactively? The first step is the least palatable, particularly to a man-child like Trump, but guarantees the safety of the ROK and some degree of transparency. Nobody would like it, so it's at leas
North Korea is not about to give up its nuclear arsenal. We need to began to diplomatically deal with the North not as we wish it to be,but as it is.
40
Slow fuse: Your suggestion requires diplomatic intelligence which, obviously, does not exist under Trump.
Just think of the "deals" the industrial community will make.
An understanding of history leads one to the conclusion that North Korean's development of nuclear weapons is fundamentally for defensive purposes, not offensive. North Korea is threatening the US, but the US has also been threatening North Korea...for seventy years. Is it any wonder that North Korea, facing the world's most powerful military, saw it necessary in their view to develop nuclear weapons, and to express a willingness to use them?
I dislike the brutal and bizarre Kim dictatorship just as much as anyone else, but these geopolitical matters need to be looked at objectively. And an objective analysis can only conclude that North Korea's nuclear weapons are for defensive purposes and are only a threat to us if the North Koreans feel they are under imminent attack.
The best way to deal with this situation is to gradually try to bring North Korea into the world community and let change happen within the country. That process will take a very long time, but it sure beats having nuclear weapons explode in South Korea and the US, not to mention a massive artillery barrage on Seoul, and not to mention the massive slaughter of innocent North Korean citizens who would die in any military action or counter-action against North Korea.
To even consider war as an option in Korea is madness, crazier even than invading Iraq.
116
That there is a valid defensive rationale for North Korea's nuclear weapons is obvious. Unfortunately, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that they might be used offensively. From what I understand, the rhetoric of the Kim regime within North Korea very much includes the idea that their destiny is to reunify the peninsula. I don't think they're likely to back off from that.
12
I think you are wrong. Kim says he will attack the US as soon as he can. I for one believe him.
An understanding of history, as you open, would tell you Kim’s nuclear weapons are not for defensive purposes, but offensive. His goal is *not* nuclear weapons. His goal is the reunification of the entire Korean peninsula under his control. The nuclear bombs enable that. That is why he wants them.
Imagine the year 2027 (or maybe just 2022), and Kim has 400 nucs in his arsenal. He attacks a bit of the east coast of South Korea (conventionally) and subsumes it into North Korea. Then 6 months later another section. And then another. At some point the US, a treaty ally of South Korea, is bound by law to intervene. Those 400 nuclear missiles are meant to discourage that intervention. But at some point, at the risk of losing all credibility (i.e. destroying Nato because it is a very similar treaty that holds it together), the US has to intervene. In that scenario, San Francisco ends up glowing in the dark. And LA, Tokyo, Chicago and New York too.
That is the strategic imperative here. Nuclear weapons are a side show, and right now he has far fewer warheads, and no, as yet, demonstrated ability to deliver them trans-pacific. The window on saving San Francisco is closing and will close for forever in 6 to 12 months (when he is estimated to have that tech) without something happening before then.
If Kim gets full nuclear capabilities he *will* try to reunify the Korean peninsula. And that will surely lead to the end of San Francisco.
Here in California, if not war with NK, the Big One. Every other place equally probably has their own imminent doom. Doom is doom. What’s one more? Which one is quickest, that’s what I’d like to know.
4
As a journalist who has exposed human rights abuses and humanitarian crises, Nicholas Kristof should focus on the atrocities that the Kim regime has inflicted on its people instead of amplifying the steady drumbeats of war within the country. To avoid imprisonment and starvation, thousands have defected to China, where they live in the shadows, in fear of deportation by the Chinese police to imprisonment or death in North Korea. The few who resettled in South Korea and US have shared horrific experiences: starvation, beatings, rapes, abject poverty. The average North Korean citizen today has probably has seen South Korean dramas and US movies, dreams of prosperity in the outside world, trades in the black market, and lives in fear and poverty. The sanctions must have had a devastating impact on ordinary North Koreans, who trade with China for their survival. North Korean society has changed through exposure to information and technology. Humanitarian groups have floated balloons, filled with flashdrives loaded with Western media and copies of the Bible, across the DMZ. Given the right tools, ordinary citizens and disaffected elites in North Korea could instigate change in the country. The US should support and give life to the voices of the disaffected, oppressed, and suffering. An internal coup is possible. Nicholas Kristof's state-sponsored trip to Pyongyang exposed him only to the brainwashed elites, not the oppressed millions who dream of freedom.
27
Actually, Mr. Kristof has written about the human rights violations that have taken place in North Korea on numerous occasions. Also, this article does not amplify the drumbeats of war. Rather he is simply stating the fact that a MAJOR MAJOR conflict could be around the corner and this is put into context by Brennan, Wit, and Haass' predictions on the current odds of war. Ultimately, it seems (if not already) that US citizens will be living under the crosshairs of NK nuclear missiles or war is inevitable. There are no good options here and that is a humbling thing for the uS.
9
"An internal coup is possible." No, it isn't, which is why we are where we are - with his uncle and half-brother dead, and the rest of his junta on notice. If a coup were possible, it would have happened when his father died, and we'd have the military running the show today. Little improvement.
Very informed analysis of the situation. Mr Kristof fails to understand that there are no North Korean officials with an opinion. Only Mr. Kim`s opinon exists.
I would back Secretary Tillerson on this one...a "freeze for freeze deal" with the reductions of sanctions rather than US-South Korean military exercises. Also, perhaps, we should follow the lead of the Iran Nuclear Deal...a multi-national agreement with particularly China and the US taking the lead. Although, I can not envision that considering the players involved.
We are faced with two erratic leaders, Kim and Trump. The former is smarter than the latter, but both are trigger happy, power hungry, and egomaniacal. Because of these characteristics it would be imperative that the two are not left alone, so to speak. I can not speak for Kim, likely it would be China, but we do have a Secretary of State and an experienced Secretary of Defense who understand fully the consequences of such a catastrophic event. I do believe Congress would step in also to rein in this president.
On a more human level, even if a "war" did not include nuclear weapons, it will be long with many innocent people dying, injured, or maimed for life. Long, because as with Iraq and Afghanistan, and to paraphrase Colin Powell, once we invade it, we own it. And frankly, I am tired of grieving for our young men and women in uniform and their families.
23
A war (non nuclear) with N. Korea would immediately impact 28,000 or so of our young men and women in uniform stationed in S. Korea. North Korean conventional artillery near the DMZ is 'locked and loaded' and aimed at Seoul and the U.S. forces. Millions would be killed in this non nuclear first strike even if the U.S. initiates it. N. Korea's response would be instantaneous and the U.S. military casualties are indeed "over there," not "over here."
I would be interested to hear your take, Mr. Kristoff, on the NBC report that Trump's approach to international problems is actually working well--from his point of view--because he seems to be getting what he wants. Here is the link: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-foreign-policy-pure...
3
Here's what I took away from that article: "Most of foreign policy is evaluated in the longer run," said Vali R. Nasr, dean of Johns Hopkins' School of Advanced International Studies. "The corrosion that has set in will manifest over time."
No, we did not "stumble" into a war with Iraq, we were misled into it by the government and the media. Remember the aluminum tubes? And is it really possible to "think through" the consequences of any war? The DPRK has been shaped by the devastating war waged against it by the U.S. Their philosophy is that they would opt for destruction over a loss of their sovereignty. Recent history has shown that absent a credible deterrent, nuclear or conventional, the U.S. will attack and destroy any country it designates a "threat." Trump's bluster notwithstanding, it is unlikely the U.S will attack the DPRK. It will be a pyrrhic victory that will demolish the myth of American prowess and invincibility. Trump needs to meet directly with Kim to begin comprehensive negotiations.
6
Thanks for a more realistic article Ms. Dowd. I wish DT would choose deterrence, but I'd like to address what people are likely missing about the near future.
1. North Korea states all its missiles are currently pointed at the United States.
The U.S. is East of North Korea.
2. DT will be West of North Korea on the anniversary of his election. 11/9. He will be flying to Vietnam after that around 11/11.
3. DT was off twitter for 11 minutes because his Twitter account was basically taken over. DT is on what is now being recognized as an 11 day Asian trip once he leaves Hawaii.
4. North Korea apparently is ready to set off an above ground H-bomb test sometime during those 11 days.
5. DT basically took his whole family on the trip with him.
6. DT, family and colleagues are being looked at very closely for inappropriate ties to Russia, and many might be indicted.
7. Again, DT will be west of North Korea when an H-bomb and/or missile test potentially occurs, while North Korea states all their missiles are currently pointed at the U.S.
8. No one has prepared the U.S. mainland for a missile attack.
9. I personally think it's chilling that DT would state war would stay off our shores if he provoked one in North Korea. Maybe he doesn't really think that at all.
@Flipper ~ Nicholas Kristof penned this op-ed, not Maureen Dowd.
4
I don't think that the President had his grandchildren with him.
1
I'm 73, Mr. Kristof, and I haven't many bricks left on my road. Yet I worry about those who will survive me when I go. I'm particularly worried about the young people in America, those between age 6 and 16, the core of our future. What their parents teach them is what we will be as a nation as we near the mid-point of the 21st Century.
The only thing that can be said in Donald Trump's favor about this situation is that he did not create it. But he's on the clock; this North Korean threat is happening on his watch. He's demonstrably unsuited to the task of either negotiating a peaceful resolution. He's more likely to rise to Kim Jong un's jingoist bait by maneuvering a rogue state into a situation in which, to save its country's honor, it will not back down and has no recourse to attack America. Foolishly, the citizens of North Korea, if you are correct, think a war with us is "winnable," Kim''s staple, his own brand of nationalism to get his own "base" riled up in a perpetual state of martial readiness.
Kim is not going to dial back his race to perfect a nuclear missile that cannot be diverted or destroyed. More, bigger and better nuclear deterrents on our side will not mitigate Kim's ultimate purpose: a criminal gangster state that grabs us by the lapels in the dark of night, telling us "empty your pockets."
Unfortunately, we don't have a president who sees beyond his own base or advisors of substance. His Asian trip will yield no positives.
This doesn't end well.
15
Well, I'm 74 and I agree that 'this doesn't end well.' A nuclear war with N. Korea ? How does that end well? A conventional war without nuclear weapons? The beginning alone would devastate Seoul, S. Korea and also inflict thousands of casualties among our U.S. troops stationed there. This doesn't end well either. Trump avoids war and puts a feather in his MAGA hat and wins re-election? Not a happy ending either.
1
Complancy about war seems to be modern America's birthright as we watch football and pen Thanksgiving guest lists. If Americans think blood letting in Syria, Iraq, Greater Sahel, Yemen, Congo, etc., are something that only happen "over there," think again. War, "fire and fury" can touch us, too, with a just a small push from Trump's juvenile sabre rattling. It will make World War II look like a garden party.
21
For 16 years now our country has been at war, yet American society has eerily continued as though we were largely at peace in the world. What happens, if god forbid, North Korea sends a nuclear missile our way? Will it be business as usual or will we enter some type of martial law scenario?
Can you imagine how trump will take the reins with a temporary suspension of laws and civcil liberties? This is much scarier than at the height of watergate general haig said to the news cameras: "I'm in control" while appearing emotionally unstable. https://youtu.be/zUKW0fL-OqY
12
It is very odd that we go on with College Sports/Pro-Sports while the
young men and women who joined the Military die in 16 year war.
As for Haig, that was during the time when President Reagan was in
the Hospital and Vice President Bush was flying back to Washington.
Haig was not emotionally unstable.
Point taken, but Haig's remarks were after the assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan, not during Watergate.
The chances for war are greater than those listed. No mention was made of the fact that war would permit the dictator in chief to declare the country under martial law and all that entails, not the least of which would be his ability to totally do away with the current investigations of him and his family. Remember, this man has no respect for anyone's life other than his own and his immediate family and he wouldn't care how many thousands or millions of people died.
26
I have read all the comments as of 5:00 PM PST on Saturday, November 4th.
Only one placed the blame on Kim, the rest said Trump was to blame.
If we go back to when President Reagan proposed "Star Wars" we see
the Liberals denouncing and de-funding the program.
Now, three decades later, how we wished we had all the missiles we needed
to protect America, South Korea and Japan from North Korea's Nuclear Tipped Missiles.
I don't know what will happen, but I can only suggest that we build
as many anti-missile defensive systems that we can and revive our
Nuclear Shelter Program.
6
South Korea has such a system, called THAAD, recently installed there by the US to the chagrin of the DPRK, China and Russia, who fear the return of US nukes to the ROK. Japan has a similar system, as do Israel and the US. Long story short, they are undependable - they can be overwhelmed by the presence of non-nuclear or dummy missiles alongside nuclear missiles - so something is going to get through.
1
Ah yes, spend another trillion or so dollars on yet another military white elephant. And fund it how? Looting Social Security and eliminating Medicare perhaps?
Well, at least it would be consistent with Republican policy ( or attempted policy) over the past 40 years.
2