What’s The Point?

The North Koreans launched another missile from her east coast. It is the ninth launch this year. The news says it was a scud missile that went about 300 miles before crashing into the ocean. This is supposed to mean something, so the people who claim to know about these things are consulted to tell us what they mean. In this case, it means that whatever it is the South Koreans are doing is not working. Maybe it means whatever the US is doing is not working. Whatever it is, everyone seems to think it is a big deal

According to Google, North Korea is a little more than 4,000 miles from Hawaii. The coast of the United States, San Francisco to be exact, is 5,500 miles from North Korea. If the Koreans are flying missiles 300 miles into the ocean, they have a long way to go before they are a serious threat to launch nukes against the US. Even assuming these are just tests as proof of concept, it is a huge step from what they are doing now to being able to deliver a nuke from one continent to another.

There may be more to it, but no sane person could think the Koreans are a serious threat to launch a nuke at the US now or in the near future. In fact, they are probably a generation away from being able to deliver a nuke with any degree of stealth and accuracy. Even if they could get one off, the result would be certain death for them. The US would respond with a nuke attack from the air and sea that would eliminate North Korea as an ongoing concern for a few thousand years.

Maybe the North Koreans are suicidal, but there are quicker ways to bring the roof down on themselves. The obvious answer is they are up to something else, something more practical. What that could be is never discussed. The US is willing to give them whatever they want to end their nuke program. The South Koreans would kick in whatever is needed and so would Japan. All the Kim family has to do is name their price and the check is in the mail. Yet, this ridiculous missile dance continues to no obvious purpose.

The other side of this is just as pointless. Trump made a big deal out of cutting a deal with the Chinese to put pressure on the Koreans. He then sent a carrier group to the South China Sea. The point was to let the chubby little dictator know that we mean business. He launched his missiles anyway and nothing happened. At last count, there are three carrier groups in the region, along with some unknown number of ballistic missile submarines, armed with nuclear missiles. That’s a lot of firepower, but nothing changes.

The thing that everyone seems to know, except maybe Trump, is that there is zero chance the US launches an attack on the North. The result of a war on the peninsula would be catastrophic for the South Koreans. There’s a pretty good chance the Japanese would take a lot of damage. Then there is the chance of a conflict with China. No one, including the North Koreans, wants a war. That brings us back to the question, what is the point of all of this? What’s the end game all sides are aiming for?

The answer may be that there is not point to all of it, just a way for all sides to fill up their days, pretending to be leaders of a world that no longer needs leaders. Would the average Japanese notice if his rulers stopped showing up for work? Is the average South Korean concerned in the least about what his rulers are doing? The only reason to care is the prospect that they will do something stupid and set off a pointless war with the North Koreans. Otherwise, the ruling class is a burden, not an asset.

That may explain why the leadership in the West appears to be going mad. Trump was in Europe to meet with the provincial governors and their biggest concern was some new scheme to make Gaia happy.The Western media gets upset at Trump for seeming to question the point of NATO, but when the chief concern of Europe is the weather, a military alliance does seem a bit pointless. Does anyone really think the Russians are going to roll tanks into the heart of Europe? Not even Bill Kristol thinks that’s possible.

Maybe that’s why the Europeans are inviting the Muslim world to invade their cities and create havoc among the native populations. Everyone in charge is bored. They wake up each morning wondering, what’s the point? Being in charge of Germany is rather pointless if you can’t invade the Sudetenland or defend the fatherland against a barbarian invasion from the east. The nations of Europe hardly qualify as countries anymore. All of the important stuff is done by the US or supranational organizations.

In The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama argued that the end of the Cold War meant that humanity was moving into the final stage of social and political evolution. The great ideological struggles were over and the world was moving toward a great social democratic super-state. Stuff would still happen and conflicts would arise, but the die was cast. The end point of mankind was a world governed by social democracy and a global administrative state. The world would stop being fun.

Maybe that’s what we’re seeing. The Asian powers are just displaying muscle memory, from a time when being in charge mattered. They go through the motions up to the point when they realize there is no point. The European leaders are doing something similar with the Muslim invasion. It’s Munchausen syndrome by proxy, but the victim is the population of Europe. The ruling class is charged with taking care of their people, but their people are fine, so they are poisoning their people, so rulers have something to do.

59 thoughts on “What’s The Point?

  1. Getting dangerously close to the question,
    “Why do we need politicians?”
    What’s the point?

  2. Maybe they are bored but it still means obliteration for us if we don’t fight back and the system they control.

    And they are far from infallible. Whites are notorious for playing the short game. Whereas the Muzzies and Asians play the long game. All they have to do is wait for our insane whites to destroy their own power base and then walk in and exterminate the cloud people and their government lackies and the world is theirs.

    Really who is going to man their military and police forces? A bunch of low IQ Mexicans, blacks and Muslims? That won’t work. They’ll take one look at the inbred and effete cloud people and kill them on the spot. Why share power when you can have it all? They really have no idea what these people are like and how they view weak white people.


  3. The problem with the unfettered Muslim invasion is, that like rats & roaches, islam will live on crawling over the ruins of the very civilisation it helped destroy…and like it.
    Kim and the current crop of childless Western leaders may be doing a kabuki theatre from some long-ago time, but the horde of 7th century tribesmen are quite serious about scuttling over the debris of the theatre.

  4. On a related note… I always thought that the states with truly part-time legislators were the best governed. Those states with a brief legislative session once every year or two get things done without getting bored.

    Less time for nonsense virtue-signalling, filmed speeches in front of an empty assembly room. and all the usual self-aggrandizing that politicians love so much.

    Work the bills on the docket, finish your business, and go home. And don’t expect to be paid enough that this is a full-time job.

  5. Re the very important discussion about whether nuclear proliferation results in nuclear war: Short answer; Nobody knows. And the results of making a mistake are likely catastrophic. And the historical precedent is that no available weapon goes unused once a conflict gets intense. And there is a good abstract case to be made that such restraint is _immoral_ if you are sending your people in harm’s way against a dangerous enemy.* Hence it would be simply prudent to suppress nuclear proliferation on general principles.

    However, this was more of a pious wish by our elites than an active policy as demonstrated by the nuclear program histories of the various proliferators starting in the 1950’s (US > USSR via espionage, France & Israel joint development, USSR > China, Canada > India, China > Pakistan, Pakistan > N Korea). It is shocking to view the Eisenhower Administration’s nonchalance in retrospect, because that’s the last time that an active program of proliferation suppression, covert or overt, might have worked.

    BTW, each of these countries nuked up following some (usually**) less-than-existential threat from a regional rival, their politicians swearing never to be ‘humiliated’ again, following less than total support by their great power ally: Said tepid ally being mostly us. By analogy, the regional danger from N Korea is at least as much that Japan, S. Korea and maybe Taiwan nuke up, increasing the systemic danger.

    The chief systematic danger is that there are now (or soon will be) enough nuclear powers that it would be difficult to source an attack with the needed certainty. In the past, the Cold War provided a kind of stability because both the US and the USSR’s elites knew that, unlike in prior days, both were goners should there be a nuclear attack on either. Now it’s not so clear.

    As an example, if Beijing goes up in smoke, who did it_? Could be the US tired of the economic warfare; Could be the Norks trying to get the Chinese to take down their enemies; Could be the Japanese tired of being shook down by the Norks, holding China (properly) responsible for the whole mess; etc.

    *And if it’s not a dangerous enemy it is even more immoral to be sending your people in harm’s way in the first place.

    **Israel has some basis to regard their threat to be existential: Their destruction is their regional enemies’ stated policy since their founding.

    • In my prior life, I dealt with nukes at the height of the Cold War, and one of my assignments was nuclear wargaming. In a fully generated scenario (every available aircraft and missile armed and on alert, on both sides), tens of thousands of weapons would be used.

      After seeing the results of such, the notion that some podunk country has a few nukes doesn’t impress me. The best metaphor to describe why I feel that way, is that scene from the movie Crocodile Dundee, when a thug pulls a knife on Dundee and his lady. Dundee looks at the small switchblade, smiles, and pulls out his large Bowie knife. “That’s not a knife; THIS is a knife.”

      If a third-rate country cuts us with his nuclear switchblade, we’re going to gut him from crotch to chin.

      And an EMP event? Someone’s country will be border-to-border glass. Richard Fernandez’s “Three Conjectures” will apply.

      • Yes, but you seem to assume we’d know for certain who did the EMP strike. During the Cold War there would have been no doubt that the USSR was behind it, even if they used cut-outs as was their usual MO. I’m told we spent a lot of back-channel time ‘reassuring’ them on this score. Now that posture would be a counter-productive enticement for a third party to get the big 2 to knock each other out: Last nuclear power standing wins the world_! Fill in the blank, “Why not_!”

        Our vast and costly Intel Empire’s poor track record in anticipating major events shouldn’t reassure anyone that they can swiftly and certainly ID the perp of an anonymous WMD attack. We can bet that there’d be divided political council that would baulk at doing the glazing you rightly commend: No circumstantial evidence would ever be enough. And any enemy would be fools to crow about their feat. Well, maybe ISIS or Iran would. Absent positive ID the 3 Conjectures would remain just conjectures.

        IOW, the danger from nuclear proliferation comes least as much from the enticement that our elite’s demonstrated fecklessness and incompetence provides. An example in one name: Osama bin Laden.

        • Just how fucking mind-dead do you have to be to believe the USSR was a threat to the US?
          Stalin was the “socialism in one country” guy, which is why he killed Trotsky.
          The main concern was preventing another invasion from the West.

          • Bile is a good name for you, based on this comment. How wicked and stupid does a person have to be in this day and age to be a Stalin apologist_? Has anyone, anyone killed more people for less purpose on this earth, with the possible exception of Mao Tse Dung, than Stalin. Go home, you’re drunk.

  6. One other comment I would like to make, with regards to Memorial Day. I would like to say “Thank you” to your service men and women who gave so much to sort out the stupidity of our forefathers. Any German who is honest with himself knows this to be true. You probably won’t hear it, and of course we don’t talk about it. But since I visit, and enjoy this forum, let me say it for other like-minded Germans like myself. We may not always agree on here, but that’s what forums are for.

    Many thanks, and God bless the American military. I hope some of you can at some time in your lives come here and visit the dozens of cemeteries scattered across Europe and pay respects to your fallen grandfathers who gave us the freedom we enjoy today.

    • Thank you, Karl. That means quite a lot to me. My great grandfather and namesake was killed when some stosstruppen mortared the field hospital he was running in March 1918 (he was seconded to Gough’s 5th Army) during the Kaiserschlacht.

  7. One side-effect of the industrial/technological revolutions of the past century is pandemic affluence at lightspeed, e.g. you can now find cell phones and NIke sneakers in fourth world villages that are otherwise destitute. Even the natives of New Guinea (two generations removed from subsistence living in the bush) are now suffering from rampant obesity.

    What no one will admit is that natural selection is all but extinct, and in the First World, we are actively and doggedly engaged in anti-evolutionary selection and a mad rush to destroy two million years of hard-earned robustness traits.

    Perhaps slow death by boredom is in the cards, but my money is on stupidity rendering catastrophe.

  8. I have said for years, that NATO should just fold up their tents, pack them up in their broken down Landrovers and stop playing at being soldiers. The US military is best military in the world, and everyone know it. Everything the Europeans are playing at is just for show anyway. The Brits know they can’t really afford a decent military anymore but pride often gets in the way of such things.

    The Russians are not going anywhere. And even if they are, it’s back to pick up the old areas on the map they lost along the way. Putin is “old school” mother Russia and he’s only interested in getting back any historical losses from the old glory days of the USSR (e.g. Ukraine, etc.) As far as Europe is concerned, he can have them! Better they go back to Russia than become parasite states of the EU.

    Given what the US pays Germany to keep US military bases here, it’s quite profitable for us and we get along with your servicemen quite well. You get to run your tanks through our forests and farmlands, and Hans gets a reimbursement payment from the government for destroyed crops. Do you really think he cares when a Bradley fighting vehicle accidentally bumps into his 200- year old, soon to fall down by itself barn? No. Not really. He just smiles, and thinks about the new Mercedes he will be buying as soon as US gets it’s tanks out of his corn field.

    Thus the question we all ask ourselves, if the US military is happy parking their aircraft and tanks here, why do we even need a military in the first place? The US pays us to be here, so bring more I say! Personally I miss the sounds of F-4s, F-15’s and F-16’s roaring around Ramstein, Spangdahlem, and Hahn. It’s so quiet in the Hunsruck these days as to be almost boring.

    During the Bush years, I think we all were asking ourselves very similar questions about North Korea. Iraq was claiming they didn’t have WMD’s while the US was so sure they did, and even went so far as to start a war to prove it – and then never found them. Meanwhile the Koreans were screaming “Look over here, we have nukes!” and the US ignored them. Huh?

    • I think a lot of Americans are wondering why we bother to protect Europe. The threat to Europe is not a military one. It is a cultural one. That’s not resolved with tanks and jets. But, every penny of military spending has a constituency behind it. In the case of NATO, plenty of EU arms makers profit from the status quo. The result is Hans gets to watch Americans and a few Germans play army in his corn field.

      • American involvement in Europe is for the benefit of the American businesses who own the politicians.

    • I agree with the statement concerning getting along with the Germans. I made many friends when I was stationed there, married and divorced and father three kids who still live there. Maneuver Damage was being phased out when I left, more and more training was being done on simulators. The Bunderswehr is a fine fighting force in its own right.

  9. Certainly an interesting theory re: Europe and welcoming the Muslim invasion. Although I think the signal high status among the cool kids hypothesis is still a good competitor.

    As for the North Koreans, a possible explanation for their ongoing missiles tests is that they’re preparing to deter Chinese led regime change, which is about the only realistic national security threat to the Kim government.

  10. Pingback: Outliers (#54) « Amerika

  11. Reminds me of the movie The mouse that Roared. Tiny country invades the US on the plan of a quick defeat , then foreign aid will arrive.

    Maybe, just maybe, the reason those missiles go wayward so quick is because of the United State’s superior stealth technology which scrambles the guidance system on them. (I mean, it’s possible right? Saw it on the SyFy Channel.

    What great thinker observed that humanities problems stem from not being able to sit still in a room?

    • Military technology is a function of national wealth, social trust and mean IQ. Iraq had plenty of money for military technology, but a low mean IQ and low social trust meant they could not develop much on their own and could only maintain the simplest of acquired technology. North Korea is very poor. Social trust is hard to know, but we have to assume it is at the bottom of Asian nations. IQ is a mystery. South Korea has a very high mean IQ, but that does not mean the North does too.

      A couple of American rednecks can figure out how to build a decent rocket. Making it accurate and reliable is the huge challenge. Extending the range and accuracy gets increasingly difficult. It was only recently that we have been able to get accuracy to the point where we can his specific targets. Put another way, we were able to put a man on the moon 40 years before we were able to hit a city block sized target with a missile.

      In 1960, we could launch missiles and hit cities in Russia. The North Korea cannot launch a missile and hit Tokyo on purpose.

      • Why can we land a rocket on the moon or a plane on an aircraft carrier? Because there’s a man guiding them. They can’t launch a missile but they can fly a plane. A kid flew a plane into red square back when that mattered. A bunch of Arabs flew into the trade center. I imagine norks can fly a bomb about anywhere. It only matters if they will do it or can credibly threaten it.

  12. I think La Rochefoucauld said something about how most of men’s problems can be boiled down to laziness and boredom. [That was how I was reconciling myself to what seemed like an inevitable Hillary presidency — she was too drunk to do much, and so corrupt that she’d mandate open carry, NASCAR attendance, and school prayer if someone paid her enough.] My worry is that Freud (Jung?) was right, and we do have some kind of death instinct — e.g. Europe’s leaders continuing to send men to the trenches for four years, and the men actually going. Are we any less bored than our leaders?

    • Almost all of the analysis of the mass media culture has focused on the public. The truth is, mass media may be more corrupting to the ruling class. Our rulers are no long thirsty for power. They crave attention. We’re ruled by Paris Hilton.

    • I agree. The Left’s ideology is incoherent, which explains why they don’t condemn Islam and Sharia law. They just want to burn down the West in a self-destructive pique, even if it means their own self-destruction via the hands of the Islamic radicals they condone and defend.

  13. Those test don’t worry me, it’s almost reassuring if that’s all they can muster, as we are not in Kansas anymore, every stem boyscout could do better, given the right tools and material.

    Fun fact, mobile phones are bricked at firmware level so they can’t used as a missile brain, the gyro shuts down at certain speeds and stuff like that.


    We had carpet bmbing in WW2, China will do carpet droning.

  14. Heh. I applaud every time Kimmie Poo fires off another bottle rocket. He is merely accelerating the crashing of his nation’s already broken economy. Sooner or later, NK will fall apart like the former USSR or Venezuela. China will tire of providing him more fireworks on credit.

  15. Power always seems to end up wanting more power. Why did the ambitious French kings seek absolute monarchy? They already ruled the most prosperous state in Europe, with the happiest people, and the most abundant natural resources. In retrospect we can see that their wars and tight control over everything was ultimately their undoing. With a little wise counsel they could have avoided all that. They did not. I think much of the motivation in that direction is projection. The assumption that others are out to seek your demise or power over you probably drives a lot of bad decisions, like that of the Spartans ultimately to go to war with Athens. They won only to lose their constitution (think of this in the older sense of unwritten ones) and state.
    We sometimes forget that there were two reasons for the European Union to form in the first place . One was the Soviet threat, the other was to avoid another major war on that little peninsula sticking out of Asia, which is what Europe is. Trade was a pretext to support the other two ideas (besides, everybody was supposed to benefit from this, not just Germany. The notion that one country would end up Jewing all the others to death never entered anyone’s mind.). Both of those reasons are gone. What would the Europeans war on each other with? That leaves them to bicker on about whatever nonsense they can muster up to justify the power base they have spent decades developing.
    It’s just like the universities here. You may not realize it but for most of us the state universities are the most potent power bloc in our respective states. Look up who the largest employer in your state. It is likely either the state university system or the university health organization. Combine both and you have a hegemon that has grown up under your nose and now wants to justify its existence with further shows of power. The Europeans won’t be safe until they put down the tiger tearing away the fabric of their society, and we need to do the same with ours.

    • teapartydoc, that is an interesting remark about the USA’s state universities. They were established to increase the power of the empire, were they not? Well, whatever the case, you are right that they need to have all of their subsidies canceled and to be privatized or closed. They are not only vast patronage rackets but dungeons for the mind, too.

      There is, however, a third explanation for the EU’s formation. Leftwing internationalists wanted to prevent another outburst of leftist nationalism like that of the Fascists of Italy and the Hitlerists. The latter groups, both of which are palpably leftist, had exploited the potent mix of welfare statism and national pride. And they were very hard on internationalists, esp. during WWII.

      So the EU was conceived to erase borders and mix the people up such that class warriors need not worry about heretics within their own ranks taking the nationalist short cut to totalitarian power. The communists always expected to return to their old tricks of class warfare and revolution on the continent once they had the new European nation established.

      This leaves us to explain the migratory invasion from the third world. This is no problem if we remember that communist internationalism was taken very literally and seriously by many communists, who expected a worldwide dictatorship to arise.

      If I am correct about all of this, it implies that the communist internationalists have developed very long time horizons. So they will be very difficult to defeat, esp. if the favorite tactics and weapons for opposing them are tax cut gimmickry and buzz terms like “free markets”.

      • A good read is Nationalism the Last Stage of Communism by Emil Lengyel. I think the same argument ends up breaking up the EU in the long run.

  16. I am on board with the boredom issue. I’ve been thinking this for a while. We are programmed for suffering and struggle and life is so easy that we just need to make it hard. I see it all the time with people that have elaborate food routines and vitamin routines and anything they can do to complicate their lives. It’s really fascinating. And their defense, things are getting interesting 🙂

  17. Kind of a silly essay, I should think. First, politicians are not bored. They are forever scheming ways to gather move power and money. Secondly, NK with a nuke is a big deal. Blackmail and terrorism risk. Selling nuke knowledge. The risk of nuclear weapon use increases with nuclear proliferation.

    • That last statement doesn’t hold up under what little data we have. The only time nukes have been used in a conflict is when only one country had them, so far. Saying nukes are more likely to be used if there are more of them in more hands is like saying gun violence goes up with the availability of guns. We already know that isn’t true, so how can we assume the opposite for other weapons?

      • Look at things from both extremes. No guns, no gun violence. You and me and Tom, Dick and Harry have a gun, occasional gun violence. Everybody has a gun, more gun violence.

        • Really? Then explain why states and cities with the least restrictive gun laws have less gun violence than Chicago? You forget that where a honest law abiding citizen owns a gun, there is less likelihood of ANY kind of violence occurring to them. Strength and numbers are the usual base requirements to commit violence, and a gun makes any would be victim more than equal to his adversaries.

          • you seem to be looking for argumentation space. what, specifically did i say that you disagree with?

          • You appear to make the point that removing a specific instrument, guns in this case, resolves violence. Sure, in the most narrowest sense, that would be true, but irreverent because violence would still occur anyway, making it moot to remove guns. Also, it takes guns to remove guns, giving the state a monopoly in practicing gun violence, which didn’t end well for Jews and other folk. Last, firearm availability in the black market and produced by garage mechanics would still make it impossible to make a gun free society. Did prohibition, or the war on drugs work? I

          • holy moly. don’t put words in my mouth. i said, inarguably, that the removal of guns would end GUN violence, not ALL violence. this whole argument is getting out of control and ppl are not listening carefully, so with that, i shall bow out.

      • Gun violence went up in Chicago with the availability of guns. But it may go down with time as more nonsavages in the city buy guns, keep them handy, and develop a reputation for using them against the usual suspects.

    • The power of television. You see on TV that “experts say proliferation increases the chance of use” and you just accept it without thinking about it.

      The truth is, more nukes means a lower chance of use.

      • What was the probability of nukes (either fission or fusion) being used in 1944?

        Well, zero. Zero nukes means zero probability of nukes being used.

        As we know from history, the probability of nukes being used increased greatly in the latter half of 1945. Why is that?

        A: More nukes means a greater chance of use than when there are no nukes.

        • I have been using giraffe repellent in my garden. So far, no giraffes. Therefore, giraffe repellent works!

        • Non-sequitur. No nukes means no argument whatsoever. And trying to make it so there are none is utopian nonsense to boot. They only go away when they are obsolete, not by design. You guys are repeating the same arguments for disarmament that were used after WWI.

      • Precisely. (A nuclear) armed society is a polite society.

        One more thing, Zman: there is a method whereby NK’s puny missiles could wreak tremendous havoc on the US, even weakening Fed.gov to the point it’s no longer in control of most of the country.

        One missile, launched off the northern Atlanta coast of the US from a ship, almost exactly straight up, and detonating a uranium fission bomb with the correct casing at 300-400km above south-central Virginia. The resulting Compton effect cascade would cause an EMP large enough to destroy enough critical components of the RFC and SERC power grids to plunge the Boston-Baltimore-DC megapolis into darkness for a period of months to years. The resulting cascade failures may also destabilize other tied grids, with the possible exception of the Western and Texas Interconnection grids.

        The Norks could do it, with some help from Pakistan, Iran, and perhaps the Chinese. And millions of Americans could die of privation, sickness from bad water, and violence.

  18. This reminds me quite a bit of George Orwell’s astute essay about Adolf Hitler, and why “that little corporal” (as I think Hindenburg called him) was so popular with some. The general belief (post-rise of the bourgeoisie) is that what people want is comfort. Hitler promised the total opposite pretty explicitly, but there is something in man (or there was) that many times chooses meaning over comfort, or sees no meaning in comfort at least until some rite of passage/trial of fire has been passed through.

    It should be pointed out that thanks to Hillary and Obama, nuclear-disarmament for “rogue states” is a less likely to happen, since Qaddafi divested himself of tons of equipment and gave up all his sources (including Abdul Khan, who birthed the Pakistan bomb project) and his reward was to literally be sodomized with a bayonet by NATO-backed rebels.

    The idea that the left gives a crap about the environment is a joke anyway. The “Dirty Deals” papers by the Sierra Club showed that TPP was a disaster, especially for Germany, and Trump withdrew (keeping his word at least on that). Remember how hard Obama and Hillary fought to get it through? Its repeal was a central plank in Bernie’s platform, but I don’t think he could have accomplished in eight years what Trump did in a week. Nor did he or anyone else on the left have the decency (or honesty) to give Trump any credit. Illegal immigration is also hell on the environment. If the numbers are down (as border patrol agents are saying) that’s a much smaller carbon footprint, since people naturally use more resources in first world than third world countries. The left can’t process less illegal immigration=less environmental pollution because it causes Derbyshire’s “Narrative collision.”

    • Orwell’s Hitler essay was brilliant. I think a lot of people voted for Trump for a similar reason — he all but promised to de-pussify America. He hasn’t actually delivered on that yet, alas, but the point stands — the unstated but obvious appeal of the Democratic Party for the last 50 years has been “vote for us, and everything will be nice and calm and kind.” You know, girly. I doubt that’s a problem for the Norks, but it describes the West perfectly (which is why they dig Islam so much).

    • When Hillary floated the idea of taking out Qaddafi, I thought at the time “don’t they have anything better to do?” I think that whole bombing campaign was corporate greed and political boredom. And absolutely zero thoughts on the obvious consequences.

  19. To put the best lipstick on this, it could be as simple as, Trump is Kim’s first “new President”, no? Every new President gets tested by whatever Kim family member is running NKorea at the time. But this time, it’s more serious b/c SKorea just had a major political upheaval. China has a card to play like not before ( Islands and Durerte )

    Trump, to me, is taking this opportunity, that he did not anticipate, to deal his deal with China. Trump called China out on market dumping and currency manipulation like no politician in a Presidential campaign. I think it all ties in. Kim is doing what he knows and is betting nothing will happen but he’ll get concessions. Trump is showing , by actions and statements that he’s getting all the allies involved, AND handing China a opportunity to step up.

    I think the 3rd CG , that won’t arrive for a few weeks is a back-up and will , once arriving, within a month or so allow the Vinson to RTB, but keep 2 CG’s there. In the meantime, it puts pressure in China to do something; and ultimately I think they will. China will ( I hope, I am only going on hope ) that this time is different and China would welcome to opportunity to “lead” in the region and remove their unstable client. But a credible show of pressure to take Kim out on our end, must be shown to give the Chinese decision-makers the political cover within China.

    This is no longer just about missiles to the US… It’s about finally saying enough. North Korea has enough conventional weapons and chemical weapons to cause mass casualties in Seoul , and too the Norks have been selling their technology and if they get a good ICBM, they’ll sell them.. probably to Iran. So, there is a LOT riding on this standown. And I blame the media and the Democrats for purposely making Trump look unstable or illegitimate as I think this political drama feeds the bad decision tree Kim has taken. For all he knows, he’s seeing a rerun of what South Korea just went through. ( sorry so long )

  20. It may just be that the show is being put on by Kim for the benefit of Kim. His risk of assassination has to be high, especially if some alliance of Chinese, SoKos, and Amis are making offers to NoKo insiders.

  21. If the Kim Dynasty wants to survive it needs deterrence against invasions and nukes are the final deterrence, if Saddam really had nukes and a way to deliver them the Iraq war wouldn’t had happened.

    It also seems that the Norks don’t trust the Chinese to defend them or maybe they’re making this show because China is backing them up covertly. Which way, I don’t see a 2nd Korean War happening in the near future.

    • The US has practiced invading the Norks for twenty years, they’d be fools not to develop a deterrence against US aggression.

  22. “The US would respond with a nuke attack from the air and sea that would eliminate North Korea as an ongoing concern for a few thousand years.”

    I have no confidence that this is true. None. The USA has castrated itself.

    Some asshole federal judge would enjoin it, the Democrats would rant, obfuscate, delay and lie, the military is entirely enmoled with leftists.

  23. I can’t think of anything more frightening than bored foreign policy leaders with too large of budgets. Great article.

Comments are closed.