There’s no appeasing North Korea

North Korea has violated or summarily withdrawn from an armistice, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, two IAEA safeguards agreements, an inter-Korean denuclearization agreement, two agreed frameworks, a joint denuclearization statement, the Leap Day agreement, and six U.N. Security Council resolutions — and yet, the most stubborn “engagers” of Pyongyang look on this clear historical record and declare that it calls for yet another piece of paper. Now that calls to negotiate a peace treaty with Pyongyang are metastasizing from the pro-North Korean fringe into far-left quarters of Washington academia, Pyongyang has presented further proof (not that any is needed) that the appeasement of Pyongyang is a fool’s errand. With delectable timing, it comes just after Joel Wit’s awkward call for Donald Trump to be the next POTUS to negotiate an unenforceable and unverifiable nuclear deal with North Korea.

The latest proof comes in the form of a nine-page bill of particulars against noted neocon collapsist Barack Obama, again clarifying (not that further clarification is needed) that Kim Jong-un will never give up the pursuit of a nuclear arsenal. (And to think what high hopes the North Koreans had for Obama before they called him “a wicked black monkey.”) The headline of the statement, “The DPRK’s Strengthening of its Nuclear Forces Is a Righteous Choice to Defend Itself from the Extreme Moves of the U.S. to Stifle It,” seems fairly conclusive to me, but then, I don’t work in a think tank.

But the real eyebrow-raiser is Pyongyang’s lengthy list of demands in exchange for — for what, again? Not even Wit can answer that, but for years now, the North Koreans have demanded that U.S. end its “hostile policy” toward North Korea, which raises the sensible question of just exactly what a “hostile policy” includes. According to the new North Korean statement, it includes U.N. and U.S. sanctions, South Korea’s defensive and deterrent military exercises, missile defense, criticism of Kim Jong-un’s crimes against humanity, and quite possibly the First Amendment right of private citizens to ridicule His Supreme Corpulency. To Joel Wit, the price would also almost certainly include vast amounts of money (money that Congress would almost certainly never appropriate).

But this obstructionist manifesto is also an invaluable insight into Pyongyang’s diplomatic strategy, because it helps us understand just how a North Korea “peace process” would play out in practice. Of course, a regime that constantly breaches the peace with acts of war doesn’t really want peace. A regime that uses war rhetoric to whip up xenophobic hostility to justify the isolation and poverty of its people, and whose stock in trade is to pile new and increasingly unreasonable demands on top of old ones can’t really want a peace treaty. That would not only truncate its list of demands, but would also undermine its martial propaganda narrative.

What North Korea really wants is a peace treaty negotiation — the longer and more inconclusive, the better. Its diplomatic strategy is to draw the U.S. and South Korea into an extended “peace process” in which it would make a series of up-front demands (the lifting of sanctions) in exchange for (at most) a partial freeze of its nuclear programs, which would effectively recognize it as a de facto nuclear weapons state. In short order, it would also demand the end to U.S.-South Korean military exercises, the curtailment of missile defense, and other demands that would ensure its nuclear and military hegemony over South Korea. Then, Pyongyang would demand an end to diplomatic and humanitarian criticism of its regime, censorship of anti-regime leaflets, demonstrations, and satirical films — in short, a limited recognition of its political supremacy over Seoul that would end in a one-country-two-systems Korea under North Korean domination, with Pyongyang gradually escalating its financial and political demands. We know this because it is already making those demands.

Pyongyang’s list of intolerable outrages includes “malicious slander and criticism,” military exercises, deterrent fly-pasts (mostly after North Korean missile or nuke tests), and (naturally) sanctions. They’re so pissed off about the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act that they mentioned it no less than four times, not even counting the many other executive actions that the NKSPEA required, and which this manifesto also lists.

If Pyongyang really believes all the things on this nine-page list really are unacceptable, it’s sure to add them as demands in any negotiation, and most of them are deal-breakers. As they say at the very end:

All the facts above clearly substantiate the truth that the root cause of escalated tension on the Korean peninsula lies with the U.S. hostile policy and nuclear threats against the DPRK, not the latter’s nuclear and missile tests.

The DPRK has chosen the road of possessing nuclear weapons as a self-defensive measure to safeguard its state and system from the constant nuclear threat of the U.S. We are strengthening our nuclear forces both in quality and quantity, holding fast to the line of simultaneously developing the national economy and nuclear forces as our strategic line.

The U.S. should face up to the new strategic position of the DPRK and take actual measures to show that they are willing to scrap its anachronistic hostile policy and nuclear threat against the DPRK.

This, and only this will be the first base of resolving all the issues. (emphasis mine)

Does North Korea really expect President Trump or a future President Ban to end what it calls the “human rights racket?” Granted, President Roh tried, a President Moon might try again, and candidate Trump expressed some fairly unconventional views of the First Amendment, but what Pyongyang is really demanding is that the U.S. and South Korea accept North Korea’s nuclear status, effectively abrogate their military alliance, and alter the constitutional foundations of their systems of government to make sure no one says mean things about His Porcine Majesty. They might as well have demanded that we revive Harambe, but a long “peace process” would leave ample opportunities to pile on more demands.

If the North Koreans found Barack Obama unforgivably insensitive, I wonder if they’ve read what Donald Trump and his advisors have said about them. I wonder if they’re expecting more diplomatic restraint and tact from Donald Trump than Barack Obama after their next nuke test. You can follow him on Twitter, by the way, at @realDonaldTrump. For your convenience, I understand he sometimes tweets during normal Pyongyang office hours. Full manifesto follows:

Memorandum of DPRK Foreign Ministry

The Foreign Ministry of the DPRK issued a memorandum on Monday, which reads:

The DPRK’s Strengthening of its Nuclear Forces Is a Righteous Choice to Defend Itself from the Extreme Moves of the U.S. to Stifle It

Memorandum of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK

Five years have gone by since the DPRK, after having lost its great leader, engaged itself in an all-out confrontation with the U.S. imperialists to cope with their ever-worsening hostile moves and increasing nuclear threat against it.

The people of the DPRK have turned out in the struggle to implement the behests of the great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il, overcoming the pain and sorrow of having lost him. The U.S. has employed all kinds of means and methods in vicious moves to check the advance of the DPRK and tried to seize the opportunity to stifle it.

However, the anachronistic hostile policy and nuclear threat that the U.S. has enforced with unprecedented recklessness against the DPRK have only provoked its just and righteous countermeasure for self-defense and ended up in total and complete failure.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK hereby issues this memorandum to disclose the criminal acts of the U.S. which has pushed the DPRK towards strengthening of its nuclear forces by making ceaseless hostile moves against it after it suffered the greatest loss of the nation.

1. Heinous hostile maneuvers against the DPRK aimed at political suffocation and system collapse

Since the year 2012, soon after the passing away of the great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il, the U.S. began to openly pursue the objective to politically stifle the DPRK and overthrow its system by all means.

Blatant remarks denying the DPRK’s government, system and policy were made by high-level officials of the U.S. and even Obama himself has constantly heaped malicious slander and criticism on the DPRK in his public appearances.

The gravity of hostile maneuvers of the U.S. against the DPRK lies in the fact that they have grown extremely reckless and dangerous as to target the supreme leadership of our revolution.

The Obama administration dared to defame the supreme dignity of the DPRK as an extension of their malicious slander on it. This is the gravest of all sins which will never be forgiven for eternity.

This fully reveals the true nature of the policy of “strategic patience” pursued by the Obama administration, which is none other than an aggressive and heinous “strategic suffocation” policy against the DPRK.

By this time, the “human rights” racket which the U.S. has long made against the DPRK has grown so reckless as to attempt to put their wild ambition of overthrowing the DPRK’s system into practice.

The U.S. has gone so far as to breach the basic principles of international laws and ditch its dignity of a superpower by pleading with other countries to join their pressure racket against the DPRK through downgrading or severing ties with it.

The U.S. political acts of hostility against the DPRK find graphic accounts in the following record of events;

– On March 25, 2012, Obama clamored about “isolation” of the DPRK while condemning its strengthening of nuclear deterrent.

– In June 2012, the U.S. Special Envoy for North Korean Human Rights Issues disclosed the provision of funds by the State Department to anti-DPRK media entities.

– On August 16, 2012, Obama signed the “North Korea Human Rights Reauthorization Act”.

– From March to June 2013, the U.S. State Department released “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report”, “DPRK Human Rights Report”, “International Religious Freedom Report” and “Trafficking in Persons Report” to intensify its condemnation against the DPRK on baseless or fabricated data and allegations.

– On January 17, 2014, Obama signed the “Appreciation Act” for the 2014 fiscal year which allocated huge amount of funds for anti-DPRK “human rights” racket.

– On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, in a press interview, labeled the DPRK as an “evil place” and said they should “hold it accountable”.

– On April 15, 2014, the U.S. State Department officially announced its provision of funds to anti-DPRK “human rights” groups.

– From April 23 to 26, 2014, during his visit to Japan and south Korea, Obama criticized the DPRK as the “worst violator of human rights”.

– On September 23, 2014, the U.S. Secretary of State Kerry personally called a “High-Level Meeting on North Korea Human Rights” in New York and fanned the atmosphere of pressurizing the DPRK.

– On November 18, 2014, an anti-DPRK “human rights resolution” was coercively adopted at the meeting of the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly at the instigation of the U.S.

– On December 22, 2014, the U.S. pressed for a meeting of United Nations Security Council with the agenda item of the DPRK’s “human rights situation”.

– On January 22, 2015, Obama made malicious remarks about the “collapse” of the DPRK in an interview.

– From May 17 to 18, 2015, during his visit to south Korea, the U.S. Secretary of State Kerry provoked the supreme leadership of the DPRK by talking about “reckless disregard for human rights” and “the most egregious examples”.

– On December 10, 2015, the U.S. has put the “human rights situation” of the DPRK on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council abusing its presidency of the Council.

– On February 18, 2016, Obama signed the “North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016” which included psychological warfare and “human rights” offensive against the DPRK to disintegrate it from within.

– On July 6, 2016, the U.S. State Department released a report, pursuant to the “North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016”, that made impudent remarks about the supreme leadership of the DPRK while maliciously condemning the country.

– On September 20, 2016, Obama labeled the DPRK as a “wasteland” in his speech at the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

– On October 12, 2016, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs made vehement criticism of the supreme leadership of the DPRK.

– On October 28, 2016, during his visit to south Korea, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State condemned the policy of the DPRK government as “reckless and inhumane”.

The political acts of hostility committed by the U.S. against the DPRK since its great leader passed away was indeed the most vicious, frantic and despicable of all times.

2. Intensification of the extremely dangerous military hostility and nuclear threat and blackmail

During the last five years the U.S. revealed its intention to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike against the DPRK and intensified its military threats against us at a maximum pace.

The U.S. consistently increased the scale and intensity of the aggressive joint military drills which it conducts on annual basis, creating extreme tension on the Korean peninsula and driving the situation into a brink of nuclear war and seriously endangered peace and security in the region.

To take an example of the Key Resolve joint military exercise, one of the typical joint military drills of the U.S. and the south Korean puppets, 2 100 U.S. troops participated in the exercise in the year 2012, but the U.S. steadily increased the number of troops to 3 500 in 2013, 5 200 in 2014 and 8 600 in 2015, and in 2016, 27 000 troops participated in the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle 16 joint military exercises.

Beside the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises, the U.S. conducted over 40 provocative and aggressive military drills under various names on annual basis including Ulji Freedom Guardian joint military exercise, Max Thunder joint air force exercise, Double Dragon joint landing exercise and multilateral RIMPAC naval exercise, joint naval strike exercise, joint special force exercise, joint live firing exercise and so on. The total number of troops the U.S. has committed to these exercises reached over 500 000.

Not only the scale of these war drills has increased, but also their character, purpose and contents became more and more provocative and frantic every year.

The U.S., obsessed with its ambition to invade the DPRK, has been deploying various kinds of modern military equipment and assets in and around the Korean peninsula and tried to threaten and blackmail it with nuclear weapons.

Since the year 2012, the U.S. has consistently conducted various kinds of military drills against the DPRK, deploying its naval forces in and around the Korean peninsula including the nuclear carriers USS George Washington, USS Nimitz, USS Ronald Reagan, USS John C. Stennis, the flagship of the U.S. Navy 7th Fleet USS Blue Ridge, nuclear submarines USS Ohio, USS San Francisco, USS Bremerton, USS Columbus, USS Olympia, USS North Carolina, USS Mississippi, Aegis cruiser USS Shiloh, Aegis destroyers USS Michael Murphy, USS Kidd, guided missile destroyer USS Spruance and so on.

In addition, the U.S. moved B-1B, B-2, B-52 nuclear strategic bombers from the U.S. mainland to Guam and they flew to south Korea several times to conduct drills for landing and dropping nuclear bombs with the purpose of getting ready for a surprise nuclear preemptive strike against the DPRK.

Despite severe criticism and condemnation at home and abroad, the U.S. proceeded with the deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) to south Korea in full-scale.

The U.S. rapidly intensified its military provocations against the DPRK since the year 2012 and here are some of the examples;

– From February 27 to April 30, 2012, the U.S. conducted the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises. These exercises were aimed at the mourning period in our country after the passing away of the great leader and conducted in accordance with its all-out war scenario OPLAN 5027 and OPLAN 5029 allegedly aimed to cope with “contingency” in the North.

– On June 22, 2012, the U.S. conducted the largest-ever joint live firing exercise together with the south Korean puppet army at the south of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), using the DPRK flag as target.

– From August 20 to 31, 2012, the U.S. conducted the Ulji Freedom Guardian exercise in accordance with its “actual war scenario” against the DPRK. The flagship of the U.S. Navy 7th fleet and over 30 000 troops participated in this exercise.

– From March 1 to April 30, 2013, the U.S. conducted the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises. The nuclear carrier USS George Washington, nuclear submarine and huge amount of forces and war machines were mobilized for these exercises and during the exercise B-52H nuclear strategic bomber and B-2 stealth bomber flew into the sky above south Korea and dropped dummy munitions and F-22 stealth fighters were deployed to the Osan Air Force base in south Korea.

– From August 19 to 30, 2013, the U.S. conducted the Ulji Freedom Guardian joint military exercise. Over 30 000 U.S. troops participated in this exercise and during the exercise B-52 nuclear strategic bombers flew into the sky above south Korea several times.

– On February 5, 2014, B-52 nuclear strategic bomber flew into the sky above the west sea of the Korean peninsula and carried out drills for air strike.

– From February 24 to April 18, 2014, the U.S. conducted the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises. The purpose of these exercises were to take control of the DPRK nuclear facilities and to occupy Pyongyang. The U.S. applied the “Protocol for US-ROK combined forces to respond to localized provocations by North Korea” and the “Tailored Deterrent Strategy” to these exercises.

– On August 6, 2014, three B-2 nuclear strategic bombers moved from the U.S. mainland to Anderson Air Force base in Guam.

– From August 18 to 29, 2014, the U.S. conducted the Ulji Freedom Guardian joint military exercise. Over 30 000 U.S. troops participated in this exercise and they carried out a drill for a surprise preemptive strike against the DPRK in accordance with the “Tailored Deterrent Strategy”.

– From March 2 to April 24, 2015, the U.S. conducted the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises aimed at “removing the DPRK headquarters” and “occupying Pyongyang”.

– On January 10, 2016, a B-52 nuclear strategic bomber took off from the Air Force base in Guam and flew into the sky above the Military Demarcation Line.

– From March 7 to April 30, 2016, the U.S. conducted the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle 16 joint military exercises and disclosed its plan for “decapitation operation” and “high-density strike”.

– On April 26, 2016, Obama, in an interview, said “We don’t want them getting close. We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals.”

– On June 17, 2016, a B-52 bomber fleet exercised dropping of nuclear bombs in the sky above south Korea.

– On July 8, 2016, the U.S. announced together with the south Korean puppets their agreement to deploy THAAD in south Korea.

– On August 6, 2016, for the first time in ten years, the U.S. stationed several B-1B nuclear bombers in Guam and three additional B-2 nuclear strategic bombers on August 9.

– Around August 23, 2016, B-1B, B-52, B-2 nuclear strategic bombers took off at the same time from Guam and flew to the Korean peninsula.

– On September 13, 2016, two B-1B U.S. nuclear strategic bombers flew into the sky above south Korea and again on the 21st, and this time, one of them landed at the Osan Air Force base in south Korea.

As one can see through the above-mentioned facts, the reckless and dangerous provocations of the U.S. to seek military invasion and collapse of the DPRK were highly intensified and reached an extreme phase.

3. Inhumane sanctions aimed at economic suffocation

The maneuvers of the U.S. to impose sanctions on the DPRK are ages old and their viciousness is also widely known to the world. However, what the U.S. did in the last five years was indeed unprecedented in its pace and intensity.

The U.S. regarded economic sanctions as the main tool for implementing its hostile policy against the DPRK and employed every heinous and vicious means to suffocate the DPRK.

The U.S. made an issue of the DPRK’s legitimate right to peaceful development of outer space and its buildup of self-defensive nuclear deterrence and made frantic attempts to fabricate heinous “sanctions resolutions” by usurping the United Nations Security Council.

All the “sanctions resolutions” fabricated at the UNSC by the U.S. and its followers against the DPRK pursue heinous goal to deprive the DPRK of its right to existence, subsistence and development by blocking the regular economic activities of the DPRK through all despicable means and methods.

Through the so-called UN “sanctions resolutions”, the U.S. seeks to prevent the DPRK from its routine financial transactions with other countries; put all the channels linked to the DPRK under tight control; force the inspection of any vessel sailing to and from the DPRK and prohibit entry of such vessel into ports of other countries; have other countries deny permission to any aircraft of the DPRK to take off from, land in and overfly their territory.

The U.S. went so far as to devise a provision for the “ban on export and import of luxury goods” and prevented import of sport apparatus which has nothing to do with development of arms and even included daily necessities and children’s toys in the list of “banned goods”.

Pursuant to the anti-DPRK “sanctions resolutions” it has forged, the U.S. is running amuck to impose unilateral sanctions while forcing other countries to get on board.

The following are the facts and figures about the abhorrent anti-DPRK sanctions maneuvers made by the U.S. for the last five years;

– On June 18, 2012, Obama declared the extension of state emergency and economic sanctions targeting the DPRK pursuant to the “International Emergency Economic Powers Act”.

? On January 22, 2013, the U.S. made an issue of the DPRK’s peaceful satellite launch and instigated the UNSC to adopt the “sanctions resolution 2087”. On January 24, the U.S. State Department and the Treasury Department announced unilateral sanctions on the basis of the “resolution”.

– On March 7, 2013, the U.S. pushed the UNSC to adopt the “sanctions resolution 2094”, while making an issue of the DPRK’s third nuclear test which was a righteous measure for self-defense. The Treasury Department declared unilateral sanctions, pursuant to the “resolution”.

– In September 2013 and November 2014, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a warning to all the U.S. financial institutions urging them to maintain the financial sanctions against the DPRK at the highest level.

– From April 23 to 26, 2014 during his visit to Japan and south Korea, Obama talked about tougher “sanctions” and “pressure” against the DPRK.

– On January 2, 2015, Obama issued an executive order to impose sanctions on the DPRK as regards the alleged hacking into Sony Pictures Entertainment and, pursuant to the order, the Treasury Department enforced the sanctions.

– In July, September, November and December 2015, the U.S. State Department and the Treasury Department designated the DPRK’s individuals and entities to be subject to the additional sanctions.

– On February 18, 2016, Obama signed the “North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016”, a law on comprehensive sanctions and pressure targeting the DPRK.

– On March 2, 2016, the U.S. instigated the UNSC to adopt the “sanctions resolution 2270” by taking issue with the DPRK’s H-bomb test and peaceful satellite launch. The U.S. State Department and the Treasury Department enforced sanctions pursuant to the “resolution” as well as unilateral sanctions.

– On March 16, 2016, Obama issued an executive order to impose sanctions on the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) and the government of the DPRK. The Treasury Department designated the DPRK’s individuals, entities and vessels to be subject to the unilateral sanctions.

– On June 1, 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the DPRK as a “jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern”.

– On July 6, 2016, the U.S. State Department bitterly condemned the DPRK in its report issued pursuant to the “North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016”, and the U.S. Treasury Department announced unilateral sanctions as a follow-up.

– On November 4, 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a final rule under section 311 of the “Patriot Act” to further restrict the DPRK’s access to the U.S. financial system.

The ongoing economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. are indeed the toughest of all times and they are vicious hostile acts seeking to suffocate the DPRK’s overall economy, undermine the people’s livelihood and ultimately isolate and stifle the DPRK.

As shown by the facts above, during the last five years the U.S. has designated the DPRK as the primary target for attack and regime change in the implementation of their aggressive Asia-Pacific domination strategy and steadily and systematically intensified political, military and economic pressure on it.

The desperate hostile policy of the U.S. toward the DPRK gave rise to the self-defensive measures from the latter.

In response to the U.S. hostile acts of having wantonly violated the DPRK’s legitimate right to peaceful satellite launch and fabricated another “sanctions resolution” by instigating the UNSC, the DPRK conducted the third nuclear test on February12, 2013 as part of practical countermeasures to safeguard the country’s security and sovereignty.

The H-bomb test conducted for the first time by the DPRK in January 2016 was also a self-defensive measure to firmly protect the country’s sovereignty and the nation’s right to existence and guarantee peace on the Korean peninsula and the regional security from the frantic attempts of the U.S. to put in place the harshest-ever political isolation, economic blockade and military pressure and even impose nuclear holocaust on the DPRK.

Deeply unnerved by the DPRK’s strengthened nuclear forces, the U.S. sought reckless military provocations, even touting about the “decapitation operation” and “high density strike”. To cope with these nefarious provocations of the U.S., the DPRK demonstrated mighty nuclear strike capabilities of Juche Korea through the disclosure of a miniaturized nuclear warhead and successful test fire of submarine launched ballistic missiles and surface to surface medium and long range strategic rocket “Hwasong-10”.

On September 9, 2016, the DPRK has made a successful nuclear warhead detonation as part of its substantive countermeasures against the threats and sanctions by the U.S. and other hostile forces who severely criticized the DPRK’s exercise of right to self-defense and doggedly denied its strategic position.

All the facts above clearly substantiate the truth that the root cause of escalated tension on the Korean peninsula lies with the U.S. hostile policy and nuclear threats against the DPRK, not the latter’s nuclear and missile tests.

The DPRK has chosen the road of possessing nuclear weapons as a self-defensive measure to safeguard its state and system from the constant nuclear threat of the U.S. We are strengthening our nuclear forces both in quality and quantity, holding fast to the line of simultaneously developing the national economy and nuclear forces as our strategic line.

The U.S. should face up to the new strategic position of the DPRK and take actual measures to show that they are willing to scrap its anachronistic hostile policy and nuclear threat against the DPRK.

This, and only this will be the first base of resolving all the issues.

8 Comments

  1. That there is no appeasing North Korea would certainly be news to a majority of North Korea “experts,” surveyed by the Hankyoreh. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/771095.html

    The consequences of such an agreement should be obvious. If North Korea is recognized as a nuclear weapons state, there would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth in Seoul and Tokyo as it is realized that America has gone back on its promise to seek denuclearization. This would lead to the realization that indigenous nuclear weapons are more powerful than America’s word. If South Korea and Japan go nuclear, America would be expected to place sanctions upon them under the prevailing nonproliferation regime. It would refuse to do this as it has refused to do with India and Israel, forcing China and Russia to respond by refusing to sanction Iran when the JCPOA expires or if President Trump withdraws the US from it in light of regular Iranian violations. Faced with a nuclear Iran, Saudi Arabia would either pursue its own nuclear weapons or use its alleged option to buy Pakistani nuclear weapons pursuant to its announced policy that whatever Iran has they will have. Thus, a North Korean freeze, which would inevitably be hailed by the usual suspects as a step toward peace would greatly enhance the chances of nuclear war over the question of the correct successor to the Prophet Muhammad. Oh, and there’s also the problem that North Korea will of course cheat on the agreement in time, as it is required ideologically required to keep up conflict with the Yanquis.

    All of that said, it is never explained why Kim Jong Eun would take such an agreement. He is exporting more coal to China than he ever has at the highest prices in recent memory making it entirely conceivable that he has come out ahead financially after two nuclear tests this year. So, he wouldn’t need our money; he doesn’t particularly need our food aid either considering that he doesn’t really care how many of his subjects live or die, and he doesn’t want warm relations with us on account of his ideology. What could we give him that he wants? If I can see this stuff from a mile away, why can’t people who have studied this their entire lives?




    0



    0
  2. 1) ” . . . If South Korea and Japan go nuclear . . .”

    Aidan, definitely add Taiwan to this instant list, with all the associated cascade network effects. I just realized that eventually, Vietnam would definitely join the club. Only sticker shock restrains / might restrain Vietnam – at least for now – but as Vietnam emerges from communist poverty, they’ll certainly have the budget for it. And incentive. I just realized that for shits and giggles, Mongolia might want to jump in. As a large, underpopulated land mass, Mongolia has a smallish military

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Armed_Forces

    and some motive

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baitag_Bogd

    to research all market options. Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia would have their own motivations and realities. Australia? Sure! Them too. So . . . the official PRC policy toward King Little Fatso III, of “restraint” and benign neglect, will soon enough lead to a nuclearly-encircled (yeesh) PRC. My advice: the PRC needs to shut down the Nork Empire at once. You’re welcome, Xi Jinping.

    2) ” . . . What could we give him [King Little Fatso III] that he wants?”

    Money.




    0



    0
  3. On October 26, 1962 at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro demanded that Krushchev initiate a first-instance nuclear strike on the USA if any American troops landed. We knew he had missiles with ranges of 2080 and 2200 miles, and that he had nuclear capable bombers. We didn’t know he had 100 Luna nuclear land mines and nuclear artillery. Krushchev, to his credit, realized that Castro was an “adventurist” and couldn’t be trusted with any nuclear weapons on his soil. As late as December 1962 Castro was still railing about the withdrawal of nuclear land mines and artillery. He asked for them again in 1981,so couldn’t even learn from his mistakes.

    What kind of dictator will use nuclear weapons on his own land?

    Kim Jong UN — and due to the malevolent stupidity of the clever Chinese, he has these weapons under his personal control, and will shortly supplement them with the ability to project them beyond the DMZ.

    We are faced with a far more serious crisis than the Cuban Missile Crisis ever was.




    0



    0
  4. I am an admirer of President Obama, but he did us no favors by kicking this particular can down the road. I continue to think that the US can’t/won’t tolerate a DPRK with first strike capability. But what does this mean with the political turmoil going on in the ROK and the Oval Office about to be occupied by a guy we are hoping against hope won’t turn out to be a totally irrational crackpot?




    0



    0