Why Donnie Dotard's North Korea Nukes' Parlay Is Doomed To Fail

"When North Korea talks about  'complete denuclearization,' it typically means that the U.S. ends its alliance with South Korea, and then North Korea will no longer need nuclear weapons to defend itself. But the U.S. won’t give up the South. And North Korea has been pursuing nuclear weapons since the 1950s, and I don’t know any expert who thinks that it will genuinely hand over its arsenal.    On my last visit to North Korea, in September, a Foreign Ministry official told me that Libya had given up its nuclear program — only to have its regime toppled. Likewise, he noted, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq lacked a nuclear deterrent — so Saddam was ousted by America. North Korea would not make the same mistake, he insisted.  It’s even less likely that North Korea will give up its nukes now that it sees Trump poised to tear up the Iran nuclear deal."   - Nicholas Kristof, NY Times, Saturday

First, let's acknowledge the agreement signed between Kim Jung-un and South Korean president Moon Jae-in, putatively ending the Korean War by a stroke of the pen, is a righteous, major step toward peace on the Korean peninsula.  At the same time, contrary to talking dunderheads it has nada to do with Trump, his threats, bloviations or 'fire and fury' rhetoric. So all the screwballs chanting "NO-bel! NO-bel!" at a Trump rally in Michigan Saturday night, need to come down off their opioid highs.  (Moon Jae-In himself ought to be ashamed for sucking up to Trump's  malignant narcissism to the extent of saying he "deserves the Nobel Peace Prize". There are  more or less disgusting vanity appeals to an autocrat, and then there is out and out groveling,  ass licking, which Moon is guilty of.)

At the same time, it is precisely Trump who has the power to scuttle whatever incipient peace plans may be afoot, mainly by misreading or misinterpreting what Kim Jong -un means when he talks of denuclearization.   To get a clue, read Nicholas Kristoff's take quote in bold blue above, and try to process it word by word.

Trump himself demands "nothing less than complete denuclearization"  and we've since learned over the weekend this ignorant buffoon has claimed a 'W' before the so-called summit has even occurred, e.g.
The Fix: Trump claims wins on North Korea before the game really starts

But his reckless claim is premature given that Kim and the North Koreans have done a neat end run around him and his "denuclearization"  demands by the use of clever semantics.   As Nicholas Kristof has also accurately noted:

"Kim’s game plan seems to be to sign pledges for denuclearization, leaving details to be worked out in follow-up talks, knowing that the pledges won’t be fully implemented and that there will never be intrusive inspections. "

And as the old saw goes, "the devil is in the details" .  Indeed, and it behooves us to get into those "weeds"....errr details, to grasp why - when one cuts thr0ught the media blather - there will be no "denuclearization" such as the Trumpy buffoons envisage.

While the breathless 24/7  cable media continue to babble about Trump probably "making history"  and getting North Korea to "dismantle"  its nukes, they'd do well to bloviate  less and process more. Especially the words quoted from Nicholas Kristof in his Times  article that first appeared on Saturday.  Or, they could read the WSJ editorial in its weekend edition, 'Korea Summit Hype' (p. A12) noting "there has been no tangible sign" of the North giving up its nuclear program.

Let me put this in even starker terms:  The chances of the North "dismantling" its nukes are roughly the same as the Cleveland Browns winning the next two Super Bowls with their latest Boy Wonder QB, Baker Mayfield.  It ain't gonna happen!  You can take that to the bank.

The North and Kim have not invested the past 30 years -  including recruiting rocket scientists from the former Soviet Union - to give it all up now on a whim, baseless media speculations, or Trump's braggadocio and threats. No way in hell. But for those still not convinced, let's look more closely, starting with Kristof's last point that Dotard wants to tear up the Iran nuclear deal.

We learned, for instance from the lead NY Times story on Sunday that::

"Kim Jong-un, had told President Moon Jae-in that he would abandon his nuclear weapons if the United States agreed to formally end the Korean War and promise not to invade his country."

But how the hell could Kim believe a word the U.S. says when it's already reneged on the Iran nuclear deal?  That doesn't make sense. Let's process here that  the Iran nuclear deal -  already signed on to by a number of European nations  - is absolutely the gold standard for reducing Iranian weapons and up to now compliance has been verified, It's also been brilliantly defended by John Oliver, e.g.in this segment from "Last Week Tonight'.

Iran Deal: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) - YouTube

The very fact the Trumpies would seek to tear it up discloses they can't be trusted with any other strategic nuclear  deals, especially which include any promise not to invade N. Korea and subdue it.  Why should Kim believe anything Trump says when he's already been documented as having made 3,001 false or misleading claims, according to the latest WaPo tally?

Pompeo told ABC News in a broadcast on Sunday that the Trump administration’s objective was “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization” with North Korea.  But most clear thinkers can tell him right now that is a total pipe dream. Unless he and John "Ripper" Bolton  can also swear (on a stack of bibles) that the U.S will never attack the North.   Meanwhile, Bolton dismissed that demand as another "page from the North's propaganda playbook" and insisted there had to be a complete, verifiable dismantling of nukes within 2 years.  But as the Times noted:

"Even in the additional details released on Sunday by South Korean officials, Mr. Kim appeared to hedge his bets, indicating that denuclearizing his country could be a long process that required multiple rounds of negotiations and steps to build trust."

Most  experts who are familiar with North Korea, like former CIA specialist Sue Mi Terry, estimate that any process if it does get off the ground - would  take 3-5 years, or likely longer (we hope!) than the Trump buffoons will be in power. So why would Kim just give it all up?

And again, Kim knows deep down the U.S. will never promise not to invade or attack because that isn't what's burned into this nation's militant DNA. For those who need reminding,  the American Empire is still guided by National Security Council (NSC) Directive ‘NSC 10/2’,  formalized on June 18, 1948. A key element therein warned that all activities to be conducted against “hostile” foreign states – or in support of “friendly” ones, were to be executed so that “no U.S. Government responsibility would be evident to any unauthorized persons.” The provision also had to be included that if such activities were discovered “the U.S. Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them."

The scope of activities enumerated under the directive included: “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action – including sabotage; subversion against hostile states including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas and refugee liberation groups and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”

Ratcheting up the effect, and consolidating the impetus to Empire building,  was the document NSC-68, prepared by Paul Nitze of the National Security Council – completed by 1950. The document essentially contained the blueprint for unending strife and undeclared wars, all of which would be invoked on the basis of a zero tolerance threshold for foreigners’ misbehavior.

Note here that any excuse could be rendered to justify invocation of either document, neither of which has ever been revoked.  The North Koreans have to know this too, which is exactly why they'd demand a "promise" never to be attacked knowing full well the U.S. - especially under John Bolton's adherence to the documents -would never comply.  It is the proverbial "catch 22" which Kim knows can never be resolved, hence he can milk this de-nuking process as long as he wishes knowing he never has to comply because the U.S. won't first promise its non- interference.

Then there is the issue of the North Korean nuclear test site,  Punggye-ri, and Kim promising no further tests from this location.  Well, he can afford to make it because the site has collapsed! As reported in the WSJ ('North Korea Nuclear Test Site Collapse',  April 28, p. A8)  Chinese seismologists in a study published this month "concluded a secondary tremor" after their last test "was caused by the cavity's collapse"  Most experts in the know believe this has made the nuclear test site unusable for further testing. So, in other words, Kim isn't really giving up anything by asserting no further nuclear tests. (More recent reports quote Kim as stating there are still "two undamaged tunnels" at Punggye-ri, but those could well be decoy tunnels designed to mislead any foreign inspectors.)

But again, the so-called Kim-Trump summit and  presumed follow-ups may never manifest. By which I mean come to the point of actual inspection of nuclear test sites, so the issue could well be moot.   As one NBC news source put it this morning, Kim's promise to close Punggye-ri appears to be "mostly symbolic".  If the U.S. makes no promises not to invade then Kim will not make any "tangible" steps to de-nuking, as if he ever had such intentions anyway. 

Having seen first hand what happened to Iraq in 2003 and seeing how the U.S. treats the Iran nuclear treaty, there is simply nothing in it for Kim or the North Koreans. Trump - idiot asshole  that he is - will simply be making a long trek to Mongolia or Singapore (postulated meeting sites) for nothing.  As for Dotard's dreams of getting a Nobel Peace Prize, he'd do well to put that in the same "wish" canister as surviving his foul presidency.

See also: 
Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away as Koreas Talk Peace

The Trayvon Martin Case and the Dogs of American-Style War

Julian Assange defends Wikileaks release of documents two years ago, mainly to do with the conduct of the occupation of Afghanistan. It is doubtful that such releases can have any substantive effect on war policy or conduct until the documents NSC 10/2 and NSC-68 (which green light never ending wars and meddling) are each mothballed!

"And Caesar's spirit, raging for revenge, with Ate by his side come hot from hell, shall in these confines with a monarch's voice, Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth. " (Julius Caesar Act 3, scene 1, 270–275

"The hallmark of a great civilization is its ability to wage peace, not war."

-Gene Roddenberry

Incredibly, throughout the media blitz on the Trayvon Martin killiing, none of the pundits commenting have brought up the obvious parallels to the mode of American, pre-emptive warfare since 2003. To summarize briefly: the very least we know (before Sanford police PR began insinuating itself) is that "Neighborhood Watch" guy George Zimmerman encountered Trayvon Martin - a young black kid in a hoodie, and suddenly felt his life threatened. We don't know how many more details there are, but based on 911 calls this is the least we know. The claims that Trayvon "attacked" Zimmerman are still under investigation and as yet no hard proof has emerged to sustain them.

The point is, prior to Zimmerman's overt action of firing his weapon, the State of Florida already had in place a reckless law known as "Stand your ground" - which basically conferred the right of ultimate self protection if one felt or sensed that his life was threatened. On this basis, one can argue that Zimmerman acted "pre-emptively" to neutralize a vague threat that had become entrenched in his sense perceptions - triggering the fear circuits in his amygdala.

Now, think of laws like this all over the nation (we also have one in Colo. called "Make my Day" after the famous catch phrase in the first 'Dirty Harry' flick - where you can shoot and kill anyone entering or already inside your home if you believe he poses a threat to your life) and the inevitable results. We'd had mass bedlam and anarchy! The rule of law as it should be would be incessantly trumped by the perception of a "threat" requiring lethal force. Or "pre-emptive lethal force" if you will.

But as odious as such laws are in terms of the lethal license they give to the feeling threatened, let us admit and concede that they have precedents on the national level! I am talking of course of the "Bush doctrine" and its prescription to justify any form of "pre-emptive war" if the U.S. feels itself threatened. (Note: the Pentagon's PR mongers like to use the term "preventive war" but I am not buying into that bollocks. This again is a form of collaterial language designed to gut critical thought, reason. Please see the book: Collateral Language: A Users’ Guide to America’s New War (2002) )

Referring back to the preceding parenthetical, the alteration of the language (including use of the term "terrorist" and "war on terror") was crucial in order for the Bushies to launch their assorted 'dog and pony' shows (including with Colin Polwell at the UN) to try to show Saddam was getting ready to have a nuke and then who knew? Maybe mushroom clouds! The impetus was then to try to drive American public opinion into embracing an absurd, unjustified invasion and occupation which ultimately transmuted into an 8 ½ year long "war" (which was obviously still an occupation).

In other words, like George Zimmerman confronted with the "threatening" (in Zimmerman's mind) hoodie-clad, tall black kid, the Bushies were confronted with a lone nation (Iraq) they perceived (in their minds) as a "terrorist" (or part of the "Axis of Evil") which had all kinds of weapons and therefore this demanded a first strike. In other words, pre-emptive action, hence striking an initial lethal blow at a country before it could strike- thereby sending its economy into carnage and slaughtering over 600,000 Iraqis according to World Health Organization estimates. (Which are, of course, lowballed by the Pentagon to no more than 100,000).

Needless to say, based on what transpired from the fall of 2002 to March 15, 2003 (public support for the war went from barely 34% in December, 2002, to more than 67% in February) it is incumbent on all Americans now to be aware that when they passively comply with collateral language pushed on them like crack (as it was by the corporate media in the runup to the Iraq invasion) they become no better than useful idiots for the military-industrial complex and perpetual war state.

If Americans instead persist in a state of false consciousness and allow their brains to be PR-dumbed down, then they assist in mutating language and thought toward an ideological agenda, rather than shedding light on the issues themselves.

Nevertheless, the PR residue from 2002-03 which fueled that Iraq invasion bubble of unreality via jingoistic illusions (and inadequate security delusions) continues today with assorted similar pressures to strike Iran - despite the fact there's absolutely no hard evidence they have any nukes, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/03/its-still-stupid-to-launch-attack-on.html

Thus, unlike with the drumbeating in 2002-03, Americans must now do all in their power to resist the flood of media sound bites, from every yammering pundit, assuming ab initio an attack or war on Iran is morally justified, correct and "preventive" (instead of pre-emptive). Let's also reiterate once more, such pre-emptive attacks, as in the case of the U.S. invasion and attack on Iraq, and Nazi Germany's pre-emptive attacks on the Sudentenland in 1938, and Poland in 1939 (based on Poles being a "terrorist threat" to Aryan females) can't be countenanced under international law. These are guided by the Nuremberg Laws which were written after the conquest of the fascists in World War Two. Most particularly we have:

PRINCIPLE VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Note especially (i) which most directly embodies the entire pre-emptive war concept. It means exactly what it states, so that any nation found guilty of "planning, preparation, initiation or war of aggression" is thereby violating that principle.

The fact that so few Americans are aware of the above shows how ripe we are as a people to become even more PR-deformed.

Sadly, in the old days, before the disastrous implementation of National Security Council (NSC) Directive ‘NSC 10/2’ on June 18, 1948, this nation valued honor and only initiated wars unless first attacked. Thus, Pearl Harbor paved the way for our just entry into World War Two. Because honor underscored initiation of war, it thereby became a matter of honor to also have everyone help PAY for such using higher taxes and-or rationing of foodstuffs, gas etc. Because at that time we were on the side of moral right, we had the nation and the world with us.

Not so since that NSC 10/2 was enabled! The scope of activities enumerated under the directive included: “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action – including sabotage; subversion against hostile states including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerillas and refugee liberation groups and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”

Ratcheting up the effect, and consolidating the impetus to Empire building was the document NSC-68, prepared by Paul Nitze of the National Security Council – completed by 1950. The document essentially contained the blueprint for unending strife and undeclared wars, all of which would be invoked on the basis of a zero tolerance threshold for foreigners’ misbehavior. The putative basis? To enable U.S. agitation, overthrow (or assassination) of democratically-elected leaders, and large and small occupations (ranging from the few thousand troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965, to more than 200,000 in Iraq by 2006.)

Thus, we lost our way as we invaded nations (e.g. Dominican Republic, Iraq, etc.) with no reason and engaged also in the overthrow of democratically-elected governments (e.g. Iran's Mossadegh in 1953, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, assassinating Salvador Allende in 1972.) Thereby we lost honor, so that "war on the cheap" or more accurately "wars of choice" became the norm, to try to justify whatever was in the NSC 10/2 directive.

The motivating force of the Nitze document was clear in this regard:

“a defeat of free institutions anywhere is a defeat everywhere”

In other words, any place for which the U.S. even remotely construes a “defeat of free institutions” gives it license to intervene at will. This critical aspect is described thusly by Morris Berman (Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, W.W. Norton, page 118, 2006)
"Nitze emphasized the importance of perception, arguing that how we were seen was as crucial as how militarily secure we actually were. This rapidly expanded the number of interests deemed relevant to national security”

In other words, it provided the pre-emptive formula for unending war even before the Bush doctrine arrived. Gore Vidal pinpoints the emergence of the American Empire when he notes (Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, Thunders Mouth, p. 124, 2002)

"Since 1950 the United States has fought perhaps a hundred overt and covert wars. None was declared by the nominal representatives of the American people in Congress…they had meekly turned over to the executive their principal great power to wage war. That was the end of that Constitution"

One would have hoped that MSNBC pundit Rachel Maddow in her new book, 'DRIFT' would have covered more of this backstory, but evidently not. Her focus was more on how "cheaply" war has been waged over the past 4-5 decades, effectively insulating the civilian U.S. populace from any real consequences. But she did not dig into the underlying deep causes, the offensive and dishonorable documents: NSC 10/2 and NSC -68. Well, maybe in a follow-up.

In the meantime, as we puzzle over George Zimmerman's pre-emptive over-reaction to the mere appearance of a young hoodie-clad black man in his "territory" perhaps we might also contemplate the pre-emptive over-reactions of our own nation to any and all perceived threats in the larger world.

Maybe....at some juncture... one is connected with the other.