Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid...Dotard Appoints John "Ripper" Bolton To NSC Adviser

"He (Bolton) is not only a hawk, he's extremely reckless. He believes in going to war first, and diplomacy second. Having him as the National Security adviser would be a terrible situation and put us into a likely nuclear war. He could go after North Korea and that would result in millions of people being killed and I wouldn't put it beyond him to drag China and Russia into it."- Richard Painter, last night on All In.

For those too young to register it the 1964 film 'Dr. Strangelove',  starring George C. Scott and Peter Sellers, featured an unhinged United States Air Force general ("Jack D. Ripper") who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.. (Ripper  believes the Soviets have been using fluoridation of United States water supplies to pollute the "precious bodily fluids" of Americans.)  The film revolves around the various efforts of the sane contingent  to try  to stop the madman's plans which include dispatching a B-52  with a hydrogen bomb- and ordering radio silence. In the last scene Major T.J. Kong rides the bomb down to its target like a rodeo bull until detonation, e.g.


That story was a farce depicting the folly of nuclear weapons and the greater folly of irrational men who might be controlling their use (including the codes to the nuclear football) - in this case a pre-emptive strike setting.  Alas, with the appointment of John Bolton as Trump's new National Security adviser  yesterday, we may be seeing the beginnings of a play that ends not too differently from Dr. Strangelove. To  sum up, Bolton's basic philosophy translates to "bomb first - preferably with nukes - and talk later."

Which brings us to Bolton's justification for pre-emptive strikes as laid out in his recent WSJ op -ed,''The Legal Case For Striking North Korea First'.

Seldom in human history are malignant intentions and vile future acts telegraphed in blunt terms. The problem is too many of us are too preoccupied - often with irrelevant fluff and nonsense - to take note when it happens. Because we ignore the warning shots over our existential bows, we pay dearly for our nonchalance later. Such was the case after the publication of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' in which he literally laid out in black and white his foul plan to exterminate the Jews   But too few took note at the time, and read the warning signs mostly after the fact.

In the most recent iteration of this John Bolton published a commentary arguing for the "legality" of a first strike against North Korea in the February 28th WSJ . Bolton's piece: 'The Legal Case For Striking North Korea First', telegraphs, as clearly and blatantly as Hitler did in Mein Kampf, what he would do if the conditions merit. That is, he'd launch a pre-emptive (first) strike against North Korea.

Let us carefully note here that if this psychopath were to follow through on his plan, many millions more would perish than  all the Jews who died in Nazi gas chambers.

Without being hyperbolic with rhetoric,  let me try to impress upon readers the gravity of the situation and why Bolton's nuclear strike document - which is what it really is - ought to scare the bejeezus out of any sentient person.

Interviewed in April last year about a possible U.S. first strike attack on North Korea, former CIA North Korean analyst Sue Mi Terry responded:

 “I can’t see him following through on this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy. Because you’re putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

 North Korea is not Syria. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s going to have very devastating consequences.  North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within 100 kilometers (60 miles) of the DMZ.  And there’s twenty thousand U.S. military in South Korea and twenty million people in Seoul”

She was warning that any U.S. first attack would assuredly incept a powerful counter attack that would  wreak havoc on Seoul, South Korea – with the potential to obliterate over 20 million people as well as all U.S. troops stationed in S. Korea.  She was referring to more than 10,000 artillery pieces capable of hurling shells into Seoul bearing not only sarin nerve agent but biological weapons such as anthrax, Ebola, smallpox and cholera.

While the U.S.  has focused on the North's nuclear capability, there has been little mention of this formidable conventional arsenal.  Nor has it evidently been on Bolton's radar or he'd have been more circumspect with his op ed.  He simply appears not to have processed that even if a first strike were to eliminate the North's nuclear missiles, it would barely scratch the surface of its highly fortified artillery. Worse, such a foolhardy strike could also draw in the Chinese and even the Russians. At the end we could be looking at a full, all- out thermonuclear war with more than 9,500 hydrogen weapons exchanged.  It's difficult to get a sense of what such a war wold look like but this clip from the 1984 Brit film 'Threads' gives some idea, e.g.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrHoMSRZOS4

Watch it then watch again- especially the last 2 minutes of the clip-  to see what we may be in for with this goddamned lunatic.

What is especially unnerving in his WSJ piece is how he justifies a pre-emptive strike on the basis of what is am "imminent" threat, predicated on an 1837 'test of necessity' formulated by Daniel Webster.  Webster's test referred to when British forces invaded the U.S.  to destroy the steamboat 'Caroline' in 1837. It had been used by Canadian rebels to transport weapons into Ontario.

Webster argued that Britain had failed to show 'the necessity of self-defense was' instant', leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation.

Bolton, having set the premise up then writes (ibid.):

"Would an American first strike today against North Korea's nuclear weapons' program violate Webster's necessity test? Clearly not. Necessity in the nuclear and ballistic missile age is simply different than in the age of steam.....In 1837 Britain unleashed pre-emptive 'fire and fury' against a wooden steamboat. It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current necessity posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."

Missing in Bolton's "necessity" doctrine is any element of ethics or basic morality. Namely, that he is fully willing to sacrifice 20-25 million South Korean lives to justify this perfidy under the banner of some abstract "Caroline criteria" argument. Effectively doing so merely because North Korea possesses  weapons that might hit the U.S. Bolton also appears never to have learned the most fundamental lesson of basic morality: the ends never justifies the means.

Bolton is also amiss in terms of international law and specifically Nuremberg 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).

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

(c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

So Bolton's claim of "legaality" for his first strike is total bollocks.

As Richard Painter, former ethics adviser to George W. Bush put it last night.: "We already had one hothead now we have another hothead who believes the same crazy stuff." Sen. Chris Murphy was even more specific noting Bolton advocates for a first strike on the North for the "mere possession of weapons that might hit the United States" adding, "that is a Pandora's box."

Bolton, of course, is also willing to scuttle the Iranian nuclear deal.. Bolton's appointment, then,  is also the latest in a long series of signals Trump has sent in recent months that he is determined to take the U.S. out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. This despite strong protests from European allies, as well as Russia and China, who are join signatories to the deal.  Bolton himself Bolton published an open memo on how to “free America from this execrable deal at the earliest opportunity”.

Some conservatives close to the White House had argued that Bolton was too hawkish for Trump, and that his foreign adventurism would detract from Dotard's“America first” strategy of concentrating on creating U.S, jobs and cutting immigration. But it is now apparent that Trump - increasingly besieged by the Mueller investigation into his campaign’s contacts with the Kremlin- aims for reckless military distraction and asserting U.S. might abroad. 

Having another rank lunatic by his side in Bolton, instead of someone like HR McMaster to curb his worst instincts, means we are all on the muclear countdown  clock. This because many actually believe if an indictment does come from Mueller Trump will punch in the nuclear codes. And with "Ripper" Bolton there to urge him on, there will be no second chances.  Hyperbolic? No, not from a character who believes firmly he is more important than the entire world and all 7.5 billion on it.  Can you say "malignant narcissist"?

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/78331/the-last-person-in-the-room-john-bolton-pnac-and-the-end-of-the-world

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/78321/with-bolton-our-national-nightmare-of-trump-just-got-much-much-darker

More Hard Evidence The Trump Administration Is Batshit Crazy: They're Planning A Strike On North Korea

Michelle Goldberg's column in the New York Times concerning the reasons that Victor Cha backed out of serving as U.S. Ambassador to South Korea, ought to scare the Bejeezus out of any sentient person. See e.g.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/opinion/trump-boring-warmongering-sotu.html

Ms. Goldberg picked up the account of Cha's backing out from a piece in The Financial Times.  As reported therein, Mr. Cha backed out after being asked if he could "manage the evacuation of Americans" from Seoul and surroundings after an American preemptive attack to "give Kim Jong un a bloody nose".  The account adding:

"The move comes as the Pentagon prepares for a possible order from Mr. Trump to launch military action at North Korea aimed at convincing Pyongyang dictator Kim Jong Un  to abandon his nuclear weapon program."

Yes, you read that correctly. These deranged imbeciles are actually contemplating a preemptive strike on the North that would literally unleash hell, not just on South Koreans but the entire surrounding region - and possibly expand to a global thermonuclear war.  That is the measure of fucktard  in this misbegotten administration we are now saddled with.  According to the FT the two hard liners itching for the strike are H.R. McMaster (national security adviser ) and Chuck Pompeo, CIA Director.

Even Gen. Jim Mattis, generally known as the cautionary adult was quoted by the FT as saying:

"There is little reason for optimism."

According to Ms. Goldberg in her own piece:

"According to The Washington Post, the nomination of Victor D. Cha, a hawkish veteran of the George W. Bush administration, was very close to being sent to the Senate, but was derailed when Cha privately expressed reservations about a preventive American strike on North Korea.  The Financial Times reported that Cha was asked if he was “prepared to help manage the evacuation of American citizens from South Korea,” which would be necessary in the event of an American bombing. This is terrifying, because it suggests that Trump is serious about starting a war."

Adding:

"Cha himself seems frightened; just before the State of the Union started, he published an op-ed in The Washington Post arguing against a preventive attack. Apparently assuming that some readers would be indifferent to millions of potential Korean deaths, Cha emphasized that many Americans would also die in a military confrontation."

Let's be clear no actual "warhead" ready North Korean ICBM could reach the U.S. presently.  The primary impediment to  N. K. ICBM deployment is the design of a re-entry vehicle capable of withstanding the fall through the atmosphere as the warhead zeroes in on the target.  This is a formidable challenge, make no mistake.  It defines the difference between lobbing a giant missile with no 'boom' across continents, and lobbing one with a nuclear punch. 

By comparison  - and for reference - the warhead of the 1960s' era Atlas D was originally paired to a  re-entry vehicle (RV) with a W49 thermonuclear weapon, for a combined weight 3,700 lb (1,680 kg) and yield of 1.44 megatons (Mt). The W-49 was later placed in a higher ablative RV, for a combined weight 2,420 lb (1,100 kg) The maximum explosive yield delivered with these later designs was 3.75 megatons. The North's capabilities are nowhere near this. 

According to  Physics Today (April issue last year) the North's existing weapons would deliver a yield of roughly 0.08 kt/ kilogram. That is the yield per actual bomb mass.  This means they’d need to be able to launch or carry (via plane) at least 100 kg of bomb mass to get an 8 kiloton A -blast, or 200 kg to get a 16 kt yield.   These magnitudes are roughly on the scale of the Hiroshima blast.

Despite its nuclear limitations - and make no mistake they are not giving them up, after seeing "regime change" with Iraq in 2003 -  the North could wreak havoc on Seoul, South Korea. Even one or two bombers lifting an 8 kt bomb has the potential to obliterate over 20 million people as well as all U.S. troops stationed in S. Korea.   And we aren't even yet considering the 10,000 odd artillery pieces facing the Demilitarized zone. Each of these loaded with chemical and biological weapons.

Interviewed last April,  and asked if Trump would actually attack North Korea, former CIA North Korean analyst Sue Mi Terry responded:

 “I can’t see him following through on this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy. Because you’re putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

 North Korea is not Syria. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s going to have very devastating consequences.  North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within 100 kilometers (60 miles) of the DMZ.  And there’s twenty thousand U.S. military in South Korea and twenty million people in Seoul”

Clearly, despite that, the military know nothings in the Trump White House believe they can get away with a decapitation strike. Which again, proved they are all stark raving mad.  Just like Gen. Curtis LeMay  in the Kennedy era, e.g. with the Cuban Missile crisis,  who really believed a "pre-emptive strike" could be managed with no further risk of conflagration. 

Then we had JFK with the brains and balls to face down these knuckle dragger hawks. Now we have only an overgrown 71 year- old toddler with anger issues and an ego the size of the planet.    If there is a preemptive strike, my bet is that Dotard will launch it when the first charges from special prosecutor Robert Mueller come down.

If he is going to go down he will want to take the whole country, hell - the whole world - with him.

Fire, Fury and Foolishness - How The Psycho Putz Could Get Us Into A Nuclear War

We all mostly suspected Drumpf was insane, but his bombastic, ignorant rhetoric yesterday proved it beyond a doubt and showed why this screwball needs to be put into a straitjacket asap. His blabbering about raining "fire and fury ...the likes of which have never been seen before"  emulated Kim Jong Un himself. As one commentator put it "it was as if Trump looked at himself in the mirror and saw Kim Jong Un""   The problem is that this game is deadly serious and even had former Col.  Lawrence Wilkerson, saying that he's frightened - given our commander-in -chief has no sense, and basically controls the nuclear codes.

That this cockeyed numskull already (yesterday morning)  leaked classified satellite information (to do with spotting N. Korean patrol boats)  in a retweet on 'Fox 'n Friends' was bad enough. It confirmed his unreliability as a leader as well as his lack of judgment and instability.  He is, basically, not a man to be trusted and certainly not in a major crisis such as we are facing now. Indeed, 61 percent in a recent poll expressed unease in "Dump's" ability to deal with North Korea. In most other nations such a vote of no confidence would see him replaced.

Sadly, not even his new "minder"-  Gen. Kelly - was able to stop this crazy fool from engaging his Twitter account and - as noted on 'Morning Joe' - jeopardizing U.S. assets and methods.

Then, ensconced at his vacation getaway club at Bedminster, NJ Trump told journalists

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States, They will be met with fire and the fury like the world has never seen.”

In other words, this certifiable maniac is vowing nuclear retribution against the North Koreans merely for making threats.   Try to process that, and the level of mental derangement and lack of judgment to make such a remark, broadcast worldwide.  In the wake of this monkey's performance John McCain told an Arizona radio station:

"I don’t know what he’s saying and I’ve long ago given up trying to interpret what he says. That kind of rhetoric, I’m not sure how it helps.”

Well, that's the point! It doesn't help, only further fuels the crisis and ramps up the temperature.

As I posted earlier, this hotheaded maggot doesn't possess the skill, background historical knowledge or intelligence to steer clear of a conflagration with a nuclear state that would unleash a pitiless assault not on the U.S. (which is currently too far away to strike with a functioning ICBM) but on its South Korean ally. Specifically, the 25 million citizens of Seoul, the "most densely populated city on Earth."

When asked in an MSNBC interview back in April  if Trump would actually attack North Korea, former CIA North Korea specialist Sue Mi Terry responded:

 “I can’t see him following through on this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy. Because you’re putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

 North Korea is not Syria. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s going to have very devastating consequences.  North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within 100 kilometers (60 miles) of the DMZ.  And there’s twenty thousand U.S. military in South Korea and twenty million people in Seoul”

Other experts on North Korea have also warned that this aggressive rhetoric could backfire on Trump, convincing Kim Jong-Un that his regime is in imminent jeopardy and triggering what he sees as a pre-emptive attack.  This is the biggest danger. Given the North is all about survival, anything perceived as an imminent threat to that survival would unleash all their weapons in a last ditch preemptive attack. If the U.S. then responded with a full scale nuclear response to obliterate the totalitarian state it could also draw in the Chinese and even the Russians. At the end we could be looking at a full, all- out thermonuclear war with more than 9,500 hydrogen weapons exchanged.

Daryl Kimball, the head of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said - in response to Trump's reckless rhetoric:

“It is dangerous and reckless and counterproductive for Donald Trump to threaten the annihilation of North Korea. What we need is a dialogue to reduce tension and avoid catastrophic miscalculation. We are currently on the road to a conflict and we have to get to the off-ramp.”

The North Korean regime quickly responded, matching Trump’s bellicosity by saying it was “carefully examining” a plan for a missile strike on the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam. In a separate statement, a military official was quoted as saying Pyongyang could carry out a "pre-emptive operation if the US showed signs of provocation”.

And there we have the linchpin to massive nuclear war, if one side misjudges the intentions of the other.

National security advisor H.R. McMaster has said that the administration is weighing all options, including a “preventative war”.

 

North Korean ICBM test. The Defense Intelligence Agency now confirms the North has miniaturized nuclear warheads to fit atop the missile.

 

East Asia nuclear non-proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis argues it is already too late for that, quoted in the UK Guardian as saying:
“The pre- in preventative means ‘before’,If you start the preventative war after they have the nuclear ICBM’s, it’s just a regular old nuclear war.”

Lest people not take this seriously, the Pentagon - as reported last night - is already trying to prepare military options for Trump. All of this is under the rubric of "preventative war"  Three days ago in the WSJ John Bolton actually presented these "options".   It is as if the military is prepared to back Trump at the expense of the 25 million in Seoul and environs. Presumably they will be "collateral damage" if the lunatic gets his way.  Where is the sanity? Let's recall also that last year the same military minds were appalled when Trump asked: "If we have nuclear weapons why can't we use them?"   Gen. Michael Hayden actually responded that the current U.S. nuclear response system is no longer constructed for deliberation but "rapid and effective" action. In other words, once a decision to launch is made, it's all over.

The last time we came this close  to nuclear catastrophe was in October, 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis. On October 27, 1962 U2 pilot Rudolph Andersen Jr. conducted a reconnaissance flight over Cuba when he was targeted and shot down by two Soviet SA2 surface to air missiles. The Cubans and Russians had fired the first shot in the drawn out Missile crisis (now in its 12th day) and the Joint Chiefs pressured JFK to strike back - with air strikes.  Kennedy, however, correctly suspected that Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had not authorized the downing of unarmed reconnaissance planes, and he didn’t want to abandon diplomacy. He resisted the Joint Chiefs - especially Gen. Curtis Lemay (who actually had the temerity to compare him to Neville Chamberlain) which is why we can discuss the events today.

It is not at all clear that Trump possesses anywhere near the sobriety and sense of JFK. Which also means it is not at all evident that he can avoid getting us into a nuclear war.  Maybe in this case, one of Trump's generals (Kelly?) will pull the nuclear football out of his hands before he can do final disastrous damage.

Or at least we can hope

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/lawrence-wittner/74496/playing-nuclear-chicken-with-our-lives

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-stanton/74499/trump-s-psychopathy-threatens-the-internal-stability-of-the-united-states-and-the-world

And:

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345961-ex-gop-senator-trump-is-sick-of-mind-should-be-removed-from-office

Can Trump DO Anything To Stop North Korea After ICBM Test? No, But He Can Make Another Phony Wrestling Video

The Fourth Of July dawned with the alarming news that North Korea had succeeded in a test launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) they call the Hwasong -14.   At the outset the brain trusts at the Pentagon and CIA had the test pegged more as an IRBM or intermediate range ballistic missile test, but later analysis - specifically including the duration of powered flight (37 mins.) put the kibosh on that. The maximum altitude of 1700 miles, combined with the 580 mile horizontal range, put the test firmly in the ICBM class with the capability of reaching Alaska.

More unsettling, it showed the missile cone could have survived re-entry through the atmosphere. which is crucial for any ICBM.  As I noted in an earlier post, if  the North Koreans can master the technological re-entry problems, then according to Lt. Gen. Vince Stewart,  it will be "on a pathway where this capability is inevitable."  Of course, it remains to be seen whether the North has miniaturized a nuclear warhead to fit in the nose cone of their Hwasong -14 missile. Let's bear in mind the crucial factor here is the mass.

Assuming their nuclear capability is only at the most primitive stage (roughly like the U.S. in mid -1945) that means they'd need their ICBM to deliver a warhead with a yield of roughly 0.08 kt/ kilogram. That is yield per actual bomb mass.  This means they’d need to be able to launch or carry (via plane) at least 100 kg of bomb mass to get an 8 kiloton A -blast, or 200 kg to get a 16 kt yield..

The key aspect for a stable ICBM, of course, is to ensure the center of gravity (or center of mass) of the missile is ahead of its center of pressure. The CG is just the point where the rocket mass is evenly balanced.   (Imagine placing the missile on a knife edge and being balanced). Thus, there is no net moment on one side or the other. Given the nose cone mass is rendered much larger by incorporation of 100 kg or 200 kg mass then it is advantageous for stability to have that extra mass in there. The center of pressure (CP) then is located more toward the tail and is generally considered as the focus of all aerodynamic forces acting, which entails computation of the total area of the missile, e.g. fins, cylindrical surface etc.

The farther behind the center of gravity the center of pressure is placed, the stronger and more precise the restoring forces , so the missile displays greater stability in flight, less wobble.  Of course, the competition for a stable ICBM will be seen between the nose mass (where the warhead is located) and the tail region where the engines reside. One certainly needs engines of powerful thrust - up to  360,000 foot-pounds, or 1, 600 kilo newtons -  but this also implies greater engine mass. The greater that engine mass the more the CG will move backward toward the tail. Obviously then, if the engine mass is too great the danger is that the CG may fall behind the CP leading to instability.

It is doubtful to me that the N. Korean ICBM test included an actual miniaturized warhead. The question they must answer is how the inclusion of a 100-200 kg mass in the nose of the missile will affect its trajectory and especially stability  - in concert with the engine required to hurl it to another continent..  That is basically the sixty four dollar question.  Only at that point , i.e. of an actual  warhead test, should the world really be going into panic mode.

Nonetheless, the successful "bare bones" (e.g. minus warhead)  test marks a direct challenge to Trump, whose tough talk has yet to yield any change in Pyongyang’s behavior as the regime continues its efforts to build a nuclear tipped ICBM that can reach the U.S. mainland.

Trump, the man-baby,  responded to the North Korean missile test by applying rhetorical pressure on China, North Korea’s ally and economic lifeline, and by mocking dictator Kim Jong Un on Twitter. Of course, given Kim Jong Un is the Korean version of Trump (but cubed),  it probably only made more provocations inevitable.

Funniest of all was Trump's trademark childish tweet:

"North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life?”

Well, from the looks of it he's certainly got more done than watching cable TV 12 hours a day like the Donald, or making fake wrestling videos body slamming a CNN suit. In a race to tell who's done more, I'd have to say the North Korean wins, especially as he's got Trump totally boxed in with nothing he can really do but tweet like a fool. "Modern day version" of a president? Nope, modern day version of a goofball who has no more business in the Oval Office than a drunken baboon.

Despite Trump's puppet McMaster's veiled threats, there really is no possibility at all for any direct military strikes. Any such retarded and precipitate folly would lead to South Korea being utterly turned into ashes within minutes - and likely via nuclear fireballs.

Interviewed in April,  and asked if Trump would actually attack North Korea, former CIA North Korean analyst Sue Mi Terry responded:

 “I can’t see him following through on this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy. Because you’re putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

 North Korea is not Syria. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s going to have very devastating consequences.  North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within 100 kilometers (60 miles) of the DMZ.  And there’s twenty thousand U.S. military in South Korea and twenty million people in Seoul”

Let's be clear none of the North's existing weapons could reach the U.S. presently – though they could wreak havoc on Seoul, South Korea – with the potential to obliterate over 20 million people as well as all U.S. troops stationed in S. Korea.

Clearly, this is a cost and risk no sane leader would visit on a vulnerable ally. An 11-page report just compiled by Global Zero's Nuclear Crisis Group also warns that the risk of a nuclear war is now "unacceptably high".  Despite that, some military know nothings exist - just as they did in the Kennedy era with the Cuban Missile crisis (e.g. Gen. Curtis LeMay) who really believe a "pre-emptive strike" can be managed with no further risk of conflagration. 

As Exhibit A for the "Curtis LeMay clone of the year award", I give you  former NATO supreme Allied commander -  Admiral James Stavrids (Ret.). This inveterate dickhead  blithely talked this morning (on 'Morning Joe') of taking out the North like you'd lance a boil. No shit. 

According to Stavrids:

"It will be on President Trump's watch to make this decision and it becomes a pre-emptive strike that is legitimate under international law. So you build an Asian coalition, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapre....as many as you can get on board, And you're going to  have to use a combination of cyber warfare, special forces, and long range air from Guam as well as bring three to four carrier battle groups around the peninsula.

We're gonna lose hundreds of thousands of people in that scenario. Many of them will be Americans, there are 200,000 American citizens there. It's a very dark scenario but if you've gotta lance the boil militarily can you do it? Yes.  Do you have the legitimacy when the nuke and the intercontinental missile stream cross?  Yes, and that's probably eighteen months away."

He acknowledged "hundreds of thousands" dead and doesn't blink an eye. Nor does he see there is no assurance a "preemptive" strike confined to the peninsula means the ensuing war is confined there.

If you go back to read through the transcripts of the tapes made during the Cuban Missile crisis (The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, by Ernest R. May and Philip K. Zelikow (1997, President and Fellows of Harvard College) you will see the Joint Chiefs then also firmly believed the U.S. had the "legitimate right" to make a full invasion of Cuba and bomb Castro back to the Stone Age. Of course, Robert McNamara thirty years later on meeting Castro then learned all 90-odd IRBMs would have been launched at the U.S. - doubtless ushering in a full scale nuclear war.

So yeah, it's neat to bang the drum of "legitimacy" by whatever rationalization and ideational confection you  can muster, but the question to be answered is : Do you really want to reduce the planet to ashes that badly? 

Meanwhile, Gen. Vincent Brooks, commander of U.S. forces in S. Korea (after a joint missile drill with the South Koreans) insisted as per a Financial Times quote that "the allied troops were prepared for war". Seemingly oblivious to the fact the North's response will not be conventional but likely via a single A-bomb of 8 - 20 kt scale dropped from a plane or hurled via solid fuel missile.

Fortunately,  there are still some sane voices to be heard like former CIA deputy director Mike Morrell .  Two days ago when asked on CBS Early Show what the U.S. response should be, Morrell minced no words: "There can be no military response or attack. The only two options are more sanctions and perfecting the missile defense system".   And the latter needs perfecting given it's now exclusively "designed for success" with a GPS locater beacon in the target's nose cones.

If JFK were President as opposed to an overgrown toddler with malignant ego issues, whose only communications are via a cartoon medium, we might have a chance.  Kennedy as per his Cuban Missile solution would have figured the only way out is to make some concessions (say more food supplies) after getting Kim Jong Un to the table.  Then, perhaps trade food and medical supplies for a reduction in missiles.  

What we can hope for is that China's President Xi  Jinping and Vladimir Putin (Trump's "hero") talk some sense into president Man-Boy as regards feasible responses when he attends the G20 summit. The question is whether Drumpf listens to them or the hotheads calling for a pre-emptive strike.

For Donald Trump The 25 Million Souls Of Seoul Are Expendable In A North Korea Conflict

"There's gonna be a major, major conflict! And I'm sorry about Seoul! Tough luck there! But their sacrifice'll make me look more presidential!"

As The Financial Times reported yesterday, the bellicose Trump bunch wants Jimmy Carter to stay out of any peace -making deals with North Korea. This despite the war rhetoric reaching new heights. In a Reuters interview yesterday, the egomaniacal baboon- in- chief grunted, then growled: "We're heading for a major, major conflict with North Korea. Absolutely!'

And as I posted earlier, this hotheaded maggot doesn't possess the skill, background historical knowledge or intelligence to steer clear of a conflagration with a nuclear state that would unleash a pitiless assault not on the U.S. (which is too far away to strike) but on its South Korean ally. Specifically, the 25 million citizens of Seoul, the "most densely populated city on Earth" according to one general reporting to the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

Does Trump care one whit about any of those innocent civilians when Kim Jung-Un unleashes a barrage of tens of thousands of shells from 4,000 artillery pieces? Of course not! For him, they are in part or all at once expendable pawns on the grand "chessboard" on which he's playing the mighty "sheriff" of the world. Having been stoked to the brim with his Syria cruise missile strike, he now believes he can unleash a more devastating one on North Korea. But he's a damned fool and idiot because it is the millions of Seoul who will pay.

Yes, the U.S. would ultimately come out ahead but it would be a Pyrrhic victory. Meaning the costs would exceed the brief moment of victory, mainly for the South Koreans who'd have to body bag the dead (what body parts they could find) and rebuild their devastated city. And I'm assuming here no nuclear weapons would be used which might be pie in the freaking sky.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (the same group that operates the ‘doomsday clock’ and has now moved it two and a half minutes to midnight) estimates the North possesses twenty weapons in the 10 – 20 kiloton range or roughly the same magnitude of yield as the atomic bomb that reduced Hiroshima to ashes in 1945.

 Would they actually use it? 12 days ago in an interview with CBS’ Ben Stacy, the North Korean Defense minister when asked about any response if the U.S. made a pre-emptive strike didn’t bandy words: he said there would be a total nuclear retaliatory strike.  How serious should he be taken?

 First, they are estimated to be at the most primitive, early stages of A-bomb development. According to the most recent Physics Today (April issue) their existing weapons would deliver a yield of roughly 0.08 kt/ kilogram. That is yield per actual bomb mass.  This means they’d need to be able to launch or carry (via plane) at least 100 kg of bomb mass to get an 8 kiloton A -blast, or 200 kg to get a 16 kt yield.   This is feasible with their existing bombers and might also be with their most advanced (solid fuel) missile. However, none of these weapons could reach the U.S. presently – though they could wreak havoc on Seoul, South Korea – with the potential to obliterate over 20 million people as well as all U.S. troops stationed in S. Korea.

Clearly, this is a cost and risk no sane leader would visit on a vulnerable ally. And yet Trump, who fancies himself Dictator of the world, has no qualms about doing so - from his rhetoric- nor any sympathy for the South Koreans who will be caught in the line of fire as a possible mini nuclear holocaust plays out.

 Second, that they would make such a retaliatory strike is beyond question. As numerous commentators have pointed out – e.g. Sue Mi Terry - former CIA North Korean analyst, they’d regard it as a matter of survival. Much like Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962 who told former Kennedy Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1992 (during a 30 yr. reunion) he’d have launched 93 nuclear-armed IRBMs had the U.S. invaded. (JFK was being pushed at the time to bomb and invade Cuba by his Joint Chiefs of Staff).

 When asked in an MSNBC interview 2 weeks ago if Trump would actually attack North Korea, Sue Terry responded:

 “I can’t see him following through on this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy. Because you’re putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

 North Korea is not Syria. It’s not Afghanistan. It’s going to have very devastating consequences.  North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within 100 kilometers (60 miles) of the DMZ.  And there’s twenty thousand U.S. military in South Korea and twenty million people in Seoul”

 But if his words yesterday are taken seriously, and there's no reason to believe this insane maggot is bluffing - given his ego-- then the South can expect ferocious blowback and devastation. Trump then is not  a rational actor like JFK was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He’s an imperious,  impetuous braggart and clueless numbskull narcissist not even aware of recent history. He operates according to an unstable  “high conflict” personality which one psychologist (Bill Eddy) has said makes him a “more dangerous politician  than Adolf Hitler”.  In other words, unlike with JFK, we can only assume Trump will make exactly the opposite decision in a nuclear game of high stakes poker.

The sad and sorry Truth is that Donald Trump cares no more about the lives of those millions living in Seoul, than he did about the gassed kids in Syria prompting his cruise missile attack. Those kids were  merely transient blips on his cable TV screen arousing a transient emotion then a brief brain "rupture"  which saw that if he made a bold response he might profit. And profit he did! The media backed off its close scrutiny and criticism and suddenly saw this POS as "presidential" .

Expect him to play "double or nothing" with the Korean standoff, but we know already who the real losers of this charlatan's  game will be.
----------------------------------------------
To understand the full background, read this handy collection of some of the world's leading experts published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Feel free to forward links to others:

North Korea in the news again: a time to reflect, edited by Dan Drollette

Will South Korea go nuclear? Robert Einhorn, Duyeon Kim

North Korea's nuclear weapons: What now? Roundtable with Shen Dingli, Chung-in Moon, Andrei Lankov

Hecker assesses North Korean hydrogen bomb claims, Siegfried Hecker

The North Korea that can say no, Bruce Cumings

Getting North Korea wrong, Bruce Cumings

Trump's Power Gone To His Head As He Squares Off Against A Nuclear North Korea

"The press loves me again! If I blow up the world with all the bad guys in it  I'll be the biggest, baddest president ever! And the most popular!"

Believe it or not I have really tried to be relatively patient with Trump, to allow him to try to settle in without making a total ass or imbecile of himself every other day. Hell, even over most of the last week I have posted on a number of decidedly "off-Trump" topics to take the spot light off him while also giving him a chance to at least appear to have a grain of sense. But it's to no avail, especially after a series of halfwit pundits and poltroons (like Chuck Schumer and Pelosi) have gone and applauded his cruise missile stunt - inflating his pseudo president ego to gigantic proportions.

Now this fool actually believes he can take on the whole world, at least the world of "bad guys"  he sees through the prism of endless phantasmagorias erupting within assorted psychotic embolisms within his amygdala.

So having blown a few dozen Isis rats to bits with his "mother of all bombs" he now is considering facing off against North Korea. Can we all agree right now, given the total lack of any intelligence of this fool - plus his lack of discernment and temperance - this is a god-awful idea?

For those who need to be filled in, in the past several days North Korea has held a vast military parade to celebrate the birth of its founding father, Kim Il-sung, and  has warned that it is prepared to take the “toughest” action unless the US ended its “military hysteria”, as speculation grows that the regime is preparing to conduct a nuclear test.

Interviewed two days ago, the North Korean Defense Minister, when asked by CBS' Ben Stacy what would happen if the U.S. attacked the hermit state, replied "nuclear war".  He meant that there's be immediate nuclear retaliation and serious people (not Trump) should take him at his word.  Now, to be sure, that doesn't meant the North Koreans can hit the U.S. No, not yet. But they do have the ability to deliver nuclear bombs on Seoul, South Korea as well as Japan - also, annihilate the U.S. base in South Korea. The U.S., of course, would launch a full on decapitation and annihilation strike on North Korea, but then China as a key ally would enter with its own retaliation - and over 200 H-bombs - that can reach the U.S.

Is this a scenario the Trumpites really want? It appears they do given the level of saber rattling rhetoric, Trump's bellicose tweets and even dispatching an aircraft carrier attack group to be within 900 miles of North Korea have ramped up the brinksmanship to new levels..   The drunkenness of power and brinkmanship has also been fed by a Beltway media besotted with the spectacle of military attack (with the Tomahawk strike and now MOAB) - whose critiques of Trump have now been revealed as paper thin.  All of which is extremely concerning or should be to every sentient being on the planet.

A senior North Korean official ( Choe Ryong-hae) used the parade to accuse the US of “creating a war situation” with the recent dispatch of warships to the region. After Trump's latest fulminations he barked:

“We will respond to an all-out war with an all-out war and a nuclear war with our style of a nuclear attack,” .

Even as I write this, military vehicles and tens of thousands of soldiers have filled Kim Il-sung square and  taken oaths of loyalty to the country’s leader, Kim Jong-in.  Experts agree the array of military hardware on parade  includes what appeared to be a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) being carried along the streets on a huge truck.  South Korean military officials have been quoted as saying they had not seen the missile before and that it appeared to be a new type of ICBM.

North Korean state television showed what appeared to be several KN-08 and KN-14 missiles. Although they have yet to be tested, analysts say the missiles could one day be capable of hitting targets as far away as the continental United States.  Michael Morrell, former deputy director of the CIA interviewed yesterday on CBS, affirmed that this capability is a lot closer in time than many believe - probably 1 or 2 years.

Is this worrisome? Yes, but a preemptive attack is not the way to respond as  Morrell agreed. He acknowledged one could not count on Kim Jong -in to back off, or portray a submissive stance to the U.S. So, any military action at all, including firing ordnance from fighter jets on the aircraft carrier -will likely incept a small scale nuclear attack on the North's neighbors that could escalate. So it is not without basis that many have compared our current condition to the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962.

As the USS aircraft carrier Carl Vinson and its strike group sailed towards the peninsula in a show of force, North Korea’s official KCNA news agency, citing a spokesman for the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army, warned of “merciless” retaliation against any US provocation.  Trump’s decision to send an “armada” of warships to waters off the tense peninsula, coupled with recent US strikes in Syria and Afghanistan, were proof that Washington had chosen the path of “open threat and blackmail”, KCNA said.

“Our toughest counteraction against the US and its vassal forces will be taken in such a merciless manner as not to allow the aggressors to survive,” it added.

It said the Trump administration’s “serious military hysteria” had reached a “dangerous phase that can no longer be overlooked”.

It added: “Under the prevailing grave situation, the United States has to come to its senses and make a proper option for the solution of the problem.”

Meanwhile, China’s state-run media warned that the US president was mistaken if he believed that piling military pressure on North Korea would resolve the regime’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The Global Times said Trump’s decision to drop the “mother of all bombs” on Afghanistan was clearly “a new gimmick in US military deterrence” designed to intimidate Kim Jong-un.   “North Korea must have felt the shock wave travelling all the way from Afghanistan,” the Communist party-controlled newspaper said in an editorial.

However, the Global Times, which sometimes reflects government views, said the use of such a “vicious weapon” was in fact likely to make Pyongyang even more determined to upgrade its own arsenal.

On Friday, China again called for talks to defuse the crisis. “We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage,” the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, told reporters in Beijing.

Speaking to Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, on Friday night, Wang said steps were needed to prevent “war and chaos” on the Korean peninsula.

As for any Trump military actions being touted currently against North Korea, former CIA North Korea analyst Sue Mi Terry made it clear last night these would not work. She cited one of the possible options as striking a nuclear test site, maybe with a MOAB,  but warned:

"I can't see him following through with this and that is the problem with the brinksmanship policy.Because you're putting yourself in a bind. You will either have to back down and lose credibility or you are stuck on a ledge with a military option which is very, very risky.

North Korea is not Syria, it's not Afghanistan. It's going to have devastating consequences. North Korea will retaliate to any kind of military option. They will retaliate against South Korea given seventy percent of its ground forces are deployed within one hundred kilometers from the DMZ. That's sixty miles....and there's twenty thousand U.S. military in Korea and twenty million people in Seoul"

She added that this is why she doesn't think Trump will take any precipitous action which would be a "gross miscalculation".  She also pointed out the North is unlikely to launch any missiles - or test any bombs - now with the whole world watching. "They will do it on their own time", she stated, "and besides, they want to be the ones with the surprises."

What about her words of advice against brinksmanship and aggressive actions by the U.S.?

The trouble is this is Trump, the man-boy who lives the delusions of absolute power from a brain addled by egomaniacal self-regard and narcissism. And hence who feeds off the adulation such as he's now getting from the Beltway press in the wake of his cruise missile and MOAB attacks. Ironically then, we may have to depend on that media - which originally criticized him - to back off from its jingoistic gushing and hold him to account once more but in the military response sphere.

Millions of lives may depend on such a sober, rational re-assessment of Trump's recent actions. What we don't need is more brainless media pandering to this psycho every time he unleashes a bomb or new cruise missile - on whatever pretext or excuse. That blind media adulation is like crack cocaine to him and renders his 'trigger' finger even itchier.

See also:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2017/03/07/north-koreas-peculiar-brand-of-rationality/#6b915f9b5021

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/medea-benjamin/72189/the-mother-of-all-bombs-is-big-deadly-and-wont-lead-to-peace