Tag: North Korea missile

Donald Trump Pulls a Ron Paul with North Korea

By CJ Westfall | United States

Libertarians and non-interventionists have been pitching this idea for years. The hermit country of North Korea once again like it does every few years is back at the negotiating table talking peace. Should we believe them this time?

U.S. national security adviser John Bolton addressed this concern this Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation”, Bolton said: “Well, we’ve heard this before. This is – the North Korean propaganda playbook is an infinitely rich resource.”

“What we want to see from them is evidence that it’s real and not just rhetoric,” he added.

We’re all waiting on the edge of our seats for that evidence, and if it comes out there’s already talks of President Trump being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. That’d be quite the award for a man who threatened “fire and fury” on the country just a few months ago. He wouldn’t be awarded for that rhetoric of course, he’d be awarded for pulling the roughly 28,500 troops from the region in exchange for North Korea abandoning it’s nuclear program.

The crazy part about this is that Libertarians have been talking about this forever. Ron Paul has been advocating for years that we pull our bases from that region altogether. How crazy is it that President Trump is now the subject of conversation relating to the Nobel Peace Prize because he’s considering a non-interventionist policy.

Some might oppose demilitarizing calling the method an isolationist approach. War hawks and Neo Cons on the left and right will try to keep President Trump from his win and will argue the Kim regime is still dangerous despite any evidence of denuclearization Kim Jong Un might offer. It always seems like there’s someone arguing for more intervention. Military provocation is undoubtedly counter-productive to peace. Some say that’s “isolationist.”

The problem with that is North Korea has already been isolated for years. It is isolationist to impose sanctions, to prohibit Americans from doing business, to impede or forbid travel by US citizens to countries with which the US government disagrees. North Korea is isolated in part because our government has isolated it. North Korea threatens to attack South Korea and the United States partly because South Korea and the United States continue to mount very provocative military exercises on North Korea’s border.

If President Trump wants to rack up the awards throughout his presidency, it sure seems like he should start listening to the Pauls.

Featured Image Source.


North Korea: Dead in the Water

By Joe Brown | United States

Imagine living in a world where every day is your last. Waking up each morning knowing you have numberless hordes of rockets pointed at you. Imagine living under the smoking barrel of a gun, or sleeping on a bomb, knowing that at any moment your entire existence could be reduced to a smoldering pile of nothing.

Imagine looking into the eyes of death…and yawning.

As unbelievable as this sounds, that is exactly what life is like when living in the Korean Peninsula. Welcome to the world where war is as trite as your morning cup of coffee, and the threat of nuclear annihilation is as natural as the rising of the sun.

Due to recent developments in the realm of diplomacy, many now consider with hope the possibility of a unified and peaceful Korea. But with a less than favorable track record and warhawks running foreign affairs, many question the United State’s role in garnering peace in the region, and still the greater question remains:

Can peace ever be achieved in Korea?

Despite what you may have heard in middle school, Korea was divided before the Korean War. Years of Japanese rule came to an end with the Second World War, with treaties delegating the North to Soviet forces, while the South remained under Western control before the invasion that triggered the conflict in 1950. Unlike its German counterpart who eventually united under a single democratic government, the Korean War is still technically at war to this day, leaving the people of Korea with more of a question mark than a happy ending.

After nearly 70 years of perpetual tension and complete separation between the two countries, diplomatic strides are causing some to regain hope for peace in the region. The Chinese government confirmed that earlier this week a meeting was held between Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, in which, the latter promised to denuclearize the Korean peninsula.

The pledge comes after months of heightened tensions regarding North Korea’s escalating nuclear program, which included the testing of multiple warheads with nuclear capabilities. Although the announcement was welcomed by most, many wonder how China was able to reach such a solution with a country the rest of the world generally considered uncompromising.

The thought that such an agreement can be made without threatening military action, applying economic sanctions, or paying off government officials may come as a shock to an American, but victims of American “negotiating” would testify otherwise.

The failure of American diplomacy isn’t anything new, and it certainly didn’t start with Korea. If anything, the modern United States was built upon broken promises, dishonest pacts, and shredded treaties. Whether it’s the hundreds of formal agreements made with Native Americans, the recent rejection of American efforts to preside over peace talks between Israel and Palestine, or Roosevelt’s infamous “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” policy, peaceful and effective negotiations have never been America’s strong suit.

What’s the point in talking if you have the bigger gun, right?

The world needs leaders who are willing to compromise, rather than leaders who can’t take their fingers off the trigger.

Besides. No one can hear you if you speak softly, and you don’t need a big stick if your ideology is worth anything.

Michael Flynn, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and former National Security Advisor, famously commented on American affairs abroad, saying:

“We’ve invested in conflict, not solutions….”

Even a man who many would consider hawkish recognizes that if peace is what the U.S. is really looking for, its actions aren’t backing up its claim. In fact, if you took a closer look at the American track record concerning nuclear weapons, you would see that tensions such as those in North Korea exist because of so called “peace efforts” rather than despite them.

We don’t have to go any farther than this past year to find evidence of American efforts to undermine diplomacy. John Bolton, the newly appointed National Security Advisor with a knack for warmongering, has long opposed peaceful resolution in Iran, repeatedly stressing that regime change is the only real option in the country, (nevermind the fact that American supported regime change is what got Iran where it is now in the first place).

During a conference call with AIPAC, the most influential Israeli lobby in the U.S., Bolton revealed the true darkness of his strategy when he expressed frustration with Iranian compliance with international law. Iran has been a member of the non-proliferation treaty since its conception in 1968, and as such, its inventory, facilities, and nuclear infrastructure are subject to regular inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Bolton, knowing that Iran had agreed to the rules set by international entities, vehemently advocated for crippling sanctions against Iran in order to trigger the country into withdrawing from the treaty. Bolton planned on using this reaction as justification to invade Iran, to overthrow the government. As Bolton said himself during the call:

“They have not…withdrawn from the non proliferation treaty or thrown out IAEA inspectors which I actually hoped they would do, as that reaction would produce a counter-reaction.”

Bolton is essentially saying: “How am I supposed to justify an invasion if I can’t credibly accuse them of harboring weapons of mass destruction?”

Sound familiar?

America followed an almost identical formula to justify regime change in Iraq, even after Saddam Hussein invited chemical weapons inspectors from the U.N. to prove his country had no plans to use WMD’s. In order to preserve the false narrative that justified the invasion, John Bolton illegally exercised his influence to get the Chairman of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons fired in 2002, in what the United Nations’ highest administrative tribunal later condemned as an “unacceptable violation” of principles protecting international civil servants. His actions sent a clear message to the global community: The United States doesn’t accept dissident opinions.

This has grim consequences in the realm of negotiation.

Even as significant steps in diplomacy bring us closer to peace than we’ve ever been before, similar strategies have been used against North Korea in attempts to sabotage peace efforts. To the career politicians and lobbyists on capitol hill, an end to the conflict means losing the Korean War.

The recent strikes in Syria pose an additional threat to global security, as they jeopardize America’s fragile position as peacemakers in North Korea. With the groundbreaking talks between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un scheduled to happen within a month, many speculate that attacking one of the closest allies of Kim Jong-Un’s regime cripples America’s ability to negotiate. Simon Jenkins, one of Britain’s most acclaimed authors, notes that western patterns of opposition such as air strikes and economics sanctions act as an “elixir” that empowers dictatorships, spoils public image, and that promotes independence from domestic markets. All of which actually do more to support authoritarian regimes and contribute to a robust political and economic environment in which the U.S. has no power or influence.

Kim Jong Un is motivated by a desire to maintain power. He recognizes that the possession of nuclear weapons may be one of the only ways under the sun to prevent American aggression, and his administration has repeatedly stated that their nuclear weapons program would be suspended if they felt safe to do so.

As unpopular as the rocket man may be, Kim Jong Un paid attention in history class.

He knows what happened to Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union, when regional leaders surrendered over 2,000 nuclear weapons in exchange for territorial autonomy. Following the deal, Ukraine would be invaded by Russian forces, and Crimea would be annexed.

He knows the only thing that preserved peace during the Cold War was the grim concept of mutually assured destruction

He knows that the complete lack of WMD’s still wasn’t enough to prevent an invasion in Iraq, and that the U.S. wouldn’t be bombing Syria if Assad possessed nuclear weapons.

Love him or hate him, the Supreme Leader has some legitimate concerns.

The problem isn’t that we’re dealing with a bully with a bad haircut who threatens other countries with nuclear weapons. The problem is that you didn’t know if I was talking about the Korean dictator, or the U.S. President.

By all means, hope for peace. But don’t be surprised by empty promises, broken treaties, and failed agreements. Whether by diplomatic incompetence or dark design, national interests have always been more important than peace.

Rather than asking: “Is peace attainable?” we should be asking: “Was peace ever even a priority?”

Of course peace is attainable. The real question isn’t whether or not peace is possible. The question is whether or not the current administration, or any administration for that matter, is willing or capable of garnering that peace.

Featured Image Source

What Would Happen if a Missile Really Went for Hawaii?


By John Liu | USA

As morning came to Hawaii on January 13, 2018, an alert as noted to the user of the cell phone that a ballistic missile is going to hit Hawaii. Panic struck across the state as the residents of Hawaii went to shelters and the highways filled with cars. It will take a missile from North Korea to hit Hawaii in a little over 30 minutes, so the panic is real. But 38 minutes later, a second notification popped to state that it was a false alarm and there will not be a missile striking Hawaii. David Ige, the governor of Hawaii, stated that an employee pushed the wrong button and said they signaled out the second notification 38 minutes later due to the fact that they needed to confirm it is not a threat. But still, people are mad at this false alarm as many thought they are going to die and how someone can screw up the job to put an alarm that caused so much panic.

This is not the first time it happened. In 1983, the peak of the Cold War, a computer alarm alerted the Soviet Union that a missile was approaching them from the US. Panic erupted, but a lieutenant colonel named  Stanislav Petrov stated that it must be a computer glitch as it has glitch before. Sure enough, it was a glitch and the computer was fixed in time. If Petrov did not point this out, we would have a full-on nuclear war.

But what happens if North Korea did send the missile to Hawaii? What is the outcome? What is the response? Who is going to aid North Korea after launching the missile?

If North Korea did send a missile to Hawaii, we would have anti-ballistic missiles to shoot down the intended missiles. There is a problem though, it is not accurate all the time and might miss fire. At least that is not going to be a problem right now as the North Korean does not really have a fully functional ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). One of them actually hit a city near the capital, Pyongyang.

If Hawaii did get hit with a missile by North Korea, the UN and the US will declare war on North Korea. For North Koreans, it will seem like a victory as they bombed “US Imperialism” and that communism will always win, but they are going to be running out of luck as almost every country will attack North Korea for its action of destroying Hawaii.

If you think China is going to help North Korea, you would be absolutely wrong. China is going to want the land that North Korea has to broaden the trading ports in China. Also, they will take severe causalities if they fought along with the North Koreans as they are going to be the only ally of North Korea. Finally, it will hurt China economically, nations will ban any trade with China if it sided with North Korea, it will probably turn into North Korea if they fought along with North Korea.

In the end, North Korea will not nuke the US as it will end the regime of the Kim family along with the fact that it is not getting any allies to help them. But that is not to say they will never attack America, it is just the matter of time.

North Korea Accepts Peace Negotiation

By Jackson Parker | USA

With the upcoming Winter Olympics in PyeongChang officials are meeting at the border of the Koreas to discuss areas of mutual interest. Reopening the shut communication channel for the first time since January of 2016.

“The North has accepted our proposal to meet at Panmunjeom Peace House [Korean Demilitarized Zone] on January 9,”

says South Korean unification ministry spokesman Baik Tae-Hyun according to Yonhap News.

“The two sides decided to discuss working-level issues by exchanging documents,”

the meeting will be focused on issues

“related to the improvement of inter-Korean relations, including the PyeongChang Olympic Games.”

In Kim Jong-un’s new year speech to North Korea, he suggests that dialogue of reducing military tension is available. Seoul jumped on the opportunity and initiated the talk between neighbors.

Does anyone really believe that talks and dialouge would be going on between North and South Korea right now if I wasn’t firm, strong and willing to commit our total ‘might’ against the North. Fools, but talks are a good thing!

President Trump tweets victoriously on Thursday.

After 2 years of silence between the two Koreas, this newfound communication could ease tensions between the North and the South. The PyeongChang Winter Olympics have created a topic for the Koreas to come together and solve their issues to create peace on their peninsula and the rest of the world.

What Should the U.S. do About North Korea?

By Michael Kay | USA

After the president’s tweets about North Korea on January 2nd, there has been much controversy as to how the president should handle the issue. Many believe that the provocative tweets may be an attempt to intimidate or outmaneuver Kim Jong Un, while others believe that it may simply be a president who has lost his mind. This article will ignore the latest set of tweets (and the potential political harms or gains that might follow as a result) and will analyze the two main courses that the United State’s foreign policy objective might follow.

The first potential course of action is, of course, a standoff. Should Kim Jong Un continue to oppose the United States and their interests, and threaten allies such as South Korea and Japan, it would only make sense for America to confront NK and this could prompt the war. The preamble to such an event would be simply following the current course that we are set upon. There may be hope in the prospect of NK going to the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, which could potentially lead to improved relations, but short of that, it seems as though Trump plans to isolate the dictator and play potentially the deadliest waiting game in the past decade.

The second (and hopefully more likely) option is to legitimize Kim Jong Un. What’s important to understand about many isolated, demonized dictators, is that one of their main objectives is for the world to recognize them, to legitimize them. We see this in cases such as with Vladimir Putin, with the Ukraine crisis, in which President Obama chose to start by imposing strict sanctions, then proceeding down the logical diplomatic path of establishing meetings with Putin, and gradually increasing sanctions. There was no effect whatsoever because dictators aren’t the ones directly hurt by economic sanctions. The greatest harm you might do to the dictator himself is to destabilize the entire country by causing starvation and unrest. Not only is this incredibly inhumane, it is also highly inefficient as it can take a very long time (for people to really turn on the dictator), and you run the risk that the dictator will simply ignore his people. However, after attempting this method for some time, the Obama administration decided to change its tactic. It proceeded to remove Russia from the G8 and to maintain the sanctions. Within a fairly short period of time, Russia agreed to come to the negotiating table, and agree to a ceasefire (during negotiations). The reason that this strategy was more successful is that rather than attempting to challenge the country on a whole, it challenged Putin’s legitimacy as a leader, by removing him from a body which signifies economic greatness.

The same logic can be used when examining some of Kim Jong Un’s decisions. For example, the constant nuclear tests serve a dual purpose. First, they threaten potential enemies which can be looked at as a system of preemptive deterrence. Second (and potentially more relevantly), they aim to prove that Kim Jong Un is powerful, and a “real” leader. However, we’ve already ostracized North Korea, so the strategy that may be required would be somewhat different, in that it would have to be a carrot on a stick approach. The US could offer North Korea a spot at the Olympics (of course the rest of the global community would have to agree), in exchange for a small concession, for example, the signing of an official end to the Korean War. This may seem meaningless, but its significance is that it means that the US would stop sending troops, and weapons to the Korean Peninsula. This, in turn, would make Kim Jong Un feel somewhat safer and would reduce the need for a nuclear deterrent, meaning the stoppage (or at least reduction in frequency) of the nuclear tests. Afterwards, the US could trade a stop at the WTO, development aid, or a trade agreement for further concessions such as an agreement to refrain from weaponizing Uranium. If Kim Jong Un feels as though he has a seat at the table, he is less likely to try and blow the table up. Giving Kim Jong Un the illusion of a spot at the table isn’t all that difficult, or costly, as the vast majority of the concessions that would be made by the US would be political ones, rather than monetary.

The current US strategy to counter North Korea is highly ineffective and very dangerous. Trump should change the tactic to one in which North Korea would eventually become assimilated into the global community. It will be an uphill battle, and a very dangerous one, but the alternative is far more dangerous, with no potential for a “happy” ending.