Home » Missiles on parade in North Korea…

Comments

Missiles on parade in North Korea… — 17 Comments

  1. “Trump is somewhat unpredictable, but he’s not crazy. The leader of North Korea is most likely both, as well as evil.” – Neo

    What matters is what is KJU’s assessment. He may think trump just as crazy as we think KJU is.

    (I bet, to much of the world, “unpredicatability”, and self-defeating behavior, along with no discernible overarching principles or philosophy, also LOOKS “crazy”, but that is another discussion).

    Also, KJU may be “logical” within his environment, and history – cage rattling and weapons testing may have been a successful strategy for some time.

    Who’s to say it doesn’t get him what he really wants this time too?

  2. I think crazy (unpredictable) or cowboy going back to Reagan and Bush are good things with the bad guys on the international scene. For the rest of the world to see him not buckling down to the Left (MSM, politicians, snowflakes) must be unsettling! No other R has shown such a non-caring stance.

    This was one of the only reasons that voting for McCain was a positive for me – I thought most foreign leaders were scared he had PTSD. IIRC, I read that he has an explosive temper.

  3. @JuliB – Don’t think Reagan and trump are in the same category in this regard.

    Reagan was rather clear eyed and consistent in who he thought was “the enemy”.

    He also didn’t issue “threats” so publicly, and equally publicly back down and reverse himself.

    “Cowboy” was a caricature of Reagan, but he was assertive / tough and focused.

    “Unpredictable” is the reality of trump – for both good and bad. Unfocused, and it becomes incoherent.

  4. I don’t know if Kim cares a lick about anyone, but he probably doesn’t want to die, or be at the mercy of his own people he’s tortured or imprisoned.

    I think that’s why he will be the one who blinks every time in the face of greater force.

  5. It is a volatile, but not necessarily progressive condition. Somehow, each party will need to save face and reconcile their differences.

  6. Neo’s last sentence leaves me puzzled. If Kim is probably both unpredictable and crazy and evil. While tiptoeing around him hasn’t worked… how does now treating him as a rational actor amenable to pressure make sense? What new basis is there for assuming such to now be true?

  7. Geoffrey Britain:

    This is more or less what I think:

    Is it wise to rattle Kim Jong Un? Probably. We know how North Korea behaves when it feels safe – by building nuclear weapons and exporting the technology to other U.S. enemies. It’s possible that a North Korea squeezed economically by China and fearful of Donald Trump will stand down, or at least stand still, on the nuclear front. It’s also possible that, if sufficiently squeezed, the regime would collapse (to use its term), though China has its own reasons for not squeezing that hard.

    But might not North Korea respond instead by carrying out its threats of military action against South Korea, U.S. assets in the North Pacific, and even our West Coast? Only if Kim Jong Un is crazy. A North Korean attack would mean the destruction of his nation and his regime.

    There is speculation that Kim is, indeed, mentally unbalanced. But if that’s the case, then arguably it becomes all the more important to prevent him from developing a nuclear strike capacity against the U.S.

    Thus, I think Walter Russell Mead has it right. He says:

    [Trump] is also willing, in a way that his predecessors weren’t, to engage in brinkmanship with North Korea–responding to the DPRK’s volcanic eruptions of hatred and threats with firmness and warnings rather than the usual mumbling. This policy is full of risk, but it is hard to argue that at this point the United States has many alternatives, unless we are willing to live with a North Korean gun at our heads for the rest of time.

  8. neo,

    Ah, that clears things up for me and I’m basically in agreement.

    I’m of the opinion that this may be our last chance to arrest N. Korea’s pursuit of long range nuclear missile capability. If we settle for too little, this horrific possibility occurred to me the other day; should Kim be allowed to continue his nuclear and missile development until he has plenty of ICBMs… what is to prevent him from holding hostage the survival of multiple cities in the region?

    Not counting Seoul, there are easily 155 MILLION innocents in just the top 12 most populous cities from Sydney to Manila. They would then have a nuclear gun to their heads… Kim could use that threat to prevent American military interference, while he invades S. Korea.

    Can anyone doubt that had he the power, that he wouldn’t threaten millions with every intention of following through if opposed?

  9. What is the chance that the failed missile launch was scuttle by . . . the North Koreans?

    Could it be that Kim chickened out? He had talked up his ‘big event’ and thus had to show something to save face. Thus a ‘failed launch’.

  10. M Williams:

    A failed launch doesn’t save face with any audience I can think of.

  11. Bir Maq –

    “Don’t think Reagan and trump are in the same category in this regard. ”

    I should have been more explicit – I’m talking about perception, not reality. And from the perspective of the bad guys.

    I have no idea what the reality of Trump is wrt/foreign policy.

  12. @JuliB – As I mentioned elsewhere, unpredictability on tactics – good – unpredictability on where he stands / philosophy – not good.

    Allies and enemies always knew where they stood with Reagan.

    Not so with trump, as he so easily reverses himself, and allies seem to be as much of a target as enemies.

  13. Neo responded “A failed launch doesn’t save face with any audience I can think of.”

    My thinking is this . . .

    What are Kim’s options?
    1) shoot off a missile and risk retaliation from USA
    2) no missile launch and risk looking cowardly after all his belligerent talk

    From Kim’s POV #2 is far worse. His own people would turn on him.

    So #1 is his only choice.

    So he launches . . . and it fizzles.

    Which means software or hardware caused the failure.

    The failure is due to . . .
    a) an ‘honest’ failure
    b) USA, or someone, hacked the software and caused the failure
    c) NK purposely blew it up

    a or b means Kim is willing to risk retaliation, or at a minimum, up the ante.
    c means he caved to Trump’s brinksmanship, but went through the motions primarily for domestic consumpion – and to save his ass. Kim could still appear tough – after all, he had every intention of launching.

    But, as I said – what is the chance? I think it is small, but I also think it’s a possibility. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a regime went to great lengths for propaganda purposes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>