America Preparing "Bloody Nose" Military Attack On North Korea: Telegraph

While North Korea managed to once again drop off the list of immediate geopolitical concerns having kept relative quiet in recent weeks, without any notable provocations or ICBM launches, this may be changing soon, because according to the Telegraph, America is drawing up plans for a “bloody nose” military attack on North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons program. The UK newspaper"s sources claim that the White House has “dramatically” stepped up preparation for a military solution in recent months amid fears diplomacy is not working. As a result, one option currently under consideration is destroying a launch site before it is used by the regime for a new missile test. Stockpiles of weapons could also be targeted.

The explanation for what would be an act of war, is amusing: "The hope is that military force would show Kim Jong-un that America is “serious” about stopping further nuclear development and trigger negotiations." Well, yes: launching an offensive war does tend to confirm that one is indeed serious. The question is what will China, Russia and the rest of the all too serious world do in response.

“The Pentagon is trying to find options that would allow them to punch the North Koreans in the nose, get their attention and show that we’re serious", said one former US security official briefed on policy.

Some further details:

Donald Trump’s decision to bomb a Syrian government airfield earlier this year to defend America’s “red line” on chemical weapons use is seen as a blueprint.  Details have emerged after this newspaper talked to around a dozen current and former officials in America and Britain about policy towards North Korea.

 

The conversations show that the Trump administration is more willing to consider military options to end the conflict than widely assumed. 

And while it will hardly come as a major surprise, the Telegraph notes that it can be revealed that senior British diplomats fear America has already begun a “step by step” military build-up in the region that could escalate.

Alastair Morgan, the UK ambassador to North Korea, visited Washington DC for behind-closed-doors talks about forcing the regime to the negotiating table last month.  The UK is also urging Southeast Asian and African countries to expel some North Korean diplomats amid fears they are secretly financing the regime.

Meanwhile, in a continuation of a previous US demand, the Trump administration wants North Korean ships to be stopped and searched amid fears they are being used to get round UN sanctions.

The urgency behind the plan, and the pressure to act comes from the drop in estimated time it will take for North Korea to develop a missile that could hit America with nuclear weapons.

Just a few years ago it was believed the regime was a decade away from that point, but now the figure has dropped to as little as 18 months - though estimates vary.  Senior figures in the Trump administration have made clear in public that it would be unacceptable for North Korea to reach that position.  While Mr Trump has always said a “military option” is on the table, the administration"s focus has been on building economic and diplomatic pressure. 

 

But Mr Kim’s refusal to negotiate has left senior White House figures disillusioned with diplomacy and increasingly considering military avenues.  One British source who recently attended a briefing with H.R. McMaster, Mr Trump’s national security adviser, and other officials left feeling alarmed. 

 

“The Americans said deterrence doesn’t work against North Korea and negotiation doesn’t work,” the source said. 

 

“Those who heard them left with the impression that military action is very much an option they were considering seriously.”

Kori Schake, a former director of defense strategy at the White House’s National Security Council who served under George W Bush, said military action is a real possibility. "The White House very strongly believes that either North Korea will agree to give up its nuclear weapons or we will launch a preventative attack to destroy them,” she said.  "I would put the odds of them actually carrying that out at three in 10. Other policy experts say it is four in ten."

Still, war is not a guaranteed outcome. On one hand, British officials are continuing to urge their US counterparts to focus on diplomatic solutions and are looking to increase pressure on North Korea.

Separately, while the Trump administration is considering military options, the Telegraph concedes that "it is not a foregone conclusion that the US president will choose to go down that path.  There are major uncertainties about how Mr Kim would react if provoked and the regime already has missiles that could strike nearby countries including Japan and South Korea. "

Ultimately, and as we have said since early in 2017, the decision to attack North Korea will ultimately come down to whether the generals in Trump"s circle of confidence can and will overpower the diplomats:

Experts also say there is a split in the US administration with Mr Trump and Mr McMaster more willing to consider military action than Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, and Jim Mattis, the defence secretary. 

The good news is that - for now at least - Trump no longer needs a major foreign diversion, especially after his biggest political victory of the year, with the passage of the GOP Tax Cut, which tangentially, may have also bought Kim Jong-Un a few additional quarters reprieve.

Time For Détente With North Korea

Authored by Robert McCoy via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

While the military and political environments on the Korean Peninsula have evolved, American policy towards the North has not changed since 1991

North Korea’s Hwasong-14 ICBM. Photo: KCNA via Reuters

The reality is North Korea has nuclear weapons – perhaps thermonuclear bombs – and they are probably miniaturized enough to fit atop its missiles, one of which will soon be, if not already, able to reach all parts of the continental United States.

Washington missed an opportunity for a preventive strike that would have stopped the North Korean nuclear effort – or at least seriously set it back – in 1994.

The decision to not take action was based on the advice of a former US president who believed that the United States would be able to successfully negotiate with Pyongyang.

And by relying upon diplomacy to deal with Pyongyang during that time, Washington has failed to get North Korea to cease developing nuclear weapons, and now to give them up.

The state of affairs can now be summarized as the three “no’s” of North Korea:

First, as Pyongyang has stated on many occasions, there will no negotiating away its nuclear weapons or missiles.

 

Second, there will be no collapse or internal revolution bringing down the Kim Jong Un regime.

 

And third, there will be no participation by North Korea in any reunification effort headed by South Korea – with or without any of Seoul’s allies.

No negotiations

With its nuclear and missile programs in their crowning stages, Pyongyang has absolutely no reason to negotiate with either Seoul or Washington. The goal of nuclear deterrence is finally in its grasp. As the North has often declared, its nuclear weapons and missiles are the only guarantors of its existence and they will not be given up.

Neither has Pyongyang indicated any interest in Beijing’s “freeze for freeze” proposal in which the North would stop developing its nuclear weapons and testing missiles in exchange for ceasing war games on the peninsula by Seoul and its allies. That is an unequal trade.

The North already has the ability to hold South Korea and much of Japan hostage to its conventional weapons. With the addition of nuclear weapons and longer-range missiles, the real target has been openly identified: the United States, as Pyongyang has asserted not only in the past but recently as well.

No revolution

Despite the appalling conditions endured by average North Korean citizens, there are no indications that the regime itself is anything but stable. While citizens have every reason to be dissatisfied and unhappy, the conditions for a successful uprising simply do not exist.

There is no critical mass of would-be revolutionaries, but even if a sufficient number did exist, communication among citizens is restricted and monitored. And heavy surveillance by authorities further prevents any organization or coordination of a revolution.

Above all, there is such a lack of knowledge about how the regime functions that it would be an insurmountable challenge to overthrow the Kim dictatorship from the grass-roots level.

And while some citizens may be holding in their discontent, it is because they are well aware of what punishment awaits protesters: either summary execution or sentences to prison camps, which often enough are death sentences in slow motion.

No reunification

There are reasons why there will be no reunification of the two Koreas any time soon. To begin, there is no significant economic or political engagement with the North. No trust has been established for such endeavors to proceed, so engaging Pyongyang in commercial activities such as reopening the Kaesong Industrial Complex is thus premature.

Another condition necessary for reunification is for at least one of the two states contemplating reunification to be in crisis. If both nations are stable – and both appear to be – there is no motivation to change the status quo. Predictions that the North will collapse or experience a destabilizing insurrection has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking for decades.

There needs to be some power-sharing agreement, however that doesn’t exist today and there seems to be nothing like that in the works. Moreover, for such an arrangement to work, compromises that would either be unacceptable to either side or cumbersome to deal with – “one country, two systems” for example – would be required.

Finally, for any reunification attempt to succeed, there would have to be some third-party guarantor of the process to prevent outside interference and to look out for the interests of both North and South Korea. Finding such a state acceptable to all other nations in the region looks an impossible task.

Detente only option

Military options by Washington are not possible because of the intolerable collateral costs to South Korea – and quite possibly to Japan as well.

Unfortunately, as the past 25-plus years undeniably show, diplomacy has not worked. The reality is that Pyongyang has nuclear weapons, it has the means to deliver them, and it will continue to exist for the foreseeable future.

The US established successful détente first with Moscow and later with Beijing as those two countries developed their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

The US learned how to coexist with two nuclear adversaries in the past, and now needs to do that with Pyongyang. Washington must revert to realistic diplomacy. There is no other acceptable choice.

Pat Buchanan Explains "Little Rocket Man"s Risky Game"

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

In the morning darkness of Wednesday, Kim Jong Un launched an ICBM that rose almost 2,800 miles into the sky before falling into the Sea of Japan.

North Korea now has the proven ability to hit Washington, D.C.

Unproven still is whether Kim can put a miniaturized nuclear warhead atop that missile, which could be fired with precision, and survive the severe vibrations of re-entry. More tests and more time are needed for that.

Thus, U.S. markets brushed off the news of Kim’s Hwasong-15 missile and roared to record heights on Wednesday and Thursday.

President Donald Trump took it less well.

“Little Rocket Man” is one “sick puppy,” he told an audience in Missouri.

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley told the Security Council that “if war comes … the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed.”

She then warned Xi Jinping that “if China does not halt the oil shipments” to North Korea, “we can take the oil situation into our own hands.”

Is Haley talking about bombing pipelines in North Korea — or China?

The rage of the president and bluster of Haley reflect a painful reality: As inhumane and ruthless as the 33-year-old dictator of North Korea is, he is playing the highest stakes poker game on the planet, against the world’s superpower, and playing it remarkably well.

Reason: Kim may understand us better than we do him, which is why he seems less hesitant to invite the risks of a war he cannot win.

While a Korean War II might well end with annihilation of the North’s army and Kim’s regime, it would almost surely result in untold thousands of dead South Koreans and Americans.

And Kim knows that the more American lives he can put at risk, with nuclear-tipped missiles, the less likely the Americans are to want to fight him.

His calculation has thus far proven correct.

As long as he does not push the envelope too far, and force Trump to choose war rather than living with a North Korea that could rain nuclear rockets on the U.S., Kim may win the confrontation.

Why? Because the concessions Kim is demanding are not beyond the utterly unacceptable.

What does Kim want?

Initially, he wants a halt to U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which he sees as a potential prelude to a surprise attack. He wants an end to sanctions, U.S. recognition of his regime, and acceptance of his status as a nuclear weapons state. Down the road, he wants a U.S. withdrawal of all forces from South Korea and international aid.

Earlier administrations — Clinton, Bush II, Obama — have seen many of these demands as negotiable. And accepting some or even all of them would entail no grave peril to U.S. national security or vital interests.

They would entail, however, a serious loss of face.

Acceptance of such demands by the United States would be a triumph for Kim, validating his risky nuclear strategy, and a diplomatic defeat for the United States.

Little Rocket Man would have bested The Donald.

Moreover, the credibility of the U.S. deterrent would be called into question. South Korea and Japan could be expected to consider their own deterrents, out of fear the U.S. would never truly put its homeland at risk, but would cut a deal at their expense.

We would hear again the cries of “Munich” and the shade of Neville Chamberlain would be called forth for ritual denunciation.

Yet it is a time for truth: Our demand for “denuclearization of the Korean peninsula,” is not going to be met, absent a U.S. war and occupation of North Korea.

Kim saw how Bush II, when it served U.S. interests, pulled out of our 30-year-old ABM treaty with Moscow. He saw how, after he gave up all his WMD to reach an accommodation with the West, Moammar Gadhafi was attacked by NATO and ended up being lynched.

He can see how much Americans honor nuclear treaties they sign by observing universal GOP howls to kill the Iranian nuclear deal and bring about “regime change” in Tehran, despite Iran letting U.N. inspectors roam the country to show they have no nuclear weapons program.

For America’s post-Cold War enemies, the lesson is clear:

Give up your WMD, and you wind up like Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein.

 

Build nuclear weapons that can threaten Americans, and you get respect.

Kim Jong Un would be a fool to give up his missiles and nukes, and while the man is many things, a fool is not one of them.

We are nearing a point where the choice is between a war with North Korea in which thousands would die, or confirming that the U.S. is not willing to put its homeland at risk to keep Kim from keeping what he already has — nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.

Libya: The Forgotten Reason North Korea Desperately Wants Nuclear Weapons

Authored by Ted Galen Carpenter via The National Interest,

The United States and its allies continue to cajole and threaten North Korea to negotiate an agreement that would relinquish its growing nuclear and ballistic-missile programs.

The latest verbal prodding came from President Trump during his joint press conference with South Korean president Moon Jae-in. Trump urged Pyongyang to “come to the negotiating table,” and asserted that it “makes sense for North Korea to do the right thing.” The “right thing” Trump and his predecessors have always maintained, is for North Korea to become nonnuclear.

It is unlikely that the DPRK will ever return to nuclear virginity. Pyongyang has multiple reasons for retaining its nukes. For a country with an economy roughly the size of Paraguay’s, a bizarre political system that has no external appeal, and an increasingly antiquated conventional military force, a nuclear-weapons capability is the sole factor that provides prestige and a seat at the table of international affairs. There is one other crucial reason for the DPRK’s truculence, though. North Korean leaders simply do not trust the United States to honor any agreement that might be reached.

Unfortunately, there are ample reasons for such distrust.

North Korean leaders have witnessed how the United States treats nonnuclear adversaries such as Serbia and Iraq. But it was the U.S.-led intervention in Libya in 2011 that underscored to Pyongyang why achieving and retaining a nuclear-weapons capability might be the only reliable way to prevent a regime-change war directed against the DPRK.

Partially in response to Washington’s war that ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003, ostensibly because of a threat posed by Baghdad’s “weapons of mass destruction,” Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi seemed to capitulate regarding such matters. He signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in December of that year and agreed to abandon his country’s embryonic nuclear program. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and pledged that they no longer sought to isolate Libya.

Qaddafi was welcomed back into the international community once he relinquished his nuclear ambitions.

That reconciliation lasted less than a decade. When one of the periodic domestic revolts against Qaddafi’s rule erupted again in 2011, Washington and its NATO partners argued that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent (despite meager evidence of that scenario), and initiated a military intervention. It soon became apparent that the official justification to protect innocent civilians was a cynical pretext, and that another regime-change war was underway. The Western powers launched devastating air strikes and cruise-missile attacks against Libyan government forces. NATO also armed rebel units and assisted the insurgency in other ways.

Although all previous revolts had fizzled, extensive Western military involvement produced a very different result this time. The insurgents not only overthrew Qaddafi, they captured, tortured and executed him in an especially grisly fashion. Washington’s response was astonishingly flippant. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton quipped: “We came, we saw, he died.”

The behavior of Washington and its allies in Libya certainly did not give any incentive to North Korea or other would-be nuclear powers to abandon such ambitions in exchange for U.S. paper promises for normal relations. Indeed, North Korea promptly cited the Libya episode as a reason why it needed a deterrent capability—a point that Pyongyang has reiterated several times in the years since Muammar el-Qaddafi ouster. There is little doubt that the West’s betrayal of Qaddafi has made an agreement with the DPRK to denuclearize even less attainable than it might have been otherwise. Even some U.S. officials concede that the Libya episode convinced North Korean leaders that nuclear weapons were necessary for regime survival.

The foundation for successful diplomacy is a country’s reputation for credibility and reliability. U.S. leaders fret that autocratic regimes—such as those in Iran and North Korea—might well violate agreements they sign. There are legitimate reasons for wariness, although in Iran’s case, the government appears to be complying with its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that Tehran signed with the United States and other major powers in 2015—despite allegations from U.S. hawks about violations.

When it comes to problems with credibility, though, U.S. leaders also need to look in the mirror. Washington’s conduct in Libya was a case of brazen duplicity. It is hardly a surprise if North Korea (or other countries) now regard the United States as an untrustworthy negotiating partner. Because of Pyongyang’s other reasons for wanting a nuclear capability, a denuclearization accord was always a long shot. But U.S. actions in Libya reduced prospects to the vanishing point. American leaders have only themselves to blame for that situation.

Trump Says Japan Will Shoot North Korean Missiles "Out Of The Sky" After Lockheed Deal

President Donald Trump’s 12-day Asia tour kicked off in Japan last night, where discussions between Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe were punctuated by the deadly mass shooting that claimed 26 lives in a small-town Texas church. But not before Trump could engage in some customary saber-rattling aimed at his favorite verbal sparring partner, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Trump’s meeting with Abe was the first time the two world leaders have met face to face since late September, when they discussed strategies for containing the North Korean nuclear threat on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, including how to pressure China and Russia to increase economic pressure on their restive neighbor, according to Reuters.

Not much has changed since then; though South Korean and US intelligence have detected signs of movement around some of the North’s missile-launch sites, the country has so far refrained from engaging in any more missile or nuclear tests since it fired a medium-range missile over Japan on Sept. 15.

However, that didn’t stop Trump from repeating his mantra the “era of strategic patience” with North Korea was over, and said the two countries were working to counter the “dangerous aggressions,” during a press conference following a leadership summit between the two men.

“He (Abe) will shoot them out of the sky when he completes the purchase of lots of additional military equipment from the United States,“ Trump said, referring to the North Korean missiles. ”The prime minister is going to be purchasing massive amounts of military equipment, as he should. And we make the best military equipment by far."

Abe, for his part, said Tokyo would shoot down missiles “if necessary”.

Trump was replying to a question that was posed to Abe - namely how he would respond to a quote from Trump from a recent interview in which he said Japan was a “samurai” nation and should have shot down the North Korean missiles.

Japan’s policy is that it would only shoot down a missile if it were falling on Japanese territory or if it were judged to pose an “existential threat” to Japan because it was aimed at a US target, Bloomberg reported.

Trump once again defended his aggressive rhetoric, arguing that passivity in the face of the burgeoning threat posed by North Korea led to today’s diplomatic standoff.

“Most importantly, we’re working to counter the dangerous aggressions of the regime in North Korea,” Trump said, calling Pyongyang’s nuclear tests and recent launches of ballistic missiles over Japan “a threat to the civilized world and to international peace and stability”.

“Some people said that my rhetoric is very strong. But look what’s happened with very weak rhetoric over the last 25 years. Look where we are right now,” he said, adding that "no dictator" should underestimate US resolve.

Trump is on the first stop of a five-nation swing through Asia where he plans to push his message of fair trade and freedom in the region backed by a strong U.S. military presence. The U.S.’s $69 billion trade deficit with Japan is its second-highest behind only China, fueled largely by American imports of cars and electronics.

North Korea’s recent actions have raised the stakes in the most critical international challenge of Trump’s presidency.

The US leader, who will visit South Korea on the trip, has repeatedly promised to “totally destroy” North Korea if it threatens the US, while dismissing North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as a “rocket man” on a suicide mission during a speech before the UN General Assembly in September.

Abe, with whom Trump has bonded through multiple summits and phone calls, repeated at the same news conference that Japan backed Trump’s stance that “all options” are on the table, saying it was time to exert maximum pressure on North Korea and the two countries were “100 percent” together on the issue. Abe said Japan is buying Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35A fighter jets and missile interceptors from Raytheon Co. - deals that had previously been announced. He said Japan would buy more Aegis equipment from the U.S. for its ships.

Abe also discussed improving Japan"s defense capabilities as the country moves further beyond constitutional restrictions on militarism imposed after World War II.

“With the North Korean situation becoming more severe, and the Asia-Pacific security environment becoming harsher, I think we need to improve Japan’s defense capabilities in terms of quality and quantity,” Abe said.

Meanwhile, the North Korean regime is reportedly monitoring Trump’s Asia tour “very closely” and has said that, if he does anything crazy, the North will “respond powerfully.” To wit, in what seems like a deliberate attempt to aggravate the North during Trump’s visit (perhaps in the hope of provoking another missile test that would underscore Trump’s calls for regional cooperation on the issue) three US aircraft carriers and several nuclear submarines are taking part in joint military exercises with the Japanese and South Koreans in the waters off the Korean peninsula.

Pentagon Says Securing North Korean Nuclear Sites Would Require "Ground Invasion"

With President Donald Trump arriving in Japan today to kick off a 10-day Asia tour, the Washington Post is reporting that the only way to locate and secure all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons sites “with complete certainty” would be a ground invasion, and in the event of conflict, Pyongyang could use biological and chemical weapons, the Pentagon told lawmakers in a newly released assessment of what war on the Korean Peninsula might look like.

The Pentagon, in a letter to lawmakers, said that a full discussion of U.S. capabilities to “counter North Korea’s ability to respond with a nuclear weapon and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons located in deeply buried, underground facilities” is best suited for a classified briefing.

 

The letter also said that Pentagon leaders “assess that North Korea may consider the use of biological weapons” and that the country “has a long-standing chemical weapons program with the capability to produce nerve, blister, blood and choking agents."

 

The Pentagon repeated that a detailed discussion of how the United States would respond to the threat could not be discussed in public.

 

The letter noted that Seoul, the South Korean capital, is a densely populated area with 25 million residents. 

The Pentagon’s candid assessment appears to validate claims made by former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who famously said in an interview with the American Prospect before he was forced out of his White House job that there are no “good” military options for toppling the Kim regime. A ground invasion, he said, would lead to millions of casualties in the South Korean capital of Seoul from conventional weapons fire.

It’s release also coincides with the president’s push to rally the North’s neighbors in the region to do more to punish the restive Kim regime, which conducted a test of a hydrogen bomb - also its sixth nuclear test overall - in early September.

The North has been notably quiet since Sept. 15, when it launched a medium-range missile over the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. Aside from the usual condemnations of military drills involving US and South Korean, and threats that the North is seriously considering testing a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific. Some have speculated that a partial collapse at the North’s Pyunggye-ri nuclear testing facility has been partly responsible for the delays.

The letter to lawmakers was written by Rear Adm. Michael J. Dumont, the vice director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, in response to a request for information from two House members about “expected casualty assessments in a conflict with North Korea,” including for civilians and U.S. and allied forces in South Korea, Japan and Guam.

In the letter, Dumont explains how a ground invasion would unfold.

Any operation to pursue North Korean nuclear weapons would likely be spearheaded by U.S. Special Operations troops. Last year, President Barack Obama and then-Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter gave U.S. Special Operations Command a new, leading role coordinating the Pentagon’s effort to counter weapons of mass destruction. SOCOM did not receive any new legal authorities for the mission but gained influence in how the military responds to such threats.

 

Elite U.S. forces have long trained to respond in the case of a so-called “loose nuke” in the hands of terrorists. But senior officials said SOCOM is increasingly focused on North Korea.

Given the difficulty and tremendous potential for casualities that would accompany a ground invasion, Dumont affirmed that the military supports the present strategy of pursuing a diplomatic solution to the simmering standoff between the North and the US.

Dumont said the military backs the current U.S. strategy on North Korea, which is led by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and focuses on ratcheting up economic and diplomatic pressure as the primary effort to get North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to stop developing nuclear weapons. Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., have emphasized that during trips to Seoul this year.

 

In contrast, President Trump, who goes unmentioned in the Pentagon letter, has taunted Kim as “Rocket Man” and expressed frustration with diplomatic efforts, hinting that he is considering preemptive military force.

 

“I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man,” Trump tweeted on Oct. 1, adding, “Save your energy Rex, we’ll do what has to be done!"

 

On Oct. 7, Trump added in additional tweets that North Korea had “made fools” of U.S. negotiators. “Sorry, but only one thing will work!” he said. 

Defense Secretary James Mattis and the Pentagon has often pointed to the massive risk that North Korean weaponry pose to South Koreans living In Seoul. But the military has never before publicly revealed so much about its plans for a hunt for North Korea’s underground weapons.

Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said that Dumont and other Pentagon officials had no additional comment about the letter.

A senior US military official in South Korea told WaPo that while the 28,500 US troops in South Korea maintain a high degree of readiness, he “has to believe” that North Korea does not want a war, given all of the nations aligned against it.

“If you open the history books, this is not the first time that we’ve been in a heavy provocation cycle,” the official said. On the side of South Korea and the United States, he said, “there is no action taken without extreme consideration of not putting this in a position where a fight is going to happen."

Dumont’s letter also notes that “we have not seen any change in the offensive posture of North Korea’s forces."

A statement by 16 lawmakers, released simultaneously with the Pentagon letter, urged Trump to stop making “provocative statements” that impede diplomatic efforts and risk the lives of U.S. troops.

One lawmaker cited estimates that a ground invasion of the North would leave 300,000 people dead in the first couple of days.

The Pentagon’s “assessment underscores what we’ve known all along: There are no good military options for North Korea,” said the statement, organized by Lieu and Gallego and signed by 14 other members of Congress who are veterans, all but one of them Democrats. In a telephone interview, Lieu said that the intent of asking the Pentagon for information was to spell out the cataclysmic consequences of war with North Korea and the aftermath.

 

“It’s important for people to understand what a war with a nuclear power would look like,” said Lieu, citing estimates of 300,000 dead in the first few days alone. More than 100,000 Americans are potentially at risk.

 

Lieu, who spent part of his time in the Air Force on Guam preparing for military action against North Korea, called the letter a confirmation that a conflict would result in a “bloody, protracted ground war.” The Joint Chiefs, he believes, are “trying to send a message to the American public,” he said.

 

“This is grim,” Lieu said. “We need to understand what war means. And it hasn’t been articulated very well. I think they’re trying to articulate some of that."

The question now is: Will this report undermine Trump’s efforts to push the US’s allies in the Pacific to do more to peacefully pressure the Kim regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program. China and Russia have for months been pushing a plan that would see the North freeze its nuclear program in exchange for the US withdrawing its THAAD missile defense systems from South Korea.

The Kim regime has repeatedly said it will never give up its nuclear weapons, which it believes are essential for the survival of the regime.

Japan Sounds Alarm On "Unprecedented, Critical And Imminent” Threat From North Korea

Following the landslide victory by Prime Minister Abe in Japan"s Sunday elections, which left his ruling coalition with a supermajority allowing him to change Japan"s constitution, Abe wasted no time in signalling a push towards his long-held goal of revising Japan"s post-war, pacifist constitution, however as Reuters reported earlier, Abe would "need to convince a divided public to succeed." Parties in favor of amending the U.S.-drafted charter won nearly 80% of the seats in Sunday’s lower house election, leaving the small, new Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) as the biggest group opposed to Abe’s proposed changes. Still, Abe claimed he wanted to get other parties on board, including Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike’s new conservative Party of Hope, and was not insisting on a target of changing the constitution by 2020 that he floated this year.

Yet, despite Abe"s soothing vision, just one day after the election Japan was already setting the groundwork for creating the strawman that would be needed to get public support largely behind Abe"s militant venture.

As a result, Japan’s defense minister said on Monday that North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities have grown to an “unprecedented, critical and imminent” level, requiring “different responses” to the threat.

The minister, Itsunori Odonera, was quoted by AP as saying that this rising threat compels his country to endorse the U.S. view that “all options” must be considered, which President Donald Trump says includes possible military action. And since this pivot would require a revised constitution, the next step is already in play.

Odonera’s comments came at the outset of a so-called trilateral meeting in the Philippines (where over the weekend Russia was "delivering" weapons to the Duterte regime, as reported overnight) with U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and South Korea’s defense minister, Song Young-moo. Each made statements about North Korea before a group of reporters and news cameras, but none took questions according to AP.

Mattis was in the Philippines to attend portions of a two-day meeting of defense ministers from the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations. He used the occasion to hold a three-way meeting with his counterparts from Japan and South Korea. He is scheduled later in the week to travel to Seoul to attend annual consultative talks with the South Korean government, which is expected to focus mostly on North Korea.

Elevating the North Korea bogeyman to unprecedented levels, and assuring that "no crisis will go to waste", Odonera said North Korea’s most recent underground nuclear test could have been a hydrogen bomb, which is vastly more powerful than an atomic bomb.

“The country has steadfastly improved it nuclear and missiles capability,” said Onodera. He added: “The threat posed by North Korea has grown to the unprecedented, critical and imminent level.”

 

“Therefore, we have to take calibrated and different responses to meet that level of threat,” he said, without elaborating on what “different” responses Japan favors.

Trump has said he will resolve the North Korea problem alone if necessary, to prevent the North from gaining the capability to attack the United States with a nuclear-armed missile.

As usual, the far cooler Mattis - who clearly does not have a constitution-revising agenda - was much more reserved in his remarks than Onodera, although he did slam Pyongyang for defying U.N. Security Council resolutions against its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. But the U.S. defense secretary did not mention any potential military action. Mattis instead emphasized a unified U.S.-Japan-South Korea position in pressuring the North to give up its nuclear program.

“North Korea’s provocations threaten regional and global security,” he said.

Meanwhile, South Korea’s defense minister, Song, said that North Korea’s behavior is “becoming worse and worse.” In brief remarks to reporters, earlier on Monday Song was asked about the risk of war against North Korea.

“I want to emphasize that war is not as easy as the journalists make it sound in the press and the media,” he said. “As defense ministers who are in charge of national defense and other high tech weapons such as ballistic missiles, we understand the very weight of engaging in a war and as such we will make all the efforts necessary to resolve the issue in a diplomatic and economic way as possible.”

He added: “However, if we are attacked then we will have to take firm actions.”

Most importantly, however, is that it has been a month since North Korea has engaged in any provocative actions, and contrary to expectations that it would launch a ballistic missile in early and mid October, so far Pyongyang has - despite launching the occasional verbal grande at Trump - kept a low profile. Which considering it is now in Japan"s best interest to have a provocative neighbor who will greenlight the desired constitutional changes, will likely change in the near future.

USS Ronald Reagan Joins South Korean Navy For Latest Round Of "War Games"

North Korea swiftly quashed hopes for a détente with the US and its regional allies earlier this week when a government spokesman said there would be no sit-down between US and North Korean diplomats at a non-proliferation conference in Moscow this week.

Now that the North – presumably taking its ques from President Donald Trump who earlier this month ridiculed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s attempts at backchanneling – has refused to participate in talks, tensions between the two nuclear-armed powers have escalated to absurd new heights.

Making matters worse, Russian media reported earlier this week that Pyongyang is preparing to test a ballistic missile capable of reaching the west coast of the US. And in a move that alarmed the international community, about a Deputy UN Envoy Kim In Ryong told a UN General Assembly committee the situation on the Korean peninsula had reached a touch-and-go point and a nuclear war could break out at any moment.

Apparently, the rising tensions have only emboldened the US, Japan and South Korea to carry out more provocative war games this week, eliciting howls of condemnation from North Korea.

But this time, US and South Korean fighter jets will be accompanied by the USS Ronald Reagan, a 100,000-ton nuclear powered aircraft carrier which has been patrolling the waters east of the Korean peninsula on Thursday in a show of sea and air power designed to warn off North Korea from any military action. But as China and Russia have repeatedly warned, its presence will only exacerbate tensions between the North and the US, increasing the chances of a military conflict, Reuters reported.

The US Navy’s biggest warship in Asia – sporting a crew of 5,000 sailors - sailed around 100 miles (160.93 km) this week, launching almost 90 F-18 Super Hornet sorties from its deck.

The Ronald Reagan is conducting drills with the South Korean navy involving 40 warships deployed in a line stretching from the Yellow Sea west of the peninsula into the Sea of Japan.

“The dangerous and aggressive behavior by North Korea concerns everybody in the world,” Rear Admiral Marc Dalton, commander of the Reagan’s strike group, said in the carrier’s hangar as war planes taxied on the flight deck above.

North Korea has slammed the warship gathering as a “rehearsal for war.”

As the standoff with the North enters its ninth month, the US, Japan and South Korea are meeting to discuss a possible diplomatic resolution to the war of words. On Sunday, Trump changed his mind – something he"s done a lot lately - and ordered Tillerson to try and revive backchannel talks with the North. Washington has not ruled out the eventual possibility of direct talks with the North to resolve the stand-off, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan said on Tuesday.

But who’s to say whether another missile test, or, worse, another nuclear test, won"t again change the president"s mind, leading to a resumption of the threatening rhetoric that has so alarmed the North?

North Korea Warns "Nuclear War Could Break Out At Any Moment"

Less than a day after South Korean and US naval forces kicked off their latest round of joint military drills, which are slated to run until the end of the week, North Korea’s deputy UN ambassador claimed during a fiery speech at the UN General Assembly that the Korean peninsula “has reached the touch-and-go point and a nuclear war may break out any moment,” the Associated Press reported.

Complaining to the UN General Assembly’s disarmament committee, Kim In Ryong argued that North Korea is the only country in the world that has been subjected to “such an extreme and direct nuclear threat” from the United States since the 1970s, adding that the isolated North has the right to posses nuclear weapons in self-defense.

This latest warning arrives as the US and South Korea are bracing for another North Korean missile test. For weeks now, South Korean intelligence has suspected that its isolated neighbor could use the beginning of China’s National Party Congress, which begins on Thursday, as an opportunity for what would be a bold act of defiance, angering both the US and the North’s primary benefactor and only major ally, China. The North has also been threatening to unveil a new ICBM that intelligence services believe might be capable of striking the west coast.  

During his speech, Kim accused the US and South Korea of conducting military exercises involving “nuclear assets” and also mentioned a top-secret plan to stage a “secret operation aimed at the removal of our supreme leadership” developed by US and South Korean intelligence. The plan was exposed after North Korean hackers stole a large cache of military documents from the South.

Boasting about the country’s nuclear capabilities, Kim bragged that the North Korea had completed its “state nuclear force and thus became the full-fledged nuclear power which possesses the delivery means of various ranges, including the atomic bomb, H-bomb and intercontinental ballistic rockets.”

“The entire U.S. mainland is within our firing range and if the U.S. dares to invade our sacred territory even an inch it will not escape our severe punishment in any part of the globe,” he warned.

The dangerous rhetoric comes as Russia – which was recently rumored to be ramping up economic support for the North – reversed course and said it would curtail economic, scientific and other ties with North Korea in line with UN sanctions

Meanwhile, the European Union announced new sanctions on Pyongyang for developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Sunday that diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the North Korean crisis “will continue until the first bomb drops.” His commitment to diplomacy came despite

President Donald Trump’s tweets several weeks ago that his chief envoy was “wasting his time” trying to negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, whom he derisively referred to as “Little Rocket Man.”

A report published by Russian media earlier today claiming that US and North Korean diplomats might be meeting at a conference in Moscow next week was quickly denied by the isolated country’s government, which said it’s not yet ready to begin negotiating with its greatest geopolitical foe.

Kim also reiterated that North Korea considers its missile arsenal “a precious strategic asset that cannot be reversed or bartered for anything.”

“Unless the hostile policy and the nuclear threat of the U.S. is thoroughly eradicated, we will never put our nuclear weapons and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table under any circumstances,” Kim said.

But in an interesting twist, Kim told the disarmament committee that while the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — North Korea’s official name — would like to see nuclear weapons vanish from the face of the earth, aggressive expansion of nuclear arsenals has left the country no choice but to arm itself.

By accelerating the modernization of its weapons, the US is “reviving a nuclear arms race reminiscent of [the] Cold War era,” Kim said. He also noted that the nuclear weapon states, including the United States, boycotted negotiations for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was approved in July by 122 countries at the United Nations.

“The DPRK consistently supports the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the efforts for denuclearization of the entire world,” he said.

But as long as the United States rejects the treaty and “constantly threatens and blackmails the DPRK with nuclear weapons ... the DPRK is not in position to accede to the treaty.”

The True Danger Of The North Korea Crisis: It Could Cost America Its Allies

Authored by Robert Kelly via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Tough North Korea rhetoric from the U.S. administration continues. Major South Korean media increasingly talk as if U.S. air strikes are likely, and theexpert community seems increasingly resigned to them as well. Despite constant criticism of his incendiary language, President Donald Trump continues to suggest that major action against North Korea is imminent—most recently by suggesting that we are now in a period of ‘calm before the storm.’

I have argued in these pages that such strikes would be an enormous risk. We do not know what the North’s redlines for retaliation against such a strike are. We do not know if the strikes would so unnerve the North’s elites that war was next, that they would respond with enormous force, possibly including nuclear weapons. An expert study of this scenario suggests appalling casualty numbers. We also do not know what China’s thresholds are for intervention. China is treaty-bound to help North Korea if it is attacked. It may not, but if a U.S. air strike against North Korea spirals into a major conflict, then the likelihood of Chinese intervention rises.

It is also worth noting that even if the Chinese and North Koreans do not respond to air strikes, North Korea will almost certainly deploy human shields as soon as the bombs start to fall. And the North has so many targets that the United States would like to hit, that any ‘air strike’ would look a lot more like a major air campaign and not a quick ‘surgical strike,’ as in Syria earlier this year. An air campaign against sites with human shields means a high civilian death toll. The North Koreans will not make this easy for us at all.

White House officials, most importantly Secretary of Defense James Mattis, continue to suggest that diplomacy is the preferred outcome. And there are options to continue to buy us time against the North Korean nuclear and missile programs: missile defense, sanctions, continuing to cajole China to push North Korea harder and so on. Nevertheless, the pressure to something dramatic regarding North Korea is rising. If war is inevitable - it is not, but for the sake of the argument - it is better to fight now, before they have more weapons, and before those weapons can more evidently strike the continental United States. Even Kim Young-sam, South Korea’s president at the time of the 1994 nuclear crisis, has retrospectively regretted his decision not to strike then.

President Kim’s veto of the strike at the time blocked U.S. action.

This question is now returning as Trump raises the rhetorical heat on Pyongyang. And this time, it involves Japan too, as it is now in range in range of North Korean missiles, and likely nuclear missiles. Japan has already practiced civil defense drills. But if the United States were today, as in 1994, to extend an, albeit unspoken, veto to South Korea, and now Japan too, war is unlikely. They do not want it.

Americans may feel incensed at having to get ‘permission’ from others to act. Trump is unlikely to feel such commitments. And hawks may suggest that because North Korea can hit the United States, we are threatened too and therefore no longer require allied permission. Nevertheless, there are strong national interest reasons, if not moral ones, to once again solicit allied approval.

First, it is South Koreans and Japanese who will bear the brunt of any North Korean retaliation for a U.S. strike. Yes, North Korea can, perhaps, now strike the U.S. homeland, but the North’s ability to devastate the United States is significantly lower than its ability to damage South Korea and Japan. If we are going to drag South Korea and Japan into a war that could result in hundreds of thousands—or even millions—of their casualties, plus irradiated blast zones, refugees, and the possibility of state collapse, we should at least get their permission. It would be staggeringly immoral, and an astonishing act of callousness in American history, if U.S. action led to nuclear use against South Korea and/or Japan without their permission. The British referred to this problem in the early Cold War as ‘annihilation without representation’—the Americans might go to war with the Soviets over the heads of NATO, but the NATO states would be destroyed in the cross-fire.

Second, if this normative argument is unpersuasive, then consider the impact on U.S. national interests if allies around the world saw the United States sacrifice, or risk sacrificing, South Korea and Japan without even soliciting their approval. This would end pretensions that U.S. hegemony is liberal or benign. It would destroy allied trust that the United States considers their interests too. It would appear as if Washington were using allies instrumentally as shields or buffers to absorb enemy fire. That is akin to why the Soviet Union did not leave Eastern Europe in the late 1940s—to serve as a buffer against the West and a locus for the next war, rather than inside the USSR itself. This was yet one more reason for the Warsaw Pact states to exit the alliance as soon as they could.

It is similarly likely that America’s alliance system would collapse if the United States risks major, perhaps nuclear, conflict without allied consent but fought on their soil. Trump’s advisors likely realize this; does the president?

Retired Green Beret Fears North Korea Is On "Death Ground" - No Recourse But To Fight Or Die

Authored by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFplan.com,

Fox News reported this on October 11, 2017, in the article North Korea says Trump ‘Lit the Wick of War,’ vows a hail of fire:

“On Wednesday, the U.S. and South Korea flew two strategic bombers over the Korean peninsula in a joint military exercise — another show of force against Pyongyang amid the mounting tensions. The bombers also conducted firing exercises over the East Sea and Yellow Sea, according to the BBC. Japan’s air force also joined the drill.  This is the second time since Trump’s fiery U.N. General Assembly speech that North Korea vocally accused the U.S. of declaring war on its country. Trump lambasted “little rocket man” Kim Jong Un for going on a “suicide mission for himself and his regime” in the speech last month. He vowed to “totally destroy” the country if it did not halt its nuclear program.”

Additionally, this information was released in the article North Korea Hackers Reportedly Stole US, South Korea War Plans, by Fox News on October 10, 2017:

“A plan to assassinate Kim Jong Un and preparations for a potential nuclear showdown with North Korea were among the trove of South Korean military documents reportedly stolen by Hermit Kingdom hackers.  South Korea’s Defense Ministry did not comment on the alleged hack, which reportedly occurred in September 2016 but was only revealed Tuesday. Rhee Cheol-hee, a lawmaker in South Korea, confirmed the data breach to the BBC. The hack consisted of 235 gigabytes of military documents and about 80 percent of what was stolen hasn’t been identified.

Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Rob Manning told reporters on Tuesday: “I can assure you that we are confident in the security of our operations plans and our ability to deal with any threat from North Korea.”  Manning would not confirm the hack.  Pyongyang is suspected of having expert hackers attack South Korean government websites and facilities for years. North Korea has accused its neighbor of “fabricating” the claims, the BBC reported.”

There was also an incident pursuant to the UN sanctions (initiated by the US) on North Korea, as reported by Reuters on October 11:

“The United Nations Security Council has banned four ships from ports globally for carrying coal from North Korea, including one vessel that also had ammunition, but the United States postponed a bid to blacklist four others pending further investigation.  The vessels are the first to be designated under stepped-up sanctions imposed on North Korea by the 15-member council in August and September over Pyongyang’s sixth and largest nuclear test and two long-range ballistic missile launches.  The Security Council North Korea sanctions committee, which operates by consensus, agreed at the request of the United States, to blacklist the ships on Oct. 3 for “transporting prohibited items from the DPRK” (North Korea), according to documents seen by Reuters on Tuesday.”

As mentioned in the articles, the U.S. just flew (and has been flying) bomber missions…ostensibly for “combat readiness,” but realistically to torment North Korea.  Along with the hacked into battle plans, it has been reported that an assassination plan against Kim Jong Un was also among the plans.  Now the UN (at the request of the U.S.) is interfering with North Korea’s ability to ship materials abroad.

The U.S. is rapidly approaching the point of placing North Korea on the “Death Ground,” characterized in Sun Tzu’s “Art of War.”  This “Death Ground” is an untenable position where an enemy has no recourse but to fight or die, as honorable withdrawal is not permitted.

We have a president who is not acting in the manner of a statesman with the name-calling and insults…actions that are unbecoming for a man who is the Commander-in-Chief and leader of the United States of America.  Diplomatic channels are not being properly pursued.  China and Russia have each stated that North Korea will not back down, and that diplomacy needs to be placed in clearer focus and sought after.

The United States is deliberately trying to goad North Korea into taking an action (not necessarily an attack) that will justify a response in force.  Un knows what happened to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muhammar Khaddaffi…two nations that did not have nuclear weapons.  The North Koreans know that to disarm is to capitulate.  They also know that the U.S. will not strike first without irradiating South Korea, China, or Russia, and such will elicit repercussions from China and Russia.

North Korea does have the capability to strike the United States, and the United States is backing it into a corner with provocative actions militarily and unstatesmanlike banter that does not befit or dignify representatives of the country.  North Korea has been backing up into a corner for some time.  There will come a point when it can back up no longer, and will be forced to come out swinging.  It is undoubtedly all part of a larger plan.  The cost, however, will not be borne by the politicians, but by the civilian populations.  The price remains to be seen.

The next world war will be initiated by an EMP device detonated over the continental United States, followed by a nuclear exchange and fighting with conventional forces.

Are Russia And China Right On North Korea?

Authored by Matthew Jamison via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

With the nuclear standoff between North Korea and the United States having heated up significantly over the summer, it has been the Governments of Russia and China who have sought to be the responsible, mature and wise international parties at the United Nations and throughout the international community.

It has been the brilliant diplomacy of Moscow and Beijing who have been the voices urging restraint, calm and dialogue unlike the insane, ridiculous and totally counter-productive rhetoric of the American President Donald Trump and the US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley.

The leaders of Russia and China must be given a strong round of applause for trying to avert a nuclear holocaust on the Korean peninsula whilst upholding international law, attempting to avoid a nuclear war and advocating for multi-party dialogue with the resumption of the 6 Party Talks which have been in abeyance since 2009 and a cooling off period on the Korean peninsula with the suspension of the US-South Korea military exercises. This is the right policy going forward for the welfare, safety and security of the Korean peninsula as well as regional and international peace and stability. The wrong course of action and the wrong policies of handling North Korea and the Kim Jong Un regime have been consistently followed by the Trump administration and its allies on the UN Security Council. 

The American policy of constantly aggravating North Korea with US-South Korea joint military exercises designed to unsettle, disturb and provoke the North is counter-productive and has only increased tensions and the possibility of all out war in Korea which would be a complete disaster and must not be allowed to happen. The American policy of deploying THAAD has also been like a red rag to a bull in North Korea and again only adds to increasing tensions ans the likelihood of armed conflict. While Russia and China have been working with great effort to calm the situation down with the restoration of dialogue, cooperation and stability it has been unfortunately the Governments of the United States and to a certain degree President Trump"s ally in British "prime" minister Theresa May who have actually in reality been increasing tensions, escalating the situation, antagonising the North Koreans and not helping to decrease tensions and deescalate the situation. 

To be clear North Korea is also completely in the wrong and it is the prime actor that must stop its nuclear tests and enter into talks. Yet it is very difficult for the North to enter into the 6 Party Talks when the United States will not countenance such talks. One could also mount an argument that the only reason the North Korean regime is behaving this way and seeking nuclear weapons is to preserve its own security as it in all likelihood feels extremely threatened especially in light of what happened with regards to Iraq during 2002-2003 and beyond and Libya after 2003.

The rhetoric of the Trump administration whether it be from the President himself or his Defence Secretary Mattis or UN Ambassador Haley has not been helpful and has been full of hyperbole, no doubt sabre rattling, but still it simply inflames and escalates an already difficult, tense and fragile international and regional security and humanitarian headache.

Imagine if the situation where reversed and it was Mexico on the United States" southern border acting in this way. Do you really think the American Government would want to deal with the fall out on its own door step of a nuclear obliterated Mexico and the tremendous ecological, environmental and human damage that would create. I doubt it very much that the United States would take the same approach to such a situation if the rogue party playing up was right on its own southern border. 

With regards to the role that the United Kingdom Government is playing, hopefully, it is a constructive role with the aim to help reduce tensions and deescalate the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula not increase and exacerbate what is already a very delicate situation. Time alone will tell if the current British "prime" minister Theresa May is fully committed to such a course and is actually exerting (what little influence and leverage) she may have over her new found best friend from January President Trump. Mrs. May made great hay out of her early visit to hold hands with Donald Trump a week after he was sworn in. Let the international community see now the Anglo-American "special relationship" in action with the UK prime minister persuading the American President to change tack.

What Would A North Korean Nuclear Attack Look Like?

Reports that North Korea is planning to test an ICBM capable of reaching the US west coast opened a trapdoor under stocks this morning, suggesting that investors are taking president’s ominous warnings about “the calm before the storm” seriously.

But in the unlikely event that you’re not sufficiently terrified already, researchers at Johns Hopkins have sought to quantify the horrifying consequences of a North Korean nuclear strike in a new research report published by the university’s 38th Parallel project.

The US carrying out any military option raises a significant risk of military escalation by the North, including the use of nuclear weapons against South Korea and Japan. According to the calculations presented below, if the “unthinkable” happened, nuclear detonations over Seoul and Tokyo with North Korea’s current estimated weapon yields could result in as many as 2.1 million fatalities and 7.7 million injuries.

In the report, author Michael Zagurek calculates that an all-out nuclear strike launched by North Korea against Tokyo or Seoul could kill as many as 2.1 million people and injure another 8 million. Combined, the number of dead and injured would equal 10% of the South Korean population – affirming that a nuclear strike by the North would be – by a considerable margin - the single deadliest attack in human history. By comparison, the US killed a combined 120,000 Japanese civilians when dropped nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

To hear Zagurek tell it, investors and ordinary citizens alike are underestimating the likelihood of a nuclear conflict. As Zagurek explains, tipping the world into a potentially civilization conflict could result from an accidental miscalculation by either side. In the most likely scenario, an accidental miscalculation during a missile or nuclear test in the Pacific impacts US military assets in Guam, triggering an overwhelming military response by the US.

With the North Korean regime fearing the imminent destruction of its nuclear arsenal, as the logic goes, the Kim regime would fire off all 25 of its nukes – at least, that was the number upon which Zagurek based his calculations – at either Japan or Seoul.

But ruling out the possibility of an accident like that described above, how much longer can North Korea and the US trade threats before a military conflict becomes inevitable?

If the status quo is unacceptable and diplomacy has been ineffective, then at what point do military responses become probable?  The tension between North Korea, its neighbors and the United States are now extremely high, antagonized further by bombastic exchanges between the US and DPRK during the United Nations General Assembly meetings and continued tweets from Trump. History is replete with “rational actors” grossly miscalculating, especially in crisis situations. It is possible that another North Korean nuclear test—especially if detonated in air or under water—an ICBM test, or a missile test that has the payload impact area too close to US bases in Guam for example, might see Washington react with force. This could include such options as attempting to shoot down the test missiles or possibly attacking North Korea’s missile testing, nuclear related sites, missile deployment areas or the Kim Regime itself. The North Korean leadership might perceive such an attack as an effort to remove the Kim family from power and, as a result, could retaliate with nuclear weapons as a last gasp reaction before annihilation. Therefore, it is worth reviewing the consequences if the “unthinkable” happened.

The following graphs show the results of Zagurek"s calculations for different-sized nuclear payloads:

Here’s a map of Seoul showing four possible blast areas from a 250 kt airbust detonation – 12+ psi, 5-12 psi, 2-5 psi, 1-2 psi…

And the four possible blast areas for Tokyo…

With Sarah Huckabee Sanders telling reporters that President Donald Trump’s ominous hints about a coming “storm” should be taken seriously, it’s possible that a breaking point could be approaching…

…then again, Trump is fond of bluffing. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon’s surprising admission that there is “no attractive military solutions” for dealing with North Korea that wouldn"t result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Seoul within 30 minutes due to conventional weapons fire continue to haunt the administration...

'Decoders' Offer Dire Warnings About North Korea's Nuclear Program

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Experts outside the United States government are using North Korea’s propaganda videos to dissect and decode the rogue regime’s nuclear program.

Decoders say that there are clues about the weapons advancement program hidden in their propaganda, and they are sounding the alarm.

A group of analysts at the Middlebury Institute’s Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California are closely studying the propaganda photos and videos put out by the North Korean regime. They then apply new tools such as satellite imagery and 3-D mapping to the videos and photos so they can learn more about how the North continues to advance their weapons in the face of sanctions and growing opposition.

The analysts are finding amazingly : information about North Korea’s military capabilities and in this , they walk us through the clues that reveal the capabilities of a North Korean missile. They will also show instances where they’ve found the North Koreans to be faking their weapons success.

The intense voices in North Korea’s videos make them seem legitimate, but the decoders have looked into what they can actually accomplish and what they cannot by simple decoding images used by the regime themselves.

Perhaps the most alarming revelation is that the decoders suggest that it’s likely that North Korea is using highly advanced machines to construct their missile components. This could make getting a powerful nuke more likely than originally thought. They also say that North Korea has a missile that can carry a warhead capable of hitting the mainland United States, “New York, LA.”

But they also point out the failures in the North Korean weapons advancement program and can identify where Kim Jong-Un is in several photos.

Russia Increases Economic Support For North Korea As China Backs Away

Over the past two months, China, North Korea’s economic benefactor and formally the source of 90% of its foreign trade, has been withdrawing financial support, ostensibly under the auspices of US sanctions, as Communist Party leaders try to rein in the North’s nuclear program to appease the US and prevent a potentially destabilizing conflict on its border – a development that would be particularly unwelcome during the Communist Party’s upcoming national congress.

As we reported earlier this week, North Korea’s thriving black-market economy (the county earns hundreds of millions of dollars a year from illegal weapons sales, along with other illicit activities rumored to include counterfeiting of US dollars and the manufacture of methamphetamine) has helped blunt the economic impact of UN sanctions meant to reduce the country’s legitimate exports by 90%.

Last month, China ordered North Korean businesses operating in the country to close, and asked its banks to stop doing business with North Korean businesses and individuals in accordance with the latest round of UN Security Council sanctions.

But as China withdraws, Reuters reports that Russia, which shares a small border with North Korea along the country’s eastern flank, is quietly stepping in to offer economic support for its restive neighbor, even after declining to use its veto power to kill UN sanctions against the rogue state.

Russia’s reasoning is simple: If the North Korean regime falls, more US troops could deploy near Russia’s eastern border – an eventuality that Moscow would like to avoid, given the NATO buildup in Europe.

Though Moscow wants to try to improve battered U.S.-Russia relations in the increasingly slim hope of relief from Western sanctions over Ukraine, it remains strongly opposed to what it sees as Washington’s meddling in other countries’ affairs, according to Russian diplomats and analysts familiar with the Kremlin’s thinking.

Russia is already angry about a build-up of U.S.-led NATO forces on its western borders in Europe and does not want any replication on its Asian flank, the sources added.

Yet while Russia has an interest in protecting North Korea, which started life as a Soviet satellite state, it is not giving Pyongyang a free pass: it backed tougher United Nations sanctions against North Korea over its nuclear tests last month.

A Russian company began routing North Korean internet traffic this month, giving Pyongyang a second connection with the outside world besides China, according to Reuters. Trade between Russia and North Korea doubled to $31.4 million in the first quarter of 2017 thanks to what Moscow said were higher oil product exports, according to Russia’s ministry for the development of the Far East.

The US suspects that Russia is undermining UN sanctions by allowing North Korean ships to sail home with large loads of fuel, despite officially declaring another destination. Russia has also resisted pressure to repatriate tens of thousands of North Korean laborers whose remittances help support the Kim regime.

“The Kremlin really believes the North Korean leadership should get additional assurances and confidence that the United States is not in the regime change business,” Andrey Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council, a think-tank close to the Russian Foreign Ministry, told Reuters.

“The prospect of regime change is a serious concern. The Kremlin understands that (U.S. President Donald) Trump is unpredictable. They felt more secure with Barack Obama that he would not take any action that would explode the situation, but with Trump they don’t know.”

Presumably, Russia has chafed at President Donald Trump’s aggressive rhetoric, taking umbrage at his reckless threats to “totally destroy” North Korea, and that the regime “won’t be around much longer.”

As Reuters noted, any talk of unseating any leader of a former Soviet satellite state for whatever reason is politically toxic in Moscow.

To be sure, Beijing’s economic ties to Pyongyang still dwarf Moscow’s and China remains a more powerful player in the unfolding nuclear crisis. But while Beijing is cutting back trade as it toughens its line on its neighbor’s ballistic missile and nuclear program, Russia is increasing its support.

Last month, Russia stoked the US’s ire by hosting the "Zapad-2017" military drills, the latest iteration of military drills that began during the Soviet Union in the 1970s. While Russia placed the number of soldiers participating in the exercise, which also involved neighboring Belarus, at around 10,000, NATO estimates that the real number could’ve been closer to 100,000. Land, sea and air units took part in the games across a huge area encompassing western Russia, Belarus, the Baltic Sea and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. Now, the US is accusing Russia and Belarus of breaking up the war games into smaller segments to avoid being observed by international monitors.

Russian President Vladimir Putin told a forum last month in Vladivostok – an eastern port city 60 miles from Russia’ border with North Korea - that he understood the country’s security concerns about the US and South Korea.

To be sure, Russia and China continue to advocate for a peaceful dialogue between the US and the North. The two countries have proposed a peace plan that would ask the US and South Korea to end their military exercises in exchange for the North ending its nuclear tests. However, after President Donald Trump poisoned the well by saying Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was “wasting his time” trying to talk to the North, this eventuality appears increasingly remote. But as the drumbeat of war intensifies in the US, the two countries are taking steps to ensure that their mutually-agreeable buffer against US "missile defense" systems in South Korea remains intact.