Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘North Korea’ Category

North Korea Gets Specific With Its Guam Threat

  • Besides North Korea and the United States, the country to watch for developments in this developing situation is South Korea, which finds the prospect of war unacceptable. 
  • The threats made by North Korea are conditional, emphasizing that the United States should avoid any military provocation.
  • It still isn’t clear that the Hwasong-12, the missile listed in the announcement, is reliable enough for such a demonstration.
  • North Korea has released specific details of its plan to strike the U.S. territory of Guam. According to comments attributed to Gen. Kim Rak Gyom, commander of the Strategic Force of the Korean People’s Army, the military is drawing up plans for a four-missile salvo of Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missiles to fly over Japan and land about 17 minutes later 30-40 kilometers (18-25 miles) from the island of Guam. Once prepared, the plan will be presented to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un by mid-August, after which Pyongyang will “keep closely watching the speech and behavior of the U.S.”
    The specificity of the North Korean threat has raised concerns, and it follows a statement by the Strategic Force a day earlier by that they were “carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam” as a response to the frequent flights of U.S. strategic bombers from Andersen Air Force Base on Guam to the Korean Peninsula. The statement said North Korea would consider a launch of missiles as “a serious warning signal to the U.S.” Both statements — and the purported preparation of the new operational plan — come shortly ahead of the annual large-scale Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises between South Korea and the United States, which begin at the end of August.
    A few things are important to note about the series of North Korean comments. First is that many countries draw up operational plans — it is a standard and necessary practice for militaries, and these are frequently reviewed and updated during times of heightened tensions. Second is that the current comments are clearly conditional threats — something emphasized by Pyongyang’s assertion that the United States “should immediately stop its reckless military provocation against (North Korea) so that the latter would not be forced to make an unavoidable military choice.” Finally, while Pyongyang is very specific in its numbers (“They will fly 3 356.7 km for 1,065 seconds and hit the waters 30 to 40 km away from Guam”), the Hwasong-12 has had only a single successful launch after a series of back-to-back tests earlier this year. It is not clear that this missile is reliable enough for such a demonstration, even if the North felt it was necessary.
    There are several additional questions to assess and potential signals to watch as we monitor the escalating rhetorical and military tensions between North Korea and the United States.

    1. Why make the threat?

    North Korea’s revelation of its operational plan for Guam could simply be a rhetorical response to U.S. talk about preventive action, fire and fury, or “separating” Kim Jong Un from the North’s nuclear weapons. However, we cannot simply assume the North is only about bluster. Pyongyang may be signaling to the United States that it does have realistic options and capabilities that would increase the likelihood and cost of conflict. Such warnings of expanding missile launches may also enhance the drive by Seoul, Beijing and Moscow to stem any U.S. move toward war and instead push for dialogue with the North. Beijing has suggested several times a dual freeze plan to ease tensions: The United States would temporarily halt major military exercises in South Korea and in return the North would stop its missile tests. While the United States does not appear amenable to such a temporary suspension, South Korea may be tempted to explore such an option, if it can reduce the likelihood of conflict on the peninsula.

    2. What are the risks to such a launch for Pyongyang?

    Were Pyongyang to launch a salvo of four missiles toward Guam (with the intent of landing near, not hitting, the island), there are several possible risks. Given the track record of the Hwasong-12, one or more of the missiles could fail, demonstrating the weakness of the North’s claimed deterrent. A failed missile could fall on Japan during overflight, though Pyongyang may have intentionally listed the single-stage Hwasong-12 as opposed to a dual-stage missile to reduce the likelihood of debris falling on Japan during a successful launch. The U.S. and/or Japan could decide to engage the missiles with their missile defense system and, if fully successful, demonstrate the weakness of the north’s deterrent. The North’s missiles could overfly their targeted water and actually strike Guam, triggering a military response from the United States. While a completely successful launch could alter the perception of Pyongyang’s capability and seriousness, any of the failure scenarios not only could set back Pyongyang’s deterrence but also trigger the conflict that Pyongyang is seeking to avoid.

    3. What would be the risks of the United States and/or Japan attempting to intercept a North Korea launch?

    The United States and Japan would first consider which flight path would constitute a threat requiring a missile defense response. This may be a 12-nautical-mile ring around Guam, or certain flight paths over heavily populated parts of Japan. Once a “must intercept” locus is identified, it would be a matter of estimating the likely flight paths from North Korea, and ensuring sea- and land-based assets are positioned and prepared. Should the United States choose not to intercept the missiles (assuming they are determined NOT likely to hit Guam), it could then make an even stronger case to China and the international community that Pyongyang is an active threat and needs to be reined in immediately. Pyongyang would clearly be seen as the aggressor and escalator. Shooting down the missiles if they are not headed directly for Guam poses a risk to the United States. While U.S. missile defense systems have improved in recent years, there is still concern that, in a live fire scenario, they will not be 100 percent effective. If the defense system fails to take out all targets, it weakens the perception of U.S. strength and deterrence. If they succeed when the missiles are not aimed directly for Guam or heading off course toward U.S. or Japanese territory, it could trigger a further escalation by the North, moving from a tense situation to the escalation toward war. While the most likely course is to only attempt an intercept if the missiles are headed toward specific, designated areas, there is the longer-term political risk of being seen as weak and as unwilling to defend regional allies.

    4. How do the neighboring countries view the escalating tensions, and what steps may they take?

    Although North Korea’s threat is clearly aimed at the United States, the neighboring countries are also acutely aware of the risks of rising military tensions. Japan does not want to see Pyongyang break its self-imposed moratorium of flying missiles over Japanese islands. The potential for an accident, particularly given the uneven track record of North Korean missiles, is fairly high. China has long seen a destabilized North Korea, or a North Korea moving toward unification with the South, as a higher risk than a North pursuing nuclear weapons and missile technology. But if the tit-for-tat threats and hyperbolic statements move from rhetoric to reality, that standing calculus shifts rapidly. Worse than the status quo or even a nuclear armed North Korea is military action on the Korean Peninsula. China’s attention is on trying to ease back the U.S. threats and actions, pushing its double freeze plan, and calling on Washington to refrain from escalation. The double freeze not only would serve to at least delay an immediate crisis, but it could also fit with China’s longer-term goal of easing back the U.S. military presence in Asia, where China is asserting its right to be the central power. But China’s options with Washington and Pyongyang are limited, and it may be that Beijing’s primary action outside calls for talks is to beef up its defense forces along the North Korean border and prepare for the worst.
    Russia has played a bit of a spoiler role of late in North Korea by selling fuel, hiring North Korean labor and buying up North Korean fishing rights to ease the impact of sanctions. And Moscow is in talks with the United States over numerous global and regional issues. But it is unclear whether Moscow has much positive leverage to exert on Pyongyang. Perhaps the most important country to watch, aside from the United States and North Korea, is South Korea. Seoul has made it clear it cannot tolerate another war on the Korean Peninsula. But neither is Seoul ready or capable of simply cutting off its defense ties with the United States or undermining its strategic relationship with Washington. South Korea is trying to balance its national security through its military alliance and through engagement with the North. Pyongyang is playing hard to get, putting more pressure on the South to take actions to soften its active defense exercises and displays with the United States in order to open dialogue. For South Korea, there are few good options, and the debate in Seoul is intense over just how to avoid a war without undermining South Korea’s security.

    5. What are the options to ease tensions?

    At this point, the heightened situation is more rhetorical than physical. Revelations of U.S. assessments of North Korean nuclear and missile capabilities are acknowledgements of past realities, not immediate breakthroughs by North Korea that have suddenly changed the status quo. There is always room for both sides to ease their rhetoric. But the core issue is that the U.S. intent and the North Korean intent still appear incompatible. Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile program, and the United States still asserts that Pyongyang cannot be allowed to achieve its final demonstrable long-range nuclear-tipped missile. There is no middle ground. Barring a change in political position by one or the other side, there is little space for compromise. It may be that the United States ultimately determines that management of a nuclear North Korea is the more realistic and less costly option than military action, but this is a political decision that has yet to be made.

    6. What should we watch for to understand the direction of the crisis?

    Although both North Korea and the United States are always prepared for war, the United States does not currently appear fully prepared for a preventive strike against the North. During the upcoming Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises, we need to watch what additional hardware and forces simple remain in Korea or in the theater after the exercise is over. While the United States has said it is not building up forces in Korea, there are ways to slowly and quietly add assets. One of the final triggers would be a drawdown of nonessential personnel in Korea, a fairly sure sign that conflict was on the horizon.
    North Korea’s testing cycle has been intense in recent months, but Pyongyang still has a few critical tests to conduct to finalize its nuclear deterrent. The North may no longer be able to rely on tests launched at steep angles to avoid overflying neighboring territory, and it may need to test its guidance system and re-entry capability over true distances. While Pyongyang has developed a flight path for its space launch vehicles that pursues a more southward trajectory, it has yet to test its strategic missiles along this path. We need to monitor Pyongyang’s next series of tests to see how much closer the North is to finalizing its program, from ruggedization of the warhead to the program’s targeting capabilities.
    China is preparing for the upcoming party congress, an important moment for Xi Jinping, and is already engaged in a low-level military standoff with India. Beijing will be working studiously to ease frictions at least until November. China has been relatively cooperative in the United Nations, but it has had limited intent or success in applying sanctions and pressure on North Korea. Beijing has also had very limited communications with Pyongyang, and we should watch closely for any high-level delegation between the two capitals, as well as Chinese dialogue with South Korea to urge Seoul to accede to the double-freeze proposal.
    South Korea will be particularly important to watch because it is caught between the risk of war and the risk of angering its strategic ally — that choice could not only have defensive consequences but could also play into the renegotiations of their free trade agreement. Seoul has walked a careful path under Moon Jae In, calling for dialogue with the North and easing restrictions on exchanges while also allowing an expansion of U.S. missile defense systems in South Korea and emphasizing the security relationship. The political direction of Seoul will be critical for any short-term easing of the current crisis. While it does not appear that Seoul will ease off the upcoming military exercises with the United States, any adjustment will be critical to watch for.

Striking North Korea

Should North Korea’s nuclear antics compel us to launch a self-defense attack, success would require far more than pinpoint strikes. The choice would come down to this: Do we kill our enemies with sufficient ruthlessness at the outset, or do we attempt to minimize North Korean casualties and expose ourselves and our allies to the prospect of a drawn-out mutual butchery?

I fear we’ve forgotten what war means. That fear reached a peak a decade ago when American generals blithely repeated the indefensible claim that “counterinsurgency is warfare at the graduate-school level.” No. Counterinsurgency is Kindergarten (complete with political correctness nowadays). D-Day was a doctoral dissertation and the bombing campaign over Germany the preceding master’s thesis.

For all of our spectacular technologies, I’m not convinced our leaders, civilian or military, are psychologically or morally prepared for a real war. We have taught our troops to break things, but to go to absurd lengths to spare all lives. Yet in warfare there’s no substitute for killing your enemy and all those who support him. And you keep on killing until the enemy quits unconditionally or lies there dead and rotting.

So how would an effective campaign against North Korea unfold and what would it take?

The first step should begin immediately, well in advance and without firing a shot. All military family members, all Department of Defense civilian employees and all nonessential contractors should be evacuated from South Korea. Want to get North Korea’s attention? That single act would serve as a graver warning of our readiness than any amount of sanctions or saber-rattling.

As a former soldier with plenty of time overseas, I’m well aware of the disruption to military families this would cause, but the purpose of our military is to fight — and an emergency evacuation later on would sap assets and clog facilities amid war’s lethal confusion. Our men and women in combat need to concentrate on winning, not worrying about the safety of their loved ones.

Besides, frantic, last-minute evacuation efforts would tip off Pyongyang that a strike was imminent. Now, not later, is the right time to prepare for all contingencies — and to signal that preparedness.

Initially, we’d launch a surprise air and naval campaign, with ground forces deployed only in defense of South Korea. Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile-development facilities and arsenals wouldn’t be in the initial target set. First, we’d have to overwhelm and destroy North Korea’s air defenses, while simultaneously degrading Pyongyang’s military command, control and communications to cripple any response.

Then, rapidly, we’d go for the missile and nuke infrastructure. And here’s where we’d have to show our will to win. Wrecking bunkered sites isn’t enough. Research, development and production facilities can be rebuilt.

We’d need to strike, without warning, the dormitory facilities and housing areas for the scientists, designers, technicians, skilled workers and military cadres involved in North Korea’s nuclear-weapons and missile programs. If we’re unwilling to do that, we’d merely be buying ourselves a minor delay at extravagant cost.

And then we need to be prepared to counter any North Korean conventional blows against South Korea. Although we cannot forewarn China, we should, as the first missiles strike, tell Beijing to contact its interlocutors in Pyongyang and let them know that any attack on Seoul or across the DMZ will result in the devastation of North Korea’s military and a painful form of regime change.

Then we need to live up to every word.

Of course, an attack should be a last resort. Even a very successful campaign would be high-risk and bloody. But we cannot allow the regime of Kim Jong-un to possess the means of nuclear blackmail or the ability to launch attacks against us.

The fundamental reason we have a government isn’t to process Social Security payments. It’s to defend our citizenry and our territory. Everything else is an add-on.

Meanwhile, our officials at all levels should avoid bellicose threats that only make us seem equally dubious in the eyes of the world. Let North Korea go on rhetorical rampages and further discredit itself. We should speak through our actions — such as those family evacuations, further anti-missile-system deployments, increased regional presence and, not least, deepening alliances.

Oh, and if North Korea’s nuclear program has tunneled so far underground that conventional weapons can’t destroy the infrastructure, use nukes. It may be time to remind the world just how terrible such weapons can be.

Iran would get the message.

Trump Just WON Round 1 With North Korea!

The mainstream media are aghast at President Donald Trump’s comments on North Korea as he promises “fire and fury” and warns that American military solutions are “locked and loaded.”

The political elite, and the foreign policy establishment, oscillate between bitter scorn and sheer panic at his tactics. But one does not have to be convinced of Trump’s rhetorical genius to note that he has already re-framed the conflict in a way that is advantageous to the U.S.

From Breitbart

First, Trump has radically changed the costs of a potential conflict, for both sides. The dominant paradigm of nuclear face-offs is mutually assured destruction (MAD), which is why the Soviet Union and the U.S. never attacked each other during the Cold War. Most of the discussion about North Korea has followed the same pattern, because of the threat of ICBMs to the U.S. mainland. After Trump threatened to annihilate North Korea, however, Kim Jong-un threatened to attack … Guam. Trump doubled down, indicating that a North Korean attack on Guam would trigger an attack against the regime. That shifted the costs of a war radically in our favor and against theirs.

Second, it is noteworthy that the North Korean threat to Guam did not refer to nuclear weapons, but rather hinted at conventional missile strikes. There is no way to know for sure that the regime would not use nuclear weapons, if indeed the North Koreans can miniaturize them, but a conventional attack is certainly less serious than a nuclear one. In threatening the most violent possible attack, Trump elicited a response that is significantly less threatening.

Third, Trump diverted attention away from North Korea’s more vulnerable neighbors, South Korea and Japan. Of course the North Koreans could attack them if the U.S. launched a war. But instead of talking about the potential deaths of millions of people in densely-populated areas, the world is now talking about the qualms felt by a few people on a remote island. That makes Trump’s words look less scary, and eases pressure for the U.S. to back down.

Update: Fourth, the Chinese government is now indicating that it will not defend North Korea from a retaliatory strike if the regime attacks the U.S. (which includes Guam). The Global Times, which reflects the view of the Chinese government, indicated that China would stop the U.S. from trying to overthrow the North Korean regime but would not defend North Korea if it struck the U.S. first. That is a significant change from the status quo ante.

The situation remains unstable, and could escalate. But Trump’s rhetoric is not, as former Obama adviser Susan Rice claims, the problem. In fact, it is part of the solution. It has, at the very least, restored some of our deterrence.

China Just Issued A Stark Warning To North Korea That Changes Everything

China has clearly had enough of North Korea’s antics and issued an ultimatum to the Hermit Kingdom on Thursday.

According to Daily Wire:

China has delivered an ultimatum to North Korea: If they hit the United States, they’re on their own.

The state-run Global Times wrote in an editorial, “China should also make clear that if North Korea launches missiles that threaten US soil first and the US retaliates, China will stay neutral.”

However, should the U.S. and South Korea strike North Korea first, then “China will prevent them from” implementing regime change in North Korea.

The editorial continued:

China opposes both nuclear proliferation and war in the Korean Peninsula. It will not encourage any side to stir up military conflict, and will firmly resist any side which wants to change the status quo of the areas where China’s interests are concerned. It is hoped that both Washington and Pyongyang can exercise restraint. The Korean Peninsula is where the strategic interests of all sides converge, and no side should try to be the absolute dominator of the region.

It’s easy to see why. As columnist Noah Feldman has explained, China values “regional stability” above all else.

“It doesn’t want a nuclear war in its backyard,” wrote Feldman. “But it couldn’t possibly benefit from the collapse of Kim’s regime, which would almost certainly leave a U.S. ally, South Korea, in charge of a unified Korea across the border.”

A unified Korea would of course challenge China’s regional hegemony, but there’s also the fact that, according to former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, China fears “millions of refugees” flowing into the country should the Kim regime be destroyed.

Basically, China is trying to play both sides of the latest escalation between the U.S. and North Korea in an attempt to maintain their regional dominance while trying to avoid a catastrophic war breaking out near them.

“They can work with us or face the inevitable consequences,” Bolton writes.

Top 4 NK Nuke Targets in US Revealed… No. 3 Is Horrifying

North Korea launched its most capable missile test ever on July 28, where experts revealed that every state in the United States — besides Florida — is now within range of a nuclear missile from dictator Kim Jong Un.

However, North Korea’s less-advanced missiles indicate that it would only be expected to take aim at a few key targets in the U.S. Experts argue that North Korea still needs to improve its missiles engines and guidance system before they will be able to accurately hit any target they aim for.

In 2013, North Korea released a propaganda photo showing Kim holding a large document before a missile launch, which more than likely leaked their planned targets for a nuclear attack against the U.S.

Zooming in on the map provided by NK News shows the rogue countries possible targets:

  1. Hawaii, one of the closest targets for North Korea, is home to the U.S. military bases Pacific Command, which oversees all U.S. military units in the region.
  2. San Diego serves as PACOM’s home port, where a majority of the U.S. Navy ships would be deployed to respond to an attack from North Korea.
  3.  Washington, D.C. is obviously the home of the commander-in-chief, who must approve of nuclear orders. This target serves as the most important reminder that the North Korean dictator is ultimately aiming to take out the U.S. president as well as our most vital military bases.
  4. Austin, Texas was the fourth city on North Korea’s possible hit list.

While North Korea has greatly improved their nuclear missile capabilities, the United States is fortunately well equipped to handle a myriad of threats.

Outside of the U.S. State Department instituting a ban on U.S. citizens traveling to North Korea, a United States-built missile defense system successfully intercepted a missile during a test run last month — which indicates that the U.S. military has a high probability of intercepting a missile in the air prior to it hitting any target in the United States.

Nevertheless, if things continue to progress, it may only be a matter of time before North Korea acquires the technology to actually reach these targeted U.S. cities.

Share this story on Facebook and Twitter if you agree that the U.S. must take action against North Korea before it is too late.

North Korea Ships Wash Up On Japanese Shores…FULL OF DEAD BODIES

https://youtu.be/UwkvsPHDcik,

Japanese authorities have launched an investigation after a “ghost ship” containing a dead and nearly decomposed crew was spotted floating aimlessly off the coast in recent days.

According to the U.K. Express, the ship and crew were virtually unidentifiable, save for a tattered North Korean flag that still flew and faded markings on the hull that partially read “Korean People’s Army,” revealing the origin of the “ghost ship.”

Conservative Tribune reports,

Despite autopsies being performed on the bodies, which revealed they had been dead for at least a few months, it was virtually impossible to determine a cause of death due to the advanced stage of decomposition of the bodies.

If this story sounds eerily familiar, that’s because it is, as “ghost ships” manned with dead crews from North Korea wash ashore on Japan’s west coast on a fairly regular basis, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times in April 2016.

That report revealed that similar ships, though not always carrying a decomposing crew, have washed ashore by the dozens each year for the past several years.

“This isn’t something new for us, so people are just saying ‘oh no, not again,’” Shizuo Kakutani, a 71-year-old retired fisherman living in a quiet fishing village known as Monzen, told the Times.

Initially, it was thought that the dead crews were defectors who had futilely attempted to flee the oppressive communist regime in North Korea, but most North Korean defectors flee by sea down the coast to South Korea or travel north overland to China.

Further inspection of the ships and bodies have revealed that they were most likely fishing vessels manned by inexperienced crews of civilians or soldiers who had become lost or stranded in the deep waters of the Sea of Japan, most likely dying from starvation, exposure or hypothermia.

A report from The Japan Times in December 2015 revealed that, save for some rudimentary fishing equipment and a minuscule amount of personal belongings, the typically wooden, tarred-hull ships are astonishingly barren, not outfitted with GPS units or other modern navigation equipment that would seemingly be standard fare on a vessel intended to ply the high seas.

Experts on North Korea explained that in response to the dire lack of farm food grown under the North Korean communist regime, dictator Kim Jong Un had set lofty goals for the nation’s fishing industry to bring in more fish to feed the starving nation, prompting the inexperienced and ill-equipped crews and ships to press farther out into dangerous waters to meet the near-impossible quotas.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN