Nuclear War with North Korea?

[Eric the Green]

Pundits are abuzz with the news that North Korea has tested a nuclear bomb that approaches the one dropped on Hiroshima, and is developing missiles to deliver it.

Some people think there could be a nuclear war in this 4T. The most obvious chance of this happening is if North Korea launches one against South Korea during a mutual dispute between them. Or, the USA and its allies South Korea and Japan may decide that the Dear Leader has developed nuclear weapons to a level that can't be tolerated, and the USA launches a preventive strike to take them out.

So the questions come up. Can China stop North Korea's program? If not, are their cyber attacks or some other way for the USA and its allies to disable them without bombing them?

If not, should there be a preventive strike? Could it take out all of NK's weapons before they can launch any against the USA and its allies?

If NK nukes our ally the South in response to our preventive strike, should we then fully conquer and defeat NK in response?

If North Korea strikes South Korea or Japan, the USA must retaliate. Our allies must be assured of this, or they will build nuclear weapons of their own to deter NK and its Dear Leader. NK must know that if its makes any such strike, regardless of any non-nuclear alleged provocations by the USA, South Korea or Japan, that it will cease to exist as a country. The retaliation must include conquest, regime change and reunification of Korea under the southern government. NK must know that this is the price of any nuclear strike it contemplates against the USA or its allies.

China is NK's ally. What would it do in that case? Could they be assured that if NK is conquered after a nuclear strike by NK, that the new unified Korea will be non-nuclear and not a threat to China? That in fact, a prosperous northern Korea might be an economic boon, even though it would be the end of their ally? That the USA and its allies have no designs on invading China or stationing troops there permanently? That elimination of NK would allow the US to decrease its armed and nuclear presence in the Pacific, and pursue disarmament with China?

Or would China attack to defend its ally? Would it launch nukes, and/or invade Korea to respond to our conquest, much as they did in 1950-51 when MacArthur crossed the Yalu River? Could the USA send enough troops to defeat invading Chinese forces plus any residual North Korean forces left after our attack? Would Taiwan come into the picture too, if China attacks Korea?

Would this be World War Three? Would other powers join in this conflagration? Would Russia back China? Would NATO/Europe then back the USA, Japan and Korea? Would the war then spread to the eastern European theater?

I guess we can't ignore the WW3 scenario for this 4T any longer. 

But besides the saeculum, I of course also look at the astrological timing. Things actually look promising for 2016-2017, as I have said. Progress on Syria was reported tonight, and this is likely to continue into 2017. The next Mars stations in Summer 2018 do not look too dangerous from a US war perspective. Some kind of accident, lone-wolf attack or rebellious uprising is more likely; or even some kind of crisis or financial decision on energy. The war danger is very high in late 2020, but the cycles do not indicate a USA war is likely until 2025. On the other hand, the Korean War itself did not fit into that cycle exactly. It fit closely a Mars station in conjunction with Saturn in Virgo in Spring 1950, which was a similar figure to the escalation of the war in Vietnam in Feb-May 1965 (which also fit the Jupiter cycle, of course). So the Jupiter 11-12 year war cycle is no guarantee of no war when it's not due; it just makes US war much less likely. But late 2020 does not look like a US war to me. In 2025-26 though, if whatever happens in 2020 is not settled, things could get ugly for the USA.

[Eric the Green]

Global Zero contends that nuclear disarmament is the only long term solution to rogue nuclear states and proliferation.

NORTH KOREA'S LATEST NUCLEAR TEST PROVES THE STATUS QUO ISN'T WORKING

Jennifer Knox | 9 September 2016


This morning, North Korea conducted its fifth nuclear test and its second of 2016. These tests are becoming more frequent, and they are becoming stronger. If you are feeling anxious, you aren’t alone.

Our Nonproliferation Approach Is Not Working.

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States has made it a critical mission to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. We expend vast economic and military resources to that end. North Korea’s latest nuclear test proves, however, that power alone is not enough to stop nuclearization.

This is a bleak reminder that nuclear weapons aren’t yesterday’s problem, nor can they be addressed by yesterday’s policies. Our current whack-a-mole approach to nonproliferation is not working. North Korea’s latest nuclear test is a perfect example of how the world is trapped in a dangerous, reactive cycle of nuclear crisis after nuclear crisis.

But we do have a model that works: multilateral diplomacy. Last year China, Russia, the United States, Iran, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom came together to negotiate a peaceful end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Multilateral leadership, diplomacy and pressure produced impressive results. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has.

North Korea’s Nuclear Program Is Only A Symptom Of A Much Bigger Issue.

Over the next days and weeks, you will witness a lot of teeth-gnashing and hair-pulling as people talk about North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and sabre-rattling.

Is North Korea’s nuclear program a serious threat that must be addressed? Absolutely. But to put it in context, the United States has about 7,000 nuclear warheads and has conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests, causing incredible environmental damage and human loss all over the world, and yet it still refuses to ratify that Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that could put an end to nuclear testing forever. The United States is also on track to spend $1 trillion over the next three decades modernizing our nuclear arsenal.

The hypocrisy of nuclear-armed states makes it impossible to address the dangers of nuclear weapons in other parts of the world. Some will tell you that you can’t equivocate, that the United States can be trusted with nuclear weapons and North Korea can’t. But there are no right hands for the wrong weapons. We must eliminate them not only in North Korea, but everywhere.

U.S. Candidates Must Address Nuclear Weapons.

Current leaders and potential future leaders are not talking about these problems. They are not offering new solutions.

That is unacceptable. The next president of the United States will face big challenges posed not only by North Korea’s nuclear program, but also the wider consequences of controlling a massive nuclear arsenal that is capable of destruction on a global scale. The silence of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates does not invite confidence. The next President must embrace multilateral diplomacy as an example for the global community. It is critical not just to curb North Korea’s nuclear program but to end the global threat of these useless, dangerous weapons. The next President of the U.S. must help to bring together the international community to address nonproliferation and disarmament.

If the candidates in the U.S. aren’t talking, it’s up to us to demand answers. Take action right now to tell both major candidates for the Presidency of the United States to be a real leader in the fight to eliminate nuclear weapons.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-09-2016, 11:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the candidates in the U.S. aren’t talking, it’s up to us to demand answers. Take action right now to tell both major candidates for the Presidency of the United States to be a real leader in the fight to eliminate nuclear weapons.

In the game of nuclear chicken, it isn't generally wise to lay all one's cards on the table.  You let the little man strut and rant, review one's own mega-nonage, and smile knowing that if he does pull the trigger he will be sorry.  Letting him know precisely how sorry doesn't gain one anything.