02-27-2018, 09:44 AM
(02-26-2018, 09:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > I'm pretty sure John was just saying that he thought the Boomer
> establishment would, in fact, strike first against North Korea,
> and that he agreed with that strategy.
Do I agree with the strike first strategy? That's an interesting
question.
I like to think of myself as a weather forecaster. I tell you that a
sunny day is coming or that rain is coming, but I don't advocate
either sun or rain. I realize that I sometimes cross the line and
advocate something, but the weather forecaster model is the ideal.
And, indeed, sun helps some people and rain helps other people, so I
don't know what I'd advocate if I could.
So now let's consider the strike or no strike question, and the
consequences of either decision.
First off, we're headed for a world war either way. So in that sense
it really doesn't matter whether we strike or not.
There's one major thing about Syria that is rarely if ever mentioned,
but it bears very heavily on the North Korea strike or no strike
decision.
When Bashar al-Assad used Sarin gas on civilians on April 4, 2017,
thus once again crossing Obama's red line, Trump retaliated with a
cruise missile attack on April 6 on Shayrat Airbase in Syria, thus
fulfilling Obama's implied threat.
However, al-Assad continues to use chemical weapons -- chlorine,
ammonia, phosphorous, Sarin gas -- almost every day with complete
impunity, fully supported by the war criminals in Russia and Iran. So
in the end the cruise missile attack on April 6 accomplished
absolutely nothing, except symbolically.
So now let's assume that the US makes some "bloody nose" attack on
North Korea, and let's assume that it's done so cleverly that it
doesn't lead to an immediate war with China or to massive retaliation
on Seoul.
Will it accomplish anything? I doubt it. Maybe it will cause a delay
of a few months, but NK's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile
development program will be up and running again pretty quickly -- and
that's true even if Kim Jong-un has been killed.
On top of that, the missile strike completely inflames the entire
region, with the Chinese population becoming far more nationalistic,
xenophobic and belligerent, calling for revenge. A military
confrontation in the South China Sea becomes a lot more likely.
When historians look back at the ensuing world war, they will say that
the US started the war by attacking North Korea.
Now look at the alternative -- no strike. NK builds its arsenal of
nuclear tipped missiles. They're pointed at the US, but they're
mobile, so they could also point to Japan, South Korea, China or
Russia.
Tensions rise throughout the whole region. Sooner or later someone
attacks someone. Maybe NK even uses one of its nuclear weapons on
someone. That triggers a world war.
Depending on how it happens, when historians look back at the ensuing
world war, they will say that the US started the war by appeasing
North Korea.
So if I were going to advocate a strategy, strike vs no strike, I
really don't know what I would select. They're both equally awful.
However, what I would advocate is a different question from what I
think is going to happen.
Putting on my weather forecaster hat, what I think is going to happen
is that there will be some sort of bloody nose attack, because Donald
Trump doesn't want to be regarded by historians as another Neville
Chamberlain or another Barack Obama.
