A British Perspective on options regarding North Korea

By Mustang

A writer by the name of Mark Almond recently got a four-page spread in The Daily Mail that addressed “western” options vis-à-vis North Korea.  Beyond the usual backdrop to the problem, which essentially ignored any details about the appeasements offered to the NORKS by Bill Clinton, Almond offered up a few “alternatives.”  Personally, I’m not sure why the Mail would want to inform North Korea about our options —it appears to give some aid and comfort to the enemy, but I nevertheless found his options somewhat interesting.  His options were:

Diplomacy —treat North Korea as an equal (not as a rogue), but do try to refrain from Washington’s previous appeasements.  Surprisingly, he urged President Trump to demand verification of any halt to nuclear weapons development.  I laugh … how does one verify such a thing?  Cross my heart and hope to die doesn’t seem to be working very well.

Sanctions —allowing that Kim Jung Un cannot be “sweet-talked” into behaving himself as a responsible national leader, we should perhaps impose further sanctions upon the North Korean regime. Personally, I’m not aware that any of our previous sanctions ever worked.  Maybe we should threaten to send Jimmy Carter to North Korea.  That might work.

Limited strike —well, once more, I’m not sure that limited strikes serve much purpose beyond reducing America’s arsenal of air-delivered munitions.  North Korea is a mountainous country and I have no doubt that Kim Jung Un has a plush underground bunker where he can avoid any discomforts from American/South Korean airstrikes.  I do suspect that the American taxpayer paid for these bunkers, but then this is what happens when the American people elect a Clinton to the presidency.

Full Invasion —right.  The United States of America is already over-committed to the Middle East and without the massive participation of North Korea’s neighbors (South Korea and Japan) this option would appear to be laughable on its face.

Assassination —Although I do not think there are any Americans who are Democrats, the Democratic party in America would almost certainly oppose such attempts, unless it was Debbie Wasserman Schultz who first came up with the idea.  How should we assassinate Kim Jung Un?  Well, beyond hiring the Israelis to do it for us, I don’t see how this is a realistic possibility —unless we were to find out that Fat Kim loves M&Ms.  In that case, we’ve got him by the short-hairs.

An American Nuclear Strike —I suspect would could never get away with this.  Gore would be absolutely apoplectic, and don’t we need to protect Al Gore as a national treasure?  I wondered why a British fellow is attempting to encourage an American nuclear strike.  Hmmm.  Presently, North Korea has somewhere in the neighborhood of sixty nuclear bombs.  If he only got off one of these in his own defense, it could get messy.  On the other hand, does Un even know where Guam is?

Pressure on China —by far the most logical of all suggestions, with some modification by Machiavellian me.  So far, the Chinese have not appeared much disposed to reigning in their little fat tyrant, but what if we offered this suggestion via the New England Journal of Medicine: North Koreans are as nutritionally balanced and tasty as roast duck?

My personal opinion is that it is a darn good thing Mr. Almond isn’t working for the British Defense agency.  On the other hand, America has all these MOABs sitting around gathering dust.  What if we simply delivered one of these for every square inch of North Korea and made it an UN-limited strike?

I don’t know … I’m old, and confused most of the time.  What do Bunkerville reader’s think our options are?

Obama lies again – plans to close ICBM Squadron

What could go wrong with this? Despite Promises, Obama Planning to Close ICBM Squadron is the headline.  As China goes on a military spending spree, and the good times with Putin have gone south, Obama plans to take full advantage of the treaty to leave us as vulnerable as possible. Let’s keep these Senators in our scope for defeat Vote tally Count Cloture Senate START Treaty APPROVED!

First, dismantle our top military Obama gets rid of more Generals  and then the “tell” came last month:

Tim Giardina, 3-Star Navy Admiral, Fired As No. 2 Commander Of U.S. Nuclear Forces. Read more then

Top nuclear missile commanders fired

It was on its face disturbing, even shocking news – two military officials in charge of the nation’s nuclear arsenal sacked within days of each other.

But Major General Michael Carey and Vice Admiral Tim Giardina (fired amidst rumors of misbehavior involving alcohol and gambling) are just the latest in a recent rash of firings in the military’s top ranks.

The firings come as leadership in the military try to send a message of “zero tolerance” when it comes to bad behavior.

The military has been here before – last fall a string of incidents involving improper behavior among top brass resulted in then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordering a review of ethics standards.

Washington Free Beacon:

The Obama administration has drafted a plan to shutter an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) squadron three years after it assured hesitant lawmakers that the New START U.S.-Russia arms reduction treaty would not lead to deep cuts in the ICBM force.

The administration’s plan would also shrink the ICBM force below the mandated numbers. The Air Force previously said it planned to reduce its number of ICBMs from 450 to a baseline of 420 under New START

A new timeline prepared by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and obtained by the Washington Free Beacon maps out a strategy to eliminate an ICBM squadron—and destroy its missile silos—by Dec. 5, 2017.

“There was some talk around this town about making deep reductions to the ICBM force,” Baucus said in the press release. “We made it clear to the president that was unacceptable, and fought hard to make sure the START Treaty recognized the critical role that ICBMs play in U.S. national security.”

Analysts say they are particularly troubled by the proposed destruction of the missile silos, a likely permanent move that is not required by New START. They say the silos would be difficult to rebuild if the military needs to bolster its ICBM force in the future.

“If you destroy the silos, it would be much harder to rebuild them […] and very politically difficult,” said Michaela Dodge, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Shutting down a squadron would eliminate 50 ICBMs, 66 percent more than the prior Air Force proposal.

The ICBM coalition introduced an amendment on Friday that would block the administration from destroying emptied ICBM silos.

Defense experts say the proposed eliminations would be detrimental to U.S. national security.

“We see that Russia is modernizing and building up its nuclear weapons program; we don’t have that good of an understanding of how many weapons China has; we had recently a North Korea nuclear weapons test,” Dodge said. “So international trends are against us and we are sending the wrong signal by continuing reduction despite these international developments.” More at Washington Free Beacon

President Obama Signs the New START Treaty

President Barack Obama signs the instrument of ratification of the New START Treaty in the Oval Office, Feb. 2, 2011. Participants include, from left: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen; Energy Secretary Steven Chu; Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; and Vice President Joe Biden. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

White House:

You can read the Treaty (pdf) and Protocol (pdf) themselves, but here’s a quick overview from our fact sheet at the time:

Strategic Offensive Reductions:  Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force.  Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty.  These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.