Mods, I'll certainly understand if you feel compelled to remove this thread, since it clearly has political elements. However I think that this issue is important enough that it bears serious discussion in its own thread, even if/when the politics thread returns. JMO. I'll respect any decision.
Some might recall that last week I posted this treatise from Foreign Policy magazine with the laudably clear title It's Time to Bomb North Korea. Among other things, it encouraged American policymakers not to fret too much about potential retaliation on South Korea because any death and destruction would be largely the fault of the South Koreans for, among other supposed faults, not building more and better bomb shelters.
Then this past weekend, I read this story by a former nuclear strategist from the Pentagon. It argues against the above, which it characterizes as the "bloody nose" strategy that has gained serious currency at the highest levels of the Trump Administration: a surprise, pre-emptive, strategic bombing of North Korean nuclear facilities.
Want To Strike North Korea? It's Not Going to Go The Way You Think
I am very disturbed at how little national discussion there has been about the "bloody nose" plan. And of course, those in the administration who think this is the way to go don't want to have a public debate about it, because duh, "surprise." But even putting aside for a second Trump's "my button is bigger than yours" Tweets, the public stance of this administration seems pretty clear, or what passes for clear these days. 1) It is simply unacceptable that North Korea achieve nuclear capability, especially a weapon capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. 2) Diplomacy is not the answer – "Save your energy, Rex, we'll do what has to be done."
Given those two beliefs, a "targeted" pre-emptive military strike naturally makes the most sense, and the window is closing given North Korea's rapid advancement in technology. The problem is that as the Politico story above argues quite persuasively (IMO), the bloody nose strategy is a terrible fit for this particular enemy at this time.
And here's where I think Trump's more over-the-top Tweets that belittle and threaten Kim are a very big problem: 1) It has moved the entire range of potential U.S. responses to the more bellicose, such that the "bloody nose" strategy seems more reasonable every day since it's not as crazy as "my button's bigger than yours"; 2) It has ratcheted up the tension level such that Kim will naturally view any "bloody nose" attack in the worst and broadest possible light, and respond accordingly, including the "smoke 'em while you got 'em" approach; 3) In this atmosphere, even legitimate accidents and misunderstandings – which are more common than one might think – could have tragic consequences.
Consider that just this past weekend, both Hawaii and Japan had false alerts of incoming missiles. Is it really some huge leap to see how something in that vein could end very, very badly? Shouldn't it be clear that tensions have been pushed too far for too little benefit?
Trump churns up so much wake every week (day?) on so many issues that it's hard for us to stay focused on how he's made things so much more dangerous with North Korea. And I remain surprised that the markets have also basically started ignoring North Korea as a threat. But one place that I bet remains focused on what Trump says about North Korea: North Korea's leadership. And that's a problem. Plus, for a Chaos President, what better way to flip the headlines than to finally say yes to your generals calling for a manly "targeted strike" on North Korea? Hey, that worked great in Syria, right? So same-same? What could go wrong? (Announcer: "A lot.")
More reading to scare you:
On how an accident could prove tragic:
How The U.S. and North Korea Could Stumble Into World War III
A story from Asia expert Dan Drezner:
Tell me how Trump's North Korea gambit ends
Some might recall that last week I posted this treatise from Foreign Policy magazine with the laudably clear title It's Time to Bomb North Korea. Among other things, it encouraged American policymakers not to fret too much about potential retaliation on South Korea because any death and destruction would be largely the fault of the South Koreans for, among other supposed faults, not building more and better bomb shelters.
Then this past weekend, I read this story by a former nuclear strategist from the Pentagon. It argues against the above, which it characterizes as the "bloody nose" strategy that has gained serious currency at the highest levels of the Trump Administration: a surprise, pre-emptive, strategic bombing of North Korean nuclear facilities.
Want To Strike North Korea? It's Not Going to Go The Way You Think
I am very disturbed at how little national discussion there has been about the "bloody nose" plan. And of course, those in the administration who think this is the way to go don't want to have a public debate about it, because duh, "surprise." But even putting aside for a second Trump's "my button is bigger than yours" Tweets, the public stance of this administration seems pretty clear, or what passes for clear these days. 1) It is simply unacceptable that North Korea achieve nuclear capability, especially a weapon capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. 2) Diplomacy is not the answer – "Save your energy, Rex, we'll do what has to be done."
Given those two beliefs, a "targeted" pre-emptive military strike naturally makes the most sense, and the window is closing given North Korea's rapid advancement in technology. The problem is that as the Politico story above argues quite persuasively (IMO), the bloody nose strategy is a terrible fit for this particular enemy at this time.
And here's where I think Trump's more over-the-top Tweets that belittle and threaten Kim are a very big problem: 1) It has moved the entire range of potential U.S. responses to the more bellicose, such that the "bloody nose" strategy seems more reasonable every day since it's not as crazy as "my button's bigger than yours"; 2) It has ratcheted up the tension level such that Kim will naturally view any "bloody nose" attack in the worst and broadest possible light, and respond accordingly, including the "smoke 'em while you got 'em" approach; 3) In this atmosphere, even legitimate accidents and misunderstandings – which are more common than one might think – could have tragic consequences.
Consider that just this past weekend, both Hawaii and Japan had false alerts of incoming missiles. Is it really some huge leap to see how something in that vein could end very, very badly? Shouldn't it be clear that tensions have been pushed too far for too little benefit?
Trump churns up so much wake every week (day?) on so many issues that it's hard for us to stay focused on how he's made things so much more dangerous with North Korea. And I remain surprised that the markets have also basically started ignoring North Korea as a threat. But one place that I bet remains focused on what Trump says about North Korea: North Korea's leadership. And that's a problem. Plus, for a Chaos President, what better way to flip the headlines than to finally say yes to your generals calling for a manly "targeted strike" on North Korea? Hey, that worked great in Syria, right? So same-same? What could go wrong? (Announcer: "A lot.")
More reading to scare you:
On how an accident could prove tragic:
How The U.S. and North Korea Could Stumble Into World War III
A story from Asia expert Dan Drezner:
Tell me how Trump's North Korea gambit ends
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
