Blogs: The Buzz

Here Is Why Trump Should Invite Kim Jong Un to Washington
John Dale Grover

The Buzz

Trump recently tweeted that North Korea would face “fire and fury” if it did not stop with its threats. North Korean media has responded by claiming their military is awaiting approval from Kim to launch Hwasong-14 rockets to hit the waters around the U.S. territory of Guam. These threats to the physical security of each other’s countries jolt the national sense of self-preservation. Not surprisingly, the resulting cycle where both parties up the ante in words is as predictable as it is unproductive.

Trump should do what he does best – the unexpected and the unconventional. He once said that under the “right circumstances” he would be “honored” to meet Kim. Where did that Trump go – the one willing to talk things out with world leaders, instead of aimlessly threaten? It would raise the hackles of certain hawks and hardliners, but Trump should invite Kim to Washington and offer to visit Pyongyang in return.

It should be noted that deterrence is necessary, and it is vital that Washington stand with its allies against a bully like North Korea. The statements to this effect made by Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, and Secretary of Defense Mattis are correct.  However, refusing to talk to Kim is counterproductive because it heightens the likelihood of deadly miscommunication between the two countries. The signals each country sends are important, but so is how those signals are interpreted. Therefore, one of the necessary conditions for the final plunge into war is a state of mind: the belief that, whether accurate or not, violence is inevitable.

Many people object, saying that, when dealing with Pyongyang, reason can do no good. However, just because Kim Jong Un is a homicidal tyrant does not mean that he disregards his own survival. On the contrary, the fact that America could destroy North Korea anytime it wants to means that to strike the U.S. or its allies would invite certain death. But the key is that Pyongyang will not strike for no reason. No matter which Kim ruled North Korea, they have always had a motivation for their actions, even if they seemed bizarre or hostile to outsiders. North Korea has a historical pattern of causing a scene by sabre rattling to force concessions, such as aid, from the international community, to ensure their importance as a power to be taken seriously, or to help one of the Kims maintain power domestically.

When Kim previously carried out attacks, they were always a part of the pattern of provocation. For instance, in 2010 Kim ordered the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan and the shelling of the South Korean Yeonpyeong island. Any future attacks will also be a part of that pattern. It is important to note that an attack is not the same thing as committing all national forces into a total war. For Kim, a conventional attack near, even on Guam, would be to get a concession or to make a point. Such a strike would provoke a vigorous U.S. response. Kim knows this and has, therefore, made his plans public, including one very important and overlooked detail. It should be pointed out that despite the hype in the media, North Korea has repeatedly said it would strike the water 18-25 miles around Guam and not Guam itself. Such an action is still an attack on U.S. territory as it would probably fall within America’s 24-mile contiguous zone, according to international law, but it is not the same as attacking a U.S. base or civilians. This distinction matters. The governor of Guam himself believes so, saying that “They’re now telegraphing their punch, which means they don't want to have any misunderstandings.”

Pages

The U.S. Military Has Submarines That Could Kill Entire Countries (Like North Korea)
Sebastien Roblin

The Buzz

Trump recently tweeted that North Korea would face “fire and fury” if it did not stop with its threats. North Korean media has responded by claiming their military is awaiting approval from Kim to launch Hwasong-14 rockets to hit the waters around the U.S. territory of Guam. These threats to the physical security of each other’s countries jolt the national sense of self-preservation. Not surprisingly, the resulting cycle where both parties up the ante in words is as predictable as it is unproductive.

Trump should do what he does best – the unexpected and the unconventional. He once said that under the “right circumstances” he would be “honored” to meet Kim. Where did that Trump go – the one willing to talk things out with world leaders, instead of aimlessly threaten? It would raise the hackles of certain hawks and hardliners, but Trump should invite Kim to Washington and offer to visit Pyongyang in return.

It should be noted that deterrence is necessary, and it is vital that Washington stand with its allies against a bully like North Korea. The statements to this effect made by Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, and Secretary of Defense Mattis are correct.  However, refusing to talk to Kim is counterproductive because it heightens the likelihood of deadly miscommunication between the two countries. The signals each country sends are important, but so is how those signals are interpreted. Therefore, one of the necessary conditions for the final plunge into war is a state of mind: the belief that, whether accurate or not, violence is inevitable.

Many people object, saying that, when dealing with Pyongyang, reason can do no good. However, just because Kim Jong Un is a homicidal tyrant does not mean that he disregards his own survival. On the contrary, the fact that America could destroy North Korea anytime it wants to means that to strike the U.S. or its allies would invite certain death. But the key is that Pyongyang will not strike for no reason. No matter which Kim ruled North Korea, they have always had a motivation for their actions, even if they seemed bizarre or hostile to outsiders. North Korea has a historical pattern of causing a scene by sabre rattling to force concessions, such as aid, from the international community, to ensure their importance as a power to be taken seriously, or to help one of the Kims maintain power domestically.

When Kim previously carried out attacks, they were always a part of the pattern of provocation. For instance, in 2010 Kim ordered the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan and the shelling of the South Korean Yeonpyeong island. Any future attacks will also be a part of that pattern. It is important to note that an attack is not the same thing as committing all national forces into a total war. For Kim, a conventional attack near, even on Guam, would be to get a concession or to make a point. Such a strike would provoke a vigorous U.S. response. Kim knows this and has, therefore, made his plans public, including one very important and overlooked detail. It should be pointed out that despite the hype in the media, North Korea has repeatedly said it would strike the water 18-25 miles around Guam and not Guam itself. Such an action is still an attack on U.S. territory as it would probably fall within America’s 24-mile contiguous zone, according to international law, but it is not the same as attacking a U.S. base or civilians. This distinction matters. The governor of Guam himself believes so, saying that “They’re now telegraphing their punch, which means they don't want to have any misunderstandings.”

Pages

In 2010, the U.S. Navy Surfaced 3 Missile Submarines as a Warning to China
WarIsBoring

The Buzz

Trump recently tweeted that North Korea would face “fire and fury” if it did not stop with its threats. North Korean media has responded by claiming their military is awaiting approval from Kim to launch Hwasong-14 rockets to hit the waters around the U.S. territory of Guam. These threats to the physical security of each other’s countries jolt the national sense of self-preservation. Not surprisingly, the resulting cycle where both parties up the ante in words is as predictable as it is unproductive.

Trump should do what he does best – the unexpected and the unconventional. He once said that under the “right circumstances” he would be “honored” to meet Kim. Where did that Trump go – the one willing to talk things out with world leaders, instead of aimlessly threaten? It would raise the hackles of certain hawks and hardliners, but Trump should invite Kim to Washington and offer to visit Pyongyang in return.

It should be noted that deterrence is necessary, and it is vital that Washington stand with its allies against a bully like North Korea. The statements to this effect made by Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, and Secretary of Defense Mattis are correct.  However, refusing to talk to Kim is counterproductive because it heightens the likelihood of deadly miscommunication between the two countries. The signals each country sends are important, but so is how those signals are interpreted. Therefore, one of the necessary conditions for the final plunge into war is a state of mind: the belief that, whether accurate or not, violence is inevitable.

Many people object, saying that, when dealing with Pyongyang, reason can do no good. However, just because Kim Jong Un is a homicidal tyrant does not mean that he disregards his own survival. On the contrary, the fact that America could destroy North Korea anytime it wants to means that to strike the U.S. or its allies would invite certain death. But the key is that Pyongyang will not strike for no reason. No matter which Kim ruled North Korea, they have always had a motivation for their actions, even if they seemed bizarre or hostile to outsiders. North Korea has a historical pattern of causing a scene by sabre rattling to force concessions, such as aid, from the international community, to ensure their importance as a power to be taken seriously, or to help one of the Kims maintain power domestically.

When Kim previously carried out attacks, they were always a part of the pattern of provocation. For instance, in 2010 Kim ordered the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan and the shelling of the South Korean Yeonpyeong island. Any future attacks will also be a part of that pattern. It is important to note that an attack is not the same thing as committing all national forces into a total war. For Kim, a conventional attack near, even on Guam, would be to get a concession or to make a point. Such a strike would provoke a vigorous U.S. response. Kim knows this and has, therefore, made his plans public, including one very important and overlooked detail. It should be pointed out that despite the hype in the media, North Korea has repeatedly said it would strike the water 18-25 miles around Guam and not Guam itself. Such an action is still an attack on U.S. territory as it would probably fall within America’s 24-mile contiguous zone, according to international law, but it is not the same as attacking a U.S. base or civilians. This distinction matters. The governor of Guam himself believes so, saying that “They’re now telegraphing their punch, which means they don't want to have any misunderstandings.”

Pages

Showdown: Trump Is Putting the Squeeze on China in the South China Sea

Bill Gertz

The Buzz

Trump recently tweeted that North Korea would face “fire and fury” if it did not stop with its threats. North Korean media has responded by claiming their military is awaiting approval from Kim to launch Hwasong-14 rockets to hit the waters around the U.S. territory of Guam. These threats to the physical security of each other’s countries jolt the national sense of self-preservation. Not surprisingly, the resulting cycle where both parties up the ante in words is as predictable as it is unproductive.

Trump should do what he does best – the unexpected and the unconventional. He once said that under the “right circumstances” he would be “honored” to meet Kim. Where did that Trump go – the one willing to talk things out with world leaders, instead of aimlessly threaten? It would raise the hackles of certain hawks and hardliners, but Trump should invite Kim to Washington and offer to visit Pyongyang in return.

It should be noted that deterrence is necessary, and it is vital that Washington stand with its allies against a bully like North Korea. The statements to this effect made by Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, and Secretary of Defense Mattis are correct.  However, refusing to talk to Kim is counterproductive because it heightens the likelihood of deadly miscommunication between the two countries. The signals each country sends are important, but so is how those signals are interpreted. Therefore, one of the necessary conditions for the final plunge into war is a state of mind: the belief that, whether accurate or not, violence is inevitable.

Many people object, saying that, when dealing with Pyongyang, reason can do no good. However, just because Kim Jong Un is a homicidal tyrant does not mean that he disregards his own survival. On the contrary, the fact that America could destroy North Korea anytime it wants to means that to strike the U.S. or its allies would invite certain death. But the key is that Pyongyang will not strike for no reason. No matter which Kim ruled North Korea, they have always had a motivation for their actions, even if they seemed bizarre or hostile to outsiders. North Korea has a historical pattern of causing a scene by sabre rattling to force concessions, such as aid, from the international community, to ensure their importance as a power to be taken seriously, or to help one of the Kims maintain power domestically.

When Kim previously carried out attacks, they were always a part of the pattern of provocation. For instance, in 2010 Kim ordered the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan and the shelling of the South Korean Yeonpyeong island. Any future attacks will also be a part of that pattern. It is important to note that an attack is not the same thing as committing all national forces into a total war. For Kim, a conventional attack near, even on Guam, would be to get a concession or to make a point. Such a strike would provoke a vigorous U.S. response. Kim knows this and has, therefore, made his plans public, including one very important and overlooked detail. It should be pointed out that despite the hype in the media, North Korea has repeatedly said it would strike the water 18-25 miles around Guam and not Guam itself. Such an action is still an attack on U.S. territory as it would probably fall within America’s 24-mile contiguous zone, according to international law, but it is not the same as attacking a U.S. base or civilians. This distinction matters. The governor of Guam himself believes so, saying that “They’re now telegraphing their punch, which means they don't want to have any misunderstandings.”

Pages

Can North Korea Attack the United States Right Now with a Nuclear Weapon?
Dave Majumdar

The Buzz

Trump recently tweeted that North Korea would face “fire and fury” if it did not stop with its threats. North Korean media has responded by claiming their military is awaiting approval from Kim to launch Hwasong-14 rockets to hit the waters around the U.S. territory of Guam. These threats to the physical security of each other’s countries jolt the national sense of self-preservation. Not surprisingly, the resulting cycle where both parties up the ante in words is as predictable as it is unproductive.

Trump should do what he does best – the unexpected and the unconventional. He once said that under the “right circumstances” he would be “honored” to meet Kim. Where did that Trump go – the one willing to talk things out with world leaders, instead of aimlessly threaten? It would raise the hackles of certain hawks and hardliners, but Trump should invite Kim to Washington and offer to visit Pyongyang in return.

It should be noted that deterrence is necessary, and it is vital that Washington stand with its allies against a bully like North Korea. The statements to this effect made by Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, and Secretary of Defense Mattis are correct.  However, refusing to talk to Kim is counterproductive because it heightens the likelihood of deadly miscommunication between the two countries. The signals each country sends are important, but so is how those signals are interpreted. Therefore, one of the necessary conditions for the final plunge into war is a state of mind: the belief that, whether accurate or not, violence is inevitable.

Many people object, saying that, when dealing with Pyongyang, reason can do no good. However, just because Kim Jong Un is a homicidal tyrant does not mean that he disregards his own survival. On the contrary, the fact that America could destroy North Korea anytime it wants to means that to strike the U.S. or its allies would invite certain death. But the key is that Pyongyang will not strike for no reason. No matter which Kim ruled North Korea, they have always had a motivation for their actions, even if they seemed bizarre or hostile to outsiders. North Korea has a historical pattern of causing a scene by sabre rattling to force concessions, such as aid, from the international community, to ensure their importance as a power to be taken seriously, or to help one of the Kims maintain power domestically.

When Kim previously carried out attacks, they were always a part of the pattern of provocation. For instance, in 2010 Kim ordered the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan and the shelling of the South Korean Yeonpyeong island. Any future attacks will also be a part of that pattern. It is important to note that an attack is not the same thing as committing all national forces into a total war. For Kim, a conventional attack near, even on Guam, would be to get a concession or to make a point. Such a strike would provoke a vigorous U.S. response. Kim knows this and has, therefore, made his plans public, including one very important and overlooked detail. It should be pointed out that despite the hype in the media, North Korea has repeatedly said it would strike the water 18-25 miles around Guam and not Guam itself. Such an action is still an attack on U.S. territory as it would probably fall within America’s 24-mile contiguous zone, according to international law, but it is not the same as attacking a U.S. base or civilians. This distinction matters. The governor of Guam himself believes so, saying that “They’re now telegraphing their punch, which means they don't want to have any misunderstandings.”

Pages

Pages