Haha, well said. What else is there to do?
Well, the rhetoric may have just jumped to a pretty badly unprecedented level. Kim Jong-un has now threatened to test a thermonuclear device ABOVE GROUND, somewhere over the Pacific Ocean. Such a detonation, especially considering the relative lack of sophistication of current NK technology, would rain radioactive contamination over a considerable chunk of the world, and with prevailing winds, the US and Canada would very likely be a major target of that fallout.
And THIS is what happens when you have a juvenile shouting contest between nuclear powers. Genuinely beyond frightening.
Yes, I remember! And the people rise up against such duplicity.
Yes, but it's all just kicking the can down the street until...the street ends? Is that what we have to look forward to, a future where NK patiently tests and prepares nukes until he can hit every city in the US?
Oh great! North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, called President Donald Trump "a frightened dog" and a "gangster fond of playing with fire" in an official statement released Thursday and we can rest assured that Trump will take the bait.
Talk about a ratchet job! Jong-un plays Trump for a trump.
"During his address to the United Nations General Assembly, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said it would be 'a great pity' if the nuclear deal were to be disbanded by new politicians like President Trump. Rouhani also called Trump’s Tuesday address 'ignorant, absurd and hateful.'”
The US has no realistic choice but to accept the fact of North Korea as a nuclear armed power, and the DPRK has no realistic choice but to hold onto its nuclear capability. For Kim to do otherwise would be to go the way of Saddam and Gaddafi. Unlike Iraq, Libya or Iran, North Korea has demonstrated nuclear weapons and, to some extent, delivery systems; you probably can't put that genie back in the bottle short of a global catastrophe. Kim (and everyone else) knows that the goal of weakening his country is regime change. China has said outright, and Russia has implied, that they will punish or at least not support a first strike by NK, but will defend it if it is hit pre-emptively. Given those realities, the irrational course at the moment is being pursued by the US.
Far be it from me to voice support for a tin-pot dictator like Kim Jong-un, but he's not the main threat in the current situation. His actions, disturbingly bombastic as they are, are defensive. Trump's words, if not actions, represent a clear and present danger to the survival of us all.
Would sanctions work? Well, work to what end? An argument could be made that they "worked" with Iran -- getting them to renounce non-existent nuclear weapons. They didn't work with Iraq, unless you consider the chaos unleashed in the region "working", as no doubt some do. Draconian sanctions that represent an existential threat, such as the 1941 oil embargo on imperial Japan, can and likely will have disastrous consequences when the threatened regime perceives that it can only lose by acquiescing. That's especially true if the sanctioned party has just one means of retaliation -- formidable armament.
In a nuclear exchange there is no tit-for-tat; it's either all bluff or massive destruction. It's a thousand wonders that for 7 decades the bluff of Mutually Assured Destruction worked -- barely. North Korea is not the Soviet Union by any stretch, and so some seem to think that the massive imbalance of power between it and the US and associated allies on both sides relegates the conflict to a status of mere fluff -- probably only a few thousand dead -- maybe a few million worst case, right? Is this sane? Are such calculations actually being made, or are all sides politely ignoring them as they wave their prosthetic dicks in public?
Ted, it has been a long time since I saw your comments; I like what you wrote and especially the vivid imagery.