U.S. should take notice –if someone says they are going to nuke you then…

So many Americans in the street, not to mention in leadership roles, seem to be asleep at the wheel. Maybe, as a Jew, I suffer a persecution complex but I do know that history has taught us that when people come right on out and say they are going to attack/kill you, it means they intend to do their damnedest to do just what they say.

North Korea has not only been doing nuclear tests and testing out rockets that can reach into America’s heartland but is now saying that they do plan to conduct a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S. to, at the least, gut the heartland. Hello people on the street –wake up, before you blow up.

Advertisements

5 responses to “U.S. should take notice –if someone says they are going to nuke you then…”

  1. Lynne says :

    Is China using North Korea to threaten the US? Usually, it is China that reins North Korea in….

    • israeliminx says :

      Ema, it could be China behind things perhaps but N.K. may be really going rogue. They’ve done several successful nuclear weapons tests in the past year, have been testing out long (really long, as in reach the U.S. long) range missile testings in the last 3 months, and just last week told South Korea that essentially their days are numbered. Now this.

      China and Russia have both agreed to sanctions against North Korea. What worries me is North Korea’s alliance with Iran (and sharing of their nuclear technology with them) — and Iran has been testing out similar missiles but Iran’s can go even further. The entire Syrian nuclear program that someone (cough) destroyed was developed hook, line and sinker via North Korea.

  2. Mike says :

    Ah this is an excellent chance for me to pontificate and I think the U.S. reaction, or non-reaction, to North Korea is also tied into the relative silence by the West to genocidal comments by Iran and various Arab leaders, clerics and terror groups.

    The West in general now has a hard time understanding ideologically-driven groups or countries. This is becoming especially apparent as people now in their mid- to early-fifties and younger become prominent in government. These people formed their political world-view at a time when the Soviet Union had become a status-quo power.

    Sure the Soviet’s spouted world revolution when they invaded Afghanistan or backed adventures by proxies like Cuba, but this was to maintain its position in the world relative to the West. Certainly by the Brezhnev era, nobody in the Kremlin was expecting workers revolution anytime soon. (It’s slightly more complicated than this of course, but for brevity, I will skip that.)

    So what these men and women now in power heard when they were in college and starting their careers was a Soviet Union that spoke in rhetorical terms about world revolution but was guided by realpolitik.

    These future leaders saw the disconnect between what the Soviet’s said and what the Soviet’s did and understood that groups and countries didn’t always mean what they say.

    So now when these now leaders listen to Hamas or the Muslim Bothers or the Iranians, it is run through this filter developed during late-stage communism. And that filter predisposes them to believe that while a group might engage in ideological talk, in the end they will act based on interest. This world view has left them with no way to understand actors truly driven by ideology.

    Compounding this is the fact that the Russians were of the West and communism is a Western political and economic theory. While the Soviets and the West were at odds, we essential shared the same perception and misperceptions about the world and how it functioned. This meant the Soviet’s acted in ways the West perceived as “rational.” That’s why a doctrine like MAD actually worked.

    But other actors might hold a different set of perceptions and misperceptions about the world, which would cause them to act in ways we view as “irrational.” I’m not trying to be politically correct here, but I don’t like the idea of irrational actors. I think, for instance, Iran’s leaders are probably quite rational in that their actions are consistent with their world view, but that their basic assumptions about the world are so different from ours, that it causes them to act in ways we see as irrational.

    Let me give an example. I don’t think we can dismiss Shia apocalyptic thinking, but I don’t believe you need that to see why Iran might use the bomb against Israel if it gets that capability.

    If the clerics believe that the Zionist entity is a tool used by Jews to control the world and fight Islam, then bombing that entity becomes rational especially if they believe that destroying Israel will break that Jewish control and allow the rest of the world to see the Jews as the manipulators they claim we really are.

    Free from the influence of the evil Zionist Jews, the world will see what was happening and instead of retaliating against Iran, thank it. The clerics might also assume the rest of the world is as anti-Semitic as they are and at the end of the day, not really care once Israel is gone, certainly not care enough to go to war. And who could say this is irrational looking at the silence of the world during the Shoah or the unwillingness of the EU to call Hezbollah today.

    I have no idea if any of this applies to North Korea. I mean it appears North Korea is now being run by a Bond villain. You have this pudgy, dorky-looking, nerdy kid in charge. He had this overbearing father who saw him as his second choice for dictator (first choice was the brother before he got arrested trying to sneak into Japan to go to Disney). He has this “former cheerleader” wife who is clearly way out of his league, so he has to keep her impressed. He’s got all these generals who can’t be too happy with the situation and have their own ambitions. I’m pretty sure in one of the Brosnan-era Bonds, this was the villain’s bio. Nothing good can come from this.

  3. Tiger Mike says :

    everything I have read makes me think that the NK nuke tests were not successful. The were low level fizzles. I don’t think NK is that much a threat to the USA. Of course, the 2000 artillery pieces they have aimed at Seoul makes them a threat to someone.

  4. SirJohn says :

    Well, it always depends on who says what. When Hitler announced he would kill the Jews the world had better believed him, because 1) he had the means, and 2) sadly, the rest of the world’s interests were not directly challenged.

    That is where NK’s threat differs. It is doubtful that NK has the means, and the rest of the world, in this case China and Russia do have an interest in preventing things. If the US were attacked by a nuclear ballistic missile, the whole global economic system, especially in Asia, would be smashed. The US would have to counter-attack and eventually alter the Asian status quo, which means the US in Asia would become stronger, which China would not want at all. China and her leaders love being the extremely capitalist Big Guy in Asia right now, and have no interest in upsetting their getting-richer-by-the minute scheme. The same goes for the Russians. So those countries will help the US silently to keep a thumb on the crazies in NK.

    It’s a different story when it comes to our little muslim Hitlers, like the one in Tehran. Nobody clearly has influence on them, and they don’t benefit from the economy either, so, in other words, they have less to lose.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: