Posts Tagged ‘Korea’


Monday, October 2nd, 2017

Note (13NOV2017): North Korea — No news. Is no news good news?
     Because we hear little does hearing little mean that Chairman Kim is doing little to develop further his rockets with nuclear tips? President Trump visits China. Supposedly President XI and he discuss trade, a discussion that ends with much hoopla amounting to little actual economic gain for these United States of America.
     So, what about North Korea? Nothing. Meanwhile, as China decreases trade with Pyongyang, Russia increases trade. So goes American foreign policy. So goes the world as it heads towards an unnecessary nuclear catastrophe.

Note (06NOV2017): The Pentagon issues a report about the North Korean situation essentially characterizing the situation as a choice between disaster and catastrophe. As the world edges closer to nuclear conflict amidst continuing hot air from politicians, no overt action — yet.
     This week, President Trump is visiting Japan and is scheduled to visit South Korea? Exactly why? Who knows.
     Meanwhile, some South Koreans are demonstrating against these United States of America. President Moon Jae demands no American military action against his fellow Koreans in the North while continuing to demand South Korean control over its military in case of war — demanding in the name of South Korean sovereignty. Would he like to defend Korean sovereignty without American aid? [See “The Chickens Come Home” (Chapter Twelve) in the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences.]
     “Our top priority is to maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula,” President Moon said. Really! What should be top priority for the American people? Perhaps, securing these United States against nuclear attack by Moon’s fellow Koreans? Then again, what is the top priority for the American military-industrial complex?

Note (30OCT2017): The Korean Peninsula. An eerie calm continues. For how long? Top American military visit the Demilitarized Zone, seemingly engaging in double-speak as we slide towards war.
     In Japan, newly-reëlected Prime Minister Abe calls for an offensive military as a defense against North Korea. In South Korea, the left-winged governmentf demands control of its own military in the event of war with the North. In China, the Communist Party solidifies its long-range plan to best these United States of America under a unified semi-fascistic autocrat. It should be noted that both China and Japan find racial and ethnic diversity repugnant.
     Meanwhile, these declining United States of America, a nation on fire, celebrate such diversity. One example is a female academician of The Left with heritage south of the border who garners headlines by her characterizing Mathematics and Science as “racist” in a further step towards complete societal insanity. Undoubtedly, she is supported by the millionaire-Negroes playing in the National football League who continue to dishonor the national anthem and the national flag.
     Ah, the rewards of diversity! “Press one for English . . . Marque dos para español.” ¡Así es la vida; así es la guerra ahora en estos Estados Unidos! Don’t speak Spanish? Better learn or, maybe even better, Mandarin Chinese — Cantonese is next to impossible for us “Wide Eyes”.
     Oh yes! Curiously, White Nationalists seem to be gaining traction.

Americans and Russians
For those Russians unaware, be advised that few Americans realize that Russia is the only major power with which the United States of America never has been at war. Cold war? Yes. Hot war? No.

For those Russians unaware, be advised that many Americans, probably most, believe that Russia is a mortal enemy of the United States. Some politicians loudly and forcefully promote that concept.


With regard to the present crisis on the Korean Peninsula, you, President Putin, together with President Xi of China might have the opportunity to prevent everyone sliding down the slippery slope into nuclear catastrophe. Recall the prelude to World War One and its aftermath; namely, World War Two with 30-million Russians killed.

Fundamentally, the matter represents a civil war among Koreans. When presented with that basic fact, are most Russians willing to be annihilated in order to become involved in a battle of Koreans against Koreans? Are most Chinese? Are most Americans?

You two can offer Chairman Kim Jong-un and President Trump the following:
1) The United States will remove all military assets from the Korean Peninsula and cancel the military treaty of 1953 as it pertains to North Korea.
2) North Korea will dismantle its nuclear arsenal and all IRBMs and ICBMs.
3) Removal and dismantling will occur in measured steps with verification by both sides overseen by China and India.

If you succeed, you would show the American and Russian people and the rest of the world that you promoted peace in a way from which everyone outside Korea benefitted. If you fail, you would have proven that you tried.

Consider the alternatives. Nuclear war? No nuclear war but a nuclear-armed Iran, Sudan, Hezbollah, etc. — a nuclear-armed Japan — a nuclear-armed who knows else?

See “KOREA: WHY?”.

Perhaps, you already have considered the above. Perhaps, President Xi has. Perhaps, President Trump has. If so, we Americans have not heard about any of you having done so.

Biobehavioral Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.” For a full description of that law of nature as it applies to the four secular cornerstones of any society — government, law, education, and medicine — see the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences (2009). Inside, you will find that Chapter Twelve relates to the situation in Korea today. Even then, the situation did not require a fortune-teller to predict the consequences of American policies ill conceived and ill executed.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


Monday, August 21st, 2017

Note (04SEP2017): So, in the midst of the fruitless yak and the ineffective sanctions, North Korea may have tested successfully a fusion-based weapon suitable for fitting onto an ICBM. Hydrogen bomb, in commonplace parlance! Thank you, Mr. Clinton for your feckless lying in 1994.

Consequence of the testing? Talk and more talk; sanctions and more sanctions. Meanwhile, a possible alternative for us Americans, unpalatable as it may be, exists albeit ignored. Our so-called leaders have convinced us better to have dead Americans and Koreans than just dead Koreans. If and when, the “nukes” explode over these United States of America as a consequence of our involvement in a civil war among Koreans, in those moments between living and dying, perhaps those in favor of such involvement may have second thoughts.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is,in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

Korea! Why is our American military still there — there, so many decades after the end of the Korean Conflict; so many years after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union? Why are our political leaders so enthusiastic about risking the nuclear annihilation of these United States of America and the rest of the world in order to become involved in a civil war among Koreans? A treaty, you say?


The Korean-American Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 is a dangerous joke. Mutual defense? Did we Americans then or do we now need the Republic of Korea (South Korea) to defend us against foreign aggression? The treaty represents a one-way street for us to defend them militarily while they rape us economically.

Military treaties are made with such ease. Military treaties are defended with such difficulty. Making a treaty involves words easily written. Defending a treaty involves lives brutally spent and treasure often wasted.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -President John Adams (1725-1836)

Democracy? By way of correcting a widespread misapprehension, these United States were founded neither as a pure democracy nor a republican democracy but as a democratic republic. Yes, there is a difference.


On principle and by tradition, however, a strong case can be made that these United States judiciously should support everywhere the cause of individual freedom embracing the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Support with words but not by blood unless the latter directly and overwhelmingly be in our own national interest.

Against the advice of our Founding Fathers, “Neo-Conservatives” and their supporters favor imposing democracy by force upon backward countries resistant to even the concept. Witness the abhorrent consequences and the cost to this nation in blood but much more in treasure of such adventurism to date. Afghanistan, where we had won with a thousand troops then lost with a hundred thousand?


The North Korean Perspective
As we humans creep closer to nuclear self-annihilation, consider the consequences of our ignoring consequences. Specifically, the consequences of President Truman’s ignoring the consequences of not winning the Korean Conflict. The consequences of Clinton’s ignoring the consequences of North Korean lies then compounding the matter with lies of his own; thereby, allowing that Communistic tyranny, now turning Fascistic, to develop nuclear weapons. The consequences of the fecklessness of Bush the Second then of Barack Hussein Obama II.

In contrast, the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) attended to consequences — consequences befalling others; for example, the trampling of Slobodan Miloševic’s Yugoslavia by American-led NATO with its civilian bombing. Would NATO have acted so cavalierly, whatever the claimed righteousness of its cause, if Miloševic had had nuclear weapons? Would the Europeans in front and these United States behind so cavalierly have attacked Muammar al-Gaddafi’s Libya had he succeeded in gaining nuclear weapons?

The consequence of the heavy-handedness of Americans’ behavior was to demonstrate to small, weaker nations the consequence of a behavioral deficit in gaining such weapons. The North Koreans claim, with obvious military justification, that they are protecting themselves from American military action. They understand consequences. We do not.


“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961)

In these United States, who directly benefits most from wars? The dead and wounded? No. The taxpayers? No. The “military-industrial complex”? Yes.

Former General of the Army (5-stars) and President of these United States warned us to beware of its power and potentially pernicious influence. It represents a dual-edged sword. One edge, defense; the other, deceit combined with inefficiency. Witness the fiasco called the F-35.

“The problem with socialism is socialism; the problem with capitalism is capitalists.” – Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

Yes, we must maintain a strong military force and the industry that supports it. No, we must not allow misguided capitalists and militarists who place short-term profit before long-term patriotism to influence us towards our own annihilation and that of the rest of the world.

Recall the words of Vladimir Lenin when he supposedly said, “’The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them.” In this instance, he knew of that which he spoke. Let us not be led down the Path to Perdition by propaganda from those in Big Business seeking only personal profit and politicians seeking only personal advantage at the expense of American security.

See “Chinese Missile Allegations: Key Stories” .

With regard to Korea, when exposing ourselves to the self-inflated talking heads on radio and television, writers in the newspapers and magazines, and even commentators in social media, we continually should ask ourselves, “In the first place, why are we there?” Few ask that question.

Is there a solution to the current Korean mess dumped onto President Trump by his feckless, incompetent predecessors? Possibly.

No, we should not allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons with the means of delivery to the American mainland. The same admonition applies to the religious fanatics in Iran; its ilk poses a threat in which China, Russia, and these United States operate under a common variable.

Yes, we possibly can come to a non-violent accommodation with North Korea — non-violent for these United States, which should be the primary concern of our government. We can offer Kim Jong-un the following:
1) These United States will remove all military assets from the Korean Peninsula and cancel the military treaty as it pertains to North Korea.
2) North Korea will dismantle its nuclear arsenal and all IRBMs and ICBMs.
3) Removal and dismantling will occur in measured steps with verification by both sides overseen by China and India.

Would Kim accept such an offer? Possibly, mainly depending upon China. Consider the alternative of potential nuclear war involving the same China with the certain annihilation of Kim and much of his rump-state. Believe the following: There is no tactical nuclear war that does not lead to strategic nuclear war!

Should Kim accept the offer, would he attack South Korea afterwards? Possibly. His doing so, however, would amount to an active civil war among Koreans. It is not in our own overwhelming national interests to intervene? How? Diplomatically? Possibly. Militarily? No.

Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.”

Of note, in 2009 we published a semi-fictional novel entitled Inescapable Consequence. Chapter Twelve describes the events that are occurring today in Korea.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


Monday, June 6th, 2016

“Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy.” -John Quincy Adams (1767-1848)

What’s a young, Korean dictator to do when the West, especially these United States of America, is against him, and a reluctant China is his only real protector? Why, develop nuclear weapons, of course.

It’s obvious, isn’t it? The West, again especially these United States of America, attacks only non-nuclear countries. Think Afghanistan, Grenada, Iraq, Libya, North Vietnam, Panama, and Serbia.

What’s the dictator’s primary goal? To have retained his power.

What’s his secondary goal? To have enhanced his personal pride by gaining prestige.

What’s his tertiary goal? To have improved the living standards of his people? Probably. Well, maybe.

Plan? To develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them all the way to North America.

Then? Short term? To extort increased economic gain from a confused, declining, self-destructive West. Long term? To unify the Korean Peninsula under Pyongyang. Hey, the 21st-century is supposed to be the Asian century, isn’t it? The only question is, Which Asians?

Look, Europe already is under unarmed attack by millions of Mohammedans and Negroes — an attack that its governments refuse even to acknowledge as an attack, let alone repel. Besides, militarily Europe is close to impotent.

Meanwhile, these United States are under attack by millions of unarmed Latinos, mainly Mexicans pursuing “La Reconquista”; as well as assorted others, including Mohammedans who call their own brand of threat “The Silent Invasion” — an attack that the American government acknowledges but does little to thwart; at least, thus far. Besides, militarily the nation has been in decline and disorganization under a President whose primary goal in office is to have destroyed “White America” — White being defined as Euro-Caucasian. Remember Reverend Wright and his “God damn America!”?

Kim Jong-un (b. 1983) reigns as the Korean dictator faced with fulfilling the aforementioned goals; at least for the moment. He functions as the Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea as well as the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). He’s ruthlessly homicidal as were his father and grandfather, dictators before him. His purges are reminiscent of Stalin’s; whom the “useful idiots” in the West, as Lenin called them, defended to the end.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” -John Heywood (1546)

In 1994, the feckless, deceitful philanderer who was sitting in the Oval Office at the time and who reportedly was allowing technological secrets to be traded to a hostile China in return for paltry political contributions had the last chance to thwart North Korean nuclear ambitions by whatever means necessary. .

Did he? No. “Slick Willie” Clinton failed to protect this nation and the rest of the world. Now, his angry, vicious wife wants her turn. Think Benghazi.

In the early 1990s, would the Chinese have gone to war against us again? Perhaps, but they were in no position to win a non-nuclear confrontation. As for nuclear? Nobody would have won, a fact that had stopped the much stronger Soviets as it would have the Chinese, their bluster notwithstanding. Better that we now face a nuclear North Korea?

Conversely, President Ronald Reagan did protect this nation by achieving his goal to have defeated the “Evil Empire” — i.e., the erstwhile Soviet Union. His successors, especially Bush the First, then made a total mess of the gift he bestowed. Now, the world faces the end of days, and the cornered, young murderer in Pyongyang is the prime illustration, even beyond the fanatics in Tehran.

So, what to do? Nobody seems to know.

See “If You Were POTUS” and related posts.

The question, therefore, arises, should we Americans now allow Pyongyang to capture Seoul? If not, why not? What is South Korea doing for us? We know that which it is doing to us, but what is it doing for us?

The previous issue of organized, international Communism capturing the world no longer exists. Thank you, President Reagan.

Hasn’t the strife on the Korean Peninsula become merely a civil war between North and South? If so, why are we Americans there? Why are we taxing ourselves economically and borrowing from adversaries, if not enemies, to defend South Koreans militarily — who, in turn, are raping us economically? Why are we willing possibly to plunge the world into a nuclear conflagration to settle a war involving only Koreans against Koreans?

These are questions that scream to be answered. Admittedly, addressing them will be dangerous. Ignoring them will be fatal.

Science tells us truly, “Behavior has its consequences.”

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


Monday, May 13th, 2013

The most recent three postings have addressed the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the attendant potential for a nuclear conflict involving The USA. Question . . . as President of the United States, what would you do?

Before you answer, take a moment or more to relax. “Good luck!” you say? Actually, the basic procedure is easy to perform. Simply, take slow, deep, regular breaths. Let all the anxiety . . . all the tension in your body . . . leave your body with each breath out. It’s a good feeling to be able to relax.

Relaxed as best you can?

Okay, conceive of yourself as President of the United States of America. You’re sitting in the Oval Office of The White House.

Now, as POTUS, consider the situation in the western Pacific . . . the particular situation-in-question involves the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (aka/North Korea) and the People’s Republic of China. The question is, What would you do?

Before answering, how about adopting the biobehavioral orientation to structure your answer along lines based upon scientific methodology ( Try formulating your answer according to the following format:

Context: Describe the context in which the Korean situation is occurring. (See Note 1 below.)

Antecedent: Describe a related event that occasions a behavior regarded by POTUS as provocative. (2)

Behavior: Describe the problematic behavior occasioned by the antecedent. (3)

Consequences: Describe the events following the problematic behavior. (4)

Now, as POTUS, how would you resolve the situation-in-question? Try formulating your answer according to the following format:

Problem: Define the problematic behavior as a behavioral deficit or excess then elaborate. (5)

Goals: Target specific and objective goals (states of being) to be fulfilled. (6)

Plan: Design a specific plan (action) to be put into play to fulfill the targeted goals. (7)

Measurement: Define an objective system, preferably quantitative, by which to determine your progress towards fulfilling your targeted goals. (8)

The point of this exercise is to demonstrate a framework based upon a foundation of scientific methodology that allows you to organize your thoughts into a reasoned, logical sequence.  Logical, well-reasoned thinking leads to effective, efficient behavior in resolving problems in living . . . be they societal or personal.


1. For example, Kim Jong-un . . . the new, young, inexperienced, Supreme Leader of North Korea . . . has a tenuous grip on power over a rump-state in desperate economic straits.

2. For example, a warship of the Republic of Korea (aka/South Korea) sinks a North Korean warship threatening it.

3. For example, in retaliation, North Korea launches a non-nuclear invasion of the South . . . you even might add China concomitantly launching a non-nuclear invasion of The Republic of China (aka/Taiwan).

4. For example, South Korea invokes the new military pact with The USA, requesting full-scale U.S. military involvement.

5. For example, a deficit of effective military behavior by South Korea in response to an excess of military behavior by the North. The same definition might be applied to the Chinese situation-in-question.

6. For example, to have unified the Korean Peninsula under South Korean control or, conversely, to have contained the Korean conflict to a regional, non-nuclear one with re-unification determined by the two opposing sides themselves, the RoK-USA military pact notwithstanding.

7. For example, . . . well, let’s leave it entirely to you with no prompts.

8. For example, area of territorial conquest by one side or the other.