Don’t Cry For Me, North Korea

 

We do have a really good showman in the oval office.

Cruise missiles in Syria while dining with the Chinese Leader

Carrier battlegroup to the region off North Korea.

US coal now replacing North Korean Coal to China. (Such a deal I got for you!)

Kim threatening a nuke test Saturday.

We just happen to demo one of the more unique weapons in the arsenal against the almost universally accepted foe in Afghanistan.

I expect ten or twenty of these might really screw up that artillery aimed at Seoul.

Weapon Safety On                                                                      Weapon Safety Off

MOAB4725511183_f17860f77b_zMOAB215055_large_MOAB_Explosion

I think we need a Slim Pickens robot riding it in, hat and holler.

Slim13311301223_1136c2e12f

So, is the deal we stop the North from invading the South while China removes the little dude and replaces him with someone less insane?  It may come to that. Blood and death in every option, such is the way of the world.

Hopefully, notice that one artillery shell fired gets a very big counter battery fire mission might be the ticket.

Maybe the little dude decides not to run that nuke test after all.

I really think Seattle and Portland , especially the area just south of Portland deserve to not be threatened in the very near future by this crazy. The risk and price of defending them goes up exponentially every year.

TKC1101

About TKC1101

Curmudgeon (Reserve Status), Corporate Refugee, Proud Grandfather, Small Business Advisor and Salvage, Heinlein American
Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Don’t Cry For Me, North Korea

  1. BrentB67BrentB67 says:

    My limited government, strict Constitutional adherence instincts are somewhat concerned by our President’s conduct of late.

    However, it is hard not to admit the entertainment value of it all.

  2. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    You have to admit, Brent, so far he hasn’t started any wars. Yet the whole world is “worried”.

    Intimidation is such a wonderful thing.

    • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

      Point accepted.

      I am just concerned that the limits in the Constitution are well founded and should be respected. Trump was supposed to end the abuses of the previous 16+ years not extend them in glorious fashion.

  3. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    My expectation is that Gen Mattis, now SecDef, would not allow that. He is a great strategist, but I also believe he believes in rule of law. If we are to go to war, I expect him to demand Trump go to congress and seek authorization.

    Just my sense.

    • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

      I think that is good sense. My concern is where do we draw the line between military action and war?

      • Xennady says:

        I think we are already at war with these people, whether we notice it or not.

        The Norks have been committing hostile acts against us ever since the Armistice in 1953 ended open hostilities. Supposedly one way they keep their regime afloat is by printing mass quantities of fake US currency, which is certainly hostile and should demand a response.

        The present Iranian regime has been making war against us to the best of their limited ability ever since they took over that country.

        Sooner or later, one or both will get around to doing something we simply can’t ignore, no matter how much we’d like.

      • EThompson says:

        FDR was busy asking himself that very same question while millions of people were being slaughtered in Europe. At some point, it is fair to assume that genocidal actions occurring in nations that have some relevance to our national security need to be addressed with something more severe than sanctions.

        I couldn’t agree more with Dev: “Intimidation is such a wonderful thing” because it can ultimately eradicate the unnecessary loss of life. And under Article II of the Constitution, a president is permitted to take a military action without approval from Congress.

        The next question I can foresee coming is why didn’t we address the Congo or Rwanda? Answer: As of now, these countries do not have a direct effect upon our national security. Going forward, as we continue to put pressure upon the Middle East, jihadists are eyeing and developing (as we speak) these countries as possible training camps.

        But let us take it one complication at a time.

  4. TKC1101TKC1101 says:

    So far, we are demonstrating strength , hopefully to avoid much blood in the future. As long as we stay with demonstrations , I feel Trump and Mattis are within bounds.

    I do worry about the troops on the ground fighting ISIS. We are way past training mission it appears.

  5. ctlaw says:

    The MOAB works OK against unreinforced tunnels. TO go after the NorK stuff, we would need the massive ordnance penetrator (MOP). And we would need thousands rather than dozens in order to drop two or three rows of them every few hundred meters. Even if we had 1000 of them and the aircraft, we would not be able to have them hit all at once.

    A hundred or so nuclear penetrators would be practical if we did not have a treason lobby disarming us.

    • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

      I think this is correct. We may not need a hundred+ nuclear weapons we are going to need a few all very well timed and precisely delivered.

      The imperative is to instantly, simultaneously, and completely eliminate all of the north’s capability to lob anything across the DMZ.

      • ctlaw says:

        The DMZ is 250km long and the Norks are dug in deep along its entire length.

        At a minimum, we’d have to collapse every tunnel along a 50 or so km stretch adjacent Seoul. That probably would require one nuclear penetrator every 2 km at a bigger yield than we allow ourselves.

        • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

          When we were there we concentrated on the DMZ around Kaesong and west of Pyonggang (city separate from PyongYang that confused me 23 years ago and still does).

          25 weapons along that line as you describe is an awesome achievement.

  6. Xennady says:

    …If we did not have a treason lobby disarming us….

    *****

    One of the many infuriating things about the present American regime is how it acts as if the United States and our allies are a terrible danger to the world, and must be disarmed.

    Thus, it seeks to eliminate already-built American nuclear weapons and prevent us from developing new ones, seeks to ensure our allies don’t get their own- but is completely indifferent while Pakistan churns out bombs by the dozen and while our sworn enemy Iran breaks Barry’s idiotic deal, even though we sent them pallets of cash.

    Trump must end all that, or eventually the Mullahs WILL use nukes against us.

  7. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    The Iranians don’t strike me as completely stupid. They may be militant but they don’t necessarily want to die. So they push so long as they can and stop when it gets obviously dangerous. O’s admin was obviously weak, so no danger. T’s is dangerous, so I would expect more limited pushing.

    And the first time we push back they’ll recognize where the electric fence is and not go beyond. In short they are trainable. They think rationally.

    The Nork’s are a whole different story.

    • EThompson says:

      I agree with your comment in its entirety particularly because despite the heinous aspects of his regime (SAVAK for example), the Shah did institute a very pro-Western, capitalist, and educated society; he promoted the full participation of women into the economy. Unlike the Saudi royal family who fears the Islamists, the Shah mistakenly ignored their influence and power in society and this, I believe was the determining factor in his downfall.

    • Xennady says:

      I sure hope you’re right….

    • DevereauxDevereaux says:

      Well, historically they have been sanguine about survival, all comments about jihad aside. Note that none of the leaders seem to want to don a bomb vest.

      Iran has shown restraint in the past when they thought something would come to their benefit. Unlike us for lo, these many years, they HAVE had THEIR national interest first and foremost.

      So here’s a thought problem. ?What if we’d responded with force to the boat attacks they perpetrated in the gulf, when they took our sailors. ?Think they would do that again. No matter how it turned out, we would have bloodied their boats, then we could easily have bombed their installations until our sailors were released. On a rising scale. Sure, there would have been some dumb statement about, “In the interests of peace and goodwill, …” but we all know that would just be face saving. We would have gotten our sailors back. That attack was an act of war.

      • Xennady says:

        “Sure, there would have been some dumb statement about, “In the interests of peace and goodwill, …” but we all know that would just be face saving.”

        Hmmm. I’m not so sure. It seems to me that the long-standing fecklessness of the American government has taught our enemies that they need have no fear of us, or of our responses to their provocations.

        There have been exceptions- such as when the invasion of Iraq convinced the mullahs to suspend their nuclear program- but what happened later?

        Barry sent them pallets of cash, without even bothering to get back Americans Iran plainly held as hostages.

        Again, I hope you’re right, and I’m wrong. But at this point I would not assume that any nation would come to a rational conclusion that they need fear us.

        • DevereauxDevereaux says:

          Actually, the rational question any nation OUGHT to ask is why be our ALLY. We treat them so badly. It’s our enemies that get treated well.

          Which brings to mind an OLD film The Mouse That Roared

  8. AdministratorAdministrator says:

    OTOH, maybe all of those precious snowflakes in Seoul should suit up and go north. Why is this our problem?
    Oh, I get it, and I’m down with whacking the mole, but the fastidiousness accompanying our deliberations is mere hand-wringing. We are being played by both sides.

  9. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Well, technically SK is our ally. Perhaps more to the point, Japan is nervous over all the saber rattling of the fat boy.

    And America needs some street creds after the last 8 years. IF we want any influence in the world, people need to show some respect again.

    And in THAT vein, I think Trump is doing a good job of reasserting our position. He seems to have made a deal with China, wherein China is now positioning troops along the NK border and is not buying their coal while now buying ours. Good moves methinks.

  10. Xennady says:

    Uhm, I think we treat our allies fabulously well. They get free access to our vast market, which enables them to enrich themselves vastly, and we provide them with freeeeeee security. If they are displeased, then STOP BEING OUR ALLY. Problem, I figured out how to solve it.

    I note how often I hear the President of the United States described as the Leader of the Free World. The actual United States is just a small part of that, even though we pay for it all, one way or another.

    At this point I don’t think we have a single actual ally on this entire planet. We just have a long list of protectorates and parasites.

    Some of them are more functional than others- Japan won’t go quietly into the night, I think- but others….

    Well, it’s time to cut the rope, and let them fall into the abyss, or save themselves by their own effort. We’ve done enough for them.

    Iran and North Korea are a bit different. They seem to want us dead, just because.

    Ok. Let’s stop playing patti-cake, and give them what they want.

    War. With real destruction, and real killing. Of them, and theirs. That is, let’s solve the ****ing problem, so we can stop the hand-wringing and celebrate victory for a change, with victory meaning that I don’t need to worry that my family will be killed by far away countries I don’t care about.

    I suppose I’m just repeating what BDB says, only with more words- but yes, we are getting played by both sides.

    Enough.

  11. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    “To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women.”