Flowers For Socrates

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has settled on its North Korea strategy after a two-month review: “Maximum pressure and engagement.”

So Trump has finally decided on a brand strategy for his military escalation, meaning his threats are now as empty as his tweets.

The problem with Trumpian games of chicken is that they might be dangerous for the planet, because the premise in the case of narcissist personality disorders is a speculative assumption that ultimately “might makes right”.

Our military is building and is rapidly becoming stronger than ever before. Frankly, we have no choice!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017

Kim Jong Un’s regime said it is not frightened by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s warning that pre-emptive military action is “on the table.”

I have great confidence that China will properly deal with North Korea. If they are unable to do so, the U.S., with its allies, will! U.S.A.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 13, 2017

North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2017

The problem is also asymmetric in terms of resources when the owner of some 30 nuclear warheads does need the respect that its putative peers (Pakistan, India, Israel) might receive. The tireless depiction of the DPRK as a “rogue state” might convince them to actually believe it, and not think about deterrence but singular acts of madness where framing it as “terrorism” really wouldn’t matter to anyone.

More often than not, South Korea is hardly mentioned since Trump assumes that South Koreans (also) lack the “necessities” to have nuclear weapons, even as Trump has speculated that they could be given such weapons. This assumes very different conditions than simply basing atomic weapons there.

Then again, that could be another of his “truthful exaggerations” and it’s apparently pressure “or” engagement, rather than pressure and engagement. So the actual new policy in practice, may be pressure, then engagement, which is just as risky.

With nuclear weapons, it could be Strangelove for seven days in May, and only the living will envy the dead who applied the pressure.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has settled on its North Korea strategy after a two-month review: “Maximum pressure and engagement.”

U.S. officials said Friday the president’s advisers weighed a range of ideas for how to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, including military options and trying to overthrow the isolated communist dictatorship’s leadership. At the other end of the spectrum, they looked at the notion of accepting North Korea as a nuclear state.

In the end, however, they settled on a policy that appears to represent continuity.

The administration’s emphasis, the officials said, will be on increasing pressure on Pyongyang with the help of China, North Korea’s dominant trade partner. The officials weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the results of the policy review and requested anonymity.

The new strategy will be deployed at a time of escalating tensions on the Korean Peninsula. U.S., South Korean and other officials are closely monitoring the North amid indications it could conduct another missile test or nuclear explosion to coincide with an important national anniversary this weekend…

Just so we’re all clear: Trump’s “maximum pressure doctrine” is “a game of ‘chicken’ with nuclear weapons.” Period. https://t.co/Tes8mqimlj

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) April 14, 2017

As for the Trump administration’s policy, the U.S. officials emphasized that no engagement of North Korea is currently taking place.

Although China advocates for diplomatic outreach, the focus for now is on pressure.

The officials said the goal of engagement would have to be North Korea’s denuclearization.

It cannot lead to an arms control agreement or reduction of the North’s atomic arsenal that would imply American acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear power.

And denial is a river in Egypt.

The more interesting problem for any country is a single launch of a lone SLBM, or more problematic, any number of countries that can now launch cruise missiles from submarines. Could a failed launch with a live nuclear warhead be considered an attack.

Primitive Trumpist thinking might assume that a direct or a proxy attack on a single facility like Sinpo would suffice, but ignore the consequences since his vaunted unpredictability is more about incompetence. And then there’s the POTUS45* decision to give field commanders more leeway.

Continue reading →