Author: abcfirst

SOUTH KOREA - AN UNEXPECTED PROBABLE INITIATOR OF THE NEXT KOREAN WAR [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 4

Post time 2017-9-14 12:30:02 |Display all floors
THE LOGICAL PARSING "APPEASEMENT" IS KEY TO FINDING THE "REAL PEACE".

The term "appeasement" in the Western media means "having a peace treaty with North Korea without regime change".  The same term in the North Korean world means "agreeing to denuclearization without a peace treaty with the Allied coalition".

Of course, as defined, both sides would reject "appeasement".

The negation of appeasement in the Western world implies "no peace" which means "war", or "regime change".  In short, the only choices for the Western coalition logically are "war", or "regime change", or both.  That is what any rational Western thinker must logically accept, if it rejects "appeasement".

The negation of appeasement in the Kim world implies "no denuclearization", "war", or both.

Thus the careless choice of definition of "appeasement" by either side compels it to seek war unless the other side first capitulates to one's demands.

If being rational implies war, rationally deduced, then perhaps, it is time for both sides to stop being too rational.  Or, they can choose to first re-define what they mean by "appeasement", and then take its negation as the principle of their diplomacy.

If the West re-defines "appeasement" as "agreeing to peace without North Korea's total denuclearization", then "rejecting appeasement" leads to the following choices:  (1) war, (2) North Korean total denuclearization, or (3) both.  Now, applying logic to this set of choices gives the West the obvious answer - total denuclearization of North Korea, which in the absence of war, must be achieved by negotiation.

If North Korea re-defines "appeasement" as "agreeing to denuclearization without a formal guarantee of peace by treaty terms", then "rejecting appeasement" leads to the following choices:  (1) continued nuclear weapons development, (2) Peace Treaty completion, or (3) both.  Again, rationality would dictate that North Korea will choose "Peace Treaty completion".

The heated arguments and mutual denunciations by North Korea and the Allies is thus based on the FALLACY OF FALSE PREMISES.  Once the false premise that "appeasement" means "peace without regime change" or "denuclearization without a peace treaty" are corrected to mean, "peace without denuclearization" and "denuclearization without peace", then it can be seen that not only are North Korea and America completely complementary in their needs and demands, but that a peace treaty with North Korean denuclearizaiton is the only outcome that both sides could agree to, and that war, much touted by the pundits and war-mongers especially in the mainstream media, is the really irrational position.  Neither Kim nor Trump are irrational.  The case as presented to them by the omnipresent MSM and the war-advocates, logically dissected, is what is actually, and fundamentally, irrational, and its acceptance in the face of its logical refutation is what can be considered irrational.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2017-9-14 15:20:39 |Display all floors
The argument is superfine and therefore beyond the capability of the aging property broker for that matter the youngish kimchi eater.

There are also other parties involved who murk the equation further. For instance, the property broker also needs the nod from his congress but one is not sanguine they can understand, appreciate and accept the argument posited about the need to go beyond their present interpretation of appeasement which so far is stoked by their military-industrial-media-neocon complex that is only itching for another fight, as history has amply shown time and again.

In other words, the short hermit tail cannot wag the 200-year old hegemonic dog brandishing a set of canines set to blood whenever its will is contested.

The present situation is thus a mexican standoff to end with total casus belli mayhem by either side - unless both break for a siasta which however is not likely to come forward because the sanctions provoked by the US will make even more critical the time factor which is now.

There is another point.  It is a indication of utmost statecraft immaturity on the part of the US to ignore the encouraging fact that NK has been embarking on economic reforms based on China's model which has turned up a healthy 3-4% growth.

By any definition that is not the sign of a power-crazed country. To the extent it has remained militarized and dependent on achieving nuke-capable deterrence, one can therefore understand its growing need to protect the nascent normalization of its economy and therefore the continued well-being of its peoples.

But now that this objective of well-being is being denuded by the US through schoolyard-bully, jarhead-imaged, punitive sanctions, what else can the NKorean people thus not conclude other than the US wanting to make war, a conclusion which will further reinforce their allegiance to the kimchi eater and therefore nullify the very objective of those sanctions which is to cause internal rebellion to overthrow his rule and therefore pave the way for SK, the J proxy, to work up reunification under US-J remits whose containment policy towards C for that matter R no one today is in any doubt..

It remains to say the time factor may be parsed into two eddies:

one, no matter what the outcome, NK's transferrable expertise in nuclearisation will rise and continue. It is a-geographic; know-how can be uploaded and downloaded anywhere, and centrifuges are a dime a dozen.

And two, winter is coming.  Is the US including the property broker and his congress ready to countenance a humanitarian disaster of its own deliberate making where millions will freeze and starve just because the armchair analysts in Washington and elsewhere say so by the click of their keyboards in expression of their prejudice against slit-eyes?

Besides, the kimchi eater is not going to bow - because his father and grandfather didn't. If the west therefore still assumes he will, they know nuts about Asian mentality and therefore one wonders why are they still mucking around in Asia.

Perhaps the answer is in the number of US troops; in SK, 30,000; in J, 50,000. These numbers relative to the 5 million mobilizable by NK but ignoring those in SK (because Seoul as command center will be decapitated cannon fodder in two minutes) are a give-away that they are there to be presented as trappy targets so as to justify an overwhelming counter-response which the US congress will rubber-stamp pronto.  But would the US for that matter its anglo-saxon allies in the UN like to see 1950 rebooted as a consequence of any such miscalculation?

If Bannon has already admitted the US has no options on NK, why is the property broker still finagling threats as goliath against a david?

SK, J, C and R should start packing food and oil parcels under auspices of the international red cross to drop them soon on NK.  Don't tell me the UN is going to sanction the international red cross next.

Drop food not bombs. Last one checked, this is the friggin' twenty-first century.









Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2017-9-15 12:42:49 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abcfirst at 2017-9-15 13:10

THE ONLY LOGICAL EXPLANATION WHY THE ALLIES CANNOT ACCEPT A TREATY BASED ON A QUID PRO QUO OF PERMANENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PEACE FOR PERMANENT AND COMPREHENSIVE DENUCLEARIZATION, AMPLY PROVEN BY PURE LOGIC TO BE THE ONLY SOLUTION TO THE SO-CALLED "KOREAN NUCLEAR CRISIS", IS BECAUSE THE PERMANENT AND COMPLETE DENUCLEARIZATION OF NORTH KOREA IS NOT THE FINAL OBJECTIVE.

If the permanent total denuclearization of North Korea were the final objective, there would have been no reason not to officially or publicly declare a Letter of Intent, to invite North Korea to a Peace Talk whose objective is precisely thus - permanent peace for permanent denuclearization - without any loss of face by either side.

Likewise, the final objective of North Korea is not permanent and total peace, but the reunification of Korea, under its governance, to which end, its nuclear power serves as its ultimate weapon.

Given these two diametrically opposite aims, rather than mere peace and denuclearization, the present conflict may be fundamentally insoluble.  

Not surprisingly, even though both sides currently want to use China as leverage against the other, the reason why the ultimate goal of the Allies is reunification of Korea under its terms (necessitating regime change or unconditional surrender by North Korea), and the ultimate aim of North Korea is also the reunification of Korea under its terms (necessitating the regime change or unconditional surrender by South Korea), is to remove the influence and power of China over the Korean Peninsula.  In this scenario, therefore, it would not be logical for China to let either side succeed, as its own interest would be adversely affected.  Thus, the only rational goal for China is either the preservation of the status quo, which the advent of North Korean achievement of nuclear power obviates, or allowing the two sides to fight it out in a lose-lose situation, where nobody emerges the victor capable of dictating the terms of reunification to the other side.  The latter is too Machiavellian and will erode its credibility as a peace-maker in the community of nations.  The former is the only high road China can take, by warning both sides that whoever attacks first or uses nuclear weapons first, would be opposed by China.  This then may be the real reason why China refuses to be involved directly as a referee, but also refuses to be ignored as the final arbiter of peace and fairness.  For this, China will have to pay an economic, political and military price, which is, however far less expensive than allowing either side to achieve total domination over the other.

Both sides will try to rock the boat when it sees an opportunity to force reunification on its terms, but when their ability to strike first or use nuclear weapons first are curtailed by China indefinitely, China will slowly emerge as the most effective guardian of peace in the Korean Peninsula, and thence, of all East Asia.

By the same token, any attempt to destabilize or weaken China, such as by waging a "trade war" or trade/credit boycott, on the pretense that it is aimed to make China turn North Korea into a pauper village, which China cannot and will not do, will only weaken China's pledge to oppose any first strike or first use of nuclear arms by either side, as a party that is itself under attack cannot pretend to be a guarantor to other parties against their being attacked (by conventional or nuclear arms), and thus, will potentiate and accelerate the tendency for either side to strike first and to use nuclear arms first, which will result in a geopolitical vacuum that would be hard to contain and prevent from leading to another worldwide war.




Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2017-9-16 17:37:55 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abcfirst at 2017-9-16 17:42

BLUEPRINT FOR ACHIEVING PERMANENT AND COMPREHENSIVE DENUCLEARIZATION WITH PERMANENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PEACE (IF THAT IS REALLY WHAT BOTH PARTIES WANT) -- WITH A BIG "IF".

IF THE ANSWER IS REALLY "YES", THEN THIS IS HOW TO DO IT.


  

STATUS QUO

  


North Korea Action



  
  

Options



Denuclearization



No Denuclearization



Marginal Probabilities


  

U.S. Action

  

Peace Guarantee



Peace Treaty (0.0001)



NK wins (0.0099)



0.01



No Peace Guarantee



US wins (0.0099)



War (0.9801)



0.99


  
  

Marginal Probabilities



0.01



0.99



1.00




The STATUS QUO leads one to expect war with greater than 98% probability, which is clearly unacceptable, and out of everyone's control.  To re-exert control over and avert this train of events, four things need to be done when feasible.


1.   China must exert economic, political and perhaps even military pressure to change the marginal probability of “No Peace Guarantee” which is equivalent to “Inevitable War” from 0.99 to less than 0.50, preferably to less than 0.20, perhaps even by stationing enough forces across the border from North Korea to ensure that war will not be lightly undertaken against the hermit kingdom, unless the latter initiates it.

2.  US-Allies must exert more economic, political and even military pressure to change the marginal probability of “No Denuclearization” from 0.99 to less than 0.50, preferably to 0.20 or less.


3.  China-Russia must make it clear that it will reduce its economic and military pressure  if the Allies agreed to sign a Letter of Intent, contingent on NK also signing it within 3 days, that it will work with the other side to try to achieve a Permanent and Comprehensive Peace Treaty with North Korea if and only if North Korea also agrees to try to achieve Permanent and Comprehensive Denuclearization of its armed forces.


4.  US must make it clear that it will reduce its pressure on NK if it agrees to sign a letter of Intent, contingent on the Allies also signing it within 3 days, that they will try to achieve a Permanent and Comprehensive Peace Treaty if and only if North Korea agrees to try to achieve Permanent and Comprehensive denuclearization.

The final tableau is thus salvaged from MAD-ness as follows:



  

DESIRED GOAL

  


North Korea Action



  
  

Options



Denuclearization



No Denuclearization



Marginal Probabilities


  

U.S. Action

  

Peace Guarantee



Peace Treaty (0.64)



NK wins (0.16)



0.80



No Peace Guarantee



US wins (0.16)



War (0.04)



0.20


  
  

Marginal Probabilities



0.80



0.20



1.00



Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2017-9-16 17:53:55 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abcfirst at 2017-9-16 17:56

Of course, the above scenario will be applicable to current events only if the final objective of North Korea is permanent and comprehensive peace guaranteed by treaty, and the final objective of the Allies is permanent and comprehensive Korean denuclearization guaranteed by treaty (both requiring the willingness of China and Russia to accept responsibility to ensure compliance by all parties).  These are a lot of IF's.  If every IF has a 50-50% chance of being true, then the above salvage plan would have, right from the get-go, a probability of only 12.5% of being relevant.  

The scary thing about this analysis is that the alternative, even with the best possible negotiations, has a whopping 87.5% probability of becoming reality, if everyone leaves their choices to chance, which, by the way, is WAR, as they say, "like the world has never seen before".

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2017-9-17 11:33:41 |Display all floors
1/n

The ball is now in the US park and time is not on its side.

NK will be a full-fledged nuclear state by 2020. SK and J know it and will respond by going nuclear themselves so that the whole of NE Asia will become one incendiary region on tenderhooks, bristling with nukes and affecting the Schellingian mode of reciprocal fear of a surprise attack.

Add to that the inevitable US response of extending its own nuclear umbrella in the region to the chagrin of C and R and the high probability of war will become the inevitability of a nuclear interchange that will precipitate the end of civilization so early this new century.

Lest naysayers still think this is unnecessary fear-mongering to make the US repent its hubris posture, consider what almost happened during the Cuban crisis. A technician in charge of the nuclear launch alert accidentally downloaded the reel of a missile launch which in turn triggered an alarm; it was only in the nick of time that this was realized as a false call. Else the result would have been no different if Moscow had instead concluded the U-2 that overflew Russian airspace was a nuclear bomber.

Fast forward, a technician in the room of SK's nuclear alarm network is getting bored from making sure the system is primed faultlessly and it remains so else SK would not have dropped eight bombs within only forty minutes of NK's missile launch to land aft of Guam.  But because he is bored, he tries to relieve the tension of boredom by uploading the last climatic episode of Legend of the Blue Sea (starring Jun Ji-hyun, no less).  Alas, he takes the wrong disc and loads instead the last US war satellite recording of a NK missile launch beamed by Bloomberg.

The network alarm goes off uproariously in the room and automatically the phone rings almost off its hook in the bedroom of General Jeong Seung-jo, SK military chief. What's left of human civilization will later record the tragedy of what happens next. Because he has had one too many saki's the night before, the general wakes up in frantic semi-daze, listens to the alarm, remembers what he had said in 2013 that SK will strike preemptively the first sign of a NK nuclear launch even at risk of full-scale war escalation in much the same way Tel Aviv had struck the nuclear facilities of Tehran, and barks the command to do exactly that - strike and knock out all of NK's 80 missile sites within the next twenty minutes - which his strategic airmen proceed to do at a clip.

Of course, the NK rocket forces retaliate by launching eighty four rockets that come zooming down the skies over Seoul a minute later. The US thaad missiles fire to intercept them; all are seen on screen intercepting to destroy the incoming rockets; collective sighs of relief echo in the mobile launch stations and Christmas bonuses are immediately envisioned.

But life is full of surprises. Just as during the Cuban crisis, the US had almost wanted to invade Cuba because it didn't have the military intel on hand that there were batteries of nukes already on that island, the intel on the hermit state's inventory is, to say the least, derelict.  Satellite imaging and detailed computation of plutonium yields cannot do sufficient justice to what's really on the ground. Besides, the US-SK defense forces realize exactly three minutes later that those eighty four rockets are dummies when the next wave of two hundred explosives-laden ones hit south of the parallel. And at exactly the same moment Abe is having his breakfast of Procter & Gamble cornflakes, the first nuke from who-knows-where explodes on Tsukiji market.  Radioactive sushimi, anyone?



Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

2016 Most Valuable Member Medal Gold Medal

Post time 2017-9-17 11:43:23 |Display all floors
abcfirst Post time: 2017-9-14 12:30
THE LOGICAL PARSING "APPEASEMENT" IS KEY TO FINDING THE "REAL PEACE".

The term "appeasement" in the ...



Interesting speculations! While I agree that both the West and N Korea stand on irreconcilable positions, the West has given N Korea enough slack to extricate itself from the mess. It can stop trying to fool the world about its nuclear bomb intentions and simply stop work on it. That would certainly lead to atmospheric change. Whether this atmospheric change would lead up to friendlier rapport between the two side cannot be fully excluded.

But the main purpose should be to encourage both Koreas to negotiate things between them. Surely China has a big key in its hand in this matter? Currently N Korea refuses to listen to the entreaties emanating from Seoul that invite him to the negotiating table. Why does the fat slob in Pyongyang feel he has to talk to the U.S.A.?

I think the Fat Slob is suffering under megalomania.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.