- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 294 Hour
- Reading permission
In the beginning of all major sieges, whether of Alesia or later on, of Masada, the initial phases of work look futile, but stone by stone, stake by stake, chain link by chain link, when the siege work is done, it looks like the manacles of the gods. In time, North Korea will feel its relentless constriction, and make a decision, to break out, or to break down. For now, NK fears a direct attack, which remains an option should the siege fail to materialize due to China's refusal to cooperate. This is the rationale for its making more and more provocative threats, as a deterrent against being attacked. But the Alliance needs not surrender its high moral ground by striking first. A siege will actually kill two birds with one stone - it will force NK to act first, and give the Alliance the option of striking back hard, or of tightening the siege even more, in either case, causing NK to collapse. |
Given the above analysis, once fathomed by Kim, the temptation would be very great to strike out before the siege is complete, especially given the firepower he has amassed. This is the same strategy of a high roller to bet all he has on a single bet if he knows that the odds are against him. Spreading his stake over several smaller bets only ensures the odds will crush him.
While the House has better odds and a greater capacity to back up its bet with real resources, the high roller to a degree, can still break the House, when the cards are laid down. If this were just a poker game, it would be the game of the millennium. But this is far more important than a poker game. Millions of lives are at risk. A third party with sufficient authority and power has to step in to STOP the game, and impose a fair solution. It is unclear if China can assert that degree of authority and demonstrate that extent of power to convince both sides to lay their cards FACE DOWN, and accept its draft of a Treaty of Peace. Why? Because if the game goes to its logical conclusion, there is no way of avoiding a carnage that would dwarf all wars in human history. This is a tall order, one I cannot fault China if it cannot fulfill this thankless mission. A coalition of the EU, China and Russia, under the auspices of the UN might have to do the job, and this might become the foundation of a future one world government, where no one superpower can dictate the rules, but must abide by the collective will, for the benefit of all.