"North Korea’s longstanding assumption has been that the United States is too weak-willed to take on the exorbitant costs of war and that America will eventually acquiesce to a nuclear North Korea. President Trump’s statement that North Korea’s threats will be “met with fire and fury like the world has never seen,” however unorthodox and impolitic, conveys a clear rejection of Kim’s aims and the magnitude of the survival risk Kim runs if the United States refuses to accept nuclear vulnerability to Kim Jong Un.
U.S. Defense Secretary James MattisJames Norman MattisTrump briefed on helicopter 'mishap' that left 3 Marines missingAir Force purchases bankrupt Russian firm's planes for Air Force OneDems to Mattis: Don't comply with Trump's 'unconstitutional' transgender banMORE clearly underscored those risks when he stated that “The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons” and that “The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.”
North Korea clearly sees survival risk in bowing to U.S. pressure by returning to the path of denuclearization and perceives mutual vulnerability as the only viable path to regime survival. This is the path that North Korean diplomats point to when they argue that it was possible for the United States and the Soviet Union as nuclear-armed adversaries to pursue détente and normalize their relations even at the height of the Cold War.
But it is impossible to imagine that the United States will accept vulnerability to Kim Jong Un or suddenly appreciate North Korea’s strategic value and pursue a normal relationship with North Korea’s totalitarian regime. However much North Korea may yearn for the United States to treat it with the same geostrategic weight that motivated détente with the Soviet Union or normalization with China, it will not happen. Kim Jong Un’s weak hand is ultimately a losing hand, no matter how well played." The Hill
It was unclear from the Post report on Tuesday whether any of the other 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed with the DIA’s assessment, though the DIA report excerpt quoted by the Post did refer to the intelligence community as a whole.
“The [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles,” the DIA assessment said, according to the newspaper.
NBC’s report on Thursday says that other agencies, including the CIA and the Office of the Dan CoatsDan CoatsThe Hill's 12:30 ReportDOJ warns the media could be targeted in crackdown on leaksConway: Leaks of Trump's calls should have 'chilling effect'MORE, agree with the DIA's assessment. The Hill
1- The judgment that North Korea now possesses miniaturized nuclear weapons is now a US IC consensus judgment. Anyone who thinks that CIA likes agreeing with ANY DIA judgment knows nothing of the US intelligence community.
2. The hypocrisy of many of the comments on SST concerning this crisis is surprising to me even after 12 years of this, The absurdity of thinking that all states are equal in weight and responsibility in the world is just foolish and ahistorical. The deep anti-Americanism of many in the commentariat on SST is sad. It is especially sad in being expressed by people whose countries have long been the beneficiaries of US protection. It should be acceptable to the US that North Korea should "demonstrate" the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to Guam? How absurd! Would those who think that so be accepting if the North Koreans demonstrated the same ability to deliver a warhead into the English Channel, the North Sea or off the coast of British Columbia?
3. I think not. The countries so threatened would run to NATO and beg for US protection.
4. Ah, I forgot, the evilness of the US justifies anything. pl
When the media ignores North Korean diplomats’ explanation of their strategy of mutual vulnerability, they are feeding the narrative that Kim Jong Un is a madman. Like with the Mad Mullahs, negotiations are pointless. Force is the only thing they will understand. Only problem is that history shows that we were able to deal with Iran, and we have done deals with North Korea in the past.
If Trump is such a master of the art of the deal, it’s time for him to step up and show the world how to negotiate a deal. A war would only prove that Trump is clueless about how to do a deal.
“Timeline of Nuclear Threats on the Korean Peninsula” through 2005:
NEWSWEEK EXCLUSIVE: NORTH KOREAN MISSILE CLAIMS ARE ‘A HOAX’ [says Ted Postol…] 8/11/17
North Korea’s “not quite” ICBM can’t hit the lower 48 states
by Postol, Schiller, & Schmucker
“…these rockets actually carried very small payloads that were nowhere near the weight of a nuclear warhead of the type North Korea could have, or could eventually have. These small payloads allowed the rockets to be lofted to far higher altitudes than they would have if loaded with a much-heavier warhead, creating the impression that North Korea was on the cusp of achieving ICBM capability.”
This is an interesting article. The author stated that correct translation for the North Korean official statement should be:
“Unless the hostile policy and nuclear threat of the U.S. against the D.P.R.K. are fundamentally eliminated, we, under no circumstances, will put the nukes and ballistic rockets on the negotiating table and will not flinch even an inch away from our path of strengthening of the nuclear forces, which is chosen by ourselves.”
Did the MSM try to hype up the news by reporting the only sensational part in that sentence? I’m afraid that DJT might have decided to rachet up the crisis by what he learned from Fox News, CNN,…
Michael Scheuer made some VERY provocative comments yesterday, 2017-08-19, at his blog.
They deal directly with the integrity and goals of both DOD and the CIA,
a subject surely of interest both to you, Colonel Lang,
and to many of your readers.
Since Scheuer surely has inside knowledge of the past workings of the CIA,
his comments on its internals surely are worth considering.
Thus I am taking the liberty of quoting several of them below,
in order to bring them to the attention of more people.
Thus the following are excerpts from
some of Scheuer’s responses to readers’ comments to his post
Several members of the VIPS are CIA veterans.
Wonder what they think of this?
Wonder if Scheuer will get more specific.
Or be shut up.
I know Scheuer, havng done several consulting jobs with him years back and I don’t think one should take what he says too seriously. He had s moment of fame because of his book and that is gone. That loss can be unsettling. pl
Philip Giraldi certainly has some interesting comments
(actually, scathing criticism of some past IC leaders,
such as Tenet, Brennan, Pompeo, Clapper)
“Groupthink at the CIA”
Hating Russia and Trump is de rigueur
by Philip Giraldi, 2017-08-17
E.g. (emphasis added),
Some of those remarks sound like pretty strong words to me.
So both Scheuer and Giraldi have gone on record
attacking their former employer.