Blog powered by Typepad

« Mark Steyn can breathe easy | Main | The Sunday Rumble: 9.7.17 »

Saturday, 08 July 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alas as a past English pol once said, a statesman is a famous politician who has been dead for 10 years...or words to that end. The Kraut also said there is one other option re Fat Boy--let him get nukes and take our chances from there on.

I side with return nukes to S. Korea and give Japan nukes, not wait for them to develop them. Also I favor an additional step of shooting down future missile launches shortly after launch.

Perhaps someone should point out to the Chinese that Beijing is only 800 km from Pyongyang.

Dilbert has a cunning solution on his blog which isl ess likely to lead to a nuclear war.

Permit me to explain why Krauthammer is his usual myopic knot head. Who the hell cares that North Korea has an ICBM? Let me know when they have a hundred. And that they also have miniaturized war heads with independent targeting and a GPS system under their control that no one else can turn off to provide the terminal guidance for these weapons. Or a sufficiently advanced inertial guidance system that could guarantee that they could hit a target as large as a city?

Absent these things North Korea has acquired the ability to send up an unmistakable flare inviting their complete annihilation. Good for them. There was nothing to be done about it any time. Certainly even George Bush, a man not known for his intellectual acuity, realized or had it explained to him that attacking North Korean facilities has certain attendant difficulties. The first being that hardened underground facilities require nukes to crack. The second is that attacking loaded surface reactors charged with fissile material is likely to create a Chernobyl. Right next to China who just might object to the rain of radioactivity that would surely result. Unless the wind was blowing towards Japan or another ally. Which,parenthetically, is why Israel attacked Saddam Hussen's Osirak reactor before it was loaded.

So, in summary, Trump will be able to do exactly what his predecessors have done. Which is nothing. Unless he wants to behave like an idiot. There's always that possibility. Any Trumpian cure is likely to be worse than the disease as far as America's allies are concerned. Finally we have the utter stupidity of putting nuclear weapons in close proximity to China. They can have no idea who those weapons might be targeted at and the short time from launch to strike makes them look like an installed first strike capability. Now seeing as putting those weapons back in the strike range of short range North Korean missiles, nuclear or conventional, one might get be expected to ask why do that when a counter strike from the US can be done from far beyond North Korea's ability. It can be done from the continental US. Wait a minute.... hey doesn't that mean that China would know the nukes would be aimed at them AND constitute a first strike threat against their own forces? Golly. Wouldn't that be a stupid thing to do?

Peter, don't you think that criticising Krauthammer's article without actually reading it first might raise the question, "Wouldn't that be a stupid thing to do?"

Except, of course, as you keep reminding us, you are not stupid, oh dear me, no!

Well ... absent a 'Sunday Rumble' ...

Bob? I think these three links will pique your .. yeah even you Bob, your very skeptical take on stuff.

Nine mere minutes here

Longer here by some eleven minutes but, necessary:

And lastly, the very definitely not Fake News:

(I'd used the link from the Justice Department but, it wouldn't copy.)

Oh. And Peter G forgive me if I seem to be piling on, one sentence from your comment begs .. oh I dunno, "correction" mebbe?

"The first being that hardened underground facilities require nukes to crack."


Really JK? You think a MOAB can crack a hardened structure hundreds of feet underground? And yet bombs almost as large couldn't crack a German submarine pen on the surface? You do know that first strike capability requires that the nukes in silos that by their nature must have surface access can only be successfully hit with nukes? And nukes delivered with an accuracy measured in meters. That was the whole point of the DARPA investment in precision guidance through GPS. You might want to visually inspect the center of Hiroshima. The memorial still standing there was a masonry structure on a steel frame that stood directly beneath the blast. It is still standing. Feel free to pile on. I am well able to speak to the facts.

I thought I was very clear myself. The idea of putting nukes back in South Korea, so casually offered by Krauthammer as a way of getting Chinese attention, is remarkably stupid. You may recall what kind of attention the USSR's attempt to place nuclear armed missiles in Cuba got. And, of course, there's the small matter of getting the South Koreans to agree to put nuclear weapons in their country that would invite all sorts of Chinese attention both military and economic. And possibly generate a frightened response from the North Koreans. Were you under the impression that the Americans just get to put their nukes any place they like? The South Koreans wanted them gone precisely because they had no control over those weapons but their presence invited all sorts of bad consequences. But please, tell me why I'm wrong.

G'day JK.

That last reference is interesting. Had a chuckle at the last sentence :- In a statement to NBC news, Winner’s lawyer, Titus Thomas Nichols, stressed that his client has no prior criminal history and is “looking forward to putting this behind her”.

That would be in about 25 to life would it not?

Treason is so passe - I mean what is so important about the security of your Nation?

"But please, tell me why I'm wrong"

Oh, alright then, Peter, if you insist! Krauthammer analysed the various possibilities - not recommending them, merely analysing the pros and cons. He came to the following conclusion:

"the choice is binary: acquiescence or war. [...] We do have powerful alternatives. But each is dangerous and highly unpredictable. Which is why the most likely ultimate outcome, by far, is acquiescence."

It does help, Peter, if you try reading and understanding the article before commenting on it - even if that means you entering the hallowed halls of the NRO. You could always don your NBC suit to save yourself from contamination!

Read more at:

My goodness, David! You certainly have come on in the world. You do know, I suppose, that trolls are a status symbol for a blog, and now you have two. It's rather like two Mercedes parked in the driveway, even if they don't run. They still give the place class, don't you know.

Well Peter G, I reckon its a matter of degree ...

"Really JK? You think a MOAB can crack a hardened structure hundreds of feet underground?"

You're aware Peter G of a thermobaric munition's "particulars"?

No kidding! You mean just like George Bush did? Or President Obama? Or the Chinese themselves? But something must be done right? Lines have been dawn in the sand and yet this crosses the line does it not? I do believe you are past due, judging by your previous comments, to label Trump as feckless. He certainly does look weak and ineffectual doesn't he? And yet this same Krauthammer took great delight in past columns of condemning Obama for not doing something about North Korea. But skipped the criticism of George Bush during whose tenure the North Koreans started setting off test nukes. I've been reading Krauthammer since before the Internet was invented. Since back when his scribblings were available pretty much only in Time magazine. He was a giant hypocrite then and such he remains.

If it took Krauthammer to express your own thinking then you are somewhat behind the times. You could have read any of my own pieces on the subject or those of just about everyone who has considered it. They all predate Krauthammer. But none of them will include asinine advice about putting nukes in South Korea as a way of trying to threaten the Chinese into doing what no one knows how to do. So important was this event that not a single world leader thought to mention it or include in the communique from the recent G20 summit. Could it be that they too saw the obvious? Or the even more obvious fact that nothing anyone can say or do is going to make the Chinese create a failed state with nuclear weapons on their own border.

But wait, I am sure there will be more. The greatest intellects conservatives have to offer are, even now, working to figure out that this is all, somehow Clinton's fault. Take your pick on Clintons.

"You think a MOAB can crack a hardened structure hundreds of feet underground?""

Actually, Fatty Kim's bunker is only two stories deep.

"You could have read any of my own pieces on the subject"

Heavens to Betsy, how did I miss them?

Michael, I know what you mean but I try to avoid the word 'troll'. They're just people with a different opinion and they're welcome here, er, so long as they remain within the bounds of propriety!

Want to bet backofanenvelop? How many bunkers did Saddam Hussein have?. In any event I foresee difficulties in using a bomb designed to kill by concussion but isn't designed for ground penetration and is, in any case, only deliverable by a Talon Hercules that wouldn't make it inside NK airspace. The wrong weapon was picked. Those inventive Americans do have a limited number of bunker busters designed around obsolete large caliber naval gun barrels. And that is what they used to attack to Hussein's bunkers. To limited effect I might add. They managed to get their one full of Iraqi civilians. I wonder if the North Koreans heard about that and decided to dig deeper? It's not hard to do is it? Cheyenne Mountain is proof against nuclear assault. Concrete and steel are not hard technologies to master.

The comments to this entry are closed.