Trump, in an extraordinary defense of his mental capacity and fitness for office, described himself on Saturday as a âgeniusâ and âa very stable genius at that.â
Very Stable Genius has the Biggest Button. Very Stable Genius could probably solve the opioid crisis on his first try, if only he would try. This is Trumpâs version of Nixonâs “I am not a crook.” The fact that he has to say heâs smart says he has a really big problem. And if America doesnât believe him, it could be enough to cripple him.
If he could read, shit would really hit the fan:
The vaudeville act ends:
Trump is the best negotiator:
The two Koreas are taking about NorKo participating in the Winter Olympics. What could go wrong?
Iran takes up Trumpâs mantra:
Mitt looks for his principles. They seem to be missing:
Trump gives Congress a message about the 2018 legislative agenda:
Athabasca Glacier, Alberta, Canada. Itâs the most visited glacier in North America â 2013 photo by Yan Gao
The publication of Michael Wolffâs book âFire and Furyâ about Trump, seems to have validated what we on the outside already knew, that the election of Der Donald was a terrible mistake.
Wolff struck a chord that resonates by saying that everyone he talked to in the West Wing of the White House during his year researching the book agrees that Trump is âlike a childâ, and that every one of them agrees that Trump simply cannot function in the job.
Joe Scarborough asked in the WaPo if we can survive Trump: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)
We are a nation that spent the past 100 years inventing the modern age, winning World War I, defeating Hitler and winning World War II, and liberating half of Europe by beating the Soviets in the Cold War. But today we find ourselves dangerously adrift at home and disconnected from the allies abroad that made so many of those triumphs possible. The world wonders how the United States will survive Donald Trump. And I ask, what will finally move Republicans to deliver a non-negotiable ultimatum to this unstable president? Will they dare place their countryâs interests above their own political fears? Or will they move to end this American tragedy only when there is nothing left to lose?
A consensus seems to be emerging that we have a president who is not capable of performing his duties. And so the question before the GOP powers that be is: Should they try to remove him? It looks like denial of the obvious is no longer enough. The GOPâs dilemma is: which is worse, continuing to cover for Trump? Or cover in the 2018 mid-terms for a Congress that didn’t acknowledge the danger he poses?
This is where we are at the start of 2018: In the midst of an accelerating decline of Americaâs capabilities at home, and a weakening of our global reach. The gap between what the US used to be able to do, and what it can still do today is widening, and we really donât know just how wide that gap is. We donât know what has fallen into the gap, or what remains on firm ground.
With Trump in the Oval, each passing day looks more like a crap shoot, both domestically and globally. Egypt, a US ally, has quietly leased several air bases to the Russians. This is the first time since 1973 that Russia has had a military presence in Egypt. In the past, the US would have moved heaven and earth to stop this from happening; now Trump does nothing.
The pressure will be to wait and see if Robert Mueller comes up with something.
That is understandable, but Trumpâs possible criminality isnât the primary risk to the country. Events in the world may overtake Muellerâs investigation. Korea could erupt in a nuclear confrontation, the Iranian government is being challenged in the streets, and if weakened, Saudi Arabia and Israel may see a chance to attack Iran, something that would otherwise be far too risky.
Weâre entering a period of great consequence. It is probable that some of the most crucial events in the year ahead (Korea, Middle East) will be decided by one manâs gut feeling that is set in motion by tweeting at three in the morning, in response to fragmentary data about a situation too complex for him to understand, or to solve.
And weâll live with those consequences for decades to come.
Now itâs up to the GOP, who are in a position to solve this problem. They didn’t ask for Trump, but they got him. And then, they caved until he owned them. Every Republican has jumped on the bandwagon.
Otherwise, we must force Republicans from control of the House in the 2018 mid-term election.
Nothing soothing in any of those words. But, itâs Saturday, and time to kick back. If you are in the Northeast, the prime directive is to stay warm. Grab a cup of Death Wish coffee, the worldâs strongest. Death Wish has a saying:
Be the best you can be with the clarity and focus that comes with strong coffee.
Itâs probably not strong enough to turn Trump into a thinker, but your mileage may vary.
Now, listen to âDeborah’s Themeâ from Once Upon a Time in America, a 1984 epic crime film co-written and directed by Italian filmmaker Sergio Leone and starring Robert De Niro. The music is by Ennio Morricone, who was Sergio Leone’s long-time musical collaborator:
Those who read the Wrongologist in email can view the video here.
Snowy Landscape with Arles in the background â Vincent Van Gogh, 1888
A tradition at the Mansion of Wrong is to attend the annual New Yearâs Day Concert at the First Congregational Church of Washington CT, built in 1801. The concert is always by the New Baroque Soloists. This year, the church was packed, and among the guests were Tia Leoni and Tim Daly, the leads in the CBS series âMadam Secretaryâ. For the sixth year in a row, it was another inspiring performance by the New Baroque Soloists.
Now it is time for a few Wrong predictions about 2018, most of which will probably will be wrong:
The US economy as measured by GDP will grow at greater than 2% for 2018.
The US stock market as measured by the S&P 500 index will end 2018 with little or no growth over year-end 2017.
The Trump tax cuts will increase the deficit, and despite Paul Ryanâs best (or worst) efforts to push the country into austerity, that can will be kicked down the road for a few more years.
The Democrats will not take control of either the House or the Senate in the 2018 mid-term elections. The still-growing economy, and the pittance that increases paychecks from the Trump tax cut will help incumbents enough to forestall a wave election.
The Democrats will remain without real leadership or vision in 2018.
Cyber and other forms of meddling by people who wish our democracy harm will continue in the 2018 elections, to broader effect than in 2016.
Facebook and Google will be held to account for their failure to tamp down disinformation.
Trump will continue to flounder as the leader of the Free World, while his âfrenemiesâ in the GOP will continue to try to thwart him on domestic economic legislation.
There will be some form of bi-partisan accommodation on DACA.
Trumpâs public-private infrastructure deal will not pass the Senate.
The House will pass legislation that messes with Medicaid, but the Senate will not.
Trump will have the opportunity to appointanother Supreme Court Justice.
Trump will have a serious medical issue in 2018, but will not leave office, or be temporarily replaced by Pence.
Mueller: By March, MAGA will mean âMueller Ainât Going Awayâ. The storm will crest, a Russiagate conspiracy will be exposed, and crud will fly everywhere. This could lead to the Democrats taking control of one or both Houses.
A few additional Trumpets will go to jail, or be tied up in court. Trump will not be impeached by the 2018 Republicans. 2019 might bring a different calculus.
Tillerson and possibly other cabinet members will resign to âspend more time with familyâ.
#metoo will continue to dog politicians, Hollywood and the media.
Middle East:
Syria – by this time next year, the war will be essentially over. Assad will still be in power, and the US will be out of the picture. The Syrian Kurds will switch sides, and collaborate with the Assad regime.
Iran â the current protest movement will fizzle out. Neo-cons in Trumpâs administration will try to bring us close to war with Iran, but cooler heads at the Pentagon will prevail.
Famine and death in Yemen will continue to be ignored by everyone in the US.
Russia: Russia, China, and Iran will have a “come together” moment, possibly resulting in an agreement for mutual economic cooperation.
Russia will continue to face ongoing battles with the US, but Putin will persist.
Ukraine: The US delivery of anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainian army will not cause them to begin military operations in the east.
Europe: The right-wing authoritarian movements in the Eurozone and England will become a larger factor in their domestic politics. Brexit will occur, and no one in the UK will be happy about the outcome.
Will there be a war or âincidentâ with North Korea? Despite the scary politics, the Seoul Winter Olympics will keep the situation from escalating through June. The second half of 2018 could lead to some kind of incident between the US and NorKo, but will not be a nuclear incident.
A âblack swanâ event (an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect), could change everything for the President, the country and the world. Letâs hope that none occur in 2018.
Georgian Sheep returning for the winter from the high mountains. Mixed among the sheep are Georgian Shepherd dogs who are the same size and color, who protect the flocks from wolves – photo by Amos Chapple
Donald Trump is in China for a two-day visit, and North Korea (NK) is certainly on the agenda. While in Seoul, Trump urged “responsible nations” to unite and stop supporting NK:
You cannot support, you cannot supply, you cannot accept…every nation, including China and Russia [must] fully implement recent UN Security Council resolutions on North Korea.
Trump praised China for taking some steps against NK, but urged them to do more, as administration officials believe the border between China and NK still remains a trade corridor. From Trump:
I want to just say that President Xi — where we will be tomorrow, China — has been very helpful. We’ll find out how helpful soon…But he really has been very, very helpful. So China is out trying very hard to solve the problem with North Korea.
What Trump and his administration need to figure out is a new strategy for NK. It is doubtful that China would cut off NK, because it fears that if the Kim regime collapses, millions of NK refugees will stream across the border into China.
Trump has mortgaged the whole US-China relationship to get the Chinese on board with the North Korea plan…He is now coming at it from a position of weakness.
North Korea is unlikely to launch a nuclear attack on the United States. However, if North Korea retains its nuclear weapons, it is likely to lead South Korea, Japan, and possibly Taiwan, Australia and Vietnam to go nuclear themselves. From the Chinese perspective, that would be a strategic catastrophe.
He makes the point that China has never sought world domination, in fact, it wants to maintain strategic distance from its neighbors. However, maintaining that distance requires a buffer zone around China, which historically China has sought, and is seeking now in the South China Sea.
Lind suggests that if the states on Chinaâs periphery had nuclear weapons, China would be unable to keep a buffer zone of weak neighbors that it can dominate. Even Vietnam could stop China cold if they had nukes. The states bordering China, instead of serving as a buffer, could become existential threats sitting right on her frontier.
Lindâs idea is that Trump should make the case about the need to restrain North Koreaâs nuclear program, but instead of threatening with trade or sanctions if China refuses, he should say:
If North Korea retains its nukes and delivery systems, we can no longer advise our allies in Asia not to go nuclear.
However, that would be a transformational change in the bedrock US principle of nuclear non-proliferation.
Lind explains that while Beijing does not care about the threat NK nukes pose to the US, they fully understand the strategic threat of nuclear weapons pose in the hands of America’s regional allies.
Wrongo doesnât have much time for Mr. Lind, who has advocated that police in the US carry rocket-propelled grenades, and who has said that the “next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil.â
The idea of proposing doubling the membership in the nuclear club goes against American values, despite its source, might give the US some additional leverage with China.
But, China already knows all of this, so would it achieve much?
What China can do is push North Korea to the negotiating table. But, President Trump has not only to be willing to negotiate, he has to give a carrot to China. That would be to partner with them in a South Asia trade deal. China canât be bullied by Mr. Trump into bullying NK. Trump will need âstrategic patience” to get a deal that involves China, Russia, Japan, and, of course, both North and South Korea.
There may be a “deal” to be made, but does the Deal-maker-in-Chief has the ability to make it?
Fall in the Eastern Sierras â photo by Deirdre Harb
You may not remember the tangled history the US has with Iran, but you know that Trump decertified the Iran deal that was developed by the US and 5 other major powers (Russia, China, Germany, England and France). In his decertifying speech, Trump said:
We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of Iranâs nuclear breakout…
Just three countries publicly support Mr. Trumpâs decision: Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. We all know that Iran calls the US âthe great Satanâ, but we forget how we earned the title. Here is a quick review from the BBC:
In 1953, the US overthrew Iranâs elected government. We (and the UK) were not going to stand by and let their Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadeq nationalize Iran’s oil industry. The CIA led a military coup, and re-installed the Shah.
In 1979, a coup overthrew the Shah, and Ayatollah Khomeini took control of the Iran government. In November 1979, Iran took over the US embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for what was 444 days, until 1981.
In 1985-86, the US secretly shipped weapons to Iran in exchange for Tehran’s help in freeing US hostages held by Hezbollah in Lebanon. The profits were channeled to rebels in Nicaragua, creating a political crisis for President Reagan.
In 1988, a US warship shot down an Iranian Airbus A300 killing all 290 people on board. We said it was a mistake, and Iran apparently forgave us.
In 1999, Iranâs new president Katahimi called for “a dialogue with the American people” that went nowhere.
In 2002, GW Bush denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil” with Iraq and North Korea.
Now, nothing in the above excuses Iranâs efforts to destabilize parts of the Middle East, or their deep, abiding hatred of Israel. Nothing excuses Iranâs role in developing and introducing the IEDâs that were so lethal to US troops in Iraq.
Time has done little to heal the wounds that each country has inflicted on the other. Mutual enmity remains on full display.
But Trump, like Obama and GW Bush, searched for a way to reduce our presence in the Middle East and shift attention to Russia and China. The solution for all three Presidents was to pit Middle Eastern governments against one another creating a balance of power, attempting to prevent any single country from becoming too influential.
If they make war against each other, thatâs an acceptable outcome, as long as Israel remains unscathed.
In that context, Iranâs pursuit of nuclear weapons was something that the US and its European allies couldnât allow. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), provided a means of halting the programâs progress without risking the outbreak of war. The deal prevented the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb destabilizing the region.
By attempting to reopen the JCPOA by withdrawing, Trump hopes to either rein in Iranâs regional meddling, or persuade Tehran to broaden the deal to include restrictions on its ballistic missile program, and on its support for militant groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
Neither of Trumpâs goals are reachable. Iran gains nothing by agreeing to them. And the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agree that there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is not complying with the deal. So, as long as Iran upholds its end of the bargain, the Europeans plus China and Russia, are unlikely to agree with any US attempt to reinstate broad sanctions.
And Trump is making his negotiations with North Korea more difficult. Walking away from the Iran deal justifies North Koreaâs belief that negotiation with the US on nuclear issues is futile. Particularly when one presidentâs agreement can be so easily torn up by his successor.
The American Right has considered Iran one of the âaxis of evilâ since 9/11. In that context, Trumpâs desire to replace diplomacy with sanctions and eventually regime change, is ideologically consistent. The Right is simply using its electoral victory to advance a long-held policy.
We should remember that most of the GOP presidential candidates in 2016 were against the Iran deal, and probably would have acted similarly to Trump.
We are at a crossroads in our relationship with Iran. With the Iran deal, our long-term antipathy could have been moderated, and ultimately replaced by alignment of goals in the Middle East. Peace might have broken out.
But Trump has insured that will now take decades longer than it might have.
Rangdum Monastery, Suru Valley, India. While the monastery is Buddhist, most of the residents of the Suru Valley are Shia Muslims – photo by Sugato Mukherjee
In the history of nuclear diplomacy, no nation-state has ever given up atomic weapons in response to shrill threats.
We all have noted the continuing tit-for-tat between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un. Pat Lang has described the state of play between them as “Simian Mutual Hostility“, giving a name to the image of monkeys throwing their poo at each other in anger.
On 9/23, the US Airforce flew a bomber mission, closer to NK than at any time in the past 17 years. Although the flight took place in international airspace, NK called it an act of war, threatening to shoot down American aircraft, even in international airspace, if it happens again.
Are we now just one miscalculation away from the collapse of the Korean Armistice? Or worse, the start of the Second Korean War? Can cooler heads on both sides ratchet back the simian hostility?
Possibly. Since Trumpâs election, NK representatives have been interested in figuring out Trumpâs strategy. The WaPo reports that:
North Korean government officials have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Unâs regime.
WaPo quotes a person with âdirect knowledgeâ:
 Their number one concern is Trump. They canât figure him out.
So, could Trump calling Kim âRocket Manâ be a carefully calculated master stroke of foreign policy? It could, but donât count on that. Trump did use âCrooked Hillaryâ to his advantage, but will calling Kim Rocket Man change the worldâs perception of Kim in ways beneficial to America?
It seems more like a direct challenge from an older man to a younger one, to put up or shut up. It appears that Trump is trying to goad Kim into an openly hostile reaction that could justify a US attack in âself-defense”.
That would be following the Tonkin Gulf playbook, as used by LBJ in 1964. After the attack, which to this day looks like a fabricated incident, the US had a pretext to escalate its involvement in Vietnam, with disastrous consequences. We wouldnât leave Vietnam for another 11 years.
An air-zone intrusion near (in) NK waters is a perfect way for Trump to replay the Tonkin Gulf plan. Trump may hope that NK will attempt to shoot down one of our B-1Bâs. The issue of whether the attack happens in NK territory or in international waters will be disputed, and will not be really understood by the media.
And what about NK saying âitâs an act of warâ? âbâ at Moon of Alabama says that NK had declared something an “act of war” or a “war declaration” some 200 times in their press, so, perhaps we shouldnât take exception quite so strongly.
The landscape is that we have two leaders willing to say anything, hoping that the other guy starts the actual fight.
Letâs remember that China and Russia have asked the US to be patient with NK. China has a mutual defense treaty with NK, and has said it would react if NK were attacked. South Koreaâs president said he does not want a war to happen.
Our âmissile shieldâ for the US homeland isnât reliable, yet our military has based its nuclear deterrence on it. And we revere these Pentagon guys as brilliant âstrategistsâ. The systems do not work effectively, yet we act as if they will, and that the technical problems are solvable before we will need them.
We have no ability in the short run to defend the homeland against Kimâs ICBMs, but Trumpâs idea is to goad Kim into a first strike.
The “big stick” mindset is at the core of the Pentagonâs philosophy. However, with China next door, and their stance clear, why does Trump continue to piss on Kimâs boots?
The US has a terribly flawed strategic position. When the monkeys are consumed with throwing the shit, the risk that something happens far down the chain of command increases. The Cuban Missile crisis could have escalated were it not for a level-headed US junior submarine officer.
Letâs leave the last word to Steve Coll:
âTo overcome the perils of the presentâ, the President said at the UN last week, âwe must begin with the wisdom of the past.â If only there were some evidence that Trump knew what that was, or how to use the power of his office to forge a less dangerous world.
Lake Waramaug, Litchfield County CT. It is the second largest natural lake in the state.
Our problems with North Korea (NK), and the impossible negotiating position we have with them, brings to mind Israelâs relationship with Palestine. Both NK and Palestine:
Had their borders drawn by other powers after WWII
Had been invaded many times by their neighbors
And they have fought wars with them ever since
Are anti-US, and anti-Israel
Are allies
Have a large benefactor that props them up economically. Iran in the case of the Palestinians, and China in the case of NK
And both countries appear unwilling to negotiate with their sworn enemies towards a peaceful solution. We officially ended the Korean War in 1953. The parties to the Armistice tried to negotiate a withdrawal of foreign forces from the peninsula and settle the question of who would rule a reunited Korea. Talks took place in 1954, but broke down over how to hold fair elections for a unified government.
The Armistice specified that no new weapons would be introduced on the peninsula, but in 1957, the US informed NK that it would no longer abide by that part of the Armistice agreement. In January 1958, the US deployed nuclear missiles capable of reaching Moscow and Beijing, in South Korea.
We kept them there until 1991, and tried to reintroduce them in 2013, but South Korea refused. NK conducted its first underground nuclear test in 2006.
NK has very close relationships with many Arab countries. From the Diplomat:
North Korea…actively supported Arab countries in their military operations against Israel. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War…North Korean pilots staffed Egyptian MIG-21s…During the 1980s, North Korea shifted [to] arms…sales to Israelâs enemies in the Middle East. The DPRK exported missiles to Iran, Syria, and Libya and assisted both Syria and Iran in their attempts to develop nuclear weapon capabilities.
NK’s relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) began in 1966. NK today recognizes the sovereignty of Palestine over all territory held by Israel, except the Golan Heights, which NK considers Syrian Territory. The Diplomat says that NK helped Hezbollah build underground tunnels in Lebanon.
Al-monitor reports that NK also cooperates closely with Iran. Israel believes that Iranian scientists were present at most of NK’s nuclear tests. Iran’s Shahab missiles were developed with the assistance of NK, and are based on the NK Nodong missile.
Where do we go from here? After 63 years, we have failed to successfully negotiate with NK. Even Steve Bannon gets it:
Thereâs no military solution [to North Koreaâs nuclear threats], forget it…Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul donât die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I donât know what youâre talking about, thereâs no military solution here, they got us.
We are stuck in the moment, and we canât get out of it, just like Israel and Palestine.
Our history with NK tells them that we are not trustworthy. Barack Obama replaced direct engagement with pressure tactics, called âstrategic patience.â He also rejected negotiation with NK without a prior commitment to denuclearization.
And here we are. We wonât talk to them unless they give up the bomb. They already have the bomb, so they wonât be giving it up. We canât move against them without huge damage to Japan and South Korea. Would we sacrifice either country to save the US homeland from a NK nuclear-tipped missile?
What should we do now? Will we accept the fact that NK is a nuclear power? Will we continue to rely on sanctions?
Would we commit to a no-first-strike policy that might reduce tensions with NK?
Would we agree to stop the provocative war games?
What will the Trump administration do to avoid nuclear war?
Nobody knows. Here is U2, live in Boston in 2001 with their Grammy-winning âStuck in a Moment You Can’t Get Out Of” from their 2000 album, âAll That You Can’t Leave Behindâ:
As you sing along, remember the song was written to persuade someone that suicide wasnât the answer.
Takeaway lyric:
You’ve got to get yourself together You’ve got stuck in a moment And now you can’t get out of it Don’t say that later will be betterâŠ
Now you’re stuck in a moment And you can’t get out of it
Near Rocky Creek Bridge, Big Sur CA â 2017 photo by Charlene Renslow
We didnât attempt to shoot down the Hwasong-12 North Korean (NK) missile on Tuesday. The official reason was that it was clear that the missile wouldnât hit American soil. Based on the US reasoning, there are at least two things to consider:
We have the capability to shoot down NK medium-range missiles, but do not want to give NK and China any free intelligence on our capabilities.
We do not have the capability to shoot down NK medium-range (or greater) missiles.
Now, Wrongo has some “expertise” in the missile defense biz. He managed a nuclear missile unit in Germany during the Vietnam era. One mission of the unit was anti-tactical ballistic missile defense. That meant we were supposed to shoot down enemy missiles.
So, when Wrongo hears the US’s reasoning, it makes sense. Why give a potential enemy a free look at your weapons? Why take an aggressive action when we are not threatened? Both are reasonable positions. Shooting down an enemy missile aimed at US territory is logical, but shooting down a missile test aimed at the sea would be considered an act of war by NK. We could adopt a policy to intercept certain types of missiles or those on certain kinds of trajectory. But, we havenât made that policy choice at this point.
The second possibility is frightening. Since the 1950âs, we have made a huge investment in anti-missile weapons. Today, we have 33 Aegis warships that are designed to hit a mid- or intermediate-range missile like the Hwasong-12. Sixteen of those warships are currently in the Pacific. But, right now we only have eight Japan-based Aegis ships, and two of the eight are out of commission due to the collisions of the Fitzgerald, and the John S. McCain.
But it gets worse. From the NYT: (brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)
The allies could do little more than track the [NK] missile Tuesday as it arched over Hokkaido and splashed into the northern Pacific. Analysts said Japan could have tried to shoot it down if its Aegis destroyers, which are armed with SM3 Block I interceptor missiles, happened to be in waters between North Korea and Japan. But because the SM3 is slower than the Hwasong-12, they would have had to make the attempt before the missile passed over the ships.
In order to hit the NK missiles, Aegis destroyers would have to be dangerously close to the NK coast to get a chance to strike an ICBM in the “boost” phase, before it gained altitude. If our ships were that close to NK, they would be vulnerable to North Korean submarines.
And the SM-3 anti-missile interceptors on the Aegis ships have a testing record that includes many failures. Between January 2002 and August 2017, the DOD attempted 37 intercepts of a mid-range missile and hit the target 29 times with an SM-3. On Wednesday, we conducted a successful intercept test using a newer generation SM-6 missile against a medium-range ballistic missile target:
The USS John Paul Jones detected and tracked a target missile launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar…
This is the second time an SM-6 missile has intercepted a medium-range ballistic missile target.
Our problem is that, while the Obama administration pushed for a ship-based defense against mid-range NK missiles aimed at Japan or Guam, we now know that we have a better chance of hitting missiles that canât fly so high. From Defense One:
The highest probability of success is to hit the enemy missile closer to the ground, during the so-called boost phase. Thatâs what Americaâs Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is aiming for in the future.
Decoding all this: If we attempt a shoot-down, and it fails, all of those Aegis ships are worthless, and Russia, China and NK will know it.
We also have the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system deployed in South Korea. There have been 15 intercepts in 15 tests for the THAAD system, according to the MDA. Now, there is talk of deploying them in Japan. THAADs are currently also deployed in Guam and Hawaii.
Finally, there is the Ground Based Midcourse Defense System (GMD). GMD, like THAAD, is a hit-to-kill system. Unlike THAAD which intercepts missiles during their terminal phase, GMD is aimed at destroying them in midcourse. It is the only system the US has that could be capable of destroying an ICBMlaunched at the US by NK. There are 40 GMD interceptors deployed in Alaska at Fort Greely, and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The GMD has a troubled history, with many failed, or incomplete tests.
The militaryâs next anti-missile solution wonât even begin testing until 2023.
Until then, every time an NK missile heads toward Japan, Guam, or anywhere else, the president will have to decide whether attempting to shoot it down is worth the costs of probably missing it.
And without a missile defense, our next best alternative is massive nuclear retaliation on the NK homeland.
Thatâs a ticket for the destruction of South Korea and Japan.
After high-profile candidates lost decisively in the last two elections…the party now finds itself in unprecedented territory for the 2018 ballot: with no major candidate to run. Democratic leaders havenât yet lined up a substantial name to represent the party and its message despite months of trying.
Ann Richards, elected in 1990, was the last Texas Democratic governor. And now, no major Dem candidate will run for governor. This is despite a booming Hispanic population and Democratic dominance in the stateâs largest cities.
Democrats have expanded their advantage in California and New York. Combined, these states gave Clinton a 6 million vote edge, more than twice her national margin. But those two states elect only 4% of the Senate.
We once thought that there was an âObama coalitionâ that would only grow because of demographics: Left-leaning populations were growing, America was becoming less white, and this alone would guarantee Democrat majorities well into the future. This idea has failed. Is it time for the DNC establishment to accept the awful truth that they are no longer a national party?
The Cook Political Report says that even if Democrats won every single 2018 House and Senate race for seats in districts that Hillary Clinton won, or that Trump won by less than 3 percentage points, they would still fall short of the House majority and lose five Senate seats. Some permanent majority. Time for a few new Democrats to lead.
On to cartoons. Many people pointed out that there were some similarities between Trump and Kim:
Strategic thinking, Trump-style:
Uncle Rex tells America a bedtime story:
Trump said that his North Korea comments were similar to a few other guys:
Foxconn gets $3 billion in tax breaks in exchange for building a $10 billion factory in Wisconsin. It will take 20 years for the state to break even:
Pileated Woodpecker, Litchfield County Connecticut â photo by J Clery
On Independence Day, North Korea (NK) launched what looks to be its first intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of hitting Alaska. Pundits, including Wrongo have been saying that the US has no viable military option to blunt NKâs growing threat, because any attempt to do so would cause a brutal counterattack against South Korea that our military thinks is too bloody and damaging to risk.
Here is the NYTâs analysis: Nearly half of South Koreaâs population lives within 50 miles of the Demilitarized Zone, including 10 million people in Seoul, its capital. NK has positioned 8,000 artillery cannons and rocket launchers on its side of the Demilitarized Zone, an arsenal capable of raining up to 300,000 rounds on the South in the first hour of a counterattack. That means it can inflict tremendous damage without resorting to weapons of mass destruction. The NYT quotes Robert E. Kelly a professor at South Koreaâs Pusan University:
You have this massive agglomeration of everything that is important in South Korea â government, business and the huge population â and all of it is in this gigantic megalopolis that starts 30 miles from the border and ends 70 miles from the border… In terms of national security, itâs just nuts.
Not all of the NKâs weapons can reach Seoul. Most of its artillery has a range of three to six miles, but it has about 1,000 weapons that could hit Seoul, most hidden in caves and tunnels. But under a traditional artillery strategy, the North would never fire them all at once. Instead, it would hold some in reserve to avoid giving their positions away and to conserve munitions.
A study published by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability in 2012, accounting for these and other factors such as population density, concluded that the initial hours of an artillery barrage by the North focused on military targets would result in nearly 3,000 fatalities, while one targeting civilians would kill nearly 30,000 people. Thatâs without NK using any of its small nuclear weapons.
Regardless of how this plays out, unless there is a durable peace, it will end very badly for South Korea.
So, America has few strategic options, and none have a high probability of success. Questions remain about whether the North can miniaturize a nuclear weapon to fit within an ICBM missile nosecone, or if it has mastered the technology needed to survive re-entry into the Earthâs atmosphere.
Trump thought he could count on China to rein in NK, but that isnât occurring. Trump held out hope that China would see that a nuclear-armed North Korea isnât in its interests. But Beijingâs behavior suggests that it hopes the North Korean nuclear threat can be used to drive the US out of North Asia.
China remains very sensitive about what happened in Korea in 1950, when US forces moved into NK stopping at the Yalu River that marks the NK-Chinese border. The Chinese lost close to a million men repulsing that invasion. That was only 67 years ago, a blink in Chinaâs history.
Trump now has some hard decisions to make. More sanctions could increase the pressure on the Kim regime, but NK is already the most-sanctioned nation, and they havenât worked so far to disarm the North.
We shouldnât rule out a pre-emptive US attack, but there is a risk of a nuclear counterstrike on South Korea (and/or Japan) should even one NK nuclear missile survive.
We can return to the negotiating table, but three US administrations have tried that, and failed. The NK freeze might be phony, and if the NK demands were not being met, they could leave the table and resume weapons development like they have in the past.
We can work for regime change, but there is no guarantee that what comes next will be easier to work with. And our track record with regime change is terrible.
We can work for reunification of the two Koreas, and let them get on with partaking in the Asian Century. The story would become less about US needs or perceptions of the North. We would have to admit that we are not competent to control the history of this region.
Letâs see what the world’s greatest negotiator, he who alone can fix things, the smartest man with the highest IQ, comes up with. So far all he has done is what he always does, pass the blame. In this case, its China’s fault. Thinking that China will help is a dream; they love the situation we are in.
NK will not become another Iran, with a 20-year freeze on nuclear weapons development. Time to think Reunification.
Here is a nuclear musical interlude with Randy Newmanâs âPolitical Scienceâ from 1972:
Those who read the Wrongologist in email can view the video here.
Takeaway lyric:
We give them money, but are they grateful?
No, they’re spiteful and they’re hateful
They don’t respect us, so let’s surprise them
We’ll drop the big one, pulverize them
