To War or Not to War!

To War or Not to War!

North Korea! Fight or NOT to Fight!

That is the question!

The recent concerto of insults between Kim Jung Un and Donald Trump was neither pleasing to the ear nor inspiring to our naive imaginations. If nuclear war were to break out, no one could envision what the outcome might be. It’s one of those quandaries that have remained unanswered for decades.

Some history: during the Cold War the Soviet Union and the USA did not enter into a nuclear kinetic confrontation. Both sides realized that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the symbols of two Japanese cities that were evaporated in fractions of a second. Consequently, a world war consisting of nuclear confrontations would serve no purpose other than reaffirm man’s own self-destructive tendencies.

During the fifties and sixties, no country was better prepared to launch a pre-emptive strike than the Soviet Union. However, the leaders particularly Nikita Khrushchev were acutely aware of the repercussions of WWII. In that conflict, millions of brave Soviet soldiers and civilians died fighting for Stalingrad. That was not gratuitous violence. Russia was fighting to end the war that Nazi Germany had initiated years before.

In contrast, North Korea has no need to respond to the tweets of POTUS Trump. Leaders who have experienced the actual carnage/ disaster of war are not apt to initiate or precipitate a war. It’s imperative that both Kim Jung Un and Trump lower their parallel self-destructive rhetoric ASAP! Nothing beneficial can come from mutually assured  boisterous accusations [MABA] vs. mutually assured destruction [MAD].

It would behoove Chinese President Xi Jinping to assist the world in preventing the eminent conflagration of his financial/political toady, Kim Jung Un. Similarly, it would behoove our POTUS to understand that verbal mud-slinging must soon be replaced with skilled diplomacy.

When there is no modicum of trust between two distant adversaries; incidental conflagrations might arise more frequently and sooner than one might have expected. It terms of military preparedness, it is wise to game out any scenarios where there could be kinetic action among several participants. Such players would be:

  • South Korea
  • Japan
  • USA
  • China
  • Russia

It is a completely different matter to actually realize any successful outcome of a nuclear/hybrid war among these five participants. Nothing could survive the radioactive blasts/fireballs that would be hurled into a highly dense population of 25 million innocent people that live in close proximities of the thirty miles between the DMZ and Seoul. Most of these innocent people are below the age of forty years old.

The Korean peninsula would erupt into a maelstrom of fire, debris and radioactive waste. Nothing could survive. The notion of an unscathed  contiguous China, Japan, or Russia would be ludicrous.The South China Sea would be aflame with all types of artifacts.  For all practical purposes, merchant shipping around the world would be non-extant.

It’s time for some mature cognition. It would behoove both warring sides to do the unexpected—send ambassadors to each side.

More history: General/President Dwight Eisenhower understood the lessons of war. The first assignment of this novitiate Republican was to end the pathetic war in Korea [1953] where 36,914 brave American troops died in combat and 20,617 passed away from other deaths [CBS News, June 5, 2000]. On each side, the casualty tallies run as follows:

Allies

  • dead 178,405 
  • missing 320,925
  • wounded 566,434

North Korean/Chinese 

  • dead 750,000
  • missing 145,000
  • wounded 789,000. [Wikipedia]
  • Total number of civilians killed/wounded: 2.5million.

America usually has POTUSs who have never been in the military or seen any kinetic actions yet who insist on sending us to war [ Obama, Bush Jr., Clintons, Reagan, LBJ]. Trump promised something different.

Dexter Gordon, the famous American jazz tenor saxophonist, said the following:

“In nuclear war all men are cremated equally.”

Related posts

6 thoughts on “To War or Not to War!

  1. Embrey

    I agree Dr. Steve. This brinksmanship could end in disaster.
    I saw your comment regarding China. Could either Iran or Pakistan possibly help bring Kim to the table? I think we all know these two leaders appear to have too much face invested to appear to be the weakling.

  2. Joseph Chiara

    I hope POTUS reads this… these hawks without military experience coupled with lack of reality of the consequences of war and no conscious for other people’s lives and welfare, sociopaths-psychopaths, are very troubling, such as Kristol, Bolton, Cheney, Rice, and the others from W’s administration and O’s.

    Trump promised he would be different, but his rhetoric is becoming dangerous and one horrible miscalculation or mistake, or accident or impulsive reaction can lead to a horror that makes hurricanes look tame.

  3. I mean seriously, doctor, we’re dealing with a little pampered, arrogant man who is the “idol” of his country.Please see my little book about this https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/749928
    This “Rocket Man” is so out of touch with reality, and I think, as you mentioned earlier, someone from his own ranks may have to take him down.

  4. MrTuvok

    Could you develop your view on the generals when you have an occasion, and the administration in general? (No pun intended) Seems to be awfully few supporters of his campaign promises?

    Also, I didn’t understand your objections to Gorka. If his understanding of Kennedy was limited to the text books, so what? He was able to forcefully defend Trump in the media. You can’t say that about the generals or Tillerson.

  5. DESERT FOX

    Trump should have just ignored kim as China is not going to let him start a war, but Trump as the loud mouth bully that he is entered into a pissing match that elevated kim and lowered Trump.

  6. MrTuvok

    More information is coming out that general Kelly is not serving the president well.

    Dana Rohrabacher wants to connect the president to information that will vindicate him on the Russia collusion story, and Kelly directs him to the intelligence community, which at least on one level are his adversaries? The very same agencies that tried to sell the Russia collusion story in the first place?

Comments are closed.