Nuclear Threat

Does North Korea pose a genuine threat to the USA with a handful of nuclear missiles pointed in its general direction?

Does the USA pose a genuine threat to North Korea?

Both bear the scars of a dreadful war in the early 1950s; a war that has not officially ended. In the intervening years, South Korea has emerged as a powerhouse exporting nation with advanced technology competing with Japan and China boasting companies such as Samsung. North Korea, in comparison, has locked itself into a military specialisation to the detriment of its own people who slavishly admire their leader or land up in a gulag, starved to death.

And now they are testing ICBM missiles and it is only a matter of time before they are able to use one against its enemy, the sponsor of South Korea, the USA. And now both countries have belligerent leaders who want to prove themselves with a “good war”.

The USA accuse Russia and China of responsibility here. Russia and China would rather not be at war with the USAA, so having a proxy threat is perhaps useful. All out nuclear war, of course, is in the interests of nobody.

What is the endgame for this terrible standoff? It seems unlikely that either party would not blink due to the nature of Nuclear weapons. If North Korea were to risk launching one, the retaliation could be complete and final. They will never have enough weapons to stop a systematic invasion let alone a nuclear response, but America would most likely have to live with the threat until it can justify action to China and Russia or better yet, engage with them to finally oust the military regime of North Korea.

Guardian article

Reunification turned Germany into a world leader. It is time for Korea to reconsider its path for mutual benefit between the North and the South. Is it in the interests of the West, Japan or anyone for North Koreans to suffer so and for the shroud of death to hang over the region? Does Trump style diplomacy help or is there a better way to help the Koreans to unify?

Fear drives North Korea to act

Shoot to kill

The Prime Minister, electioneering, has said that she fully supports “shoot to kill” while defending herself from the resonant accusation that she reduced the police forces during her time as Home Secretary and since by nearly 50,000.

“Shoot to kill” may sound like a brief action of a few armed officers but the concentration of automatic weapon brandishing officers in London has increased so much in the last ten years. The reduction in police on the beat has made the city feel under siege rather than safe.

Armed police are useless as investigators. As a last resort, they are more effective than a riot squad armed with batons, but it is only as a last resort are they at all effective. The PM is blind to the actual problem, she thinks that brute force is the only path to defeating terrorism, but it is actually the presence of many police with guns that normalises the fear and rewards terrorism for changing the way that we live, under constant reminders of threat.

London has over 2 million cameras which are nearly useless in detection but serve police well after an incident has occurred as investigatory tools. Reduction of police forces by such large numbers means that the support staff necessary to investigate and detect simply are not there. Being able to also now monitor internet chatter would not strengthen detection, it would require another 100,000 back office staff. There are not enough now to detect issues and thinking they can trail 20,000 people and predict that when they hire vehicle, they should be arrested, is plainly illogical.

To defeat terrorism, remove the reasons that stimulate it. Of course, there will always be radicals and insane criminality. Of course, there will always be thugs. But breeding them with an imbalanced society and starving the police of resources is Theresa May’s real crime. She is the cause of this rash of terrorism.

Attacking Syria

The latest craze indulged in by Western Governments seems to be dropping bombs on Syria. It is intended to stop Daesh/ISIL from its path of terrorising civilisation but there are so many consequences that can not be sensed from 30,000 feet above. Bombs kill people, destroy lives and property as well as terrorists.

ISIL

Is it possible to grow up believing that others are not as worthy as you are. That there is a difference between you and others based on what you believe? Of course it is.

Most young people attach to one thing or another to their souls as they negotiate with the world. For some it is sport or pursuit of a mate. For others is a religious belief. The developing mind seems prone to go off on terrible tangents. Youth can act with a severity that no other age would likely tolerate or appreciate. The trick is to grow up successfully despite those who would lock us into teenaged angst through our whole lives. These include pederastic predators, certain cults and religious schools as well as dangerous sports and war.

Is ISIS a terrorist organisation, a revolution or simply a creation of the CIA? It probably is all three in its relationship with the external world. But internally it seems to operate like a cult with: hidden language, secrets and revelations, fervent worship of a figurehead, fear, a central philosophy to believe in and a powerful adhesive force that locks people into its grip.

By creating freedom fighter armies the warmongers are able to assist in proxy wars but creating an armed force has a certain danger. They may treat populations as the enemy as would appear to be the case with the ISIL terrorists. By proclaiming a caliphate they seek legitimacy in the modern world by using its technology to enslave and intimidate people.

They arose out of Iraq and Syria and have installed themselves, murdering thousands and enslaving entire populations to their teenaged whims. Their violence is extraordinary and completely out of place in modern civilisation. Are they any worse than Bashir Assad and his civil war and devastation of Syria? They are, because they are fighting a war they want to take to the world. And the world does not want to live like that so resistance is inevitable.

However that speaks of a future, at the present they control much of Iraq and Syria.

Religion and Extinction

We are different to any other species in that we have evolved what we call economics, science of extending survival. Or is it a massive inter-generational war that the current political generation are guilty of, increasingly responsible for causing environmental collapse.

Why do we measure progress by growth? When we solve that one, and measure progress with an economics that includes compounding interest for any future consequence of our indulgence.

Only then we can call ourselves good Christians or good Muslims or good Jews. We remain greedy and primitive in our mutual interests. Why think like this?

Part of the lesson of certain matters remaining secular and out of the control of the driving faith or the possessors of property or the military – but that the ultimate control must remain honestly in the hands of the people. So we have countries for that. But faith is a personal matter and your path to your saviour or prophet is a relationship between your self and something all powerful. Therefore when you are praying together it is as though a casting of individual threads to your personal heaven is a revelation to the self, not to the army, not to the workforce, not to the merchants, the bankers or even the holy ones we listen to preach their secret messages in sermons to the initiated. In all religions there seems to be a strata that pulls people up – spirituality is a wonderful thing, don’t get me wrong.

Having to take sides for your whole life is the commitment of belief. But the essence of individuality is the thing. It is the most important and elusive thing. Your thread can vibrate within a group but it can also find its own pattern. It does not matter. If we align beliefs into destructive paths then as a group we start to consume that which we have no right to, we take that we have to leave alone. The first lesson in The Book of Genesis was not to take the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge or die. Not to take the irreplaceable fruit means we must consider requirements of future life in our consumption.

The ways in which competing religions have interpreted this basic tenet of their own belief is astounding. The destruction of species is wanton, selfish and will result on our own death.

These words or wisdom are drowned by the clash of battle as we fight for our set of beliefs. But this fundamental exists. If we sow extinction, then we will become extinct. I am just not sure if today’s political science really gives a damn about the future.

World at war?

John Pilger is both a respected journalist and a bit of an alarmist. And what is wrong with alarm in today’s world where American influence stamps all over alternative values. After the binary division of the world that was the Cold War, The New American Century’s New World Order briefly reigned. It seems that the American incursion into Ukraine politics is the latest in a long list of US military acts in the name of democracy overthrowing democratically elected governments that Pilger writes about, usually from a war zone.

His recent article article about Dr Strangelove raises the alarm to a new level. Are the American military a hungry lumbering beast machine that needs war to create demand for itself so it can run up more debt someone can call growth in the economy? Or is it the world’s freedom fighter, overturning injustice like some sort of Superman, knowing the results of its actions must be believed in, not only by the fundamentalists who seem to believe anything. But by the liberals as well.

Theft of a airliner a possibility

Updates

Article published 13 March 2014 1030GMT

Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 that has disappeared, could be suspected causing engine status update blips for four hours after the flight cut all contact with the ground. Are we seeing, once again the signs of a 9/11 style event being prepared for by stealing airliners, probably murdering the passengers as human shields are no longer relevant and a big complex hostage drama is a distraction to the achievement of the end goal.

No, it is hard to admit but Osama bin Laden achieved more for Islam (most of it awful and terrible) than the Ayatollah Khomeni did in his long standoff drama with the USA and ensuing isolation. The 4 hour range of the flight takes it somewhere and the US must be concerned about. If anyone can find where its probably landed, the American security apparatus better be able to. Otherwise the world may be held to ransom. That arc of suspicion takes in Pakistan and the Arabian Sea.

The media have probably been fed red herrings when it comes to passenger information, the fake passports of two Iranian asylum seekers, or whatever they really were if they exist, as those kinds of details distract from the obvious. The search for where the plane exploded over the sea is prevents “panic”. But a jet liner being stolen in Pakistan may indeed have another purpose. If the Taleban has stolen it then it is possibly for an extraordinary ransom, to fund their war, or as an end game bargaining tool. Or indeed a weapon.

How can this kind of thing happen? The international air security apparatus is supposed to prevent this sort of incident. Of course this is purely conjecture, but it does make more sense than the plane vanishing. There has to be a logic to the explanation, and complete vanishment seems unlikely.

It would reassure the public who now possibly endangered by the stolen airliner. If it is a disparate group like the 9/11 crew rather than a political entity, for example, The Taleban, the aircraft may have a planned use. The clock is ticking.


Update Mar. 13th 1500GMT: apparently the signals from the engines did not get received, after all. Maybe officials at Mayasian Airlines have been told to deny this?


Update: Mar. 14th 0045GMT: And now The White House is exhausting all possibilities including searching over the Indian Ocean and Vietnam. Maybe my theory is correct. The simple theft of the asset means landing it and hiding it in plain sight.


Update 18 March Wired magazine publishes more sensible explanation written by a pilot. I think his explanation may likely be correct considering the non finding of evidence and silence of the passengers due to asphyxia of the entire plane who were probably never to wake up.


Ugly Politicians

Perhaps I should qualify: three ugly politicians. They are also bad politicians.

Now, I do not mean that all bad politicians are ugly, far from it. Nor that all ugly politicians are bad. Not at all. I just mean that these three and various other villains become or are ugly. This is no attempt to draw comparisons or correlations – lets leave that to the experts! No, what I want to do is purely character assassination.

Kim Jong Il – although it would be churlish to fail to acknowledge how beautiful he is considered by his own media and owned people.

And the two on this sorry tale of appeasement. The sad figure is now bankrupt non-player and BNP leader Nick Griffin who seems to desperately try to take Britain back to the middle ages when a man could have surfs basically defending cruel dictator “I have a right to murder all my people” Bashar Assad because Damascus is not in ruins (as if he would bomb himself) but is leading a bustling life. Because Mr Griffin is able to deny what he sees he is able to maintain a set of beliefs.

How much of our image of Assad is formed by propaganda? Or is he the real thing, more evil than ugly but about as evil looking as Hitler?

Pause and win

How Obama could deal with Syria. Play the long game and make Assad do it. Invasion seems pointless. Everyone appears to be at war with everyone else – want to join in? Get the chemical weapons out of the equation

President Obama drew a red line in the sand and to maintain any dignity he has to make good his threat. That is yesterday’s thinking. The need to retaliate for the use of chemical weapons by someone in Syria points to one thing. Syria has illegal weapons and he needs to be made to get rid of them. Not by invasion, that is too expensive. Not by trying to blow Damascus into the ground – you would kill large numbers of civilians, too.

But by negotiation. Imagine this?

President O: President Assad, you are guilty of possessing chemical weapons and they are being used. We suggest that you have lost control of your weapons and are therefore now a danger to the world. You have to now stop your war and we have to destroy your weapons or the world will force my hand and we will have to hunt you down. Your crimes against humanity are well documented, both before and largely since the war.

President A: We will never hand over our weapons. If you attack us, we will defend ourselves.

President O: We have heard that one before, and look what our generals did to Saddam. Now we have nothing against the good people of Syria. We have a problem with you harbouring and allowing or using deadly gas against any people. We can destroy them safely and if you hand them over now, we will do it for no charge and help the new Government rebuild.

President A: I will never agree to this.

President O: Then I would not stand so close to the window, Bashar. [CLICK!]

Twenty years ago, that would be pure paranoid conspiracy. Today, that is probably how this will pan out. Bombing Damascus would simply be sad. It is not the fault of the inhabitants. Destroy Syrian air=power – now if that was achieved then more chemical weapon attacks would be a significant risk. The only strategy is to force the most influential actor in this, Assad, to rid Syria of Chemical Weapons so when he inevitably faces trial for his crimes against humanity, there would be something positive in the balance.