Sunday, August 6, 2017

RED Line Who Fires First Nuke: U.S. or N.K. Both Saying to Prevent or Preempt War

Who Blinks First to End Mankind on Earth: The $64,000 Question

The difference between preventive and preemptive war now possibly advocated by the Trump administration – outlined here from Newsweek:

Definition Time

Preventive war is launched to destroy the potential threat of the targeted party, when an attack by that party is not imminent or known to be planned (e.g., Iraq invasion was our first preventive war – * the Bush administration said it was to stop Saddam Hussein from getting a nuclear weapon and attacking us or our allies in the ME).

* Preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power by strategically attacking before the balance of power has a chance to shift in the direction of an adversary. Preventive war is distinct from preemptive war, which is first strike when an attack is imminent. 

Preventive war undertaken without the approval of the United Nations is illegal under the modern framework of international law, Robert Delahunty and John Yoo from the G. W.  Bush administration maintained that standard was are unrealistic.

Preemptive war on the other hand is launched in anticipation of immediate aggression by another party. Further, it is a ** first-strike attack with nuclear weapons carried out to destroy an enemy's capacity to respond, and is based on the assumption that the enemy is planning an imminent attack.

** The United States has a partial, qualified no-first-use policy, stating that we will not use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess nuclear weapons or other WMD.

Large-scale missile defense systems are not first-strike weapons, but certain critics view them as first-strike enabling weapons. President Reagan’s proposed Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI – “Star Wars”) if it would have been deployed and proven successful, would have undermined the fundamental premise of MAD – that is Mutual Assured Destruction (the inevitable outcome of equal and unacceptable destruction for both sides in the event of nuclear war), removing the incentive for the US not to strike first.

These proposed defense systems, intended to lessen the risk of devastating nuclear war, would rather in fact, lead to it. Indeed, according to game theory, the side not building large-scale missile defenses would have an incentive to launch a pre-emptive first strike while such a strike could still get through.

Historical Background since the Cold War: Both superpowers (the former USSR and the U.S.) as well as NATO and the Eastern Bloc, built massive nuclear arsenals – aimed to a large extent at each other. 

However, they were never used, as leaders on both sides of the Iron Curtain realized that global thermonuclear war would not be in anyone’s interest and would likely and most-probably lead to the destruction of both sides, the planet as a whole with a nuclear winter, or total extinction level events and thus the end of mankind.

As far as North Korea  – they have built their decades of survival on threats, some blatant acts, and bragging rights with classic showmanship in their capital while citizens die across the land due to no services to the outside world where in the only see, hear, and do what the regime tells is news and what to believe and trust.

That message is always and only what the NK leadership – namely the “Supreme Leader” or some other fancy name since the founder Kim, Il-Sung, his son, Kim, Jung-Il, and now his son, Kim, Jung-un have ruled since WWII – they always say: We are building our nuclear capability to show you that if you attack us we will attack back and that’s why are getting prepared for your attack on us.” 

Thus, NK's strength is built and sustained on fear of us attacking them first as their justification to “get prepared just like the U.S." and they preach it 24/7.

And, now we say we might? WTF is wrong with this picture?

One thing is missing. As seen here in the run-up to Iraq invasion. 
History may in fact repeat itself but with “end of time” solution.

Boy, oh, boy stay tuned — this may only end up one way: Ugly...!!!

No comments: