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:
Post a Comment