US closer to 'nuclear war with North Korea' than ever before: Former Joint Chiefs head

[Johnboy60]

The United States faces a greater threat of nuclear conflict on the Korean peninsula than at any previous time, said a former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under both presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

"We're actually closer in my view, to a nuclear war with North Korea and in that region than we have ever been," Ret. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz in an interview Sunday. "I don't see the opportunities to solve this diplomatically at this particular point."

US closer than ever to 'nuclear war with North Korea': Former Joint Chiefs head

 

[Basil the Great]

Very disturbing to say the least.

 

[zephcom]

The United States faces a greater threat of nuclear conflict on the Korean peninsula than at any previous time, said a former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under both presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

"We're actually closer in my view, to a nuclear war with North Korea and in that region than we have ever been," Ret. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen told ABC News "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz in an interview Sunday. "I don't see the opportunities to solve this diplomatically at this particular point."

US closer than ever to 'nuclear war with North Korea': Former Joint Chiefs head

There is so much that one could say about this but I think I will just settle on mentioning that praying is not going to fix this mess. It is going to take some statesmanship from people who have never demonstrated statesmanship in the past.

I'm going off to a New Years Eve party shortly and will be wishing people a happy New Year. I sincerely hope that wish comes true.

 

[dgiharris]

This reminds me of a tactic used by marketers and those not familiar with the concept of statistical relevancy.

Lets say I like eating fruit and love apples. Someone turns me on to kiwis and I start eating kiwis. Then I hear on the news that kiwis are 13 times more likely to lead to a heart attack than apples.

Now, my first instinct is to gasp and say "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] 13 times more likely, I better stop eating kiwis". However the real question is "how likely are kiwis to give me a heart attack".

Eating apples gives you a 0.00001% chance of getting a heart attack and eating kiwis gives you a 0.00013% chance of getting a heart attack. Is 0.00013% even worth worrying about? No.

I view nuclear war with North Korea in much the same light. Yes, we are "closer" to a nuclear war with North Korea, but that is closer in the since of there being a 0.00013% chance of it happening vs a 0.00001% chance of it happening.

I believe that currently the masses are focusing on 20th century solutions that just won't work in a 21st century technical world.

Right now the focus is on "preventing countries from getting nuclear weapons". That was easy to do in the 20th century becuase of technological limitations developing a nuclear weapon cost trillions of dollars and advanced technology.

Now, what costs trillions of dollars back in 1960, 1970, and 1980 costs millions of dollars now. Technology has brough the cost down on so many things while simultaneously rendering the advanced technology of the 20th century commonplace by today's standards....

So we need a new model and mindset in regards to nuclear weapons. Right now, any tech company on the planet that wishes to throw a billion dollars at a nuclear program can develop a nuclear weapon. Apple, Google, Sony, Panasonic, Toyota, etc etc all have the brain power and resources to make a nuclear weapon... so trying to prevent "governments" from developing nuclear weapons would be like trying to stop governments from developing their own airplane and car programs. It is a losing model.

We need to figure out a new model. You can't prevent technology progression... sure you can stall it for a while, but eventually it becomes too cheap and easy to prevent and that is the case with nuclear weapons.

 

[Gadarene]

So we need a new model and mindset in regards to nuclear weapons. Right now, any tech company on the planet that wishes to throw a billion dollars at a nuclear program can develop a nuclear weapon. Apple, Google, Sony, Panasonic, Toyota, etc etc all have the brain power and resources to make a nuclear weapon... so trying to prevent "governments" from developing nuclear weapons would be like trying to stop governments from developing their own airplane and car programs. It is a losing model.

It’s not merely a matter of money, however. Nuclear tech is subject to export control from many of the countries that do have access to it - developing that tech from scratch can be quite a challenge.

I’d also argue that nine nuclear weapons states in 70 years - given that JFK feared twenty nuclear weapons states by 1975 - is actually a sign that you can dissuade states from going nuclear. A combination of the NPT and the US security umbrella, while imperfect, has held things at a pretty decent level.

We need to figure out a new model. You can't prevent technology progression... sure you can stall it for a while, but eventually it becomes too cheap and easy to prevent and that is the case with nuclear weapons.

A factor which keeps the cost high, however, is keeping your nuclear weapons program a secret (I’m studying for an exam on this right now, so will try not to bore you with this too much, but) - essentially, because somewhere like Iraq tried to build their own nuclear weapons infrastructure from scratch, AND keep it secret after the Israelis bombed one of their reactors, it pushed the cost up by a couple of orders of magnitude. Nuclear weapons are cheap-ish if you have a massive tech infrastructure already and you’re not keeping it a secret. The NPT norm as well as US attitudes on containing further nuclear weapons breakouts has made it more likely that states will try and gain nuclear weapons secretly, which makes the cost of it much higher.

There also hasn’t been any huge leaps forward in terms of enrichment tech as far as I know. The stuff being written of as speculative new technologies back in the 90s is still not really feasible.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I'm at the point where I just want them to get this on already.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I'm at the point where I just want them to get this on already.

Yes the sooner the better for people to die. Over these two idiots.

 

[Gadarene]

Well, this is topical.

3 Takeaways From Kim Jong-un's 2018 New Year's Address

Kim claims he has a launch authenticator close at hand, but also the article refers to an NK policy statement saying that the supreme leader has launch authority.

Assuming this can be trusted (a big assumption perhaps) it is at least good to have some idea of what NK’s command and control setup for the launch of the nuclear arsenal is.

 

[Nithavela]

 

[nChrist]

God's Will be done, and it will be.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think North Korea will do it and they would have to provoke a ground war. This program is costing them a fortune and they are dealing with sanctions in the dead of winter. We have seen this before, North Korea makes some compromises to get the sanctions lifted and resume the program. This time that program has to be dismantled, diplomacy will have to be predicated on it. As if that wasn't enough tension Tillerson is trying to cut the budget at the State Dept. by 30% while our military budget just went up by 50 billion dollars. Not a good sign, and consider this, what is the one thing that could cause Trump's favorability ratings to spike?

With all that in the news there is reason to be gravely concerned but North Korea needs to abandon it's nuclear weapons program. That point should be nonnegotiable.

 

[zephcom]

I don't think North Korea will do it and they would have to provoke a ground war. This program is costing them a fortune and they are dealing with sanctions in the dead of winter. We have seen this before, North Korea makes some compromises to get the sanctions lifted and resume the program. This time that program has to be dismantled, diplomacy will have to be predicated on it. As if that wasn't enough tension Tillerson is trying to cut the budget at the State Dept. by 30% while our military budget just went up by 50 billion dollars. Not a good sign, and consider this, what is the one thing that could cause Trump's favorability ratings to spike?

With all that in the news there is reason to be gravely concerned but North Korea needs to abandon it's nuclear weapons program. That point should be nonnegotiable.

If I were Kim, I wouldn't abandon the nuclear weapons program. To many nations have done that only to find America invading them a few years later. America has never invaded a nation which has an active nuclear arms program.

 

[mark kennedy]

If I were Kim, I wouldn't abandon the nuclear weapons program. To many nations have done that only to find America invading them a few years later. America has never invaded a nation which has an active nuclear arms program.

The last thing we are going to want to do is invade North Korea, I don't see that on the agenda. A war like that would devastate the Asian world. It would be a diplomatic nightmare, they really need time to let the sanctions sink in. What's more just because a nation has nukes doesn't mean they intend to use them, it was expected when India and Pakistan nearly went to war but it never happened because businesses started moving out.

 

[zephcom]

The last thing we are going to want to do is invade North Korea, I don't see that on the agenda. A war like that would devastate the Asian world. It would be a diplomatic nightmare, they really need time to let the sanctions sink in. What's more just because a nation has nukes doesn't mean they intend to use them, it was expected when India and Pakistan nearly went to war but it never happened because businesses started moving out.

Never discount American colonial instinct. If money can be made by invading North Korea, we will invade it. If money can be made by 'regime change' we will do that. If money can be made from a ground war, we will do that.

There has never been a peace treaty between North and South Korea. Both nations desire a combined Korea. The only barrier to that is which ideology will prevail in a united Korea. Toppling the Kim regime would make it possible for South Korea to rule over a combined Korea.

Possessing nuclear weapons is the best security Kim can have since he doesn't even have to hit America. He need only hit either Japan or South Korea. Both are major economic partners with America and money will be lost with a nuclear attack on either or both.

 

[mark kennedy]

Never discount American colonial instinct. If money can be made by invading North Korea, we will invade it. If money can be made by 'regime change' we will do that. If money can be made from a ground war, we will do that.

There has never been a peace treaty between North and South Korea. Both nations desire a combined Korea. The only barrier to that is which ideology will prevail in a united Korea. Toppling the Kim regime would make it possible for South Korea to rule over a combined Korea.

Possessing nuclear weapons is the best security Kim can have since he doesn't even have to hit America. He need only hit either Japan or South Korea. Both are major economic partners with America and money will be lost with a nuclear attack on either or both.

There is not going to be a regime change and any hope of North and South Korea being reunited faded away decades ago. The key to nuclear weapons is to never have to use them, if North Korea ever does it's over for them. North Korea needs to dismantle their nukes, otherwise these sanctions will continue to weaken them. It is not making them stronger it is making them weaker. If he puts those nukes on the table it opens a whole world of possibilities, I'm sure their neighbors would enthusiastically help them build a more modern infrastructure. If they don't they will continue to be isolated and that's bad for everyone, especially North Korea.

 

[zephcom]

There is not going to be a regime change and any hope of North and South Korea being reunited faded away decades ago. The key to nuclear weapons is to never have to use them, if North Korea ever does it's over for them. North Korea needs to dismantle their nukes, otherwise these sanctions will continue to weaken them. It is not making them stronger it is making them weaker. If he puts those nukes on the table it opens a whole world of possibilities, I'm sure their neighbors would enthusiastically help them build a more modern infrastructure. If they don't they will continue to be isolated and that's bad for everyone, especially North Korea.

Of Course the key to nuclear weapons is to never use them. And when a nation possesses nuclear weapons, they stop the likelihood of things like conventional wars or regime change also.

North Korea 'needs' to dismantle their nukes only from the POV of American ideology. From the POV of a dictator who possesses absolute control of every aspect of his nation, nukes are the only thing keeping him alive.

HE does not concern himself with such things as pursuing material wealth for for his nation. He only concerns himself with material things for himself and staying alive so he can enjoy them.

The American government constantly makes the mistake of thinking everyone on the planet is going to always do the thing which makes the most money. Making lots of money for his nation has nothing at all to do with North Korea's plans.

Maintaining the god-like status of his family's control over Koreans, living a long life, and re-uniting the people on the Korean peninsula under his control is what motivates him. People who believe that America can 'buy' his cooperation with the promise of his people making lots of 'American money' will, in the end, find themselves sucked into yet another ground war on the Korean peninsula with the possibility of having to fight both China and Russia in that war.

His hope is that his nuclear weapons will keep America at bay long enough for him to overrun South Korea because we can't fight back fast enough to stop a nuclear launch even if we start the nuclear war.

America is just not going to buy its way out of this one by holding out a carrot on a stick. We have betrayed our promises too many times for that to work again.

 

[mark kennedy]

Of Course the key to nuclear weapons is to never use them. And when a nation possesses nuclear weapons, they stop the likelihood of things like conventional wars or regime change also.

North Korea 'needs' to dismantle their nukes only from the POV of American ideology. From the POV of a dictator who possesses absolute control of every aspect of his nation, nukes are the only thing keeping him alive.

HE does not concern himself with such things as pursuing material wealth for for his nation. He only concerns himself with material things for himself and staying alive so he can enjoy them.

The American government constantly makes the mistake of thinking everyone on the planet is going to always do the thing which makes the most money. Making lots of money for his nation has nothing at all to do with North Korea's plans.

Maintaining the god-like status of his family's control over Koreans, living a long life, and re-uniting the people on the Korean peninsula under his control is what motivates him. People who believe that America can 'buy' his cooperation with the promise of his people making lots of 'American money' will, in the end, find themselves sucked into yet another ground war on the Korean peninsula with the possibility of having to fight both China and Russia in that war.

His hope is that his nuclear weapons will keep America at bay long enough for him to overrun South Korea because we can't fight back fast enough to stop a nuclear launch even if we start the nuclear war.

America is just not going to buy its way out of this one by holding out a carrot on a stick. We have betrayed our promises too many times for that to work again.

I'm no where near that fatalistic about the situation and the US isn't the only country wanting North Korea to put away those nukes. We have seen this repeatedly but it was pretty obvious that he had very limited capability along these lines. Now he is fully nuclear capable which is unacceptable. The UN sanctions wasn't a unilateral action, there is an international consensus. Iran was an even more difficult problem since they have everything they need for nukes within their boarders. Eventually they came to the table, North Korea is going to have to at some point. This time, they will have to talk about dismantling those weapons, they may squirm around a bit but it's the only thing that will work. China has a larger stake in the political destiny of North Korea, should NK relent and dismantle those weapons it's not really the US that would help them modernize their infrastructure. My guess is South Korea and China would be the key to that.

 

[Antig]

Rubbish.....

Nuclear war is not closer. It's all talk.

 

[mark kennedy]

Rubbish.....

Nuclear war is not closer. It's all talk.

Opinions vary:

The United States is "closer to a nuclear war with North Korea" than ever, Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday, adding that he does not "see the opportunities to solve this diplomatically at this particular point." (Former Joint Chiefs chairman: Nuclear war with North Korea closer than ever. CNN)
​

I don't think I would dismiss this man's warning quite so quickly.

 

[Antig]

Opinions vary:

The United States is "closer to a nuclear war with North Korea" than ever, Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday, adding that he does not "see the opportunities to solve this diplomatically at this particular point." (Former Joint Chiefs chairman: Nuclear war with North Korea closer than ever. CNN)
​

I don't think I would dismiss this man's warning quite so quickly.

I would, and I do. All hype.