It is falsely claimed that:

1)      Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

2)      A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable.

3)      The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

4)      The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

5)      Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

6)      The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

Let’s deal with these myths one after another.

Myth #1: Nuclear weapons are irrelevant in the 21^st century security environment. They are relics of the Cold War.

The facts: Nuclear weapons are HIGHLY RELEVANT in the 21^st century security environment. They protect America and all of its allies against the following three, potentially catastrophic, security threats: a nuclear/chemical/biological attack, a large-scale conventional attack, and nuclear proliferation.

megoizzy (CC)

Russia has 2,800 strategic nuclear warheads (including 1,550 deployed) and up to 4,000 tactical warheads – and the means to deliver all 6,800 if need be. Its 434 ICBMs can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads to the CONUS; its 14 ballistic missile submarines can deliver over 2,200 warheads to the CONUS (while sitting in their ports); and each of its 251 strategic bombers can carry up to 7 warheads (1 freefall bomb and 6 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles). Its Tu-95 bomber fleet alone can deliver over 700 warheads to the middle of America.

China has at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, and the means to deliver 1,274 of them. Among these are almost 70 ICBMs, 120-140 MRBMs, over 1,600 SRBMs, dozens of land-attack cruise missiles, six ballistic missile submarines, and 440 nuclear-capable aircraft. While the vast majority of its SRBMs and cruise missiles are reportedly conventionally-armed at present, they could be armed with nuclear weapons anytime, which is called “breakout capability.”

Then there’s North Korea with its nuclear arsenal (which it has announced it will grow) and ICBMs capable of reaching the US, and Iran, which is coming closer to achieving nuclear weapon status everyday.

Besides deterring nuclear attack, nuclear weapons also protect America’s treaty allies against a large-scale conventional attack – ensuring that it has never happened so far.

Myth #2: A “world without nuclear weapons” is both realistically attainable and desirable. 

The facts: A world without nuclear weapons (“Global Zero”) is neither achievable nor desirable. Not achievable, because no other country in the world is following America’s disarmament “example” (and foreign countries don’t care about America’s “examples”; they care only about their self-interest). No other country is following the US on the road to “Global Zero”. Accordingly, there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons.

Russia has recently declared it will not cut its nuclear arsenal nor enter into any negotiations to that end. It is actually building UP its arsenal (as allowed to do so by the New START) and modernizing it. China, which has up to 3,000 nuclear warheads, is also rapidly building up and modernizing its arsenal, and refusing to even disclose its size or enter into any talks – let alone formal treaty negotiations – about it. Likewise, India and Pakistan refuse to join the Nonproliferation Treaty, disclose the size of their arsenals, or enter into any talks – let alone arms control treaties – pertaining to these arsenals. Ditto North Korea, which has recently announced it will NEVER give up its nuclear arsenal and that, if anything, it will INCREASE its size and restart the Yongboyng reactor to harvest plutonium from spent fuel rods.

So NO nuclear power wants to join the West in its suicidal nuclear disarmament quest. None whatsoever. Not Russia, not China, not India and Pakistan, not North Korea. And, of course, Iran is racing towards nuclear power status.

Even Bruce Blair, a supporter of America’s nuclear disarmament, testified recently before the House Armed Services Committee on March 19^th that even if America cut its nuclear arsenal deeply, e.g. along the lines of what his organization (Global Zero) proposes, NOBODY would reciprocate. (1:04:41)

Which is true – Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, etc., are all refusing to even cut, let alone eliminate, their nuclear arsenals. Obama has NO followers on the road to his totally unrealistic goal of “global zero”. There will never be a “global zero.”

Nuclear weaponry is a genie that cannot be put back into the bottle. It cannot be “un-invented” or banished from the face of the Earth, contrary to the unrealistic dreams of several US Presidents, including Ronald Reagan (this shows that, alas, Reagan wasn’t perfect and had some flaws).

Nor would a “nuclear-free world” be safer and more peaceful than it is now, contrary to Obama’s false claims that the US should “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” On the contrary, it would be less peaceful and secure.

Humanity lived through “Global Zero” – in a world without nukes – for almost its entire history from its dawn to 1945. During that time, there were numerous and horribly destructive wars between the great powers of the time, each one leading to huge casualties among combatants and civilians and to great destruction. Examples included the Peloponesian war, Rome’s wars of conquest, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of Religion, the Thirty Years War, the Seven Years’ War, the Napoleonic Wars, and of course, the two World Wars. Not to mention the numerous bloody civil wars such as those in the US (1861-1865) and Russia (1918-1923).

5 million people, including 1 million Frenchmen, died in the Napoleonic Wars. Proportionally to the populations of today, that would be 50 million Europeans, including 10 million Frenchmen. French casualties in these wars were 14% higher than in WW1. In that war alone, about 10 million people died; in World War 2, over 60 million, and its perpetrators attempted the extermination of entire nations (peoples) and even races. The sheer barbarity and murder witnessed during that war is unmatched by any conflict before or after that war.

Since 1945, however – the advent of nuclear weapons – there has been NO war between the great powers. And it is mostly, if not entirely, because of nuclear weapons, which have moderated their behavior and forced them to accept coexistence with each other even if they have diametrically opposed ideologies. Nuclear weapons have taught them that even the most difficult compromise is better than a nuclear exchange.

Nuclear weapons have not ended war completely – no invention will ever do that – but they have eliminated great power wars. All wars since 1945 have been either between smaller, non-world-power countries (e.g. conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbors), or between a world power and a weaker country (e.g. Iraq, Vietnam), or between a country and an insurgency (e.g. the US vs the Taleban).

Such conflicts have a much smaller scale, body count, and destructive power than great power wars. Since WW2, there hasn’t been a conflict even approaching the sheer barbarity and destruction of WW2, and it is mostly, if not entirely, due to nuclear weapons.

Instead of seeking their scrapping, we should all learn to love them.

Myth #3: The nuclear triad is too expensive and not worth the cost.

The facts: The nuclear triad is NOT too expensive and is well worth the cost. The ICBM leg of the nuclear triad – the cheapest, most ready, most responsive, and most dispersed leg – costs only $1.1 bn per year to maintain; the bomber leg, only $2.5 bn per year. The entire nuclear arsenal, including all the warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, supporting facilities, and personnel costs only $32-38 bn per year to maintain, which is only 6.3% of the entire military budget ($611 bn in FY2013, pre-sequestration).

For that low cost, taxpayers get a large, diverse, survivable nuclear triad capable of surviving even a large-scale first strike and of striking anywhere in the world with any needed measure of power. A triad that gives the President huge flexibility in where, when, and how to strike; a triad that keeps the enemy guessing as to how the US would retaliate.

As Robert Kaplan says, “Don’t give your enemy too few problems to solve because if you do, he’ll solve them.”

Without the ICBM leg, the enemy would have to destroy only 2 submarine bases, 3 bomber bases, and any SSBNs that would be on patrol. WITH the ICBM leg still existing, the enemy would also have to make sure he destroys every single USAF ICBM silo; there are 450, and the USAF may have built decoy siloes.

Numbers don’t lie. Liberals do.

Without a triad, the nuclear deterrent would’ve been much less survivable than it is. This will be even MORE important as the arsenal is cut to even lower, post-New-START, levels.

A nuclear triad is the most survivable and most flexible nuclear arsenal arrangement ever invented, which is why the US, Russia, China, and Israel all have it, and why India is developing it. The Air Force is also considering the development of a rail-mobile ICBM, which could be hidden in innocently-looking, civilian-style railroad cars.

Myth #4: The entire nuclear arsenal is too expensive and siphons money away from other defense programs.

The facts: According to the Stimson Center, maintaining the US nuclear deterrent costs ca. $32–36 bn per year, including all the warheads, delivery systems, support facilities, personnel, and nuclear-related intelligence. This is a paltry 5.872% of the FY2013 military budget ($613 bn per the FY2013 NDAA). Modernizing the nuclear arsenal will, according to Stimson, cost up to $390 bn over the next decade, i.e. $39 bn per year on average. This is 6.4% of the FY2013 military budget. These are microscoping percentages.

So the US provides a large nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies at a cost of only 6% of its total military budget.

Furthermore, even if the ENTIRE nuclear arsenal were scrapped IMMEDIATELY and UNILATERALLY today, that would “save” a paltry $36 bn per year and thus fail to come even close to paying for sequestration, let alone balancing the federal budget.

No, the US nuclear arsenal is not siphoning money away from anything. As usual, it’s a scapegoat for liberals.

It is, in fact, other, more costly defense programs that are siphoning money away from nuclear deterrence and other defense priorities. For example, the development and acquisition of 2,400 short-range, understealthed, slow, sluggish F-35 strike jets will cost $400 bn. A single aircraft carrier costs $15 bn, yet is tragically vulnerable to ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, and naval mines. Yet, the biggest cost drivers in the defense budget are personnel programs (pay, benefits, healthcare, retirement, etc.), which, unless seriously reformed, will consume the ENTIRE defense budget by no later than FY2039. That means no money for nuclear deterrence or for weapons of any kind.

And while F-35s and aircraft carriers are increasingly and prohibitively expensive, they’re also increasingly vulnerable and useless for the threat environments the US military will have to operate in. Meanwhile, the next generation bomber will be able to strike from well over the horizon – even the CONUS – and submarines have always been stealthy. USAF ICBMs sit in hardened siloes, can strike any place on the planet, and may be replaced by rail-mobile ones (see above).

Myth #5: Conventional weapons, missile defense systems, and cyberweapons can replace nuclear weapons in a very wide range of missions and scenarios and against the vast majority of targets.

The facts: Such claims are preposterous. None of these weapons have anything even close to the destructive, crippling power of atomic weapons.

Conventional weapons utterly lack such power. Even the most powerful conventional bombs – MOABs and the now-retired Daisy Cutters – have the explosive power approaching only that of the lowest-yield nuclear warheads, and MOAB is not even designed to penetrate anything.

Cyberweapons can shut down computer networks, but only temporarily, and can’t physically destroy anything. Buildings, vehicles, warships, aircraft, and humans will still exist. Cyberweapons can only complement other types of arms, but never replace them.

Nor can missile defense ever replace nuclear weapons. It has long been an article of faith among conservatives, including conservative think-tank analysts, that it can, but the truth is that it can’t. This truth will be uncomfortable for them, but my job as defense analysts is to tell people the truth, not what they want to hear.

Missile defense technology is still in its infancy. Moreover, one needs several interceptors to shoot down one missile. For example, to shoot down one Russian ICBM would take 7 ground-based interceptors of the type deployed in AK and CA. US missile defense systems (except the PATRIOT) have never been tested in massive missile barrages – the type of missile attacks the US will actually have to counter.

Furthermore, BMD systems’ ability to distinguish real warheads from decoys is yet unclear, and there are no systems available for boost-phase interception. But worst of all, BMD interceptors are far more expensive than the ballistic missiles they’re designed to intercept. A THAAD missile costs $9-10 mn; an SM-3, $10 mn; a ground-based interceptor, $70 mn. It is far cheaper to build and launch ballistic missiles than to intercept them. Furthermore, America’s enemies already have such huge inventories of BMs of all types – measured in thousands – that they are and will always be able to overwhelm American BMD systems through sheer numbers.

The best way to protect against missiles of any kind is to kill the archer, not the arrow. Only “offensive” systems – strike systems – can do that. This includes ICBMs, SLBMs, cruise missiles, bombers, and theater strike aircraft.

Myth #6: The fewer nuclear weapons the US has, the better; cutting America’s nuclear deterrent makes America safer.

The facts: These claims are also completely false. No nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself – whether uni-, bi-, or multilaterally. No nation in history has increased its security by indulging in arms reduction and disarmament – such policies have only weakened, and reduced the security of, the  nations practicing them.

Myth #6 is, in fact, an utter rejection of any principle or notion of deterrence or of peace through strength; it turns these principles upside down. Myth #6 is essentially a claim that weakness is good and leads to peace and security; that weakening one’s own military (and that’s what cutting its arsenals of weapons does – it weakens the military) makes one more secure and the world more peaceful.

Many variations of this myth have been uttered by the Left. For example, during the forementioned HASC Strategic Forces Subcommitteee hearing, its ranking member, Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee, an ardent enemy of nuclear weapons, claimed that the biggest cut in America’s nuclear deterrent – made by the elder President Bush in the early 1990s – was “a good thing”, that it made America and the world more secure and peaceful, and that this is supposedly shared by the “mainstream” of American opinion. Another strident leftist, John Garamendi (D-CA), claimed that “whatever we can do to cut nuclear arsenals – here, in North Korea, around the world”  is a good thing.

Their claims are blatant lies, of course. As I’ve already stated, no nation in history has become more secure by disarming itself, and America won’t be the first. President Bush’s deep unilateral cut in America’s deterrent is a textbook example of that. He cut the arsenal by almost half, withdrew US nuclear weapons from Korea and from surface warships unilaterally, terminated MX ICBM production and B-2 bomber production at just 21 aircraft, terminated the Midgetman SRBM, and terminated warhead production and testing.

Yet, no one else has reciprocated. Since then, China has dramatically increased its nuclear arsenal – to at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 warheads – while North Korea and Pakistan joined the nuclear club, India and these two countries have conducted nuclear tests, and Iran has made dramatic progress towards nuclear weapon capability. Russia has begun rebuilding and modernizing its arsenal.

So Bush’s deep nuclear cuts only weakened America’s deterrent (and confidence in it) while utterly failing to discourage others from developing or increasing their own arsenals. Two new states have joined the nuclear club, others have conducted tests, and Iran is well on its way there.

That’s because cutting America’s nuclear deterrent DOES NOTHING to prevent or even slow down nuclear proliferation or encourage others to disarm themselves. It is perceived (correctly) as a sign of American weakness and appeasement. It only emboldens America’s enemies while leading America’s allies to doubt the US umbrella. It does NOTHING, and will never do anything, to eliminate or even reduce the arsenals of other powers.

Other nuclear (and aspiring) powers don’t care about America’s “example” or observance of arms control treaties; they care only about their own military strength and see nuclear weapons as a key element of that. America has NO followers on the road to “Global Zero” – which other nuclear powers simply DON’T want to travel. Even Bruce Blair has admitted at 1:04:41 that even if the US totally disarmed itself, NO ONE would follow suit.

Thus, we have refuted all of the 6 most popular leftist lies about nuclear weapons. It is impossible (and not even necessary) to refute all myths that have been made about these crucial instruments of deterrence; and the vast majority of the lies about them fall under one of these 6 categories.

Nuclear weapons are NOT a threat to America’s or the world’s security; on the contrary, they are key to preserving it far into the future. They are irreplaceable instruments of peace and deterrence.

In December, North Korea tested an ICBM which delivered a North Korean satellite to the Earth’s orbit, thus demonstrating the capability to miniaturize payloads and to deliver such payloads to the orbit – and to the US.

In February, the North Koreans declared that not only will they not surrender their nuclear arsenal, they’ll actually INCREASE it, and published a video simulating a nuclear strike on the US.

Last month, they withdrew from the 1953 Panmunjon armistice that suspended the Korean War, put their missile force on its highest alert level, threatened to attack the US and its allies in Asia, cut off all hotlines with the South, and brought the KoreanPeninsula to the brink of war.

Meanwhile, Russia announced that she will not agree to any further cuts in its vast nuclear arsenal and confirmed she’ll continue the comprehensive modernization of her entire arsenal – strategic and tactical, ICBMs, bombers, and SSBNs alike.

In the first days of April, North Korea declared it’s in “a state of war” with the South and that it will never surrender its nuclear arsenal or even discuss its existence; that its arsenal is “non-negotiable”; and that it has “confirmed” plans of a nuclear attack on the US. Meanwhile, China amassed troops on its border with North Korea to show support of its fraternal Communist neighbor (China’s only formal treaty ally).

Now, North Korea often makes threats and uses bellicose rhetoric, but rhetoric of such degree of bellicosity and intensity – and openly threatening (and even simulating) a nuclear attack on the US – is something scarcely heard of. So is the acquisition of ICBMs capable of striking the US homeland and miniaturizing warheads to make them fit atop missiles. That’s something only Russia, China, and NK itself have mastered to date.

Meanwhile, Russia and China continue to increase and modernize their large nuclear arsenals – strategic and tactical.

What has brought this disastrous situation about? What does it show?

It proves the utter failure of “arms control” (read: disarmament) and appeasement policies, which have pursued since 1989 by successive administrations, Republican and Democratic.

It proves the utter failure of the “arms control” and appeasement policies advocated (to this day) by pro-arms control groups such as the Arms Control Association, the Ploughshares Fund, Global Zero, and the “Council for a Livable World”.

For decades, these liberal, extremely-leftist treasonous groups have claimed that cutting America’s nuclear deterrent would make the US and the world safer; that “less is more”; that it would somehow magically “induce” Russia to cut its own arsenal or at least stop growing it; and that it would somehow convince North Korea and Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, or at least convince other countries to put pressure on Pyongyang and Tehran.

All of these claims were always blatant lies. Nothing more. Yet, many were duped by them, including the 71 gullible Senators who voted for New START in December 2010, in the twilight days of the 111^th Congress. Some Americans may still be duped by these lies. Yet, no one should be, for they were never anything more than lies.

For many years, I have been warning that the claims of arms controllers – such as the above-mentioned ones – are blatant lies, have been refuting them, and have been reminding people that the ONLY thing that can guarantee America’s and allies’ security is a strong, unmatched US military, including a large, modern nuclear deterrent.

Turns out I was right all along, and the proponents of “arms control”, arms reduction, and disarmament, including the ACA, Ploughshares, the CLW, and Global Zero were wrong all along.

Since 1991 – the end of the Cold War – America’s nuclear arsenal has been cut by over 75%; numerous nuclear-capable systems have been terminated entirely; nuclear testing has been suspended indefinitely; the remaining arsenal (and its supporting infrastructure) have been allowed to decay; and US tactical nukes have been unilaterally withdrawn from US ships and the KoreanPeninsula.

Yet, all of that has utterly failed to convince Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles of increasing range. It has also completely failed to convince other countries to put heavy pressure on these rogue states. Thus, it has utterly failed to stop or even slow down nuclear proliferation. Pakistan became a nuclear power in 1998; North Korea in 2006; and Iran is well on its way to the nuclear club.

22 years of cutting America’s nuclear deterrent deeply have also utterly failed to convince China to stop expanding its nuclear arsenal which, according to the most credible estimates by veteran nuclear strategist Professor Philip Karber and former Russian missile force commander Gen. Viktor Yesin, consists of at least 1,800, and up to 3,000, nuclear warheads, along with their delivery systems: dozens of ICBMs, 6 ballistic missile submarines, 440 nuclear-capable aircraft, over 1,600 short-range, and up to 120 medium-range ballistic missiles, plus nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

And now, Russia, having substantially reduced its nuclear arsenal in the 1990s and early 2000s, is now rebuilding and modernizing it rapidly. Permitted by New START to grow its deployed arsenal, it has done so, reaching 1,550 deployed strategic warheads and 700 deployed launchers (plus many others nondeployed). It is now building it up beyond New START limits, and its tactical nuclear arsenal, estimated at up to 4,000 warheads and their delivery systems, is not limited by any treaty in any way. It consists of a wide range of systems: nuclear torpedoes, nuclear naval mines, nuclear depth charges, nuclear artillery shells, freefall bombs, warheads for SRBMs, etc.

Cutting America’s nuclear stockpile unilaterally under Presidents Bush and Obama has thus utterly failed to “induce” Russia to stop growing and modernizing its own arsenal. Nor has it “induced” it to refrain from provocations like simulated bomber strikes on US missile defenses in Alaska, CA, Guam, and Japan – four months within less than a year, as chronicled by the WFB’s Bill Gertz.

Every policy must be judged by just one standard: whether it succeeds or fails in advancing US interests and national security. “By their fruit ye shall know them”, said Jesus Christ.

Judged by its results – its “fruit” – arms control and arms reduction have been an utter, dangerous failure for the West, including the US, some of the results of which we’re now witnessing in the Korean Peninsula, as an increasingly emboldened Pyongyang mounts its provocations and threats, and grows its nuclear arsenal while the US cuts its own.

Russia’s, China’s, and Pakistan’s nuclear buildups, and Iran’s race to the nuclear club’s doors while exposing Western sanctions as toothless likewise prove the utter failure of “arms control”.

Only a large, modern, multi-legged nuclear deterrent and a multilayered missile defense system can provide security and peace for the US, its allies, and the world at large. Nothing else will work. Any attempt to try anything else is doomed to fail – as arms control has – and would be an unneeded distraction from the work that needs to be done to rebuild and modernize America’s nuclear deterrent.

It is high time for the US to stop cutting and start building up and modernizing its nuclear deterrent, resume the development and testing of nuclear weapons, and build a comprehensive, multilayered missile defense system.

A bit of comedy relief for your Friday afternoon.

petersnoopy (CC)

Instead, a picture posted Thursday on the North’s Flickr site shows Kim’s face with a pig-like snout and a drawing of Mickey Mouse on his chest. Underneath, the text reads: “Threatening world peace with ICBMs and Nuclear weapons/Wasting money while his people starve to death.”

Another posting says “We are Anonymous” in white letters against a black background. Anonymous is a name of a hacker activist group.

Tweets, on the other hand, simply said “hacked”, and offered links to North Korea related sites. As a rule, the accounts are used to promote state initiatives, praise the North Korean system of government, and promote commentaries from the state-run media outlet – Korean Central News Agency. The Twitter account has been open since 2010, and has approximately 13,000 followers.

Kim Jong-un & the North Korean Navy set sail to invade the US.

Some days you just need a laugh.

H/t @jensicilian on Twitter

The video’s background music was set to the 1985 hit song “We Are The World” sung by a collection of popular American singers including the King of Pop himself, the late Michael Jackson. It is ironic that in a country where hundreds of thousands of people die every year from starvation and poor nutrition the North Korean government chose a song about the United States feeding starving people in Africa?

According to a 2012 report on human rights from Freedom House, North Korea had the dubious honor of being the world’s number one offender in regards to human rights. The destitute people of North Korea have virtually no rights at all.

There is no justice system, no appeals process, no political opposition, no freedom of expression, no dissenting voices, and no freedom of the press.

Many brutal dictators throughout history have controlled their people; but very few have been as effective as the North Korean’s are at controlling their people’s thoughts too. Every single bit of news and information is controlled by the government. The people are fed story after story about how great their government is and how loving and caring they act towards their fellow citizens. The propagandists in the state controlled media tell stories that depict their leader as a magical and mystical person. There are the stories of how the late Dear Leader Kim Jong Il once shot 4 holes in one while playing golf, or how the Dear Leader had the ability to change the weather just by changing his mood.

The North Korean people walk around in a catatonic zombie like state in which everything they do and say revolves around the Great Successor. In fact, you could be executed in North Korea for not prepositioning the phrase, “Our Great Successor before speaking to an official of the North Korean Government.

Everything inside the capitol city of Pyongyang is a facade. The city itself is very beautiful. It has big buildings and beautiful skyscrapers. The streets are impeccably clean and nothing is out of place. However there is one problem. Most of buildings are all empty. They were built to impress foreign dignitaries and fool others into thinking that Pyongyang is a vibrant city. It is far from it. When darkness falls, the city and the rest of the country is pitch black. The only lights that can be seen from satellite images are mostly from the very select few who live in luxury and work for the government.

North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship. It can also be described as an absolute monarchy or a hereditary dictatorship. It is ruled by the Kim family. The Kim family is a ruthless, barbaric lot. They have tortured, mutilated, and murdered millions of North Koreans. They have imprisoned hundreds of thousands of their citizens in internment camps and starved to death an estimated 3.5 million more in the Great Famine from 1994 to 1998. For more on life inside a North Korean prison camp read The Aquariums of Pyongyang by Kang Chol-Hwan if you have the stomach.

The first Kim to rule North Korea was Kim Il Sung. He ruled from 1948 until his death in 1994. There are over 400 statues of Kim Il Sung all over North Korea. There are many buildings, a few schools, a library, and a town square named in his honor. He is the most revered figure in North Korea to this day. He is known as “The Great Leader” or “The Eternal Leader” to the North Korean people.

After the death of Kim Il Sung in 1994, his son Kim Jong Il took over as “The Dear Leader.” He was just as brutal, barbaric, and eccentric as his father. Like his father he was also afraid of flying and traveled everywhere by armored trains.

Kim Jong Il loved everything about the American culture except America. He loved our movies, he loved our food, and he loved our sports. His favorite movie was said to be Rambo, his favorite food was said to be lobsters, and the 5 foot 2 potbellied dictator’s favorite sport was basketball. He loved lobsters so much that he had live ones air-lifted into the country on a daily basis. Imagine that, in a country where more than three quarters of the population are starving to death the “Dear Leader” is eating fresh lobster, watching Rambo and cheering for his favorite NBA team.

Kim Jong Il died on December 17, 2011. His youngest son, Kim Jong Un is now the ruler of North Korea. The “Great Successor” as he is known by is reportedly only 30 years old. He is reported to be the youngest Head of State in the world. Not much is known about the youngest son other than his striking resemblance to his grandfather, Kim Il Sung. It has been reported that Kim Jong Un was educated in Switzerland and may even speak English. Like his father, he is also known to be a huge basketball fan. It is reported he smokes cigarettes, drinks Johnny Walker whiskey, and drives a Mercedes Benz.

It is not known whether or not young Kim will rule exactly like his father and grandfather before him but if history is any indication chances are he will. There have been reports that because Kim Jong Un has spent time living abroad he has been exposed to different cultures outside of North Korea. It is possible that some of what he learned could influence how he will rule. However the reality is he is surrounded by relatives of the Kim family who want things to remain the same.

The North Korean military style government continues to stick their thumb in the eye of the International Community. They have broken numerous agreements with the United States in regards to their nuclear program. They have conducted numerous missile launches over the years and show no signs of stopping. In fact, it has been reported that they are getting ready to launch yet another missile in the very near future.

North Korea is a puppet regime. Their threats are empty and their rhetoric is as weak as their leader; a school boy whose only military experience was probably shooting down an airplane in a video game. They are the equivalent of having an army of soldiers that carry empty guns. They are like a small dog with a loud bark, harmless and annoying. If they ever tried to attack the United States they would never be successful. They barely have enough resources to equip their military let alone launch a successful missile attack.

With that being said it may be possible to thwart their aggression towards us by possibly eliminating their perceived threat.

The Korean War started but technically has never officially ended. It started on June 25th 1950 and it ceased on July 27th 1953 with a signed armistice agreement. After 60 years the United States and North Korea have never actually signed a peace treaty to end the Korean War.

What if we were to offer an olive branch to the North Korean government? What if we were to kill them with kindness? You may be reading this and thinking is this guy turning into the modern day version of Neville Chamberlain?

Not quite.

The North Korean people are starving. Even the select privileged few are worse off due to international sanctions, long term droughts, and not enough food. In fact, the only time the North Korean government complies with the International Community is when they need assistance. That is when they sign some agreement they have no intention of keeping in return for food and supplies.

We could offer the North Koreans a conditional peace treaty along with a food for human rights assistance program. The Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission has been monitoring the DMZ for years. There is no reason they couldn’t also monitor for human rights violations too. We could offer the North Koreans our assistance in exchange for verifiable improvements in human rights and the complete dismantling of their nuclear weapons program.

By potentially eliminating one nuclear threat it would allow us to focus our attention on the more dangerous threat in Iran. Additionally, it may also bring much needed stability to the Asian Peninsula while simultaneously securing the backing of the International Community.

If the North Koreans should breach any portion of this new peace treaty it should be considered an act of war. They need to know that the United States could be an ally or an adversary depending on their actions. I believe the only way you can secure peace is through superior strength. You can not be weak in the face of evil.

Some on the left might think my suggestion is nothing more than cowboy politics. They may be right. It is no secret that the American people are tired of fighting and supporting foreign wars, I get that. But in the end our country will be safer if we show strength rather than weakness in the eyes of our enemies.

….This post will be inspected by the US Department Of Homeland Security, I’m sure.  Because the words listed below raise “red flags” when used on the internet.

So, don’t talk about the illegal immigrant who gave you a denial of service at the deli when you wanted a pork sandwich….. just saying.

Download Full Document here: http://t-j.cc/KIKNMn

TERRORISM
Terrorism, Al Qaeda (all spellings), Terror, Attack, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Agro, Environmental terrorist, Eco terrorism, Conventional weapon, Target, Weapons grade, Dirty bomb, Enriched, Nuclear, Chemical weapon, Biological weapon, Ammonium nitrate, Improvised explosive device, IED (Improvised Explosive Device), Abu Sayyaf, Hamas, FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces Colombia), IRA (Irish Republican Army), ETA (Euskadi ta Askatasuna), Basque Separatists, Hezbollah, Tamil Tigers, PLF (Palestine Liberation Front), PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), Car bomb, Jihad, Taliban, Weapons cache, Suicide bomber, Suicide attack, Suspicious substance, AQAP (AL Qaeda Arabian Peninsula), AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), TTP (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan), Yemen, Pirates, Extremism, Somalia, Nigeria, Radicals, Al-Shabaab, Home grown Plot, Nationalist, Recruitment, Fundamentalism, Islamist

WEATHER/DISASTER/EMERGENCY
Emergency, Hurricane, Tornado, Twister, Tsunami, Earthquake, Tremor, Flood, Storm, Crest, Temblor, Extreme weather, Forest fire, Brush fire, Ice, Stranded/Stuck, Help, Hail, Wildfire, Tsunami Warning Center, Magnitude, Avalanche, Typhoon, Shelter-in-place, Disaster, Snow, Blizzard, Sleet, Mud slide or Mudslide, Erosion, Power outage, Brown out, Warning, Watch, Lightening, Aid, Relief, Closure, Interstate, Burst, Emergency Broadcast System

CYBER SECURITY
Cyber security, Botnet, DDOS (dedicated denial of service), Denial of service, Malware, Virus, Trojan, Keylogger, Cyber Command, 2600, Spammer, Phishing, Rootkit, Phreaking, Cain and abel, Brute forcing, Mysql injection, Cyber attack, Cyber terror, Hacker, China, Conficker, Worm, Scammers, Social media

DOMESTIC SECURITY
Assassination, Attack, Domestic security, Drill, Exercise, Cops, Law enforcement, Authorities, Disaster assistance, Disaster management, DNDO (Domestic Nuclear Detection Office), National preparedness, Mitigation, Prevention, Response, Recovery, Dirty bomb, Domestic nuclear detection, Emergency management, Emergency response, First responder, Homeland security, Maritime domain awareness (MDA), National preparedness initiative, Militia, Shooting, Shots fired, Evacuation, Deaths, Hostage, Explosion (explosive), Police, Disaster medical assistance team (DMAT), Organized crime, Gangs, National security, State of emergency, Security, Breach, Threat, Standoff, SWAT, Screening, Lockdown, Bomb (squad or threat), Crash, Looting, Riot, Emergency Landing, Pipe bomb, Incident, Facility

HAZMAT & NUCLEAR
Hazmat, Nuclear, Chemical spill, Suspicious package/device, Toxic, National laboratory, Nuclear facility, Nuclear threat, Cloud, Plume, Radiation, Radioactive, Leak, Biological infection (or event), Chemical, Chemical burn, Biological, Epidemic, Hazardous, Hazardous material incident, Industrial spill, Infection, Powder (white), Gas, Spillover, Anthrax, Blister agent, Chemical agent, Exposure, Burn, Nerve agent, Ricin, Sarin, North Korea

HEALTH CONCERN + H1N1
Outbreak, Contamination, Exposure, Virus, Evacuation, Bacteria, Recall, Ebola, Food Poisoning, Foot and Mouth (FMD), H5N1, Avian, Flu, Salmonella, Small Pox, Plague, Human to human, Human to Animal, Influenza, Center for Disease Control (CDC), Drug Administration (FDA), Public Health, Toxic, Agro Terror, Tuberculosis (TB), Agriculture, Listeria, Symptoms, Mutation, Resistant, Antiviral, Wave, Pandemic, Infection, Water/air borne, Sick, Swine, Pork, Strain, Quarantine, H1N1, Vaccine, Tamiflu, Norvo Virus, Epidemic, World Health Organization (WHO) (and components), Viral Hemorrhagic Fever, E. Coli

INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
Infrastructure security, Airport, Airplane (and derivatives), Chemical fire, CIKR (Critical Infrastructure & Key Resources), AMTRAK, Collapse, Computer infrastructure, Communications infrastructure, Telecommunications, Critical infrastructure, National infrastructure, Metro, WMATA, Subway, BART, MARTA, Port Authority, NBIC (National Biosurveillance Integration Center), Transportation security, Grid, Power, Smart, Body scanner, Electric, Failure or outage, Black out, Brown out, Port, Dock, Bridge, Cancelled, Delays, Service disruption, Power lines

SOUTHWEST BORDER VIOLENCE
Drug cartel, Violence, Gang, Drug, Narcotics, Cocaine, Marijuana, Heroin, Border, Mexico, Cartel, Southwest, Juarez, Sinaloa, Tijuana, Torreon, Yuma, Tucson, Decapitated, U.S. Consulate, Consular, El Paso, Fort Hancock, San Diego, Ciudad Juarez, Nogales, Sonora, Colombia, Mara salvatrucha, MS13 or MS-13, Drug war, Mexican army, Methamphetamine, Cartel de Golfo, Gulf Cartel, La Familia, Reynosa, Nuevo Leon, Narcos, Narco banners (Spanish equivalents), Los Zetas, Shootout, Execution, Gunfight, Trafficking, Kidnap, Calderon, Reyosa, Bust, Tamaulipas, Meth Lab, Drug trade, Illegal immigrants, Smuggling (smugglers), Matamoros, Michoacana, Guzman, Arellano-Felix, Beltran-Leyva, Barrio Azteca, Artistic Assassins, Mexicles, New Federation

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had said on Thursday that a launch by North Korea would violate the agreement made between the United States and North Korea. The earlier agreement had promised food and medical supplies for the starving masses as long as several conditions were met – one of which was a missile testing moratorium.

In another sternly-worded statement, Clinton said:

If Pyongyang goes forward, we will all be back in the Security Council to take further action.  And it is regrettable because, as you know, we had worked through an agreement that would have benefited the North Korean people with the provision of food aid. But in the current atmosphere, we would not be able to go forward with that, and other actions that other countries had been considering would also be on hold.

The United Nations is the sole remedy from the Obama administration. As proved by North Korea’s actions, Iran’s continued defiance of U.N. mandates and the ongoing violence in Syria, it is a failed approach that relies on a defunct, but expensive, organization.

Obama has also recently expressed his willingness to sell-out American defense interests as he told Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Obama would have much more flexibility on missile defense once he gets re-elected. There had also been confusion over just what the Obama administration had negotiated away last January in the START treaty with Russia. While Russia said that the treaty prevented America from deploying missile defenses, American counter-parts disagreed.

President Obama’s speak softly and carry nothing policy will likely lead to both Iran and North Korea having an inter-continental ballistic missile capability and the United States having no missile defenses to protect herself. This is not simply a failure in foreign policy, but now in national defense.

Last week Kim Jong Un was being hailed as the “great successor” and “great leader” of North Korea’s  massive military. Now the 20 year old Kim is expected to become the general secretary of the Worker’s party as a final step to him taking the reigns of the impoverished nation.

What is not yet known is whether Kim Jong Un will rule as his father did or be under pressure from the leaders of Korea’s massive and powerful army.