Saturday 26 March 2016

I find it so interesting that Trump is a contender at all; but I think this says a lot about the restive nature of the American population in the ongoing 2008 cyclical GFC. These big economic 'corrections' historically take at least 25 years to adjust...and the difference between the rhetoric of 'everything is getting better' doesn't gel so well with the reality...and Americans, by recent culture, are not particularly the patient people as they once were. An easy answer is, at least, an answer. Whilst his domestic policies are rhetoric and remarkable bluster, (mind you, building a wall along the border for Mexico is exactly how Israel has organised its set up with Palestinians...and not many in the world complain about that...it works...it is nasty...it maintains quite an evil status quo...and it works)but parts of his foreign policies do ring true. To have these matters even discussed...the relationship with Israel, a withdrawal from Asia, a de-funding of NATO etc...thus removing the enormous cost burden on middle Americans, one could imagine that, in simplicity, this would allow a lot more money to be available for the US economy...then how this would be distributed and used would be the big and worrying issue. The price of policing the world certainly is a lot of money and I don't believe the USA can actually afford to do this any more. He certainly has thought about and analysed the amount the US spends overseas and how that never gets back so much to them any more. He certainly has studied the effectiveness of the Chinese non-interventionist 'Walled World' model as a competitor for the flawed 'paralysis' of European 'Globalism'. I don't think he could possibly become the President of the USA...but it might happen. Whilst we can have very differing views on whether or not this would be good for 'the world' should his stated foreign policies be actually set in place...the only thing for Americans to really focus on...is to vote for something/someone that they believe would be good for Americans in America...the same as Australians vote for, usually, what they believe is good for Australians in Australia. It's the simplicity of the message that many find positive. It's the self-ism of the message...our country is ours..that rings true for many.

This land is your land, this land is my land.

Thursday 24 March 2016

I think the scarwiest things for Australians to come to terms with are: 1: That no one is interested in invading us, except new Zealand 2: That we've never made friends with anyone in Asia because they are Asians... 3: & that because of 2, no one actually needs us or wants to make trade deals with us 4: That our military contributions to the British/American Alliances over the last 50 years have been, as best described by the US General in charge in Iraq..."Australia's contribution has been less than even remotely symbolic" and yet we depend so much on being protected and dependent. That's the nature of the human beings that we are. That's Australia.


Gosh, it'd almost be worthwhile to be an American to be able to vote for Trump. Those tinpot countries like South Korea, Japan and Australia have, indeed, been sucking the USA dry in terms of Defence and manufactured enemies to suit their governments control of their peoples for decades now. Let them pay for their own defence...they are not our problem. There is no threat. Everyone knows that. Our economy is our problem, and those parasite bastards can look after themselves, and they can pay for it rather than being dependent on us. The USA can no longer afford parasites like Australia, South Korea and Japan. They have to grow up and pay their own way. I love it. It's realistic.It's true. It's actually honest.

I'd vote for him in a minute. He makes sense.

Thursday 17 March 2016

What are the West’s long-term goals for N.Korea?

What are the West’s long-term goals for N.Korea?
What are the West’s long-term goals for N.Korea?
If we don’t know what we want – or set realistic goals – we will never get it
March 15th, 2016
In looking over recent events in North Korea and the responses they have engendered, it seems clear that the West’s policy for dealing with Kim Jong Un is foundering. It is doubtful that policymakers have devised a viable long-term plan of action – and that is probably because they do not have realistic long-term goals. Therein lies a problem, for without knowing where one wants to go, the correct direction remains unknown. Further, if the direction is unknown, any action is meaningless.
So, what are possible goals with regard to North Korea? Remember that goals are end-states; other non end-state accomplishments, no matter how important, are merely objectives in support of some goal. For example, many diplomats, military leaders, and politicians claim the goal with regard to the Korean Peninsula is for the North to forfeit its nuclear weapons and missile programs, but that is not the goal. The goal is a peaceful and stable region, which by the way includes China, Japan, Russia and South Korea – not just North Korea.
Before reaching the goal of a stable and peaceful region, one needs to consider what it is that one is dealing with before getting to the goal. In Korea, there are a number of contingencies, some of which are more likely than others, that will be listed below in order of likelihood along with a brief description.
NORTH KOREAN COLLAPSE OR DEFEAT IN WAR
Kim Jong Un is well-aware of the military forces that he faces, and he recognizes that attacking South Korea would mean the end of his regime
The U.S. and its allies need to be prepared for either a North Korean collapse or a war with the regime, after which the North is absorbed partially or completely by the South. However, the R.O.K. or the U.S. launching a pre-emptive attack on the North seems to be outside the realm of current political acceptability. Further, Kim Jong Un is well-aware of the military forces that he faces, and he recognizes that attacking South Korea would mean the end of his regime. Moreover, for those who benefit from the Pyongyang regime, it is in their interests – and within their power – to keep it alive, avoiding a collapse. Therefore, the probability of either collapse or war is greater than zero – but not by much.
NORTH KOREA MORPHS INTO A MORE TOLERABLE REGIME
Market reforms and sanctions have been touted as the way to influence North Korea, and that is certainly the case, but to a limited degree in the short to intermediate terms. In the meantime, the regime continues to be concerned about its own survival, and it believes that key to that is maintaining tyrannical control over its people. The prospect of the North becoming a more democratic country is of low probability.
THE STATUS QUO ­CONTINUES
If history teaches us anything, it is that North Korea always manages to survive whatever the U.S. and its allies throw at it. Further, the North usually finds a way to prod and poke at the West without suffering consequences severe enough to get it to change. Even with the recently imposed sanctions, North Korea will merely tighten its belt and somehow make do. The probability of the status quo continuing is of moderate to high probability.
THE STATUS QUO INTENSIFIES
When the North Korean domestic situation becomes strained or the regime is discomfited, the usual reaction is to create a diversion by staging some provocation of South Korea or the U.S. Given the level of concern about the potentially destabilizing influence of market activities coupled with the recently added sanctions that will pinch the regime further, Kim Jong Un will feel pressured to do something to divert the focus away from his failure to provide food and health care for citizens. This is exacerbated by the joint R.O.K.-U.S. military drills this year that openly include a tabletop exercise about occupying North Korea. That has to make the North feel even more insecure, but any provocation by Pyongyang must not generate a devastating response by Seoul or Washington. The North has been very successful in this in the past, and at least for the short term, increased or more dangerous provocations are a high probability.
HOW DOES THE WEST RESPOND?
Concentrating solely upon getting Pyongyang to divest itself of its nuclear weapons and to stop its ICBM program is wishful thinking
This brings into sharper focus some important questions. What is it that the West wants – and is it realistic? Concentrating solely upon getting Pyongyang to divest itself of its nuclear weapons and to stop its ICBM program is wishful thinking. How will South Korea and the U.S. deal with what is most likely? What steps are being taken to support any long-term goal, given that the North Korean political environment offers a number of possibilities with different probabilities?
If the U.S. and its allies do not have a clear vision of how to reach what should be its long-term goal, then nothing else matters – except that time, effort, money, and possibly lives will have been wasted. Once a realistic long-term goal is acknowledged, the objectives (usually more than one are necessary) needed to support that goal can be determined. But those objectives themselves must be underpinned by products that can achieve them. And of course those products cannot be generated without focused activities, which in turn rely upon having the proper resources.
To follow this line of development in a quaint but still meaningful way, consider the classic children’s story about how a monarch lost his kingdom, all for want of a horseshoe nail. The graphic below illustrates this process. Not adhering to these steps guarantees failure.
McCoyChart
Chart by Robert E. McCoy
Here are two examples on how this works:
  • Resources (competent people) are used in activities (diplomatic negotiations or talks) to generate products (meaningful international agreements and treaties) that achieve objectives (reducing hostilities) in support of policy goals (regional peace and stability).
  • Resources (combat-ready troops) are used in activities (execution of military operations plans) to generate products (battlefield victories) that achieve objectives (regime change) in support of policy goals (regional peace and stability).
At this point it must be emphasized that there is a huge difference between (a) merely possessing military capabilities, and (b) having the political will to use those capabilities. Ops Plans – and diplomatic initiatives, too – that collect dust on shelves while the situation in Northeast Asia continues to fester do no good. Equally important, however, is the fact that neither does the willy-nilly use of force nor the participation in senseless jibber-jabber.
There have been a number of recent reports regarding attempts to start discussions between the U.S. and North Korea. None seem to have been successful. Admittedly, some of this must necessarily occur out of the public eye – but there is precious little indication that anything constructive is being accomplished. In the absence of encouraging evidence, the question therefore remains: what do we want – and how do we get it?
Main image: Rodong Sinmun

Just how tough is the North Korea sanctions regime? DPRK a special case; cutting-and-pasting from other rogue states’ sanctions won’t work

Just how tough is the North Korea sanctions regime?

There are many mixed messages among commentators and policymakers about whether or not the sanctions regime in place against the DPRK is severe or not. Some say that sanctions are already “maxed out” with little left to sanction, others insist that there is plenty of headroom left. If comparisons are made, it is often about whether or not the Iranian sanctions regime should be “cut and pasted” onto the DPRK. But what would that look like?
The purpose of this article is to clear some of this confusion by comparing the DPRK sanctions regime with the sanctions regimes against other countries which pursued nuclear weapons: South Africa, Iraq, India, Pakistan and Iran. Most space is given to Iran because this is the most cited comparator, but it is important to look at the others too because they each add further context.

DPRK Jon Min Dok

Suspend the U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises for peace
Suspend the U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises for peace
DPRK think tank argues that nuclear deterrent is necessary as long as joint war games are ongoing
March 15th, 2016
This article was contributed to NK News by the DPRK’s Institute for Disarmament and Peace, Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday.
The North Korean state media custom of lower-casing the first letters in “north” and “south” Korea – reflecting the view that they are legitimately one nation – has been maintained.  
Several of the purported facts and opinions within are not those of NK News but are representative of North Korea.

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the end of Cold War. The world has made tremendous advances and the times have undergone dramatic changes. But one place remains unchanged and that is the Korean Peninsula.
Despite the end of the Cold War, the Korean Peninsula finds itself caught in the state of armistice and both belligerents have leveled their guns at each other for more than half a century.
The Korean Peninsula has already been ranked as the biggest and most highly explosive powder magazine in the world and a fuse for a new world war.
THE MAIN CAUSE OF TENSION ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a peace-loving nation.
The DPRK, unlike the U.S., has neither invaded other nations with armed forces nor conducted any large-scale bilateral or multilateral joint military drills abroad against a third country
The DPRK, unlike the U.S., has neither invaded other nations with armed forces nor conducted any large-scale bilateral or multilateral joint military drills abroad against a third country (Editors note: Most historians agree the Korean War begun when North Korean tanks crossed the 38th parallel on June 25, 1950).
However, in the last 70 years since its occupation of south Korea, the U.S. has staged annually all kinds of aggressive war drills in the south and its vicinity against the DPRK, several thousand miles away from the U.S., thus driving the situation on the Korean Peninsula and the region to the brink of war.
HINDERING INTER-KOREAN RELATIONS AND REUNIFICATION
It is well-known that the U.S. is the very culprit which occupied south Korea under the guise of “liberator” following Japan’s defeat in World War II, thus dividing the homogeneous nation of Korea and its soil into north and south.
From the early days of its illegal and unlawful occupation of south Korea, turning south Korea into its full colony, the U.S. has been desperate and impudent in portraying itself as a “defender” of world peace and security while slandering the DPRK as a “criminal” destroying peace and security in order to mislead the world option.
In the last 70 years, the U.S. has been clinging to ceaseless military build-up, new war provocations and drills against the DPRK with the strategy of maintaining tension on the Korean Peninsula to isolate and stifle the DPRK and interrupt the improvement of inter-Korean relations.
Let us look back upon the facts of how the U.S. has persistently undermined peace and security and aggravated tension on the Korean Peninsula through joint military exercises.
In 1945, when Korea was liberated from Japanese colonial rule the U.S. occupied south Korea and turned south Korea into its complete colony and instigated the Syngman Rhee puppet clique to stage war drills and military provocations against the north along the 38th parallel and in the end sparked the Korean War in 1950 with an ambition of halting the nationwide struggle of the Korean people, aspirant after a unified state, and to put the north under its domination.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Armistice Agreement the political conference for peaceful settlement of the Korean Peninsula took place in Geneva. However, the U.S. broke off the conference by conducting Focus Lens, a joint military exercises with south Korea, in 1954 and later in the 1960s, continued to aggravate the situation with the Focus Retina and Eagle joint military exercises.
In the early 1970s, the July 4th North-South Joint Statement for reunifying Korea based on the three principles of independence, peace and great national unity was made public thanks to the active and generous initiatives of the DPRK. At the same time, tendency toward the independent peaceful reunification was growing rapidly on the peninsula. The U.S. got nervous about these developments on the peninsula and put pressure on Park Chung-hee, the then-dictator in south Korea, to overturn the Joint Statement and started the Team Spirit and Ulji Focus Lens joint military exercises in 1976, thus driving the inter-Korean relations to a new confrontation.
When the Korean people’s expectations and aspirations for national reunification grew fervent through the announcement of an Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-Aggression, and Exchanges and Cooperation between the North and the South in 1992, the U.S. restarted the Team Spirit joint military exercises again in 1993 to turn the situation to another catastrophe.
Entering the 2000s, the June 15 era opened between the north and the south and aspirations after reunification and anti-U.S. sentiment grew higher, and even a call for a transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON) of the south Korean army took place in south Korea. To check these developments, the U.S. again resorted to joint military exercises.
Last year, the U.S. overlooked and encouraged tacitly the south Korean army’s provocative “landmine explosion” and “shell fired by the north” incidents, which occurred during the Ulji Freedom Guardian military exercises, thus driving the situation on the peninsula to the brink of war again.
THE AGGRESSIVE NATURE OF THE JOINT MILITARY EXERCISES
The joint military exercises annually staged by the U.S. and south Korea on the Korean peninsula are quite different from military exercises of other countries in terms of both frequency and purpose.
The U.S.-led RIMPAC naval joint military exercises, the world biggest in scale, is held every two years. In RIMPAC 2014, 23 countries, 47 vessels, 6 submarines and 200 aircrafts were involved, but the total number of troops amounted to only 25,000.
In the case of Cobra Gold, the biggest annual joint military exercises in Asia, less than 10,000 troops from 28 countries are participating in the drill and the duration is around 10 days.
The NATO-led Swift Response 15, the biggest in Europe since the end of the Cold War, also involves only 5,000 troops from around 10 countries.
However, the U.S. and south Korea hold annually more than 40 joint military exercises such as Key Resolve, Foal Eagle, and Ulji Freedom Guardian by mobilizing more than 500,000 U.S. and south Korean troops and all means of war including a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, strategic bombers, nuclear-powered submarines, etc.
OPLAN 5027, which has been applied to the joint military exercises including Key Resolve and Foal Eagle, is an operational plan for an all-out war that would involve 690,000 U.S. troops, 160 vessels and 2,500 aircrafts in case of emergency on the Korean Peninsula. The plan is offensive rather than defensive and is aimed at occupying the DPRK by preemptive strike.
The aggressive nature of the U.S.-south Korea joint military exercises is also apparent in setting their targets
The aggressive nature of the U.S.-south Korea joint military exercises is also apparent in setting their targets, like examination of feasibility of operations like “removal of the leadership,” “occupying Pyongyang,” “regime change,” “preemptive nuclear strike” and “decapitation raids,” which can never be found in other countries’ joint military drills.
It cannot be overlooked that the U.S. is inviting the military forces of countries which have taken part in the Korean War like Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark and Japan in the joint military exercises.
THE NUCLEAR ISSUE: CAUSED BY U.S.-SOUTH KOREA PROVOCATIONS
The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula has originated from the ceaseless and increasing nuclear war provocations by the U.S. and south Korea.
Anyone not well-aware of the reason, the background of the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons and the whole process of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula should clearly look at the reality and have a correct understanding.
The Korean people have been exposed to the U.S. nuclear threat since 1950.
It has already been revealed that the U.S. first introduced its nuclear weapons to south Korea in mid-August 1950, just after the outbreak of the Korean War.
On November 30, 1950, the then-U.S. President Truman openly threatened to use atomic bombs in the Korean War and instructed the U.S. Strategic Air Forces to be on standby to dispatch strategic bombers at any moment to the Far East to drop atomic bombs.
The U.S. nuclear threat forced bitter separation among tens of thousands of families and relatives of the Korean people in the north and the south.
The U.S. nuclear threat against the DPRK further increased after the Korean War.
In July 1957 the U.S. declared the start of arming U.S. troops in south Korea with nuclear weapons. On January 29, 1958 the U.S. made public that it had introduced nuclear weapons in south Korea.
By the mid-1980s, the U.S. brought in more than 1,720 nuclear weapons including the “Honest John” tactical nuclear missile, the 280mm-caliber atomic gun, the “B-61” nuclear bomb and the nuclear landmine, turning south Korea into the biggest nuclear warehouse and an outpost in the Far East to invade the DPRK.
All of the U.S.’s three nuclear striking means have been mobilized without exception in all its notorious joint war drills, including Team Spirit, RSOI (Reception Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration), Ulji Focus Lens, Key Resolve, Foal Eagle and Ulji Freedom Guardian.
The special danger to be noted is that the U.S. adopted the preemptive nuclear strike against the DPRK as its policy long before the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons.
On January 30, 2002, the Bush administration in its Union Address designated the DPRK as part of the “Axis of Evil” and in March 2002 announced its Nuclear Posture Review in which the DPRK was listed as the target of a preemptive nuclear strike.
In the U.S.-south Korea Security Consultative Meeting in 2009, the U.S. raised the level of the nuclear umbrella in favor of south Korea. In other words, south Korea, which had been at the level of “limited state of declaration” was upgraded to the level of the more detailed “tailored deterrence strategy,” known as a strategy for a preemptive attack just as in the same case when the U.S. territory is attacked, thus paving a way to bring in more nuclear weapons at any time to south Korea.
In its Quadrennial Defense Review Report in early March 2014, the U.S. Defense Department defined the DPRK as a direct threat to the U.S., and a bellicose country and claimed that it would win a decisive victory through armed forces.
In his memoirs, Leon Panetta, the former U.S. Defense Secretary, revealed the fact that during his trip to Seoul in October 2011 he had conveyed the message from the U.S. administration that it would use nuclear weapons if necessary.
The U.S. still sticks to its NCND policy and continues to deceive and mock the Korean people and the world’s peace-loving people
At the end of 1991, though the U.S. announced the withdrawal of its nuclear weapons from south Korea, this was nothing but a deceptive move. The U.S. still sticks to its NCND policy and continues to deceive and mock the Korean people and the world’s peace-loving people who demand the verification of its withdrawal of nuclear weapons.
THE UNPRECEDENTED KEY RESOLVE, FOAL EAGLE 16
The first exercises in which the U.S. and south Korea introduced the “tailored deterrence strategy” and tested its effectiveness is the Ulji Freedom Guardian joint military exercises in 2014.
The Key Resolve and Foal Eagle 16, which the U.S. and south Korea started on March 7 this year is the unprecedented and the largest-scale joint war drills surpassing all the previous drills and will last for nearly two months.
Mobilized in the exercises are huge armed forces including 17,000 American soldiers, 300,000 south Korean soldiers and some follower states’ armies, as well as nuclear war means and equipment, two times larger in size than the previous drills, including the nuclear-powered USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier, one of the typical strategic assets carrying 100 aircraft and even the USS North Carolina, a nuclear-powered submarine, B-52 and B-2 strategic bombers, F-22 Raptor stealth bombers, F-15K and KF-16 etc.
The U.S. and south Korea have even thrown off the deceptive mask of the “annual and defensive” nature of the drills and are staging the exercises by way of fighting an actual war, practicing the “Decapitation Raids Operation” aimed at removal of the DPRK leadership and bringing down its social system pursuant to the extremely adventurous OPLAN 5015.
OPLAN 5015, applied for the first time this year, is integrating both OPLAN 5027 and OPLAN 5029. It is aimed at a preemptive strike against the DPRK’s nuclear and missile bases within 30 minutes of detecting signs of a missile launch. Therefore, it is more dangerous and aggressive than previous operational plans.
It is quite reasonable that foreign media like the Global Times of China and Pravda of Russia commented that the toothed wheels of war have already begun to move on the Korean Peninsula.
SUSPENSION OF JOINT WAR DRILLS: A TOUCHSTONE FOR PEACE
Peace and security on the Korean Peninsula is of great importance to the Korean nation since it is directly related to the existence of the Korean nation and its reunification.
Therefore, the DPRK has advanced broad and rational proposals aimed at removal of the danger of war, easing tensions and providing a peaceful environment on the Korean Peninsula and has made sincere efforts toward their realization.
SUSPENSION OF EXERCISES FOR A NUCLEAR TEST MORATORIUM
The suspension of joint military exercises is the precondition for the safeguarding of peace on the Korean Peninsula.
It has been a long time since the Military Armistice Commission and the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission, controlling and supervising the Armistice Agreement of the Korean War, disappeared on the Korean Peninsula.
The Korean People’s Army has already declared that the Armistice Agreement had been completely abolished by the U.S.
The emergency created in August last year clearly showed that even a trifling, incidental conflict between the north and the south may create a touch-and-go war situation
It is inevitable that the cease-fire will switch to a hot war at any moment.
The emergency created in August last year clearly showed that even a trifling, incidental conflict between the north and the south may create a touch-and-go war situation and the current armistice, devoid of power, can no longer prevent a conflict and the danger of war.
The DPRK has no intention at all to interfere in the U.S. war games if they are really defensive and pose no threat to the DPRK and are conducted on U.S. territory or in the middle of Pacific Ocean.
However, the DPRK cannot remain a passive onlooker at the fact that the U.S., the biggest nuclear weapons state in the world and the belligerent that is still at war with the DPRK, is conducting aggressive and large-scale war exercises at the threshold of the DPRK by mobilizing all kinds of state-of-the-art strategic assets.
If the U.S. has no intention to invade or attack the DPRK, there is no need to stage the military war drills for such a long period with huge armed forces and preemptive striking means, more than enough to fight a full-scale war.
Therefore, in January 2015, the DPRK advanced a proposal for the U.S. suspension of joint military exercises in south Korea and its vicinity and the DPRK’s moratorium on the nuclear test and reiterated that proposal again in January this year.
As many people commented, had the Obama administration recognized the failure of its policy of “strategic patience” earlier and paid a little attention to the DPRK’s continued demand for the suspension of military exercises, they would not have been so astounded by the DPRK’s successful H-bomb test in January.
In January in an article in the U.S. publication the Huffington Post Mr. William Perry, the former U.S. Secretary of Defense, criticized the Obama administration for its excessive engagement in the Middle East and other regions and neglect of the situation on the Korean Peninsula and stressed that it is high time for the U.S. to end its 60-year-long DPRK-U.S. confrontation, deeply rooted in the Korean War and take a concentrated, sustained and rational action to address the issue of the Korean Peninsula.
Many experts from the U.S. and other countries and even the Western media like the Guardian and theNew York Times also stated that the Obama administration’s policy of strategic patience made worse the pus of the Korean Peninsula issue and called for an end to the long-standing Korean War by conclusion of the peace agreement.
If the U.S. is sincerely interested in the dialogue with the DPRK and the peace of the Korean Peninsula, it should show its readiness to suspend the joint military exercises.
THE DPRK NUCLEAR DETERRENT: SHIELD OF JUSTICE AND PEACE
The DPRK possessed nuclear deterrent legitimately to safeguard the sovereignty of the country and the right of existence of the nation from the ever-increasing U.S. nuclear threat against the DPRK.
Originally the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons was not at all its intention.
The DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons was an inevitable choice of self-defense to counter the increasingly hostile policy and nuclear threat of the U.S., the world’s biggest nuclear weapons state and the only user of nuclear weapons, which designated the dignified DPRK as part of the “Axis of Evil” and as the target of a preemptive nuclear strike with huge nuclear war equipment.
It is a ridiculous sophistry and nobody will be convinced that the DPRK’s self-defensive nuclear weapons pose a threat to others while the nuclear weapons of the U.S., the biggest nuclear weapons state and the only nuclear criminal, pose no threat to other states.
The DPRK considers that keeping the balance of force by bolstering nuclear forces is the only way to effectively deter the U.S.’s persistent nuclear threat and war provocations and to defend the sovereignty and right to existence of the nation.
If the DPRK had not responded in a super high-handed way with the nuclear deterrent to the U.S. nuclear war rackets, the Korean Peninsula would have already fallen into the sea of fire a long time ago and security in Northeast Asia and the world would have been jeopardized.
The Korean People’s Army has already converted its mode of military counteraction into a preemptive offensive one in every aspect to cope with the U.S.’s extremely dangerous nuclear threat.
In case of outbreak of a war on the Korean Peninsula, it will neither be confined to the peninsula nor to a conventional war.
Worse still, there is no guarantee that the DPRK-U.S. life-and-death confrontation would not be expanded to the world thermonuclear war.
Anyone who is desirous of peace and security of the world should clearly identify who loves peace and who pursues war in the Korean peninsula.
The DPRK’s cause advancing under the banner of Songun is just and its victory is definite.
As long as the U.S. persists in its moves to stifle the DPRK’s socialist system, the DPRK will continue to adhere to the Songun politics and the line of promoting the two fronts simultaneously and firmly defend the sovereignty of the nation and the peace of the world, no matter how the structure of relations with the surrounding countries may change.
Featured Image: Exercise Foal Eagle 07 by UNC - CFC - USFK on 1980-01-01 00:03:48

North Korean state media on Monday claimed that its hydrogen bomb is advanced enough to carry out a strike on New York City and wipe out the entire populace of the metropolis.


North Korean state media on Monday claimed that its hydrogen bomb is advanced enough to carry out a strike on New York City and wipe out the entire populace of the metropolis.
Pyongyang also claimed that its bomb power exceeds the explosive radius of the most powerful bomb in history, the Tsar Bomba, also known as the “King of Bombs.”
The Soviet Tsar Bomba was a 50-megaton device, or 2,800 times more powerful than the Little Boy bomb used at Hiroshima. Though Tsar Bomba, detonated in October 1961, was not mentioned by name, the North Korean description of the weapon matches only it.
“Our hydrogen bomb’s power is greater than the Soviet Union’s bomb that (is) capable of causing third-degree burns 100 kilometers away from ground zero and partially broken windows at distances of 1,000 kilometers,” said the North Korean state-bulletin DPRK Today.
North Korean media also claimed that their bomb could wipe out the whole populace of New York City if placed on a long-range missile.
“If our bomb is fitted to an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and falls on New York, Manhattan Island, all of the residents will die instantly with the whole of their city … no, the whole of the mainland being completely devastated,” the North Korean article claimed.
However, a South Korean nuclear scientist simply called the North Korean claims “childish.”
“No, they can’t fit such bomb on an ICBM,” Suh Kune-yull, a nuclear scientist from Seoul National University told NK News.
 “The Tsar Bomba weighed about 27 metric tons when it was invented, and even today we would have to use a specially modified large bomber to drop a bomb of that size as they did in 60s.”
The Tsar Bomba‘s immense size famously required a special plane with its bomb bay doors and fuselage fuel tanks taken out to deploy.
Even under the assumption that North Koreans have invented a light-weight bomb with a yield similar to the Tsar Bomba, still the country lacks precise ICBM technology, Suh said.
“I do believe that North Korea has the capability to shoot an ICBM into the stratosphere, though the ICBM will be dismembered as the country does not have technology that enables the ICBM to endure the friction heat that is created while it enters the atmosphere,” Suh said.
The New York threat follows a series of recent North Korean threats and claims, including the launch of two Scud missiles, the publishing of pictures of a “miniaturized” warhead, a threat to liberate South Korea and bomb the U.S. mainland just since the end of last month.
“Chosun (North Korea) is unlike Afghanistan or Iraq or Lybia,” the state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper said Monday, criticizing the arrival of the U.S. aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) in Busan port to take part in the ongoing ROK-U.S. joint training.
“The U.S. and its followers are hoping to shake us with their military forces, but such attempts are futile,” the paper read.
Featured image: Tsar Bomba, Wikimedia Commons

Air India flight evacuated at Suvarnabhumi after bomb scare

Air India flight evacuated at Suvarnabhumi after bomb scare: Passengers on an Air India flight were evacuated on an emergency slide at Bangkok’s main international airport late Wednesday following a false bomb threat, according to Thai authorities.

Hun Sen Reshuffle Cambodia

Hun Sen reveals plan to reshuffle cabinet next month
PHNOM PENH — Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen revealed Thursday he has submitted a proposal to the National Assembly seeking to reshuffle some of his ministers including Foreign Minister Hor Namhong, who has been in the position since the 1990s.
17 Mar 2016 at 15:54

US President Barack Obama signed an order Wednesday implementing UN-backed sanctions on North Korea, amid a series of reprisals from Pyongyang.

WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama signed an order Wednesday implementing UN-backed sanctions on North Korea, amid a series of reprisals from Pyongyang.
US President Barack Obama signed an order implementing UN-backed sanctions on North Korea, amid a series of reprisals from Pyongyang
The White House said Obama had signed an executive order targeting the volatile hermit state's energy, financial and shipping assets.
The measures were agreed to at the United Nations in response to a January 6 nuclear test and February 7 ballistic missile launch.
"The order is not targeted at the people of North Korea, but rather is aimed at the government," said the document signed by Obama.
Among the entities targeted are the "Propaganda and Agitation Department" of the Workers' Party of Korea and mining firms that provide the regime with much-needed revenues.
The US Treasury Department estimates that coal revenues alone generate over $1 billion a year for the government of Kim Jong-Un.
In response to the UN sanctions and a US-South Korean drill, Kim has already ordered an upcoming nuclear warhead test and multiple ballistic missile launches.
US officials say the threats are concerning, but fit a pattern of sabre rattling by the regime.
On Wednesday, North Korea jailed a 21-year-old American student.
Otto Warmbier was sentenced to 15 years' hard labor for stealing a propaganda banner from a hotel.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest accused Pyongyang of using US citizens as "pawns to pursue a political agenda" and called for his release.
"We strongly encourage the North Korean government to pardon him and grant him special amnesty and immediate release," Earnest said.
"The allegations for which this individual was arrested and imprisoned would not give rise to arrest or imprisonment in the United States or in just about any other country in the world."
In announcing the sentence, state news outlet KCNA said Warmbier had committed his offense "pursuant to the US government's hostile policy" toward North Korea.