Lim Jong-hoon of South Korea takes a selfie with North Korean silver medalists Kim Kum-yong and Ri Jong-sik, center, with Chinese gold medalists Wang Chuqin and Sun Yingsha flanking South Korean Shin Yu-bin.   Their two nations are famously divided. But ping-pong diplomacy is strong — and so it unfolded that after competing in table tennis at the Paris Olympics, athletes from North Korea and South Korea chatted and smiled as they posed for a selfie together. China’s team joined, rounding out the photo. In a moment that has gone viral, the players had just received their medals for the mixed doubles competition in the South Paris Arena when one of the South Korean athletes produced a cellphone for a modern Olympic tradition: a group photo at the podium.  The image was posted to the Olympics' official Korean-language account; a video of the athletes posing and smiling also became a sensation. North Korea’s duo of Kim Kum-yong and Ri Jong-sik had plenty to celebrate. The No. 16 seed earned silver after dealing upsets to highly ranked teams from Japan and Hong Kong and earning a spot in the final against top-ranked China, which won gold. This is North Korea’s first Olympics since Rio in 2016, having sat out the pandemic-delayed games in Tokyo. The North Koreans never faced South Korea’s team of Lim Jong-hoon and Shin Yu-bin, who were relegated to the bronze medal match after losing to China’s formidable Wang Chuqin and Sun Yingsha on the opposite side of the bracket. It’s the first table tennis medal for South Korea since the London Games in 2012. Then they all came together for a selfie, a document of friendly celebration at the podium. The scene is being hailed as a very human moment that transcends borders and governments, an example of the Olympics’ power to unite people through sport. And in the case of these two countries, it’s also a reminder that while the demilitarized zone divides the north and south, it did not sever centuries’ worth of Koreans’ shared family ties and culture. For Lim, the Olympic medal brings a notable fringe benefit. Under South Korean law, he is granted an exemption from his mandatory 18-month military service — a term that was set to begin weeks after he returned from the Olympics, as The Korea Herald reports. The athletes’ moment of selfie diplomacy came days after what had been an unfortunate start to the South Korean delegation’s visit to the Paris Olympics. During the opening ceremonies’ parade of athletes, an announcer mistakenly hailed them as representing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — a.k.a., North Korea.   2024.07.31 NPR News

Ari Shapiro speaks with Ambassador Robert Gallucci, chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins, about North Korea's invitation to a meeting with President Trump. Gallucci was chief negotiator during the North Korean nuclear crisis in 1994 and has been involved in informal talks with North Korean officials. Robert Gallucci, a distinguished professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service and chief U.S. negotiator during the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: It's been decades since a U.S. administration entertained high-level, one-on-one talks with North Korea. The leaders of the two countries have never met. Robert Gallucci is a professor at Georgetown University and a veteran diplomat. Ambassador Gallucci led bilateral talks with North Korea in 1994. They produced what's called The Agreed Framework, a plan to freeze nuclear production to eliminate all nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula eventually. That agreement came apart two years later. Ambassador Gallucci met more recently with North Korean diplomats in the fall of 2016. And he joins us now. Welcome. ROBERT GALLUCCI: Thank you very much. SHAPIRO: You've spent more time across the table from North Korean negotiators than most people. A meeting of these two world leaders is different from a meeting of professional negotiators. But what advice would you offer going into this? GALLUCCI: I would advise anybody involved in any of this to keep your expectations modest. Keep your patience intact here. Look at this as a long-term process. Look at engagement as something that will continue for a while. And always remember that - you know, to keep the eye on the ball. We're looking for a material change in the situation. Material change means the capability of North Korea directly to do damage to the United States of America or its allies, explicitly concerning nuclear weapons. If you focus on that, you can end up in the right place. SHAPIRO: Many people have asked whether anything the North Koreans say can be trusted. Given your experience negotiating with them, what do you think? GALLUCCI: I think talking about trust in international affairs is a very iffy proposition, particularly between states that have either - experienced war - as we have with North Korea - are generally considered to be belligerents, one to the other, as we are with North Korea. We, I think, freely have ever since the late, late '90s talked about North Korea as something of an enemy. So I think to be looking for trust at this point is a tad bit outrageous, and that what we really ought to be thinking about are agreements that can be verified, arrangements that can be useful and be built upon with always expecting that the substance of those arrangements if there are to be relied upon, must be relied upon only to the extent that they can be verified. SHAPIRO: Do you worry about the absence of lower-level people who would have been holding senior positions at the State Department if they had been nominated and confirmed, but there are now vacancies? GALLUCCI: I generally worry about the Department of State and its capacity to do what I think most of us have understood has been the job of the Department forever. They are significantly understaffed. Staffing up for negotiations isn't that difficult. Under most circumstances, I think there are those that the Trump administration could recruit who could step up to the challenge of conducting negotiations over a protracted period. So, I think the staffing issue with this administration is nontrivial, but I think it's manageable. SHAPIRO: Diplomacy involves important thorny issues and also just person-to-person relations. Are there aspects of working with the North Koreans different from other countries you've negotiated with? GALLUCCI: I think the first thing for me to note is that it's been a long time since I represented the United States of America in a negotiation with the North Koreans. And when I did a quarter of a century ago, the North Koreans were not, I would say, experts at international engagement. They did not interact like an average team would. Their tactics were, at times, I would say, even crude. SHAPIRO: What do you mean by that? Can you give us an example? GALLUCCI: I can think of a - more than one occasion sitting in their mission in Geneva and having my opposite member, Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok Ju, yell, and then having his somewhat diminutive interpreter mimic his yelling as he translated it into English. And the combination of the two is surreal for me. The point I want to make is that it was long ago. When I met the North Koreans in Kuala Lumpur, I would say they have come a long way. They were much smoother and more polished. And I don't think there was anything hugely different between talking to a delegation from North Korea and a delegation from any other country. SHAPIRO: Ambassador Gallucci, thank you for joining us. GALLUCCI: Thank you for having me. SHAPIRO: Robert Gallucci is chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. NPR, Edit: KMHPF

As Robert Higgs noted in his 1994 speech, “War and the Leviathan State,” World War II acted as one of the most pervasive changes to the psyche of the average American regarding foreign policy. Not only this but unlike previous wars, World War II did not see a return to a peacetime constitution like in earlier conflicts. In many ways, it was the birth of the Military-Industrial Complex, leading our politicians into continuous, seemingly never-ending government involvement in foreign conflicts. One such foreign conflict was Korea, a war that never was. The Bridge of No Return Often remembered as the Forgotten War, the American psyche around Korea is the opposite of that surrounding the Second World War. Despite this, Korea is one of the most critical points in the birth of Post-War America. The mentality that came out of World War II, which viewed any non-interventionism as the sort of “isolationism” that eventually led to U.S. involvement, would finally be tested. The MIC would truly become ingrained into American politics. As shown, Korea was the final blow in returning to the foreign policy that made America great, instead turning it into a global occupier eager to maintain an empire abroad. Before the conflict, Korea was divided along the 38th Parallel by the Soviets and the United States. This was due to the previous Japanese occupation of the peninsula during the Second World War, when both sides had the understanding that, at some point, the two Koreas would need to be united. However, as could’ve been predicted by any previous observer, this would be a disastrous idea. Each side had its own “democratic” government ruled by its influencer’s chosen strongman, Syngman Rhee and Kim Il-Sung, and both quickly became an area of focus for the two burgeoning superpowers. However, during this period, the relationship between the Soviets and the Americans was still up in the air, as highlighted by Paul Pierpaoli, Jr. Between 1945 and 1950, the United States often struggled to formulate a consistent, coherent foreign policy to keep the Soviet threat at bay, protect vital national interests, and expand liberal, free-market capitalism.  Although the Truman administration had decided to “contain” communism even before the concept was articulated and later expanded upon by George Kennan in 1946 and 1947, the United States adhered to this containment mechanism – until war broke out in Korea in 1950. Before the Korean War, initiatives such as the IMF, the Marshall Plan, GATT, and even NATO would feature economic and political – rather than military – containment of the Soviet Union. In essence, while an underlying idea existed that America needed to be the antisocialist bulwark, in practice, the way that the United States was to achieve this was completely unknown. The Soviets, too, were in a similar situation. Before the conflict in 1950, Stalin had been providing weapons and ammunition to communist groups in China. With the victory of the Chinese Communist Party, military intervention was not necessarily the top priority of the Soviet Union. Instead, it seems to be the case that the Soviet Union had little involvement in the start of the war. While the actual reasoning for the beginning of the conflict is shrouded in mystery like most things involving North Korea, what is known is that many around Stalin and Kim seem to suggest that Stalin was unaware of the conflict before it occurred. In Khrushchev’s memoirs, he says, “I must stress that the war wasn’t Stalin’s idea, but Kim I1-Sung’s. Kim was the initiator. Stalin, of course, didn’t try to dissuade him.” This is also the narrative held by a close advisor to Kim Il-Sung by the name of Lim Un, who revealed that Stalin would not backfill the United States even if they got directly involved in the war. This continues to be a reappearing narrative. Before American involvement, Korea should have been thought of as more of a country on the verge of civil war. Robert Simmons concludes that the start of the war was most likely due to nationalism that surrounded both sides and a political struggle between Kim Il-Sung and Pak Hon-Yong, the head of the Communist Party of South Korea, before Syngman Rhee banned it. Since both were in a rush to see who could unite the peninsula first, it seems that the power struggle led one of the two to start the war eventually. However, it should be noted that South Korea also bears responsibility, as pointed out by Karunakar Gupta, “While the United Nations Commission on Korea heard the North Korean broadcast on 25 June 1950 alleging the South Korean attack on Haeju, it simply brushed aside that complaint without any inquiry and accepted South Korea’s complaint of an unprovoked aggression to be true.” He suggests that the border skirmishes started by the Rhee administration also helped to provoke the invasion, which would seem to back up the view that the war in Korea was more akin to an inevitable civil war than any Soviet invasion. Soviet and Communist Chinese intervention seemed limited even after the start of the war, and the Soviets seemed unprepared for the conflict. For instance, the Soviets weren’t present at the United Nations vote for intervention in the conflict. Chinese support for the war was also somewhat limited, with much of it being a response to the success of UN forces and fear of having an American puppet right on their border. The idea that Chinese hordes primarily fought the war was mostly a myth, and most Chinese forces were out of the peninsula before the end of the war. China was more focused on its interior than on the conflict abroad, which is one of the main reasons Kim received few Chinese armaments before the war started. However, this was not the perspective of the United States. Once the war officially started, McCarthyism came into full swing, with Korea becoming the first domino in the Domino Theory. From here, there was no turning back. During the Korean Conflict, America permanently entered its modern situation. The Truman administration controversially passed NSC-68, which saw military expenditure increase from $13 Bil. in 1950 to $50 Bil. by the end of 1951. Most importantly, much of this was marketed not for the Korean War but instead acted as the nexus for the continuation of the military-industrial complex, along with the Marshall Plan being shifted to focus on rearmament during this period instead of economic growth. Pierpaoli notes, “The decision to mobilize for the long haul of the Cold War meant that balanced federal budgets in America were no longer sacrosanct. The limited social Keynesianism that had guided American economic thinking since the late 1930s was to be wedded to the military Keynesianism of the World War II era.” The effects of Truman’s policies were unpopular, acting as one of the greatest power grabs for the president's office. Unlike previous administrations, the Truman administration launched no formal declaration of war. Despite saying the United States' policy was that of containment, the US crossed north of the 38th parallel to unite the entire peninsula, which, as highlighted earlier, acted as the catalyst for Chinese involvement and directly increased the scale of the conflict. This decision by Truman would lead to unprecedented human casualties. As Charles Armstrong notes, The number of Koreans dead, injured, or missing by the war’s end approached three million, ten percent of the overall population. The majority of those killed were in the North, which had half of the population of the South. However, the DPRK does not have official figures; possibly twelve to fifteen percent of the population was killed in the war, a figure close to or surpassing the proportion of Soviet citizens who died in World War II. Much of this was due in part to the indiscriminate bombing campaign of the United States, which dropped more bombs in the span of the Korean Conflict than the entire Pacific theater during World War II. In the end, this resulted in the death of over a million civilians in the North alone, leading to a psychological fear of the United States that persists to this very day. It is believed that the Korean Conflict was one of the primary reasons for the Democratic defeat in 1952. However, the Eisenhower administration failed to reduce the scope of the federal government during his presidency. Instead, Truman’s precedent would come to influence American foreign policy in Vietnam, and his “limited aggression” would majorly influence Henry Kissinger's foreign policy. Of course, despite all this bad, I imagine those out there still think the conflict was worth it. I would instead suggest that this is not the case at all. America essentially traded away its freedom for a massive military base in Asia and used American and Korean lives to pay for it. However, that is not the complete scope of the tragedy. The consistent military training directly on the North Korean border can be attributed to much of the nation’s continuation of Stalinism and has led to repeated human travesties. It also cannot be said that America brought freedom to the country. For decades, the American puppets Syngman Rhee and Park Chung Hee ruled the South with brutality that caused the North to have a larger economy than the South until the mid-1980s. Only later, with the assassination of Park Chung Hee and the protest that followed, was South Korea’s current, more pleasant government founded in 1987.   On the other hand, the result could not have been determined if America had stayed out of the Korean affair. What is known, however, is that the DPRK could not rely on its unending nationalist cause of reunification to empower the regime, nor could it fall back on fear of foreign invasion to justify the Kim family’s rule. These reasons are primarily what caused North Korea to reject unification after the fall of the Soviet Union and remain in the situation it is now. However, by looking at other dictatorships like Ceausescu’s Romania or China after the death of Mao, it seems clear that without these causes, the eternal communism held today by the nation could not continue to exist without a true outside threat to “the people’s way of life.” At best, Korea could have ended up a united and prosperous post-soviet state like East Germany and, at worst, ended up in a similar situation to Vietnam or China. Still, it seems unlikely that the Juche regime could persist forever. In conclusion, Korea should not forget about the war. Instead, it should be remembered as the war the state used to increase its power on pretense significantly. Korea permanently ingrained the Military-Industrial Complex into our society and began the policy of domino theory. It also saw the end of the constitutional war, with the President able to deploy the US military globally wherever he wanted. During the Great Depression and World War II, the federal government increased to an unprecedented size, as desired by the despotic nature of FDR. However, his successor, Harry Truman, ended any hope of returning to peace, and Korea acted as the point of no return. (2024.2)

An American surveillance aircraft performed a full sweep of the Korean Peninsula's heavily armed demilitarized zone last week on the same day North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was said to have overseen the test of new ballistic missile technology.   Aircraft signals received by the website Flightradar24, a favorite among plane spotters, showed a U.S. Air Force RC-135U Combat Sent flying a nearly nine-hour sortie on May 17, cutting across the peninsula from the East China Sea to the Sea of Japan—known in both Koreas as the East Sea.   The long-endurance reconnaissance platform equipped to gather electronic intelligence flew out of Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, the Western Pacific island that hosts about two-thirds of the 50,000 or so U.S. troops stationed in Japan.   Newsweek's map traces the Combat Sent's hours-long mission across Northeast Asia on Friday. According to rough estimates, the journey covered at least 2,300 miles, or about half its stated operational range.   At about noon that day, the spy plane reached the Sea of Japan/East Sea and doubled back at least once before returning to Okinawa.   The same aircraft has deployed to the Chinese coast several times this month. The Combat Sent, which the Air Force says collects signals from foreign military hardware for analysis, was about 40 miles south of the de facto inter-Korean border, according to Flightradar24, or 100 miles south of Wonsan, the North Korean port city and naval base where Pyongyang's latest test was conducted. This photograph, released by KCNA on May 18, shows a ballistic missile test fired the previous day. KCNA said the launch verified the "accuracy and reliability" of a new navigation system. North Korea Reacts to 'Nuclear Threat' From US South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff first reported the launch of short-range ballistic missiles from Wonsan toward the Sea of Japan on Friday, but the test fire was not acknowledged by the North until a day later. Pyongyang's state-owned Korean Central News Agency said on Saturday that Kim had overseen a "tactical ballistic missile" test that verified a "new autonomous navigation system." "The test fire is part of the regular activities of the administration and its affiliated defense science institutes for rapid technological development of weapon systems," KCNA said. This U.S. Air Force image dated June 18, 2004, shows an RC-135U Combat Sent aircraft in a training mission from Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base U.S. AIR FORCE The U.S. Defense Department does not comment on specific operations. It was, therefore, unclear whether the Combat Sent's sortie along the DMZ was related to the launch event. North Korea's embassy in Beijing did not immediately return a written request for comment. On Friday, KCNA reported Kim's visit to a manufacturer of missile launcher vehicles, which North Korea's state media linked to the regime's "nuclear war deterrent."   North Korea's enemies, Kim was quoted as saying, "would grow dreadful and dare not to play with fire only when they witness the nuclear combat posture of our state," in language that has typified the recent months of high tensions on the peninsula.   Newsweek 2024.05.21.

A TV screen shows a file image of a North Korean missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in South Korea on April 22, 2024. North Korea fired multiple suspected short-range ballistic missiles toward its eastern waters on Monday, South Korea's military said. AP Photo North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised salvo launches of the country's "super-large" multiple rocket launchers that simulated a nuclear counterattack against enemy targets, state media said Tuesday, adding to tests and threats that have raised tensions in the region.   The report by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) came a day after the South Korean and Japanese militaries detected the North firing what they suspected were multiple short-range ballistic missiles from a region near its capital, Pyongyang, toward its eastern seas.   Analysts say North Korea's large-sized artillery rockets blur the boundary between artillery systems and ballistic missiles because they can create their thrust and are guided during delivery. The North has described some of these systems, including the 600mm multiple rocket launchers that were tested Monday, as capable of delivering tactical nuclear warheads. KCNA said Monday's launches represented the first demonstration of the country's nuclear weapons management and control system called "Haekbangashoe," or "nuclear trigger." The report described the drill as aimed at demonstrating the strength and diverse attack means of North Korea's nuclear forces amid deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea, which it portrayed as "warmongers" raising tensions in the region with their combined military exercises.   North Korea fires short-range missiles into the sea in its latest weapons test State media photos showed at least four rockets being fired from launch vehicles. The missiles flew 352 kilometers (218 miles) before accurately hitting an island target. The drill verified the reliability of the "system of command, management, control, and operation of the whole nuclear force." KCNA said Kim expressed satisfaction, saying that the multiple rocket launchers were as accurate as a "sniper's rifle." He said the drill was crucial for "preparing our nuclear force to be able to rapidly and correctly carry out their important mission of deterring a war and taking the initiative in a war in any time and any sudden situation." The comments reflected North Korea's escalatory nuclear doctrine, which authorizes the military to launch preemptive nuclear strikes against enemies if it perceives the leadership as under threat. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said the weapons from Monday's launches flew about 300 kilometers (185 miles) before crashing in the waters between the Korean Peninsula and Japan. The ranges suggested the weapons would likely target sites in South Korea. The latest launches came as South and the United States conducted a two-week combined aerial exercise that continues through Friday to sharpen their response capabilities against North Korean threats.   Are North and South Korea Coming Closer to War? When asked about the North Korean claims, Lee Sung Joon, spokesperson of South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it remains unclear whether the North perfected the designs for small, battlefield nuclear weapons that could fit on its rockets. He insisted the North was likely exaggerating the accuracy of its multiple rocket launcher systems and that South Korea would be able to detect and intercept such weapons without elaborating on specific missile defense capabilities. Lee said the North might have used the drill to test the multiple rocket launchers it potentially plans to export to Russia as the countries expand their military cooperation in the face of separate, intensifying confrontations with the United States. The U.S. and South Korea have accused North Korea of transferring artillery shells, missiles, and other munitions to Russia to help extend its warfighting in Ukraine. A head of resident community, Kim Jeoung-hee opens up a shelter on Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea, Jan. 8, 2024. North Korea, in recent months, has maintained an accelerated pace in weapons testing as it continues to expand its military capabilities. At the same time, diplomacy with the United States and South Korea remained stalled. Outside officials and analysts say Kim's goal is to eventually pressure the United States into accepting the idea of the North as a nuclear power and negotiating economic and security concessions from a position of strength. In response to North Korea's evolving nuclear threats, the United States and South Korea have been strengthening their bilateral military drills and trilateral exercises with Japan. The countries are also sharpening their nuclear deterrence strategies built around strategic U.S. assets. North Korea launches ballistic missile, thought capable of hitting distant US bases In past years, North Korea has test-fired nuclear-capable missiles designed to strike sites in South Korea, Japan, and the mainland U.S. Many experts say North Korea already possesses nuclear missiles that can reach all of South Korea and Japan. Still, it has yet to develop functioning intercontinental ballistic missiles that can travel to the continental U.S. The latest launches came days after North Korea announced Saturday it tested a "super-large" cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area earlier last week. In early April, North Korea also test-launched what it called a solid-fuel intermediate-range missile with hypersonic warhead capabilities. Experts say this weapon is meant to attack remote targets in the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam and beyond. In this photo provided by the North Korean government, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, center, inspects as he tours munitions factories in North Korea on Jan. 8-9, 2024.

The tiny village of Taesung sits deep in the heart of Korea’s Demilitarised Zone – the strip of no-man’s land separating North and South Korea. The community of South Koreans, many in their 80s and 90s, live mere metres from North Korea, meaning they must be guarded day and night by hundreds of soldiers. The village was established at the end of the Korean War as a symbol of peace, but 70 years later, the Korean Peninsula is still divided, and over the past year tensions between the two countries have flared. The BBC’s Seoul correspondent Jean Mackenzie has secured rare access to the village, the people who live there and the soldiers who guard them. The hidden village just metres from North Korea | BBC News Filmed and edited by Hosu Lee Living Between Enemy Lines A rare insight into a village which sits within Korea's Demilitarised Zone.

The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea is one of the most notorious borders in the world. With tensions between the two countries continuously very high, this border can be dangerous. Despite this, joining a tour and visiting the DMZ is something we could not miss during our time in Korea. It is so important to us that we learn both the history and the ongoing issues that North Korea and South Korea face, both individually as countries and together as countries who share a border, a history, and a people.   You cannot visit the DMZ without joining a tour that escorts you through the military checkpoint and walks through the DMZ area with you. Despite the environment being lush and beautiful, it's hard to forget you are at a contentious border because of all the barbed wire, military presence, and security cameras at every turn. Learning about the history of North and South Korea is the goal of the tour groups, and we learned so much from our tour guide.   The Korean Peninsula was under Japanese colonial rule from 1910 until Japan's defeat in World War II in 1945. After Japan's surrender, the peninsula was divided along the 38th parallel into two zones of occupation: the Soviet-controlled North and the American-controlled South. This division established two governments, each claiming to be the legitimate authority over the entire peninsula. In 1950, North Korea, supported by the Soviet Union and China, invaded South Korea, leading to the Korean War. The war ended in 1953 with a ceasefire.   Our tour's main message was one of peace. South Korea is eager to see peace restored between the two nations. Part of this is because many South Koreans have loved ones in North Korea who are unable to leave, and South Koreans are not able to go in.   The first stop on our tour was Imjingak Park, a Park in South Korea created as a memorial. It serves as a place of respect for those who died during the Korean War and as a place where people can go to grieve and mourn their family and friends who are on the other side of the border and, therefore, completely out of reach.   Next, we went to the Third Infiltration Tunnel to get as close as possible to North Korea without entering the country. These tunnels were dug from North Korea to South Korea, but South Korea found them before they reached beyond the DMZ. Being underground and getting this close to North Korea was an experience we never thought we'd have!   The last stop of the day was the Dora Observatory. From here, we can see North Korea with our bare eyes. We found it hard to grasp how different life is for people on the other side of the border.   Our whole trip to the DMZ taught us so much more about North and South Korea and the heartbreak that continues to happen here. It was a sad experience, but travel isn't always happy. We felt like our visit to Korea would not be complete without seeing the DMZ to understand this country's past and present, and we are so glad we went. What It's Like Visiting the North Korea Border (DMZ Tour)

Smoke from an explosion rises as part of the dismantling of a South Korean guard post in DMZ,as a North Korean guard post sits high in the upper left. 2018.11 (AP) North Korean soldiers install their guard posts in the DMZ. 2024.1 (AP) North Korea is restoring front-line guard posts that it had dismantled during a previous period of inter-Korean rapprochement, South Korea’s military said Monday, after animosities spiked between the rivals over the North’s recent spy satellite launch. The two Koreas previously dismantled or disarmed 11 of their guard posts inside their heavily fortified border, called the Demilitarized Zone, under a 2018 deal meant to ease front-line military confrontations. However, the current state of this deal is precarious. Both Koreas have openly threatened to breach it, which could potentially lead to a complete breakdown of the agreement and a return to heightened tensions. The 2018 agreement required the two Koreas to halt aerial surveillance and live-fire exercises at no-fly and buffer zones that they established along the DMZ, remove some of their front-line guard posts and land mines, and leave South Korea with 50 board guard posts and North Korea with 150.

Civil War – Approximately 620,000 Americans died. The Union lost almost 365,000 troops and the Confederacy about 260,000. More than half of these deaths were caused by disease. World War I – 116,516 Americans died, more than half from disease. World War II – 405,399 Americans died. Korean War – 36,574 Americans died. Vietnam Conflict – 58,220 Americans died. Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm – 382 service members died. Operation Iraqi Freedom – 4,418 service members died. Operation New Dawn – 74 service members died. Operation Enduring Freedom – 2,350 service members died. Operation Freedom’s Sentinel – 109 service members died. Operation Inherent Resolve – 113 service members have died as of May 2024. The Korean War Memorial It memorializes those who served in the Korean War (1950–1953). The national memorial was dedicated in 1995. It includes 19 statues representing U.S. military personnel in action. Korean War Garden Statue (Washington DC) Korean War Veterans Memorial (Washington DC) The Wall, Korean War Memorial (Washington DC) Floral Clock – Korean War Memorial (St Louis) Korean War Memorial (Atlantic City, NJ) New Jersey Korean War Veterans Memorial (Atlantic City)

North Korea's developing military tech with AI capabilities creates a dangerous threat North Korea has been developing artificial intelligence across various sectors, including in military technology and programs that safeguard nuclear reactors, which could create international threats, according to a new report. The authoritarian regime has used AI to develop wargame simulations and has collaborated with Chinese tech researchers, according to a report by 38 North, a publication for policy and technical analysis of North Korean affairs. The AI advancements (https://www.foxnews.com/tech/fox-news-ai-newsletter-americas-role-ukraines-unbelievable-ai-military-development)and foreign collaboration could lead to sanction violations and leaked information, the report stated.  North Korea has been rapidly developing artificial intelligence for a myriad of civilian and military uses, according to a new report. (Getty Images) "North Korea’s recent endeavors in AI/[machine learning] development signify a strategic investment to bolster its digital economy," Hyuk Kim of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in California wrote in the Jan. 23 report, which cited open-source information from state media and scientific journals. "This commitment is underscored by constitutional amendments fostering the digitization and informatization of its socialist economy, coupled with institutional reforms to address competing self-interest across government offices."    More recently, North Korea applied artificial intelligence and machine learning to create a model for evaluating proper mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the report.  PENTAGON ALARMED BY CHINESE RUSH FOR ‘INTELLIGENTIZED’ WARFARE, BUT EXPERTS WARN ABOUT OVER-RELIANCE ON AI(https://www.foxnews.com/world/pentagon-alarmed-chinese-rush-intelligentized-warfare-experts-warn-reliance-ai) But Kim said the nation's most recent AI developments are concerning.   "North Korea’s pursuit of a wargaming simulation program using [machine learning] reveals intentions to comprehend operational environments against potential adversaries better," Kim wrote. "Furthermore, North Korea’s ongoing collaborations with foreign scholars pose concerns for the sanctions regime." North Korean researchers have also published studies about using AI to maintain nuclear reactors' safety, according to Kim. The studies were aimed at mitigating the risk of nuclear accidents and making reactors more effective. (2024.01.31)

Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to visit Kim Jong Un soon, North Korean (https://www.cnn.com/world/asia/north-korea?cid=external-feeds_iluminar_msn)state media reported Sunday, the latest sign of increasing cooperation between the two authoritarian leaders as war rages in Ukraine and military tensions increase in East Asia. Putin thanked Kim for an invitation to visit Pyongyang and pledged to go there “at an early date,” the report from the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said. Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un shake hands during their meeting in Vladivostok, Russia, on April 25, 2019. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said the dates for Putin’s visit to North Korea were still being discussed through diplomatic channels and would be announced later, Russian state-run news agency TASS reported. Last Tuesday, North Korean Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui met Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow to discuss issues regarding the Korean Peninsula, Northeast Asia, and international peace and security, according to TASS. At that meeting the two sides expressed a “strong will to strengthen further strategic and tactical cooperation in defending the core interests of the two countries,” KCNA said. A Putin visit to Pyongyang would reciprocate one Kim made last September, when the North Korean leader traveled in his armored train to Russia’s far eastern region, visiting a factory that produces fighter jets and a rocket-launch facility among other stops. During that visit, Kim praised Russia for standing up to “hegemonic forces” with its war in Ukraine, while Putin signaled a willingness to assist North Korea in developing its space and satellite programs. Signs of increasing Russian-North Korean cooperation have been seen in Ukraine. According to the US Defense Department, Russia has twice in the past month fired North Korean-made missiles at targets in Ukraine. And South Korean intelligence has reported that Pyongyang has supplied Moscow with more than 1 million artillery shells that could be used in the invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, Western analysts say Russia could be a source of technology and expertise for Kim as he refines a nuclear-capable missile program that could threaten not only his neighbors in East Asia, but possibly the mainland United States with intercontinental ballistic missiles. Kim has been drawing an increasingly harder line against South Korea in recent weeks, saying the North will no longer seek reconciliation and reunification with the South and instructing the country’s army, munitions industry, nuclear weapons and civil defense sectors to accelerate war preparations in response to “confrontation moves” by the US. Last week, in a speech to a Supreme People’s Assembly (SPA) meeting in Pyongyang, Kim called the South the North’s “primary foe and invariable principal enemy” and said a reunification monument in the North Korean capital was an “eyesore” that should be demolished. (2024.01.24)

The Arch of Reunification – built in 2000 after a landmark inter-Korean summit – has disappeared from satellite imagery North Korea (https://www.theguardian.com/world/north-korea)has demolished a monument that symbolized hope for reconciliation with the South, days after the regime’s leader, Kim Jong-un,(https://www.theguardian.com/world/kim-jong-un) said the peaceful reunification of the two Koreas was no longer possible.(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/16/unification-with-south-korea-no-longer-possible-says-kim-jong-un) In the latest sign of rising tensions on the peninsula, the Arch of Reunification – built in 2000 after a landmark inter-Korean summit (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/13/northkorea1)– has disappeared from satellite imagery, according to the NK News website. It was not immediately clear when or how it had been taken down, NK News said. Kim, whose tone has become markedly belligerent in recent weeks, described the concrete arch – which shows two women, one each from the North and South, holding an emblem of the outline of the Korean peninsula – as an “eyesore” at a speech this month to the Supreme People’s Assembly, the North’s rubber-stamp parliament. He added that the North’s constitution should be amended to reflect South Korea’s new status as his country’s “principal enemy” – effectively ending decades of official policy that stressed the eventual reunification (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/15/korean-peninsula-will-be-united-by-2045-says-seoul-amid-japan-row)of the autocratic North with the democratic South. The 30-meter arch, formally known as the Monument to the Three Charters for National Reunification, symbolized self-reliance, peace, and national cooperation, according to South Korean government records. Located on the Reunification Highway, which connects Pyongyang to the heavily armed border with the South, it was reportedly erected to commemorate plans for reunification put forward by Kim’s grandfather and North Korean founder Kim Il-sung. While purely symbolic, its reported removal will add to fears that North Korea has taken a more provocative course in its relations with the South and its allies, months before the US presidential elections. The regime claimed it had launched its first spy satellite (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/22/north-korea-spy-satellite-malligyong-1-pyongyang-kim-jong-un)in November, and last week said it had test-fired (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/15/north-korea-hypersonic-missile-claims-solid-fuel-pyongyang)a new ballistic missile tipped with a hypersonic maneuverable warhead. On Wednesday, South Korea’s military said the North had launched several cruise missiles into the sea, a fortnight after it fired artillery rounds near the countries’ disputed maritime border. The North has used missile launches to protest joint military exercises by South Korean and US forces, which the regime considers a rehearsal for an invasion. Asked if the provocative tone of recent North Korean announcements – including one in which it said it was “preparing for nuclear war” – was cause for concern, White House spokesperson John Kirby said: “We’re watching this very, very closely.” He added: “I would just tell you that we remain confident that the defensive posture that we’re maintaining on the peninsula is appropriate to the risk.” There is little prospect of a return to the era of cross-border rapprochement symbolized by the monument. Under its conservative president, Yoon Suk Yeol, South Korea has taken a harder line against Pyongyang, vowing immediate and tough responses to North Korean provocations. In response, the North has vowed to “wipe out” its neighbor if attacked by South Korean and US forces. Late last year, Pyongyang said a 2018 agreement with the South designed to de-escalate military tensions was no longer valid. The Supreme People’s Assembly last week abolished government agencies that had overseen engagement with the South. (2024.01.23)

North Korea has officially dropped (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67990948)peaceful reunification with the South as a key policy goal, according to state reports on January 16, 2024. In a speech to the Supreme People’s Assembly, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said he no longer saw the South as a “partner of reconciliation and reunification,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency reported. The policy shift will see the closure of three government agencies tasked with unification and inter-Korean tourism, namely the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification, the National Economic Cooperation Bureau, and the Mount Kumgang International Tourism Administration.  Kim has also reportedly ordered revisions to the North’s constitution, aiming to remove all references to “peaceful reunification” and “great national unity” from broadcasts, websites, and monuments. “We can specify in our constitution the issue of completely occupying, subjugating, and reclaiming the ROK and annexing it as a part of the territory of our ​republic in case a war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula,” Kim said. Although North Korea’s approach to the South has fluctuated widely over decades, at times calling Seoul its main enemy and threatening to “annihilate it” with nuclear weapons, reunification has remained the state's official goal. But the growing economic gap between the North and South, as well as rising North-South tensions, has further diminished the prospect. On Tuesday, South Korea’s President Yoon Suk Yeol described the decision as “anti-national and ahistorical.” The North and South have been engaged in a truce—but not a peace treaty—since the end of the Korean War, which took place from 1950 to 1953. As a result, the two nations have technically remained in a state of war since.  “We don’t want war, but we have no intention of avoiding it,” Kim said. Pyongyang has stepped up its missile tests in recent months amid escalating tensions with Seoul. On Monday, North Korea said it successfully tested (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/15/north-korea-hypersonic-missile-claims-solid-fuel-pyongyang)its first solid-fuel hypersonic missile, another breakthrough in advanced weaponry. According to a report released last week (https://www.38north.org/2024/01/is-kim-jong-un-preparing-for-war/)by 38 North, published by the Washington, D.C.-based Stimson Center think-tank, former State Department official Robert Carlin and nuclear scientist, Siegfried Hecke described current North-South relations as “more dangerous than it has been at any time since early June 1950.”

North Korea's advanced drones were inspected by Kim as a launch of a solid fuel IRBM (2024.01.15) North Korean state media has described the Saetbyol-4 (Morning Star-4) as “a strategic reconnaissance drone,” according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The Saetbyol-9 (Morning Star-9) has been labeled a “multi-purpose attack drone.” North Korean state media first unveiled the two drones in July 2023 and provided brief videos showing both of them in flight. Both were formally revealed during the Weapons and Equipment Exhibition 2023 July 26, 2023, attended by Kim and Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu. Shoigu was visiting Pyongyang to further military cooperation between the two countries and to secure more North Korean-made armaments for use in Moscow’s war in Ukraine. The precise capabilities of these North Korean drones were very much unclear, and few details have emerged since. Image from the test of the solid fuel IRBM and hypersonic vehicle. (2024.01.14) The test-fire was aimed at verifying the gliding and maneuvering characteristics of intermediate-range hypersonic maneuverable controlled warhead and the reliability of newly developed multi-stage high-thrust solid-fuel engines,” was successful. “The test-fire never affected the security of any neighboring country and had nothing to do with the regional situation,” according to KCNA. However, an IRBM, which has a range of between 3,000 and 5,500 kilometers [1,864 to 3,418 miles], would place the U.S. territory of Guam within range if fired from Pyongyang, the South Korean Yonhap news agency noted in its story about the test. Kim has threatened to fire an IRBM near Guam in the past and North Korean IRBMs have been a top reason why a THAAD anti-ballistic missile battery has been deployed to Guam for years. Sunday’s test comes after KCNA reported on engine trials for a new solid-fuel intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) conducted at separate facilities on both coasts last November, according to NKNews.org.(http://NKNews.org) South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) detected the latest launch at around 2:55 p.m. KST on Sunday, “saying it appeared to be an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) that flew around 621 miles (1,000 km) into the Sea of Japan (East Sea),” according to NKNews, North Korea tests missiles at extreme altitudes in order to stay closer to the peninsula. The performance during these tests can be extrapolated into a shallower, down-range optimized, operational trajectory. While North Korea has recently developed other solid fuel missile designs, including recently demonstrating a solid-fuel ICBM for the first time, having an IRBM with this capability is especially noteworthy. They would be among the most threatening missiles to U.S. interests during a conflict. Solid fuel capability means they can be erected and launched far quicker than their liquid-fuel progenitors. This makes them much harder to strike preemptively and gives less time for realizing an attack may be imminent. As such, solid fuel ballistic missiles increase the North Korean ballistic missile arsenal's survivability, effectiveness, and flexibility, among other advantages. North Korea has been on a quest to develop solid fuel designs for years and has made remarkable progress in this area of rocketry since it began a campaign of rapid iterative missile testing in 2016. The hypersonic boost glide vehicle (BGV) supposedly mounted atop the missile is a whole other issue. North Korea claimed it tested a BGV in 2021. It has since claimed to have tested similar vehicles multiple times atop various missiles, but putting one on a solid-fuel IRBM would drastically increase the value of such a weapon. Yet much is still unknown about the viability of North Korea's BGV designs and if they would even withstand the voyage to their target area. The technologies behind hypersonic flight, and especially those needed for dynamically maneuvering at velocities in excess of Mach 5, are very hard to master. If North Korea can make it work, especially aboard a solid fuel IRBM, that would be a major development that would significantly complicate defending against incoming North Korean attacks. A graphic showing, in a very rudimentary way, the difference in trajectories between a traditional ballistic missile and a hypersonic boost-glide vehicle. There is also some debate over if at least some of these conical, finned, hypersonic vehicles are really just maneuvering reentry vehicles that are less capable of higher degrees of maneuverability. Hypersonic terminal velocities are not abnormal for ballistic missiles, especially IRBMs, so the vehicle would be hypersonic, regardless, but not having the same capabilities of a HBGV. Still, this would be a troubling development, but nothing as big of accomplishment as making an operationally relevant hypersonic BGV. Regardless, Kim's inspection of the advanced drones and the solid fuel missile test come at a perilous time on the Korean Peninsula. On Monday, he called for a constitutional amendment to change the status of South Korea as a separate state and warned that while his country doesn't seek war, it didn't intend to avoid it, KCNA reported, according to Reuters.

Trump-Biden: Tag Team(https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/12/james-anthony/trump-biden-tag-team/)   Trump increased spending temporarily by 13% of GDP and permanently by at least 1%. Data: usgovernmentspending.com:(http://usgovernmentspending.com) national-only,(https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/download_multi_year_1792_2024USp_25s2li001mcny_F0fF0x) total national, state, and local(https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/download_multi_year_1820_2024USp_25s2li001mcny_F0t) Seven tag teams successively raised the floor for total spending Governments in the USA have in large part been grown by tag teams. In the 1800s, Thomas Jefferson’s embargo,(https://archive.org/details/jeffersonsenglis0000spiv) which broadened into James Madison’s War of 1812,(https://www.jstor.org/stable/29781853) ratcheted (https://www.everand.com/book/161117000/Crisis-and-Leviathan-Critical-Episodes-in-the-Growth-of-American-Government)total government spending up from the American colonies’ 1–2% of GDP (https://jamesanthony.us/party-preview/)to a new floor of 3.1%. James Buchanan’s promotion of union,(https://cooperative-individualism.org/weatherman-donald_james-buchanan-on-slavery-and-secession-1985-fall.pdf) which broadened into Abraham Lincoln’s Civil War,(https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=econ_pub#page=2) ratcheted spending up to 5.3%.   In the 1900s, William Taft’s Progressive centralization,(https://archive.org/details/williamhowardtaf0000luri/page/n15/mode/2up) which broadened into Woodrow Wilson’s Great War,(https://fee.org/articles/world-war-i-the-progressive-war/) ratcheted spending up to 11%. Herbert Hoover’s initiation and Franklin Roosevelt’s followthrough (https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/herbert-hoover-father-new-deal)of Progressive interference with recovery,(https://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_4_05_higgs.pdf) and the resulting failure to prevent World War II,(https://mises.org/wire/big-governments-one-two-punch-scope-creep-then-wartime-deprivation) ratcheted spending up to 18%. A series of Progressive presidents and major wars, capped off by Richard Nixon’s, Gerald Ford’s, and Jimmy Carter’s Great Inflation I (https://mises.org/power-market/gold-solution-financial-crises-not-their-cause)and wage and price controls,(https://cdn.mises.org/Forty%20Centuries%20of%20Wage%20and%20Price%20Controls%20How%20Not%20to%20Fight%20Inflation_2.pdf#page=146) ratcheted spending up to 32%.   In the 2000s, George Bush’s initiation of financial-crisis spending and Barack Obama’s followthrough (https://cdn.mises.org/qjae13_3_6.pdf)ratcheted spending up to 35%. Donald Trump’s initiation of Great Inflation II spending  (https://mises.org/wire/covid-stimulus-isnt-other-stimulus-its-much-bigger)and Joe Biden’s followthrough (https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2023/bidenomics-just-bidenology-or-trumpology#readings)ratcheted spending up to 36%. And we’re still early in Great Inflation II (https://mises.org/power-market/money-inflation-baked-savers-need-preserve-assets)and in the increasingly-likely Great Depression II.(https://mises.org/wire/mounting-deficits-mark-uss-road-ruin)   Out of all income earned on labor,(https://rconstitution.us/the-true-tax/) the national government takes a freedom-suffocating 36%, and state and local governments take another whole 36%. We serfs are far more productive now, so we suffer less deprivation,(https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Peltzman-Lecture.pdf?x91208) but even so, we’re already nearly 3/4 of the way down the road (https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0)to full socialism.(https://cdn.mises.org/mises-the-last-knight-of-liberalism.pdf#page=545) Tag teams double down Whenever we’ve gotten tag-teamed, we’ve gotten stuck with the same bigger-government actions no matter which candidate has won.(https://rconstitution.us/voters-dilemma/) This includes when we’ve gotten tag-teamed by Trump-Biden.   Under Trump, spending skyrocketed to an all-time high of 48% of GDP. Under Biden, spending then briefly settled back, but only down to 36%. That means that overall, Trump-Biden has already ratcheted up spending by at least another 1%. Trump expresses no regrets (https://brownstone.org/articles/megyn-kelly-asks-trump-a-few-hard-questions/)over covid lockdowns (https://brownstone.org/articles/the-questions-crying-out-for-answers/)and spending, and expresses great pride (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-says-he-saved-100-million-lives-covid-vaccines-1774178)over novel (https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8800/6/2/17)genetic therapies (https://rconstitution.us/solving-the-perfect-vaccine-killing/)that from the start have been deadly (https://www.scivisionpub.com/pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-on-pivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf)and debilitating.(https://www.floridahealth.gov/newsroom/2023/02/20230215-updated-health-alert.pr.html) Well before those defining actions, Trump already had saved Obamacare.(https://web.archive.org/web/20170310195404/https:/www.dailywire.com/news/14224/so-whose-bill-atrocious-obamacare-replacement-aaron-bandler) He had continued massive legal and illegal immigration (https://cis.org/Report/October-2023-ForeignBorn-Share-Was-Highest-History)that favors people who vote for bigger governments.(https://whatworks.site/immigration-criteria/) He had ratcheted up racially-calculating (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/01/trump-republicans-first-step-act-00029104)jailbreak of violent criminals (https://www.theblaze.com/column/opinion/horowitz-us-sentencing-commission-expands-jailbreak-of-violent-criminals-under-trump-era-first-step-act)that he favored because of a political calculation that was racially motivated.(https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/01/trump-republicans-first-step-act-00029104) Capping it all off, for years, Trump has endorsed both incumbents and contenders for open seats who are Republican Progressives, ratcheting into place “the swamp.(https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/desantis-on-draining-the-marxist-swamp-and-the/id1065050908?i=1000638697744)”   Never in history has a former officeholder who expanded governments then turned around and shrunk governments. What about the Economy, the Political System, and the Peace on the Korean Peninsula?

The idea, which has been considered in other forms during years of U.S.-led negotiations with North Korea, would be a shift in Washington’s overall approach to Pyongyang. Donald Trump is considering a plan to let North Korea keep its nuclear weapons and offer its regime financial incentives to stop making new bombs, according to three people briefed on his thinking. The move would mark a sharp departure from his past stance on the issue and a shift toward accommodating the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, with whom Trump developed an unusually friendly relationship during his time in office. While American presidents of both parties have largely despaired of persuading North Korea to relinquish its atomic arsenal, U.S. policy has continued to call for denuclearization of the Communist fortress state. Trump, however, may be prepared to give up on even attempting to convince Kim to dismantle his country’s nuclear weapons if he wins another term in 2024. At least part of his motivation, the people said, would be to avoid wasting time on what he sees as futile arms talks — and focus instead on the larger task of competing with China. Trump, one of the people said, is highly motivated to get an agreement with North Korea. “He knows he wants a deal,” this person said of Trump. “What type of deal? I don’t think he has thought that through.” One of the ideas Trump is weighing, according to the people briefed on it, would involve enticing North Korea to freeze its nuclear program and stop developing new weapons, in exchange for relief from economic sanctions and some other form of aid. It would also require the creation of a verification to ensure North Korea keeps its word, the people said. All three individuals, like others in this story, were granted anonymity to speak freely about the president’s thinking. In a Truth Social post (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/111574582081222083)hours after this story was published, Trump said, “This is a made-up story, DISINFORMATION, put out by Democrat Operatives in order to mislead and confuse. The only thing accurate in the story is that I do get along well with Kim Jong Un!” Trump did not specifically deny he was mulling the freeze-for-relief idea. It is possible that Trump could still pursue denuclearization as a long-term goal, but it would be a departure from standard U.S. policy to strike even a near-term deal with North Korea that doesn’t state that explicitly. Prior administrations from both American political parties have sought to pause Pyongyang’s weapons development with the goal of eventually convincing North Korea to shed its pariah status by abandoning nuclear arms. They have offered incentives to North Korea aimed at achieving such a pause, from food aid to sanctions relief to fuel oil. But in all previous cases, American administrations have emphasized that stopping the creation of new weapons was merely an interim step in the direction of full denuclearization. Trump’s first-term policy on North Korea was “complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization.” And his initial approach was very hardline — he once considered dropping a nuclear weapon on North Korea and blaming its use on another country.(https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-discussed-using-nuclear-weapon-north-korea-2017-blaming-someone-rcna65120) After multiple personal engagements, Trump said he and Kim “fell in love,” sending letters to one another and remaining on good terms. But that goodwill did not translate into an agreement — save for a temporary missile-testing pause — and North Korea’s program has only advanced since. If Trump softens his approach, it could rattle allies like South Korea and Japan and unnerve members of his own party who prefer a tougher approach toward Pyongyang. It would also open the former president to criticisms of hypocrisy, as he consistently bashed the Obama administration for relieving Iran’s economic woes in exchange for reversing its advance toward a first nuclear weapon. Trump, as president, withdrew the U.S. from the Barack Obama-era Iran nuclear deal. Trump’s conversations on a North Korea strategy also signal that the former president is confident in his frontrunner status for the Republican nomination and has set his sights on issues that excited him as president. North Korea has not been a hot-button campaign issue — China, Israel-Hamas and Ukraine suck up all the oxygen — but Trump’s coziness with Kim has served as the occasional punchline for his 2024 rivals. “Neither Joe Biden’s weakness nor Donald Trump’s friendliness to Kim have changed North Korea’s direction for the better. These dictators only understand strength,” Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump administration, said in September.(https://nypost.com/2023/09/05/nikki-haley-knocks-trump-over-north-korea-amid-kim-putin-meeting/) Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, responding in September to reports of Russia potentially giving North Korea high-tech nuclear technologies in exchange for conventional weapons, said the U.S. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwiviEMOj_Q)had “to keep Kim Jong Un in a box … and to keep the pressure on.” Trump often calls or summons people in his orbit to muse on his legal woes, the state of the economy, foreign policy, or whatever he’s thinking about, said two other people who know how the president operates. Sometimes, he’s prompted by coverage of an issue on cable news either to know more about it or simply offer his thoughts on the subject, they added. Trump became obsessed with North Korea after Pyongyang launched its first-ever intercontinental ballistic missile in 2017. He threatened to go to nuclear war to stop Kim from developing his program, and Kim threatened his own attacks unless the U.S. backed off. Those tensions — highlighted by Trump calling Kim “Little Rocket Man” — turned into a historic personal diplomacy endeavor over the prospect of North Korea dismantling its arsenal, with Kim during a summit in Hanoi offering only a small concession while Trump wanted a bigger deal. The former president remained interested in the North Korea problem for the rest of his presidency and is still talking and thinking about it at Mar-a-Lago. The reduction in tensions between the U.S. and North Korea during the Trump years changed how Americans perceived the so-called “Hermit Kingdom.” In 2018, 51 percent said North Korea was the greatest U.S. enemy. The following year, that number plummeted to 14 percent, according to Gallup.(https://news.gallup.com/poll/247151/far-fewer-americans-north-korea-greatest-enemy.aspx) Trump’s latest thinking on Pyongyang is far from novel in the history of U.S.-North Korea relations. “This sounds remarkably similar to other things we’ve tried since the early 1990s,” said retired Marine Lt. Gen. Chip Gregson, formerly the Pentagon’s top Asia official from 2009 to 2011. “It sounds good, it’s a great talking point. Been there, done that, and it hasn’t worked.” North Korea has shown remarkable skill at keeping its nuclear development away from prying eyes. In 2010, for example, scientists in the country showed American analysts they had a uranium enrichment program, including two halls filled with 2,000 centrifuges.(https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys280/sp2016/archive/2011-03%20Hecker%20-%20What%20I%20found%20in%20Yongbyon%20and%20Why%20It%20Matters.pdf) “I was stunned by the sight,” Siegfried Hecker, a prominent American scientist on the 2010 visit to North Korea, said after his return.(https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys280/sp2016/archive/2011-03%20Hecker%20-%20What%20I%20found%20in%20Yongbyon%20and%20Why%20It%20Matters.pdf) Trump’s leaning that Pyongyang might not part with its nuclear weapons tracks with the long-held intelligence community assessment (https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2023-Unclassified-Report.pdf)that no North Korean leader would abandon such weapons that they feel help keep the regime in place. Trump may decide down the line to push for North Korea’s denuclearization, but at the start, that won’t be his explicit goal, and he will instead seek more modest aims. The next administration doesn’t start for more than a year and a lot can change in U.S.-North Korea relations — and the world — before then. Trump’s thinking could also evolve, based on discussions he has with confidants and advisers. Kim, like his father and grandfather before him, sees his nuclear weapons as the guarantor of his rule, deterring countries like South Korea or the United States from launching an invasion to dethrone him. After a year of threatening nuclear war against one another, Trump and Kim engaged in historic leader-to-leader diplomacy that ultimately didn’t result in North Korea’s denuclearization. Ever since, Kim has embarked on an advancement of his weapons program, earlier this year displaying the largest-ever number of nuclear missiles during a nighttime parade.(https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-shows-off-possible-solid-fuel-icbm-nighttime-parade-analysts-2023-02-09/) North Korea would “ exponentially increase”(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/01/kim-jong-un-north-korea-exponentially-increase-nuclear-warhead-production) its arsenal, he said in January. Biden administration officials have repeatedly offered to negotiate with North Korea without preconditions, but Pyongyang has offered nothing but silence. President Joe Biden, then, has moved closer to allies Japan and South Korea, ensuring they’re more coordinated and aligned on the North Korea issue as well as China and broader Indo-Pacific concerns. Some analysts suggest that Trump’s current thinking might be a way to break the stalemate. “A proposal that freezes North Korea’s program while not denuclearizing completely in the near or medium term might be a more realistic approach given the current situation,” said Frank Aum, a Northeast Asia expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace. “That might be the only way forward.” But Aum and others noted there were clear risks to Trump’s current inclination, the biggest one being that South Korea seeks nuclear weapons of its own. The country’s conservative president, Yoon Suk Yeol, earlier this year suggested that Seoul might pursue the bomb (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/world/asia/south-korea-nuclear-weapons.html)if the North Korea threat grew further. That would raise the prospect of a nuclear arms race in Asia just as the U.S. is hoping to limit China’s own development. Pressure against the Trump policy would almost certainly mount in Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo. Lawmakers, including Republicans friendly to Trump, would likely advise him to reverse course, in part because North Korea is aiding Russia in its war against Ukraine. There would also be overarching questions about America’s commitment to non-proliferation if the U.S., at least for a time, effectively approved of North Korea’s nuclear attainment. There are also many unknowns, namely how Kim would react to such a proposal, the specific details of how to ensure North Korea’s program remains untouched or how Beijing, Pyongyang’s closest partner, would react to all of this. But one thing many are sure of is that the prospect of North Korea dismantling its arsenal shrinks with each passing day. “North Korea has made it clear it’s not accepting any limitation on its program,” said Sydney Seiler, a former national intelligence officer for North Korea. “They say they’ll denuclearize only when the world denuclearizes.”

South Korean Marines patrolling Yeonpyeong Island, South Korea. South Korean officials ordered civilians living on the remote border islands of Yeonpyeong and Baengnyeong to evacuate and seek cover in bomb shelters, according (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/skorea-orders-evacuation-island-near-north-korea-border-2024-01-05/)to (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/5/north-korea-fires-artillery-towards-souths-islands-prompting-evacuations)news (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67889551)reports.(https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/05/world/north-korea-yeonpyeong-island-artillery-intl-hnk/index.html) The two islands are located near South Korea’s disputed maritime border with North Korea and the waters have been the site of a number of deadly encounters (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/skorea-orders-evacuation-island-near-north-korea-border-2024-01-05/)between the two nations. Seoul’s military said North Korea fired more than 200 artillery rounds off its western coast towards the islands on Friday morning. The live rounds did not harm any civilians or military and all landed on the northern side of the border, South Korea said. South Korea denounced (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67889551)the move as “provocative,” and Defense Minister Shin Won-sik said (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/skorea-orders-evacuation-island-near-north-korea-border-2024-01-05/)it “escalates tension and threatens peace on the Korean peninsula.” The country held (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/05/world/north-korea-yeonpyeong-island-artillery-intl-hnk/index.html)its own maritime firing drills later on Friday in response to the North’s artillery fire. Key Background Tensions on the Korean peninsula is rapidly rising and are at some of their worst points in decades. Friday’s move follows Kim saying Korean reunification (https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/31/asia/north-korea-reconciliation-south-korea-intl-hnk/index.html)is impossible and urging (https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20231231-north-korea-s-kim-jong-un-orders-military-to-prepare-for-possible-war)the military and industrial sectors to prepare for war, a major policy shift towards its southern neighbor. In recent years, Pyongyang has escalated inflammatory rhetoric over threats to build and use nuclear weapons, continued its tests to develop and grow its nuclear arsenal and amended (https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/27/asia/north-korea-nuclear-law-constitution-intl-hnk/index.html)its constitution to cement (https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20230928-north-korea-changes-constitution-and-declares-itself-a-nuclear-state)its status as a nuclear power, as well as launching a military spy satellite and cultivating (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67888793)ties with Russia. Washington has deployed a nuclear-powered submarine and undertaken military drills with allied forces in the region like Tokyo and Seoul to deter Pyongyang and both countries have vowed overwhelming military responses should the other attack. After years of speculation, South Korea’s spy agency NIS believes it finally knows who is likely to succeed Kim a(https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2024/01/04/who-is-kim-ju-ae-kim-jong-uns-daughter-will-likely-succeed-him-as-north-koreas-leader/?sh=2ac5e9ad1210)s the leader of North Korea. The agency said Kim Ju Ae, Kim Jong Un’s daughter, is in line for the position after a series of public appearances with her father in 2023. Little is known about Ju Ae, who was not seen publicly until late 2022 at a missile test, but her increasing presence at public events and the respect shown to her suggest she is Kim’s “most likely successor,” NIS said. Kim Ju Ae, the daughter of Kim Jong Un, will likely succeed her father as North Korea’s leader, according to South Korea’s spy agency NIS—though little is known about her since making several public appearances over the last year, increasing speculation about her potential leadership.

North Korea made a bold assertion that its spy satellite successfully captured images of the White House, the Pentagon, Naval Station Norfolk, and Newport News Dockyard. The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) stated that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un personally reviewed these satellite photographs. However, no evidence has been released by North Korea to substantiate these claims, and experts remain skeptical about the capabilities of their new satellite for high-resolution imaging and military surveillance. Last week, North Korea declared the successful launch of the Malligyong-1 satellite, an event celebrated by Kim Jong Un himself. The state-run Pyongyang Times reported that Kim described the launch as a significant achievement, propelling the country into a new era of space power. In response, the White House expressed strong condemnation of the potential satellite launch, citing violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions that prohibit North Korea from using ballistic missile technology. The Biden administration, along with its allies and partners, is closely assessing the situation and urging other countries to denounce the launch while calling for serious negotiations with North Korea. This recent launch comes after two previous failed attempts in May and August, both of which were closely observed by Kim Jong Un. Following the launch, South Korea suspended a no-fly zone agreement near the demilitarized border, intensifying tensions between the two neighboring countries. US Bombers Fly with Allies Amid Rising Tensions with North Korea In a clear warning to North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, the U.S. Air Force deployed supersonic bombers alongside allied fighter jets near the Korean Peninsula. US, South Korea, Japan Hold Joint Exercises Amid Rising Tensions with North Korea US, South Korea, Japan Hold Joint Exercises Amid Rising Tensions with North Korea(https://www.thestockdork.com/us-south-korea-japan-hold-joint-exercises-amid-rising-tensions-with-north-korea/) Response To N. Korea’s Recent Missile Test This move comes in response to North Korea’s recent missile test, which demonstrated the capability to deliver a nuclear strike on the mainland United States. Images captured the presence of two U.S. B-1B Lancers flying in formation with U.S. F-16s, South Korean F-15Ks, and Japanese F-2 fighter aircraft. Aerial Display of Strength These long-range strategic bombers, known for their capacity to carry substantial conventional payloads, participated in their second trilateral aerial exercise of the year, as confirmed by the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Counteracting North Korea’s Provocations The Joint Chiefs of Staff in Seoul reported that this training exercise was specifically designed to counter North Korea’s nuclear provocations. It took place off South Korea’s southern Jeju Island in the East China Sea, marking the 13th instance of a U.S. bomber deployment near or over the Korean Peninsula this year. North Korea’s Recent Missile Test Pyongyang declared a successful test of its latest and largest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in its arsenal, named the Hwasong-18. This missile is propelled by a solid-fuel rocket, enabling quicker arming and launch. North Korean state media released images the following day, showcasing Kim Jong Un’s personal attendance at the launch, marking their first ICBM test in five months. Hwasong-18’s Capabilities The Hwasong-18, fired into the East Sea (Sea of Japan), is believed to have an operational range exceeding 9,000 miles. This range is sufficient to deliver nuclear warheads directly to major American cities, escalating concerns. North Korea’s Justification North Korea has justified its missile development as a response to perceived hostility from South Korea and the United States. In response to these actions, the two allies have intensified their own military training. International Disapproval The United States has consistently criticized North Korea for employing launch technology prohibited by United Nations Security Council resolutions that aim to curb its nuclear weapons program. China and Russia Enabling N. Korea Diplomatic tensions escalated at the United Nations on Tuesday. American officials have accused China and Russia of enabling North Korea’s missile launches through their vetoing of additional sanctions. Trilateral Mechanism Activated In response to the missile threat, the United States, South Korea, and Japan have activated a trilateral mechanism for real-time tracking and sharing of information related to North Korea’s missile activities. North Korea’s Strengthening Ties with Russia In recent months, Kim Jong Un has been forging stronger relations with Russia. He met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Vostochny Cosmodrome, and North Korea has reportedly sent military equipment to Russia. The Growing Threat of War with North Korea Harry Kazianis, a senior director at the Center for the National Interest, expressed concerns to USA TODAY about the increasing likelihood of war with North Korea. He highlighted Pyongyang’s development of tactical nuclear weapons and the potential crisis that could arise from their testing.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has issued a stark warning to the United States and South Korea, stating that his military would “thoroughly annihilate” both countries if they engage in provocations against the North. This latest declaration comes as part of a surge in aggressive rhetoric and a vow to bolster national defense capabilities in the face of what Pyongyang perceives as intensified US-led confrontational strategies. In recent months, North Korea has escalated its warlike language, a response to the expansion of military drills by the US and South Korea. The North Korean leader’s comments were part of a directive to army officers, underlining the need to fortify what he calls “the treasured sword” of the nation’s security—a likely reference to North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. He has outlined plans to launch additional military spy satellites, manufacture more nuclear materials, and develop attack drones within the year. These steps are viewed by observers as attempts to increase North Korea’s leverage in potential future negotiations with the United States. The heightened tensions and bellicose exchanges come after an increase in joint US-South Korean military exercises, which Pyongyang views as a direct threat. Over the last year, North Korea has conducted over 100 missile tests, which has further motivated the US and South Korea to strengthen their military cooperation. The North Korean leader’s comments did not go unanswered. South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, in his New Year’s address, emphasized the importance of enhancing South Korea’s preemptive strike capabilities, missile defenses, and retaliatory potential in response to the North’s nuclear threats. President Yoon advocates for “genuine, lasting peace through strength,” emphasizing South Korea’s determination to defend itself without relying on the goodwill of its northern adversary. “The Republic of Korea is building genuine, lasting peace through strength, not a submissive peace that is dependent on the goodwill of the adversary,” Yoon said, using South Korea’s official name. In a retaliatory tone, the South Korean Defense Ministry has warned that any attempt by North Korea to use nuclear weapons would be met with overwhelming force by South Korean and US militaries, a response that could spell the end of the Kim regime. Amid these threats and counter-threats, inter-Korean relations remain in a state of deadlock, with Pyongyang indicating a restructuring or disbandment of its organizations dealing with relations with South Korea. The objective appears to be a fundamental shift in the North’s strategy against the South. However, the specifics of this change remain unclear. At the party meeting, Kim called South Korea “a hemiplegic malformation and colonial subordinate state” whose society is “tainted by Yankee culture.” He said his military must use all available means including nuclear weapons to “suppress the whole territory of South Korea” in the event of a conflict. KCNA said Kim and Chinese President Xi Jinping exchanged New Year’s Day messages Monday on bolstering bilateral ties. North Korea faces suspicions that it supplied conventional arms for Russia’s war in Ukraine in return for sophisticated Russian technologies to enhance the North’s military programs. Estimates of the size of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal vary, ranging from about 20-30 bombs to more than 100. Many foreign experts say North Korea still has some technological hurdles to overcome to produce functioning nuclear-armed ICBMs, though its shorter-range nuclear-capable missiles can reach South Korea and Japan. In a retaliatory tone, the South Korean Defense Ministry has warned that any attempt by North Korea to use nuclear weapons would be met with overwhelming force by South Korean and US militaries, a response that could spell the end of the Kim regime. Amid these threats and counter-threats, inter-Korean relations remain in a state of deadlock, with Pyongyang indicating a restructuring or disbandment of its organizations dealing with relations with South Korea. The objective appears to be a fundamental shift in the North’s strategy against the South. However, the specifics of this change remain unclear. Russia fires North Korean missiles at Ukraine for first time - Kyiv official

When the Cold War officially ended suddenly in 1991 Washington had one more chance to pivot back to the pre-1914 status quo ante. That is, to a national security policy of Fortress America because there was literally no significant military threat left on the planet. Post-Soviet Russia was an economic basket case that couldn’t even meet its military payroll and was melting down and selling the Red Army’s tanks and artillery for scrap. China was just emerging from the Great Helmsman’s economic, political and cultural depredations and had embraced Deng Xiaoping proclamation that “to get rich is glorious”. The implications of the Red Army’s fiscal demise and China’s electing the path of export mercantilism and Red Capitalism were profound. Russia couldn’t invade the American homeland in a million years and China chose the route of flooding America with shoes, sheets, shirts, toys and electronics. So doing, it made the rule of the communist elites in Beijing dependent upon keeping the custom of 4,000 Walmarts in America, not bombing them out of existence. In a word, god’s original gift to America—the great moats of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans—could have again become the cornerstone of its national security. After 1991, therefore, there was no nation on the planet that had the remotest capability to mount a conventional military assault on the U.S. homeland; or that would not have bankrupted itself attempting to create the requisite air and sea-based power projection capabilities—a resource drain that would be vastly larger than even the $900 billion the US currently spends on its own global armada. Indeed, in the post-cold war world the only thing the US needed was a modest conventional capacity to defend the shorelines and North American airspace against any possible rogue assault and a reliable nuclear deterrent against any state foolish enough to attempt nuclear blackmail. Needless to say, those capacities had already been bought and paid for during the cold war. The triad of minutemen ICBMs, Trident SLBMs (submarines launched nuclear missiles) and long-range stealth bombers currently cost $52 billion annually for operations and maintenance, replacements and upgrades and were more than adequate for the task of nuclear deterrence. Likewise, conventional defense of the U.S. shoreline and airspace against rogues would not require a fraction of today’s 1.3 million active uniformed force—to say nothing of the 800,000 additional reserves and national guard forces and the 765,000 DOD civilians on top of that. Rather than funding 2.9 million personnel, the whole job of national security under a homeland-based Fortress America concept could be done with less than 500,000 military and civilian payrollers. At most. In fact, much of the 475,000 US army could be eliminated and most of the Navy’s carrier strike groups and power projection capabilities could be mothballed. So, too, the Air Force’s homeland defense missions could be accomplished for well less than $100 billion per annum compared to its current $200 billion budget. Overall, the constant dollar national defense budget was $660 billion (2022 $) when the cold war ended and the Soviet Union subsequently disappeared from the face of the earth in 1991. Had Washington pivoted to a Fortress America national security policy at the time, defense spending could have been downsized to perhaps $500 billion per year (2022 $) or potentially far less. Instead, Imperial Washington went in the opposite direction and ended up embracing a de facto policy of Empire First. The latter will cost $900 billion during the current year and is heading for $1.2 trillion billion annually a few years down the road. Empire First - The Reason For An Extra Half Trillion For Defense In a word, Empire First easily consumes one-half trillion dollars more in annual budgetary resources than would a Fortress America policy. And that giant barrel of weapons contracts, consulting and support jobs, lobbying booty and Congressional pork explains everything you need to know about why the Swamp is so deep and intractable. Obviously, it’s also why Imperial Washington has appointed itself global policeman. Functioning as the gendarme of the planet is the only possible justification for the extra $500 billion per year cost of Empire First. For example, why does the US still deploy 100,000 US forces and their dependents in Japan and Okinawa and 29,000 in South Korea? These two counties have a combined GDP of nearly $7 trillion—or 235X more than North Korea and they are light-years ahead of the latter in technology and military capability. Also, they don’t go around the world engaging in regime change, thereby spooking fear on the north side of the DMZ. Accordingly, Japan and South Korea could more than provide for their own national security in a manner they see fit without any help whatsoever from Imperial Washington. That’s especially the case because absent the massive US military threat in the region, North Korea would surely seek a rapprochement and economic help from its neighbors including China. Indeed, sixty-five years after the unnecessary war in Korea ended, there is only one reason why the Kim family is still in power in Pyongyang and why periodically they have noisily brandished their incipient nuclear weapons and missiles. To wit, it’s because the Empire still occupies the Korean peninsula and surrounds its waters with more lethal firepower than was brought to bear against the industrial might of Nazi Germany during the whole of WWII. Of course, these massive and costly forces are also justified on the grounds of supporting Washington’s committements to the defense of Taiwan. But that commitment has always been obsolete and unnecessary to America’s homeland security. The fact is, Chiang Kia-Shek lost the Chinese civil war fair and square in 1949, and there was no reason to perpetuate his rag-tag regime when it retreated to the last square miles of Chinese territory—the island province of Taiwan. The latter had been under control of the Chinese Qing Dynasty for 200 years thru 1895, when it was occupied by the Imperial Japan for 50 years, only to be liberated by Chinese patriots at the end of WWII. That is to say, once Imperial Japan was expelled from the island the Chinese did not “invade” or occupy or takeover their own country. For crying out loud, Taiwan had been Han for centuries and for better or worse, the communists were now the rulers of China. Accordingly, Taiwan is separated from the mainland today only because Washington arbitrarily made it a protectorate and ally when the loser of the civil war set up shop in a small remnant of modern China, thereby establishing an artificial nation that, again, had no bearing whatsoever on America’s homeland security. In any event, the nascent US War Party of the late 1940s decreed otherwise, generating 70 years of tension with the Beijing regime that accomplished nothing except to bolster the case for a big Navy and for maintaining vast policing operations in the Pacific region for no good reason of homeland defense. That is to say, without Washington’s support for the nationalist regime in Taipei, the island would have been absorbed back into the Chinese polity where it had been for centuries. It would probably now resemble the booming prosperity of Shanghai—-something Wall Street and mainstream US politicians celebrated for years. Moreover, it’s still not too late. Absent Washington’s arms and threats, the Taiwanese would surely prefer peaceful prosperity as the 24th province of China rather than a catastrophic war against Beijing that they would have no hope of surviving. By the same token, the alternative—US military intervention to aid Taiwan—would mean WWIII. So what’s the point of Washington’s dangerous policy of “strategic ambiguity” when the long-term outcome is utterly inevitable? In short, the only sensible policy is for Washington to recant 70-years of folly brought on by the China Lobby and arms manufacturers and green-light a Taiwanese reconciliation with the mainland. Even a few years thereafter Wall Street bankers peddling M&A deals in Taipei wouldn’t know the difference from Shanghai. And speaking of foolishly frozen history, it is now 78 years since Hitler perished in his bunker. So why does Washington still have 50,000 troops and their dependents stationed in Germany? Certainly by it own actions Germany does not claim to be militarily imperiled. It’s modest $55 billion defense budget amounts to only 1.3% of GDP, hardly an indication that it fears Russian forces will soon be at the Brandenburg Gate. Indeed, until Washington conned the Scholz government into joining its idiotic sanctions war against Russia, Germany saw Russia as a vital market for its exports and as a source of supply for natural gas, other natural resources and food stuffs. Besides, with a GDP of $4.2 trillion or more than double Russia’s $2.1 trillion GDP, Germany could more than handle its own defenses if Moscow should ever become foolish enough to threaten it. From there you get to the even more preposterous case for the Empire’s NATO outposts in eastern Europe. But the history books are absolutely clear that in 1989 George H. W. Bush and his Secretary of State, James Baker, promised Gorbachev that NATO would not be expanded to the east by a “single inch” in return for his acquiescence to German unification. The Obsolete Folly Of NATO’s Article 5 Mutual Defense Obligations At the time, NATO had 16 member nations bound by the Article 5 obligation of mutual defense, but when the Soviet Union and the Red Army vanished, there was nothing left to defend against. NATO should have declared victory and dissolved itself. The ex-paratrooper then in the White House, in fact, could have landed at the Ramstein Air Base and announced “mission accomplished!” Instead, NATO has become a political jackhammer and weapons sales agent for Empire First policies by expanding to 30 nations—many of them on Russia’s doorstep. Yet if your perception is not distorted by Washington’s self-justifying imperial beer-goggles, the question is obvious. Exactly what is gained for the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE or Springfield MA by obtaining the defense services of the pint-sized militaries of Latvia (6,000), Croatia (14,500), Estonia (6,400), Slovenia (7,300) or Montenegro (1,950)? Indeed, the whole post-1991 NATO expansion is so preposterous as a matter of national security that its true function as a fig-leaf for Empire First fairly screams out-loud. Not one of these pint-sized nations would matter for US security if they decided to have a cozier relationship with Russia—voluntarily or not so voluntarily. But the point is, there is no threat to America in eastern Europe unless such as Montenegro, Slovenia, or Latvia were to become Putin’s invasion route to effect the Russian occupation of Germany, France, the Benelux and England. And that’s just plain silly-ass crazy! Yet aside from that utterly far-fetched and economically and militarily impossible scenario, there is no reason whatsoever for the US to be in a mutual defense pact with any of the new, and, for that matter, old NATO members. And that gets us to the patently bogus proxy war on Russia in which the nation of Ukraine is being turned into a demolition derby and its population of both young and older men is being frog-marched into the Russian meat-grinder. But as we have documented elsewhere this is a civil war in an artificial nation confected by history’s greatest tyrants—Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev, too. It was never built to last, and most definitely didn’t after the Washington sponsored, funded and instantly recognized Maidan coup of February 2014 deposed its legitimately elected pro-Russian president. Thereafter, Russia’s actions in recovering its former province of Crimea in March 2014 and coming to the aid of the break-away Russian-speaking republics of the Donbas (eastern Ukraine) in February 2022 did not threaten the security of the American homeland or the peace of the world. Not one bit. The post-February 2014 conflict in Ukraine is a “territorial”, ethnic and religious dispute over deep differences between Russian-speakers in the east and south of the country and Ukrainian nationalists from the center and west that are rooted in centuries of history. The resulting carnage, as tragic as it has been, does not prove in the slightest that Russia is an aggressive expansionist that must be thwarted by the Indispensable Nation. To the contrary, Washington’s imperial beer goggles are utterly blind to history and geopolitical logic. In the first place, the history books make abundantly clear that Sevastopol in Crimea had been the home-port of the Russian Naval Fleet under czars and commissars alike. Crimea had been purchased from the Ottoman’s for good money by Catherine the Great in 1783 and was the site of one of Russia greatest patriotic events—-the defeat of the English invaders in 1854 made famous by Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade. After 171 years as an integral part of the Russian Motherland and having become more than 80% Russian-speaking, Crimea only technically became part of Ukraine during a Khrushchev inspired shuffle in 1954. And even then, the only reason for this late communist era territorial transfer was to reward Khrushchev’s allies in Kiev for supporting him in the bloody struggle for power after Stalin’s death. The fact is, only 10% of the Crimean population is Ukrainian speaking. It was the coup on the streets of Kiev in February 2014 by extremist anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists and proto-fascists that caused the Russian speakers in Crimea to panic and Moscow to become alarmed about the status of its historic naval base, for which it still had a lease running to the 2040s. In the Moscow sponsored referendum that occurred shortly thereafter, 83% of eligible Crimeans turned out to vote and 97% of those approved cancelling the aforementioned 1954 edict of the Soviet Presidium and rejoining mother Russia. There is absolutely no evidence that the 80% of Crimeans who thus voted to sever their historically short-lived affiliation with Ukraine were threatened or coerced by Moscow. Indeed, what they actually feared—both in Crimea and in the Donbas where the breakaway Republics were also soon declared—was the anti-Russian edicts coming out of Kiev in the aftermath of the Washington orchestrated overthrow of the legally elected government. After all, the good folks of what the historical maps designated as Novorussiya (New Russia) populated what had been the industrial breadbasket of the former Soviet Union. The Donbas and the southern rim on the Black Sea had always been an integral part of Russia’s iron, steel, chemical, coal and munitions industries, having been settled, developed and invested by Russians under Czars from Catherine the Great forwards. And in Soviet times many of their grandparents had been put there by Stalin from elsewhere in Russia to reinforce his bloody rule. By the same token, these Russian settlers and transplants in Novorussiya forever hated the Ukrainian nationalist collaborators from the west, who rampaged though their towns, farms, factories and homes side-by-side with Hitler’s Wehrmacht on the way to Stalingrad. So the appalling truth of the matter was this: By Washington’s edict the grandsons and granddaughters of Stalin’s industrial army in the Donbas were to be ruled by the grandsons and granddaughters of Hitler’s WWII collaborators in Kiev, whether they liked it or not. Alas, that repudiation of history could not stand. So we repeat and for good reason: You simply can’t make up $500 billion worth of phony reasons for an Empire First national security policy without going off the deep-end. You have to invent missions, mandates and threats that are just plain stupid (like the proxy war against Russia in the Ukraine) or flat out lies (like Saddam’s alleged WMDs). Indeed, you must invent, nourish and enforce an entire universal narrative based on completely implausible and invalid propositions, such as the “Indispensable Nation” meme and the claim that global peace and stability depend overwhelmingly on Washington’s leadership. Yet, is there not a more cruel joke than that? Was the Washington inflicted carnage and genocide in Vietnam—which resulted in the death of upwards of one million—- a case of “American leadership” and making the world more peaceful or stable? And after losing this costly, bloody, insensible war to the communists in 1975, how is it that what is still communist Vietnam has become the go-to place to source low-cost manufactured goods needed by tens of thousands of Amazon’s delivery trucks and mass market retail emporiums operating from coast-to-coast in America today? Likewise, did the two wars against Iraq accomplish anything except destroy the tenuous peace between the Sunni, Shiite and Kurds, thereby opening up the gates of hell and the bloody rampages of ISIS? Did the billions Washington illegally channeled into the rebel and jihadist forces in Syria do anything except destroy the country, create millions of refugees and encourage the Assad regime to engage in tit-for-tat brutalities, as well as call-in aid from its Iranian, Russian and Hezbollah allies? Did not the destruction of Qaddafi’s government by American bombers turn Libya into a hell-hole of war-lord based civil war and human abuse and even enslavement? In a word, Imperial Washington’s over-arching narratives and the instances of its specific interventions alike rest on a threadbare and implausible foundation; and more often than not, they consist of arrogant fabrications and claims that are an insult to the intelligence of anyone paying even loose attention to the facts. In this context, there is only one way to meaningfully move the needle on both Washington’s hegemonic foreign policy and its giant flow of red budgetary ink. To wit, the American military empire needs be dismantled lock, stock and barrel. Fortunately, a return to the idea of Fortress America and what we have called the Eisenhower Defense Minimum can accomplish exactly that. When president Eisenhower gave his prescient warning about the military-industrial complex in his 1961 farewell address, the US defense budget stood at $52 billion and it totaled $64 billion when you add in the collateral elements of national security that round out the full fiscal cost of empire. These include the State Department, AID, security assistance, NED, international broadcasting propaganda operations and related items, as well as the deferred cost of military operations reflected in Veterans Administration costs for compensation, health care and other services. By the end of the cold war in 1991 this comprehensive national security budget had risen to $340 billion, but was not to be denied by the mere fact that the Soviet Union disappeared into the dustbin of history that year. The neocons soon infiltrated both parties and owing to their Forever Wars and hegemony-seeking policies the total had soared to $822 billion by the end of the Obama “peace” candidate’s presidency in 2016. Yet the uniparty was just getting warmed-up. After being goosed big time by both Trump and Biden, the current estimate for FY 2024 stands at a staggering $1.304 trillion. That is to say, the comprehensive cost of empire now stands at a level 20X higher than what the great peace-oriented general, Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed was adequate to contain the threat posed by the old Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial and military power in 1960. Yes, 64 years on from Ike’s farewell address there has been a whole lot of inflation, which is embedded in the slightly different NIPA basis for the defense numbers in the chart below. But even when adjusted to the current price level, the defense budget proper stood at just $440 billion in 1960 compared to $900 billion today; and the comprehensive national security budget totaled just $590 billion or only 45% of today’s $1.304 trillion. As we indicated earlier, the Eisenhower Defense Minimum, rounded to $500 billion in today’s purchasing power, is far more than adequate in a world where America’s homeland security is not threatened by a technological and industrial superpower having even remote parity with the United States and its NATO allies. The combined $45 trillion GDP of the latter is 20X larger than that of Russia and nearly 3X that of China, which is itself a debt-entombed house of cards that would not last a year without its $3.5 trillion of exports to the west. Stated differently, the old Soviet Union was autarkic but internally brittle and grotesquely inefficient and unsustainable. Red China, by contrast, is far more efficient industrially, but also has $50 trillion of internal and external debts and a thoroughly mercantilist economic model that makes it is utterly dependent on western markets. So its strategic vulnerability is no less conclusive. At the end of the day, neither Russia nor China have the economic capacity—say $50 trillion of GDP—-or motivation to attack the American homeland with conventional military means. The vast invasionary armada of land and air forces, air and sealift capacity and massive logistics supply pipelines that would be needed to bridge the two ocean moats is virtually beyond rational imagination. So what ultimately keeps America safe is its nuclear deterrent. As long as that is in tact and effective, there is no conceivable form of nuclear blackmail that could be used to jeopardize the security and liberty of the homeland. Yet according to CBO’s latest study the current annual cost of the strategic deterrent, as we indicated above, is just $52 billion. This includes $13 billion for the ballistic missile submarine force, $7 billion for the land-based ICBMs and $6 billion for the strategic bomber force. On top of that there is also $13 billion to maintain the nuclear weapons stockpiles, infrastructure and supporting services and $11 billion for strategic nuclear command and control, communications and early warnings systems. In all, and after allowing for normal inflation and weapons development costs, CBOs 10-year estimate for the strategic nuclear deterrent is just $756 billion. That happens to be only 7.0% of the $10 trillion baseline for the 10-year cost of today’s “Empire First” defense budget and only 5.0% of the $15 trillion national security baseline when you include international operations and veterans. A return to the Eisenhower Minimum of $500 billion per year for defense proper over the next decade would thus save in excess of $4 trillion over the period. And these cuts would surely be readily extractable from the $9 trillion CBO baseline for defense spending excluding the strategic forces. As we indicated above, for instance, there would be no need for 11 carrier battle groups including their air-wings, escort and support ships and supporting infrastructure under a Fortress America policy. Those forces are sitting ducks in this day and age anyway, but are only necessary for force projection abroad and wars of invasion and occupation. The American coastline and interior, by contrast, can be protected by land-based air. Yet according to another CBO study the 10-year baseline cost for the Navy’s 11 carrier battle groups will approach $1 trillion alone. Likewise, the land forces of the US Army will cost $2 trillion and that’s again mainly for the purpose of force projection abroad. As Senator Taft and his original Fortress America supporters long ago recognized, overwhelming air superiority over the North American continent is what is actually necessary for homeland security. But even that would require only a small part of the current $1.5 trillion 10-year cost of US Air Force operations, which are heavily driven by global force projection capacities. At the end of the day a $4 trillion reduction in national security spending over the next decade is more than feasible and long overdue. It only requires tossing the Indispensable Nation myth into the dustbin of history where it has belonged all along. Editor’s Note: The amount of money the US government spends on foreign aid, wars, the so-called intelligence community, and other aspects of foreign policy is enormous and ever-growing. It’s an established trend in motion that is accelerating, and now approaching a breaking point. It could cause the most significant disaster since the 1930s. Most people won’t be prepared for what’s coming. That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video with all the details.