Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Korea. Show all posts
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Trump Defeated by North Korea
Notwithstanding President Trump's summit with Kim Jong Un early this month, North Korea has continued to make progress in building its nuclear arsenal (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/politics/north-korea-infrastructure-improvements-nuclear-facility/index.html). Trump has abysmally failed. He agreed to a no-conditions summit with Kim, a gesture that legitimizes Kim's standing in international diplomacy. Trump also ordered the U.S. military to stop participating in war games with South Korea, which the North Koreans have whined about for years as a major provocation. These were substantial concessions that Trump made, and he got nothing in return. It's business as usual in North Korea, with strengthening their nuclear arsenal while the U.S. retreats.
Trump has done far worse with North Korea than Barack Obama did. After taking office, Trump scared the North Koreans badly, and Kim accelerated work on his weaponry. Now he has intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the American mainland and perhaps can or soon will be able to carry the hydrogen bomb he developed in response to Trump's belligerence. While arranging for the no-conditions summit, Trump called Kim "very honorable" (https://nypost.com/2018/04/24/trump-calls-kim-jong-un-very-honorable/). With war games halted and Kim diplomatically elevated, America is now weaker and North Korea is much stronger. Trump was snookered by a kid tyrant. And he thinks he knows something about the art of the deal?
We must be concerned about Trump's forthcoming summit with Vladimir Putin. Putin is far more formidable than Kim Jong Un. What could happen at this summit? Will Trump surrender to Putin? Will Western Europe become part of the new Soviet Union? Will America become a province of Russia?
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Why North Korea Can't Afford to Nuke America
Despite all the noise Kim Jong Un is making about nuking America, he can't afford to do it. That's not simply because of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction and his inability to touch America's Trident submarines, any one of which could obliterate North Korea. It's also because he'd target North Korea if he tried to hit America.
Recent news reports indicate that North Korea has ballistic missiles that either can or soon will be able to reach Washington, D.C. The nation's capital would naturally be a primary target for Kim's missiles, and he'd no doubt put his most powerful nukes on the missiles headed for DC. Those missiles, if they actually succeeded in reaching their target, would likely cause a lot of damage in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington. The damage could come either from explosive blast or from electromagnetic pulse (EMP), or both.
Somewhere around 70% of the world's Internet traffic flows through servers located in northern Virginia (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/data-centers-boom-in-loudoun-county-but-jobs-arent-following/2014/01/17/b4a704c8-7f0e-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html?utm_term=.181c4b46bfa0). The effects of the blast and the EMP could knock out a large portion of those servers and the infrastructure in which they operate. The Internet could promptly become one gigantic, intractable traffic jam.
North Korea is about as isolated as any country in the world. One of its main connections to the outside world is through the Internet. The Internet is a crucial tool for North Korea, to steal money, do business (often illicit), to spy on other people, and to find out the truth (the problem with purveying fake news is that you still have to know the truth or the truth will sooner or later smack you up one side and down the other). Without the Internet, North Korea would have to rely largely on its own internal resources. And those aren't sufficient even to feed its own population a nutritionally adequate diet, let alone provide a decent standard of living.
So if North Korea nukes America, it loses its Internet connection. And these days, that's almost the worst thing that can happen.
Recent news reports indicate that North Korea has ballistic missiles that either can or soon will be able to reach Washington, D.C. The nation's capital would naturally be a primary target for Kim's missiles, and he'd no doubt put his most powerful nukes on the missiles headed for DC. Those missiles, if they actually succeeded in reaching their target, would likely cause a lot of damage in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington. The damage could come either from explosive blast or from electromagnetic pulse (EMP), or both.
Somewhere around 70% of the world's Internet traffic flows through servers located in northern Virginia (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/data-centers-boom-in-loudoun-county-but-jobs-arent-following/2014/01/17/b4a704c8-7f0e-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html?utm_term=.181c4b46bfa0). The effects of the blast and the EMP could knock out a large portion of those servers and the infrastructure in which they operate. The Internet could promptly become one gigantic, intractable traffic jam.
North Korea is about as isolated as any country in the world. One of its main connections to the outside world is through the Internet. The Internet is a crucial tool for North Korea, to steal money, do business (often illicit), to spy on other people, and to find out the truth (the problem with purveying fake news is that you still have to know the truth or the truth will sooner or later smack you up one side and down the other). Without the Internet, North Korea would have to rely largely on its own internal resources. And those aren't sufficient even to feed its own population a nutritionally adequate diet, let alone provide a decent standard of living.
So if North Korea nukes America, it loses its Internet connection. And these days, that's almost the worst thing that can happen.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Hurricane Harvey? North Korean Missiles? Stocks Shrug
So, okay, Hurricane Harvey may be the worst storm to hit America in a while. The damage is really bad, and getting worse. Projections for recovery time are lengthening by the minute as rainfall totals rise. The economic impact will clearly be big. Energy extraction and refining are being hit. The Gulf states have a number of petrochemical and plastics plants, but they aren't manufacturing much. The Gulf ports are major transshipment points for a lot of stuff, but not much transshipment is taking place. The cost of rebuilding may reach $100 billion or more.
Meanwhile, the fat kid in North Korea keeps firing off missiles, in one instance over northern Japan. He may think he's being clever, pushing the world to see how far he can go. But shooting missiles over another country is a way to start wars. The Japanese held their fire. But North Korea's missiles aren't the picture of reliability and sturdiness. If one flies in an unintended trajectory, or falls apart at the wrong time, physical impact on Japan or maybe South Korea is quite possible. Then what? Kim Jong Un has been on a path of escalation in recent months. He's announced that Guam--U.S. territory--is his next target. Since he seems intent on escalating, he will approach a flashpoint.
But do stocks care? Not one bit. Even though U.S. stock futures dropped sharply last night, all indexes closed up today. Mega hurricane--meh. Barrage of North Korean missiles--meh. Discord rife between and among the President, Congress and both political parties--meh. Merrily we roll along. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Why do we have such insouciant stocks? The likely explanation is the Fed. Market participants have gotten so used to Fed bailouts that no one believes stock indexes can fall more than about 3% at the most, and therefore don't panic sell portfolios. In some respects, this market stability may seem desirable.
But market stability based on government subsidies is ultimately chimerical. The Fed produced that stability by screwing over large numbers of people. By keeping interest rates extraordinarily low for almost a decade now, the Fed has decimated pension plans. A lot of middle class people who depended on their pensions are now lower middle class, or even poor. Retirees and others who relied in part on interest income from their savings have learned to like dog food in lieu of steak, or even hamburger. Holders of long term care insurance policies have faced extortionate rate increases, or possibly the prospect of spending old age in homeless shelters until they qualify for nursing homes that take Medicaid (which sometimes aren't exactly top class institutions). Those that still have some faith in the future and want to save for a rainy day need to tighten their belts and put aside more principal, rather than count on the compounding of interest income to make their golden years glow. That means reducing current consumption, which is a drag on the economy and may partially explain why economic growth remains tepid.
As long as the Fed supplies financial opioids for stocks to mainline, the market will be copacetic. But problems lurk. Stock valuations may not truly reflect investment values. Instead, they probably incorporate a large dose of government subsidy. That would mean people are paying too much for stocks. This story won't have a happy ending. Market forces can't stay suppressed indefinitely and government subsidies can't last forever. The failure of Communism in China and the Soviet Union prove that point. Things generally feel good when you're on narcotics. But you don't get good quality sleep on opioids--and investors shouldn't be sleeping too soundly now.
Meanwhile, the fat kid in North Korea keeps firing off missiles, in one instance over northern Japan. He may think he's being clever, pushing the world to see how far he can go. But shooting missiles over another country is a way to start wars. The Japanese held their fire. But North Korea's missiles aren't the picture of reliability and sturdiness. If one flies in an unintended trajectory, or falls apart at the wrong time, physical impact on Japan or maybe South Korea is quite possible. Then what? Kim Jong Un has been on a path of escalation in recent months. He's announced that Guam--U.S. territory--is his next target. Since he seems intent on escalating, he will approach a flashpoint.
But do stocks care? Not one bit. Even though U.S. stock futures dropped sharply last night, all indexes closed up today. Mega hurricane--meh. Barrage of North Korean missiles--meh. Discord rife between and among the President, Congress and both political parties--meh. Merrily we roll along. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Why do we have such insouciant stocks? The likely explanation is the Fed. Market participants have gotten so used to Fed bailouts that no one believes stock indexes can fall more than about 3% at the most, and therefore don't panic sell portfolios. In some respects, this market stability may seem desirable.
But market stability based on government subsidies is ultimately chimerical. The Fed produced that stability by screwing over large numbers of people. By keeping interest rates extraordinarily low for almost a decade now, the Fed has decimated pension plans. A lot of middle class people who depended on their pensions are now lower middle class, or even poor. Retirees and others who relied in part on interest income from their savings have learned to like dog food in lieu of steak, or even hamburger. Holders of long term care insurance policies have faced extortionate rate increases, or possibly the prospect of spending old age in homeless shelters until they qualify for nursing homes that take Medicaid (which sometimes aren't exactly top class institutions). Those that still have some faith in the future and want to save for a rainy day need to tighten their belts and put aside more principal, rather than count on the compounding of interest income to make their golden years glow. That means reducing current consumption, which is a drag on the economy and may partially explain why economic growth remains tepid.
As long as the Fed supplies financial opioids for stocks to mainline, the market will be copacetic. But problems lurk. Stock valuations may not truly reflect investment values. Instead, they probably incorporate a large dose of government subsidy. That would mean people are paying too much for stocks. This story won't have a happy ending. Market forces can't stay suppressed indefinitely and government subsidies can't last forever. The failure of Communism in China and the Soviet Union prove that point. Things generally feel good when you're on narcotics. But you don't get good quality sleep on opioids--and investors shouldn't be sleeping too soundly now.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
How Does Obama Define Success in Syria?
Barack Obama has flinched. Not once. Not twice. But three times in the last year or so. Each time, he rattled the saber at Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Assad called Obama's hand, and Obama flinched. Now, evidently rattled himself by the unexpected rejection of military action by the British Parliament, Obama seems to be looking around for someone to offer a fist bump. French President Francois Hollande has been supportive, but Obama has called for Congress to pass a resolution endorsing a military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.
The Democrats, who control the Senate, are feeling queasy, but may support a narrowly crafted resolution. The Republicans, who control the House, are skeptical and may reject the resolution.
The Administration has offered a variety of negative reasons for striking Assad's forces, arguing that bad or negative consequences will ensue if the U.S. does not strike. Chemical weapons are horrible and are prohibited by international law. The United States, and especially the President would lose credibility. The Iranians would be emboldened in their quest for nuclear weapons. The North Koreans would be emboldened to pull more septic content. The Russians would be emboldened in any number of ways.
Chemical weapons are horrible. But does the President see himself as a referee, seeking to penalize Assad for face masking? Is the President's plan to throw down a yellow flag, move Assad back a few yards, and then let the slaughter continue? Is it okay for Assad to continue his nationwide massacre if he just limits himself to conventional weapons? Why don't we issue striped uniforms to the U.S. military and give them whistles to blow along with cruise missiles to fire?
As for credibility, Assad is in a fight for his very life. He couldn't give a rat's left ear what Obama does, because Obama won't put U.S. boots on the ground and hasn't even provided military support to the Syrian rebels that he promised months ago. Obama doesn't present a significant threat to Assad. Maybe Assad's forces will refrain from obvious use of chemical weapons for a while and employ more conventional but plenty lethal weaponry to kill many more Syrians. But nothing Obama is contemplating will make him more credible to anyone who matters.
The Iranians are, if the vaguely sourced information published by the press over the past few years is accurate, hellbent on building nuclear weapons on the fastest possible schedule. It won't matter a bit what Obama does in Syria. A U.S. military strike there will only lead the Iranians to more comprehensively disguise their activities. But it won't dissuade them in the least from halting their nuclear program.
The North Koreans are constrained by the presence of 26,000 U.S. troops stationed along the demilitarized zone in the Korean peninsula. North Korea can't do anything substantial to South Korea or any other nation without affecting these troops. As long as those troops are there, what Obama does or doesn't do in Syria isn't significant.
As for Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is ex-KBG. If there was an intelligence service that knew how to spot and exploit human weakness, it was the KGB. Putin surely has Obama figured out--the man isn't bold. He's not a risk taker. He wants to be on the winning side no matter who that is or what happens (this is how the U.S. wound up being detested by everyone in Egypt--we tried to be everyone's buddy and ended up no one's buddy). Obama is like the political equivalent of Microsoft--very successful, but not so likely to continue that success in the future because of an aversion to taking real risks. Whatever carefully calibrated and narrowly focused military strike Obama now orders isn't going to convince Putin that Obama is anything except a smart, but cautious man trying to stay on his feet in a back alley brawl. The smartest man in the alley might win the brawl, but the meanest man is the one you have to watch out for.
To persuade Congress and the American people that military action in Syria is justified, President Obama has to present positive reasons. We need to know how we succeed, how we win. Waging war for the purpose of stopping bad people from being bad isn't likely to work, unless one is prepared to wage total war and completely conquer the enemy, as America did to Germany and Japan in World War II. No one has suggested that America conquer Syria. For the past fifty years, America has dived into military adventures for poorly conceived reasons, and not surprisingly done poorly. The only clear case for offensive military action--the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan-- was thoroughly botched by the second Bush Administration when it failed to deal definitively with Osama bin Laden after trapping him in late 2001 at Tora Bora. We're still suffering the consequences of that failure. If President Obama wants our support for a strike in Syria, he should tell us how we attain victory. If there is no victory that can be defined or attained, we should hold our fire.
The Democrats, who control the Senate, are feeling queasy, but may support a narrowly crafted resolution. The Republicans, who control the House, are skeptical and may reject the resolution.
The Administration has offered a variety of negative reasons for striking Assad's forces, arguing that bad or negative consequences will ensue if the U.S. does not strike. Chemical weapons are horrible and are prohibited by international law. The United States, and especially the President would lose credibility. The Iranians would be emboldened in their quest for nuclear weapons. The North Koreans would be emboldened to pull more septic content. The Russians would be emboldened in any number of ways.
Chemical weapons are horrible. But does the President see himself as a referee, seeking to penalize Assad for face masking? Is the President's plan to throw down a yellow flag, move Assad back a few yards, and then let the slaughter continue? Is it okay for Assad to continue his nationwide massacre if he just limits himself to conventional weapons? Why don't we issue striped uniforms to the U.S. military and give them whistles to blow along with cruise missiles to fire?
As for credibility, Assad is in a fight for his very life. He couldn't give a rat's left ear what Obama does, because Obama won't put U.S. boots on the ground and hasn't even provided military support to the Syrian rebels that he promised months ago. Obama doesn't present a significant threat to Assad. Maybe Assad's forces will refrain from obvious use of chemical weapons for a while and employ more conventional but plenty lethal weaponry to kill many more Syrians. But nothing Obama is contemplating will make him more credible to anyone who matters.
The Iranians are, if the vaguely sourced information published by the press over the past few years is accurate, hellbent on building nuclear weapons on the fastest possible schedule. It won't matter a bit what Obama does in Syria. A U.S. military strike there will only lead the Iranians to more comprehensively disguise their activities. But it won't dissuade them in the least from halting their nuclear program.
The North Koreans are constrained by the presence of 26,000 U.S. troops stationed along the demilitarized zone in the Korean peninsula. North Korea can't do anything substantial to South Korea or any other nation without affecting these troops. As long as those troops are there, what Obama does or doesn't do in Syria isn't significant.
As for Russia, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is ex-KBG. If there was an intelligence service that knew how to spot and exploit human weakness, it was the KGB. Putin surely has Obama figured out--the man isn't bold. He's not a risk taker. He wants to be on the winning side no matter who that is or what happens (this is how the U.S. wound up being detested by everyone in Egypt--we tried to be everyone's buddy and ended up no one's buddy). Obama is like the political equivalent of Microsoft--very successful, but not so likely to continue that success in the future because of an aversion to taking real risks. Whatever carefully calibrated and narrowly focused military strike Obama now orders isn't going to convince Putin that Obama is anything except a smart, but cautious man trying to stay on his feet in a back alley brawl. The smartest man in the alley might win the brawl, but the meanest man is the one you have to watch out for.
To persuade Congress and the American people that military action in Syria is justified, President Obama has to present positive reasons. We need to know how we succeed, how we win. Waging war for the purpose of stopping bad people from being bad isn't likely to work, unless one is prepared to wage total war and completely conquer the enemy, as America did to Germany and Japan in World War II. No one has suggested that America conquer Syria. For the past fifty years, America has dived into military adventures for poorly conceived reasons, and not surprisingly done poorly. The only clear case for offensive military action--the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan-- was thoroughly botched by the second Bush Administration when it failed to deal definitively with Osama bin Laden after trapping him in late 2001 at Tora Bora. We're still suffering the consequences of that failure. If President Obama wants our support for a strike in Syria, he should tell us how we attain victory. If there is no victory that can be defined or attained, we should hold our fire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
