Donald Trump appears mentally prepared to order a devastating first strike on Pyongyang. His “fire and fury” remark (which is now destined for infamy), proffers a course of action that the U.S. has never been willing to take, at least not since the times of Dwight D. Eisenhower.  That action is to make it perfectly clear the U.S. stands fully prepared to use nuclear weapons to get North Korea to the table and achieve concessions from the gang in Pyongyang.

Eisenhower was ready to use nuclear weapons. Eventually, his threat made the right impression. The North Koreans became convinced he was serious about unleashing “fire and fury.”  At that time, only the U.S. had a usable nuclear arsenal.  And at that time there wasn’t any taboo against using atomic bombs to achieve a political end.  However, today things are quite different.  The use of “nukes” as a first strike strategy breaks the accepted globalist mindset banning their utilization in all but the most desperate of circumstances. The possibility that the situation with Pyongyang warrants “going nuclear” would be considered sheer insanity by the media and geopolitical pundits as well as established world leaders and other more shadowy “powers that be.”  However, do the circumstances today call for nukes? Are they the only logical way to resolve the North Korean crisis by not just “decapitating” North Korean leadership, but by annihilating its military and its entire hermit civilization?

This picture was taken on August 9, 2017, and released by North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on August 10, 2017.

Author, blogger, and expert on the march of progressives to the New World Order, Joel M. Skousen (World Affairs Brief), appeared on Alex Jones during the last few days to discuss the military options and the likely decision that Donald Trump will make on how to deal with North Korea (NOKO).  Skousen asserts that NOKO is the intentional “trigger” mechanism to launch a third-world war which he believes is the ultimate intention of the globalists.  However, Skousen suggests that the Security Council votes cast one week ago by Russia and China against NOKO and in favor of the U.S. sanctions indicate that WWIII is not yet in the offing.  Should military action occur, and Skousen believes it will, it will not be ultimately decisive.  Skousen speculates that this crisis will be round one and there will be a round two. Otherwise, he infers, the plans of the globalists will be thwarted – which is never an expected outcome.

Skousen states on his website home page, “But flaunting Trump’s threats of action will surely cause Trump to act. Trump made it clear in yesterday’s press conference, speaking of NK’s Kim Jong Un: “He’s disrespected our country, he’s said things that are horrific, and with me, he’s not getting away with it!” Anyone who knows him will confirm that his tolerance for these threats is wearing thin and he’s certain to respond militarily if the current verbal barrage continues.” [1]

Frequent “consultant” to the media (especially Fox News) is one John Bolton, former ambassador for the U.S. to the United Nations.  Bolton believes that the time for negotiating with NOKO is over.  The only party to negotiate with is China.  Only China can pressure NOKO to give up its nuclear ambitions. Bolton has stated that negotiating with China concerning NOKO has been unsuccessful for 25 years.  However, on July 6, Bolton told Fox Business Channel reporter Charles Payne, “We can’t change North Korean behavior, they’re never going to give up their nuclear weapons program voluntarily. That’s why I think the only diplomatic play left is to convince China, and it won’t be easy, that what we really should do is reunite the peninsula, that it would be in China’s interest and ours.”[2]  Bolton affirms that China actually considers NOKO a “loser” and an albatross.  Based on Bolton’s comments, and those of other commentators, it would seem that since China has been allied with NOKO for over half a century, for China to desert them now would cause China to “lose face” on a grand scale. Hence, China stated this past week that if NOKO attacks Guam or any other U.S. interests, “It’s on its own.” However, they also stated that should the U.S. strike first, China will come to the aid of NOKO.  Whether or not such support constitutes an empty promise seems to be anybody’s guess.  The prospect Chinese support could actually mean military engagement (facing U.S. forces directly), adds complication to the calculus the U.S. President must make.  If Skousen is correct, however, China likely wouldn’t step to the plate at this time.

Bolton’s bellicose approach is certainly typical of the Neo-conservative point of view.  Bolton is wryly described in Kos Media as “An ultra-hawk with a reputation for thinking diplomacy is a weakling’s tool… Bolton has repeatedly shown his preference for a foreign policy dominated by chest-pounding, saber rattling, bombs and cruise missiles.”[3] While I agree that Bolton casts the classic Neo-con giant shadow of threats and intimidation, it’s hard to argue with his logic.  He states correctly that “conventional wisdom” seeks only traditional “containment and deterrence” pressure to nudge NOKO in the right direction.  Says Bolton in his op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal this past week (and on his home site, The Gatestone Institute),

The people saying this are largely the same ones who argued that “carrots and sticks” would prevent Pyongyang from getting nuclear weapons. They are prepared to leave Americans as nuclear hostages of the Kim family dictatorship. This is unacceptable. Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has it right. “What’s unimaginable to me,” he said last month at the Aspen Security Forum, “is allowing a capability that would allow a nuclear weapon to land in Denver.[4]

Jeffrey A. Bader, from the Brookings Institute (a mainstay of progressive globalism), would be one such person arguing for the standard solution of “containment and deterrence.”  On August 8, 2017, Bader provided a thorough assessment of the situation and asserted “C&D” remains the least bad of all the bad options.

Containment and deterrence are not appealing options, just as many condemned those approaches as passive, immoral, and defeatist during the Cold War. In fact, they were none of those then and would be none of those now.

But before we accept the necessity of such an approach, we could offer the North Koreans—both directly and through the South Koreans and the Chinese—one last chance for them to turn away from the disastrous course they are on. We could propose a deal that would offer them much of what they say they want in return for their complete denuclearization and dismantling of their missile program, namely:

  • Establishment of full diplomatic relations;
  • End of the economic embargo and sanctions, economic assistance, and investment; and
  • A peace treaty to replace the 64-year-old armistice agreement.

Of course, this expected and “sane” approach is based upon the proposition that NOKO remains capable of rational action and moreover, that Kim Jung Un isn’t on a power trip that he perceives is the only way he can remain in control.  When it comes to NOKO, the notion that “saner heads will prevail” appears to be the definition of insanity (that definition being: repeating the same failed tactic endlessly, expecting a successful outcome with each attempt).

Jeffrey Lewis, writing on August 9, 2017, for the progressive digital magazine, Foreign Policy, exclaims that the game is over and the North Koreans already won.[5]  Why?  Because they have already developed at least 60 nuclear weapons, some of which are miniaturized and will retaliate with devastating effect if the U.S. should choose to attack. Lewis indicates that intelligence agencies (defense as well as civilian) assess NOKO’s nuclear prowess to be far more worrisome that most of us believe.  He states:

Both intelligence assessments are consistent with what the North Koreans have been saying for some time, for reasons I outlined in a column here at Foreign Policy immediately after the September 2016 nuclear test titled, “North Korea’s Nuke Program Is Way More Sophisticated Than You Think: This is now a serious nuclear arsenal that threatens the region and, soon, the continental United States.”

Lewis provides a compelling detailed assessment that NOKO has been very smart in its nuclear testing and its ability to hide exactly how capable its arsenal may be. While he acknowledges that there are many that still believe we can negotiate and have time to do so, his confidence level isn’t high.  His summary assessment points out that half-measures promise disaster for the U.S. and its allies (especially those easily within range of NOKO’s conventional and nuclear weapon systems):

The other options are basically terrible. There is no credible military option. North Korea has some unknown number of nuclear-armed missiles, maybe 60, including ones that can reach the United States; do you really think U.S. strikes could get all of them? That not a single one would survive to land on Seoul, Tokyo, or New York? Or that U.S. missile defenses would work better than designed, intercepting not most of the missiles aimed at the United States, but every last one of them? Are you willing to bet your life on that?

On a good day, maybe we get most of the missiles. We save most of the cities, like Seoul and New York, but lose a few like Tokyo. Two out three ain’t bad, right?

And that is the dire situation in which we find ourselves.  Lewis isn’t being serious about losing Tokyo being acceptable.  But his assessment is basically correct.  Any military action will likely to result in horrific death like nothing we’ve seen since World War II.  But the issue is that we don’t appear to have any other option that will resolve the dilemma we face.

Indeed, there are only two options: (1) appeasement or (2) total destruction of North Korea.  Any other choice (the standard approach of using conventional-weapon-precision-attacks on known military targets), will result in devastating losses for South Korea and Japan… and the outside chance that the U.S. mainland will also be hit (as I said in an article earlier this week), with a dirty bomb lobbed onto a West Coast city by a NOKO cruise missile from one of its many attack subs lying somewhere in the Pacific Ocean (which isn’t something that the mainstream media will even admit as a possibility). Additionally, as I said before in that earlier post, the U.S. could be subject to an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack by one of a couple NOKO satellites orbiting overhead.  However, it does seems highly likely we can take such satellites out with the technology we have in orbit today (and make note, we don’t know for a fact that these satellites have a “nuclear baby device on board”).

So, what happens next?

Appeasement is the still the most likely outcome.  It’s the policy of three past U.S. administrations.  It’s the way our media thinks. As I asserted at the outset, to even think of a massive first strike which likely includes the use of nuclear weapons, remains the impossible course of action.

Joel Skousen, in addition to being a geopolitical pundit, is a former naval pilot.  He believes the most important first step in a conflict with North Korea is to win air superiority.  He informs us that NOKO has several dozen MiG-21s and newer MiG-29s.  Despite their numbers, they would likely be no match for our F-18s, F-22s, and F-35s. Why? Many of our pilots have fighting experience and the world’s best technology at their fingertips. While Skousen’s military knowledge and experience obviously far exceed my own, I challenge his counsel nonetheless.   Winning air superiority sounds logical – but is it really our top priority? Skousen’s recommendation seems obvious if we think in terms of conventional warfare on a traditional battlefield; however, we must remember that what NOKO does in this circumstance will likely be anything but conventional.

At the first sign of a U.S. attack, we should expect a massive artillery barrage launched by Pyongyang against Seoul.  We should also expect whatever nuclear capable missiles NOKO has, to be in the air quickly, targeting Guam and possibly Tokyo.  And if we don’t take out NOKO subs in proximity to the U.S. mainland, we should expect some sort of attack on our West Coast cities.  Finally, if the EMP threat from NOKO satellites is real, we should expect it to be in play.

For these reasons – the unlikely positive outcome of further negotiations with China and North Korea, the failed policies of three administrations over the past 25 years, and the probable progress NOKO has made in developing sophisticated nuclear capabilities – the impossible course of action is really the only course of action.  The U.S. government must prepare its military and explain to the American public why a massive and annihilating strike against North Korea is the only legitimate action we can take. We have appeased and delayed decisive action against North Korea for nearly 70 years (remember: the outcome of the Korean War proved not to be decisive).  Given all the broken promises, there is no longer an option to appease and delay.  NOKO will inevitably develop a hydrogen nuclear device and missile capability to target all of the U.S. mainline exposing 330 million Americans to thermonuclear war. This fate appears likely in the short-term, perhaps no more than two years away.

If there is any hope at all that NOKO will give up its nuclear weapons program, perhaps the only action President Trump can take that will cause NOKO to believe that Trump means what he says and that he will take the unthinkable step to annihilate North Korea, is for the President to publically and carefully explain to the American people, despite the all-too-predictable protests among politicians and media pundits, that the impossible course of action is the only course of action available to us which will resolve the North Korean problem once and for all. And despite what might seem to be the only reasonable and rational pathway forward to pundits and the media (the route of appeasement through containment and deterrence), we must instead choose the impossible course of action because it is the only way we can hope to minimize the loss of life in the U.S. and among our allies.  We cannot think about short-term losses.  We must think about what will happen over the long haul if we do not act decisively now.

The failure of globalist leadership dominating America since the assassination of John F. Kennedy has led us to this crisis point.  Globalist thinking won’t supply a way out.  We must approach the horrible choice we face now by suspending the “globalist mindset” of Brzezinski and Kissinger which has asserted for four decades that a New World Order can be implemented with hegemonic and dominating military capability that looks awesome on paper but whose horrible weapons of mass destruction are never actually put to use.  The North Koreans have called our bluff.  The U.S. must act decisively, not in the interest of globalism, but in the interest of the American people and our allies.  And we must do so now before it is too late.


[1] Retrieved on 8/12/2017 from

[2] Retrieved on 8/12/12017 from

[3] Retrieved on 08/12/2017 from

[4] Retrieved on 08/12/2017 from

[5] Jeffrey Lewis is director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey.

Please sign up for articles like these from me  I write and publish one or two articles weekly. I am also seen on FaceBook/s.douglas.woodward.  My author’s page on Amazon is available by clicking HERE.