In the course of trying to structure the narrative around soaring tensions with North Korea, the Trump Administration has made major efforts to play up North Korea as an imminent threat, and the possibility that North Korea might attack as a realistic possibility.
And yet, realistically, most analysts agree that if a war does happen, it would be the US attacking North Korea, and not the other way around. This grim possibility necessarily comes with a question: can the US, having attacked North Korea and started a calamitous war, claim it was done in “self defense“?
Obviously they can, and would, try to do so. Some officials are already try to build a legal case that North Korea is a special case and that US military action would be justified, which only adds to concerns that a US attack might be forthcoming.
Making such a claim credible, however, is another matter. Throughout the past half a year of rhetoric, the US has been threatening North Korea far more than North Korea has been threatening the US. A third party observer would have little choice but to conclude that, while plainly both sides share blame for the worsening tensions, the US has broadly been the instigator of this row.
It would be a case of dramatic revisionism for the Trump Administration to even claim otherwise. The administration has been very open about the idea that their consistent threats to North Korea are trying to force a policy change, and attacking North Korea based purely on their retaliatory capabilities, despite being the exact nature of the threats, wouldn’t meet legal standards.
Some legal experts are warning that since North Korea is not an imminent threat, that is to say there is no reason to believe North Korea is about to attack the US, there exists no legal justification for preemptive action at all. Even if there were, the experts note it would need to be proportional, which doesn’t exactly fit with US officials threatening the “destruction” of not only North Korea, but its population.
Pushes for diplomacy have fallen on deaf ears, with Trump Administration officials insisting North Korea only understands threats and violence. Yet putting that theory into practice with a military attack almost certainly positions the US as aggressor, and risks major diplomatic fallout, on top of the calamitous death toll of the conflict itself.
Of course we can and who is going to stop us? Might makes right in our vision. Not that there is anything right with that.
So it sounds like China thinks they will stop us from taking over N Korea . And almost surely Russia will be right beside China . Perhaps the days of NATO just bombing anyone they please might be over . Although both Russia and China voted along with the United States to sanction N Korea in the United Nations .
Everyone has their breaking point, including China and Russia.
And so does the US.
China would only stop the US from taking over N. Korea if the US attacked N. Korea first, nothing complicated about that. If N. Korea attacked first, China would remain neutral.
John, that’s an egomaniacal statement, one that a delusional lunatic would make. However, you’re right in stating there’s no right with that sort of hubris.
The Trotskyists aka neocons are most likely to utter such an idiotic statement .. They’re absolutely drowning in extreme hubris, and that’ll be their downfall.
I think The Chinese news paper had the best answer on how to handle N Korea . If N Korea attacks anyone China will remain neutral and allow N Korea to be taken down But if the United States attacks N Korea first ? China will do everything they can to prevent the destruction of N Korea . So it looks like as far as China goes N Korea is in the same predicament now as they were in 1950
But it’s not 1950 anymore. China now has a middle class and an economic elite. It is no longer the country gripped by ideological and revolutionary energy that was practically anesthetized to loss & privation by it’s experience in the first half of the 20th century culminating with the Japanese occupation. A Chinese counter-intervention would require Chinese to die by the millions again, as well as a mutually painful trade war. Not sure their society would have the stomach this time around.
‘require Chinese to die by the millions again’ what?
If the physical war was on the NK land and the S China sea, US would have to be very stupid to target the China homeland. If either China or Russia is attacked, conventional or Nuclear, say goodbye to US homeland.
Their response is ‘joint response’ and immediate full out nuclear.
You have absolutely no idea of either the Russian or Chinese mind-set. Both populations will gladly die to the last man-woman for the homeland. Do not project the N American values on people culturally different.
Watch the Chinese ‘hell march’ and the “hero march’ in Moscow. 1 million Russians marching carrying pictures of people that died 70+ years ago.
It’s called having skin in the game. Something most americans, including myself, know nothing about.
I think the proposition that China would fight the USA over Korea is outdated and can be avoided.
1. China’s one party leadership remain in power only as long as they continue high economic growth. They are very vulnerable to being overthrown from within by their own middle classes if the Chinese economy tanks.
2. China has more to gain economically from a unified modern Korea. It would probably grow to be twice the size of South Korea is now. That would be a wonderful trading partner for China.
This could be encouraged by promising Chinese companies would be able to tender for reconstruction and reunification projects. Hence China gets economic gains almost immediately that the fighting stops.
3. Any fears of China entering the fray could be mitigated by the USA promising to withdraw entirely from a unified Korea under stable multi party democracy. This makes China the biggest winner of all in the long term.
4. The most China might do is invade part of the way into North Korea in order to build a buffer zone within the future united Korea. They then might agree to turn that into the new DMZ and withdraw if the USA withdraws from the peninsula, leaving a unified Korea with a smaller buffer zone.
Remember that Korea has been resistive to Chinese rule for at least 3000 years. I think the Chinese have enough problems without having another attempt to rule part of Korea. 3,000 years of history tells the Chinese such an enterprise is bound to end badly for China. It would also undermine relations with all the other East Asian countries who already feel threatened by China. all of which threatens China’s rapid economic growth and thus the one party system.
South Korea already has a military large enough to defend itself from China. Plus China has ever reason to remain friendly trading partners with South Korea. The USA would not need to remain.
Proportionality in War. This is something the US has eschewed from the beginning. We revel in the excesses and think it makes us look cool or something. Don’t believe me? Take it straight from the horse’s mouth:
I suspect there is a faction of hard-core imperialist hawks who yearn to break the Nuclear Taboo, to re-establish Washington’s willingness to use nukes – not as some weapon of last resort but merely to get their way – and dare would be rivals to respond with anything other than words & diplomatic censure. I think they’re convinced they would get away with it and at the same time inflict a fatal political defeat on any governments who entertained thoughts of being counterweights to US dominance and generally reinforcing the “resistance is futile” message.
Kim’s bluster may have given such people the political credit they need to sell a preemptive attack or even a false flag operation (firing their own low yield nuclear missile to the same general area as North Korea’s next missile test and claiming it was a failed North Korean nuclear attack)
It could all be done under a wallpaper narrative of Kim & Trump being a toxic mix who’s rhetoric & brinkmanship brought the countries to a point of no return.
Your coffee is cold. US used tactical nikes in Afghanistan and Iraq (and probably Syria). Well documented but Google has of course flushed it down the memory hole.
At this point in time the west is essentially run by women. These women and their enablers are very very emotional; they are children with nukes. Because of PC restrictions on free speech and ideas, the MS exists in a virtue signalling echo chamber. Let’s hope the Chinese can convince them that nukes will kill us all (( ( including morally superior feminists and homosexuals) )).
This will really be one of those ‘Turn off the TV & look out the window’ moments when the violence starts & the cause becomes irrelevant & soon forgotten. The MSM/average western citizen will see the Chinese stop talking & start invading; the Chinese won’t care about ‘optics’ (I hate that phrase). If the war is survivable I see the Chinese occupying South Korea on a permanent basis.
I see the Chinese occupying (what is left of) South Korea on a permanent basis.
Fixed it for you.
so lets see,empty threats from both sides and bragging like school boys needs a justification legally to start another bankers war? seriously. when the sheeple wake up and start forcing those braggarts to lead the charge and report back to us,maybe we will think about it. i say throw trum and kim and their cabinets in a neutral arena somewhere and lets see who wins. that will spare innocent people the madness of ego maniacs.
The U.S. will not attack Korea. The Pentagon will attack Korea. The Pentagon is pledged to permanently serve the BritishEmpire/N.A.T.O. They are traitors. They wipe their asses with the Declaration of Independence. Federal Reserve Notes are Pentagon military scrip. The traitors in Washington deprive us of honest money silver coins. All public officials are paid in fake money printed by the Pentagon. Public officials paid with fake money printed by the Pentagon cannot be trusted because we the people do not pay them with honest money silver coins. We should not expect loyalty from servants that we do not pay.