Military strike on North Korea only option?

There’s been a lot of US related news lately. This from a couple of days ago has more meaning after the missile strike on Syria with an accompanying warning to North Korea.

Fox News: Military strike on North Korea may be only option, Gen. Keane says

On the heels of yet another North Korean missile test, albeit one the Pentagon says failed, and ahead of a meeting between President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Trump’s first choice for Secretary of Defense told Fox News the U.S. is right to consider first-strike military action against Pyongyang.

“We’re rapidly and dangerously heading towards the reality that the military option is the only one left when it comes to getting North Korea to denuclearize and not weaponized [intercontinental ballistic missiles],” said retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane.

Keane said going to war is undesirable to the Trump administration because of the toll it would take on human lives.

“But the Trump administration cannot accept a nuclear launch,” he said. “We cannot rely on our missile-defense system to defeat it and expose the American people to a nuclear attack. Therefore if an ICBM attack was imminent the president would have to conduct a preemptive strike.”

Also from Fox: Syria airstrikes: The critical message Trump sent to North Korea, China and Russia

President Trump’s limited, proportional missile strike on a single Syrian air base had a clear purpose: Punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for having launched a chemical weapons attack that killed over 85 of his citizens and deter him (and others) from engaging in similar WMD-related war crimes.

But the launching of some 59 sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Syrian Air Force’s base of Shayrat sends a strong message not only to Syria but to several other states and groups with a stake in the outcome of that country’s brutal civil war.

To North Korea, the strike is a warning that Mr. Trump is willing to match action with his tough tweets warning that the U.S. will not permit Pyongyang to threaten American security by marrying its small nuclear arsenal with intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching our shores. North Korea is also believed to possess chemical weapons which it could reign down on Seoul and American forces stationed near the South Korean capital in the event of conflict.

To China, it shows that Mr. Trump is prepared to make good on his pledge to take unilateral action against North Korea if Beijing is unwilling to pressure its mercurial neighbor into suspending, if not dismantling its own nuclear program.

And perhaps most important, the strike shows Russia that President Trump’s unlikely bromance with Russia’s autocratic ruler Vladimir Putin has its limits, and that Mr. Trump is likely to insist that Mr. Putin stop making excuses for his brutal client and contain Mr. Assad’s most outrageous conduct.

Military action which throws Moscow off-balance could not come at a better time for Mr. Trump, whose administration is beset by multiple investigations into whether his campaign officials colluded with Russia in interfering in America’s presidential election and whether such collusion helped elect Mr. Trump over his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

What could possibly go wrong?

At least the arms industry boom should be mostly helping US businesses.

Palmer Report: Donald Trump owns stock in the Tomahawk missiles he used in Syria

Donald Trump’s financial entanglements have been the focus of consistent controversy since he took office. He claimed he was putting his assets in a “blind trust” which was later revealed not to be one (source: Chicago Tribune). He’s also been accused of using his office to enrich his hotels.

He often takes a White House entourage to his Florida resort for the weekend, and that’s where he has met both the Japanese Prime Minister and in the last day the Chines Premier.

It must be a good earner for his business interests.

But we’ve now reached the phase where Trump has ordered military action which has given direct financial benefit to a company that he owns stock in.

Last night Donald Trump fired fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base. But according to the Washington Post (link), they were a poor choice of weaponry under the circumstances, because Russia has S-400 surface to air defense technology in place in Syria which could easily have shot them down.

In addition, Reuters is reporting that the Syrian air base was barely harmed (link), and is already back to operational capacity today, because the Tomahawks were aimed at the least important targets on the base.

This means that Trump went with the wrong weaponry when he ordered the Tomahawk attack (his military advisers would have explained this to him), and he used the missiles merely put on a show for TV viewers at home, rather than doing any real damage.

In other words Trump just set a bunch of Tomahawk missiles on fire which, according to a recent Defense Department report (link), may have been worth as much as $93.8 million in total. Why would he do this? Well, he does own shares of stock in the company that makes the Tomahawks.

If that’s true the missile strike is a win win win for Trump. And the jackpot could be North Korea.

Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

74 Comments

  1. That is a cynical statement that lacks any merit. Whoever said that, needs to wipe their chin. The Defence Budget is paid for by the US taxpayer, including Trump. The statement that he was after profits in making the decision to use missiles made by a company he has invested in is laughable and meritless. The thought that Trump would need to make a personal profit before protecting an ally is stupidity of the highest order! Think about it?
    The claim about the lack of effective result on the attack on the airfield shows me the unnamed and unattributed author of this crap had not even bothered to look at the afer action photographs and report published by Fox.
    Another incredible False News Comment and one wonders at the motivation of the author? Do tell!

    Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  April 8, 2017

      Couldn’t agree with you more *BJ*…..yet a few people here *still* think I’m just a dumd blonde 😡

      Reply
      • You are Blonde? Loverly, that does not have any relationship to your intellect or commonsense. DB is used by those who lack the intellectual capability to make a useful comment. More power to you!

        Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  April 8, 2017

      He may not have had that as his sole reason, but he has to have known that he has money in that company and insisted that they not be used. He is reaping what he has sowed by refusing to keep to the rule that the president not be seen to have conflicts of interest. If he thinks that people are not going to say something about this obvious one. The stupidity of a president having such investments is beyond belief.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  April 8, 2017

        Five people think that it’s all right for the president of the US to make money from killing people-inc. four children-in an air strike ? How can anyone think that ? It’s the worst conflict of interests imaginable. He ought not to invest in such things, and he must have known that people would find out and think it unacceptable. If an NZ PM signed off a new railway line when they had a financial interest in it, it would cause outrage, quite rightly. To have a financial interest in these weapons and use them is outrageous.

        Reply
        • David

           /  April 8, 2017

          “Five people think that it’s all right for the president of the US to make money from killing people-inc. four children-in an air strike ? ”

          Please explain the process by which Trump makes money from killing children.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  April 9, 2017

            HE. HAS. MONEY.INVESTED.IN. THE. FIRM. WHICH. MAKES.THE.WEAPONS. THAT.KILLED. THE. CHILDREN. YOU. HAVE. MADE. IT. CLEAR. THAT. YOU. KNOW. THIS.

            YOU. MUST. KNOW. THAT. WHEN. PEOPLE. INVEST (PUT. MONEY.) INTO. A . COMPANY. THEY. EXPECT. TO. HAVE. SOME. MONEY. FROM. THIS.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  April 9, 2017

              Nelly doesn’t. Not when Wayne does it.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 9, 2017

              Wayne probably puts money on the shell and pea game.

              Most people expect a return or they wouldn’t put the money into the shares :-/

            • David

               /  April 9, 2017

              Kitty, that also applies to almost anyone in the US who has a 401K. I also profited from these dead children according to you.

  2. Kitty Catkin

     /  April 8, 2017

    The US is behaving like the school bully again. They are the one who decides whether other people are to be permitted to have what they have and consider to be their right to have.They must be mad if they think that the rest of the world is going to make themselves so vulnerable and agree to give up weapons that the US has.

    If Trump is making a profit from the strikes, that is a very, very bad look and he should be called to account for this.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  April 8, 2017

      People should be rewarded for doing good, Kitty. Even Presidents.

      The US might be mad, but not nearly as mad as North Korea.

      Reply
  3. Kitty, I will think about what you say. Do you really believe Trump’s motivation is profit or is it his duty to arrange for the security and protection of the USA? He is the President!

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  April 8, 2017

      I said that I did not think it was his motivation, but it is unacceptable for the President to profit from his country making air strikes and killing people. How is doing this arranging for security and protection of the USA, anyway ? It’s a civil war in Syria.

      As president, he ought to have rid himself of all such investments, he has made money from the deaths of four children.

      Reply
  4. David

     /  April 8, 2017

    “Why would he do this? Well, he does own shares of stock in the company that makes the Tomahawks”

    How much stock exactly? How much does he profit? Raytheon is worth $45bn and Trump does not appear on the major shareholders list, so he owns at best a tiny fraction of the company, Let’s assume it’s $10m in stock, just to guess on the very high side.

    It’s revenue is $25bn or so, so a single order for Tomahawks isn’t going to make a major blip in the cashflow. Operating margins are 13%, so the profit for those missiles will be about $15m. If the assumption above is correct, and Trump owns $10m in stock, he gets 0.002% of the profit. That is $3333.

    Does anyone think that Trump used Tomahawks for $3 grand?

    Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  April 8, 2017

      Dead right David…most people *wouldn’t have a clue* how the share-market works ❗ Wayne bought a few thousand shares in the *Mad Butcher* a while back at a buck-twenty….and even though we always buy our sausages there, they’re now worth about 30 cents 😡

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  April 8, 2017

        That’s right, trivialise a tragedy and reduce it to the level of Wayne’s idiocy. Do you have any understanding of this situation at all ?.

        Most people would have some idea of how the sharemarket works-we’re not all like Wayne-and Trump would not only know himself, he will have teams of accountants. The amount of money that he has in this company is irrelevant, it’s the fact that he has it that makes it a conflict of interests. He is signing off an order using weapons in which he has a financial interest (as opposed to the other sense of interest, in case you don’t know the meaning of a conflict of interests)

        Reply
        • David

           /  April 8, 2017

          “The amount of money that he has in this company is irrelevant”

          It’s completely relevant. The amount is so tiny no sane person can consider this a conflict of interest. Trump almost certainly has shares in every single company in the S&P500.

          Fun fact: Hillary Clinton has shares in Raytheon. Where was your claim of a conflict of interest in 1998, 2009, & 2011?

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  April 9, 2017

            It is not at irrelevant-and I can’t believe that it’s a tiny amount. The fact is that he does have a financial interest, ergo has a conflict of interests.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 9, 2017

              Why can’t you believe it? David has done some reasonable arithmetic. It’s up to those making the accusation to show it is an amount that could conceivably motivate the President otherwise it’s just empty politicking.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 9, 2017

              It is still a conflict of interest for a president to have investments in a firm that makes the weapons used in a strike signed off by him. Would you say it was all right for our PM to have investments in something that they signed off as a government project ?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 9, 2017

              It’s not a question of motivation-I am tired of saying that. It’s still a conflict of interests and a very bad look.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 9, 2017

              A conflict of interests is by definition a question of motivation. Politicians make decisions they have some kind of interest in all the time. Probably most decisions they make. Bad looks are just politics. Bad actions are something else.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 9, 2017

              Not at all, a conflict of interests can mean that there is a potential conflict of interest. i.e. a possible gain. I doubt if most political decisions are made with that definiition of interest; the Minister of Health orders a new hospital when they happen to own the building company. The Minister of Tourism’s company puts a cafe in a national park….these things would soon be discovered.

              The Trump thing is why presidents are supposed to have blind trusts, and I bet that after him the rules will be toughened and made to preclude loopholes. There has been a lot of comment about foreign dignitaries staying in his Washington hotel-another thing that isn’t supposed to happen. And there is debate about whether his appointments break the 1967 anti-nepotism law, made when Kennedy gave his brother the job of Attorney General (or whatever it was)

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 9, 2017

              The loony Left have been desperate to find something, anything, everything to criticise Trump for and the MSM have been running headlines on any trivia they can find and any critic they can find to say something bad about him. They are amusing themselves but having cried wolf so often I’m expecting the public to give up caring pretty soon. He will stand or fall on what he does and what he achieves. The rest is hot air.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 9, 2017

              Trumpettes just refuse to see this as a conflict of interest, despite its obviously being one.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 9, 2017

              No they don’t. They just see it as completely inconsequential and a bit of stupid politicking by the Left.

            • David

               /  April 9, 2017

              “It is not at irrelevant-and I can’t believe that it’s a tiny amount. The fact is that he does have a financial interest, ergo has a conflict of interests.”

              Here you go Kitty;

              In that actual disclosure Trump has between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Raytheon stock. My numbers were wildly overstated.

              At most Trump made $5.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  April 9, 2017

            You are easily amused if you find that a ‘fun fact’, but I think that you may be confusing having shares with being given a campaign donation by Raytheon employees. ‘almost’ means that it isn’t a fact, of course.

            It is irrelevant whether Trump’s investment is large or small-it’s still a conflict of interests,

            Where was my claim of a conflict of interest in 1998 etc ? Well, as Hillary Clinton wasn’t in politics in 1998, I have no idea what you mean. She has never been president, either.

            Reply
            • Nelly Smickers

               /  April 9, 2017

              *And she never will be* ….Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition 😄 😄

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 9, 2017

              How sad that some women cannot bear other women to make achievements and have to try to belittle them for doing so.

              In a man this would be called sexism, in a woman it’s what ? mean-spiritedness ?

            • David

               /  April 9, 2017

              “You are easily amused if you find that a ‘fun fact’, but I think that you may be confusing having shares with being given a campaign donation by Raytheon employees. ‘almost’ means that it isn’t a fact, of course.”

              No I have not. Hillary Clinton specifically owns shares in every single major US arms manufacturer, including Raytheon. This is detailed in her financial disclosure.

              “Well, as Hillary Clinton wasn’t in politics in 1998, ”

              Yes she was. She was First Lady and an active part of US Government where she worked in the DoJ and was the driver behind Clinton’s health care reform.

            • Nelly Smickers

               /  April 9, 2017

              And does *Benghazi* mean anything to you, Catkin ❓

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 9, 2017

              Yes.

      • Blazer

         /  April 8, 2017

        never buy backdoor listings….[deleted – I can’t be bothered doing this, I might just delete comments like this. PG]

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  April 8, 2017

          not sure why you bother to be honest….’doll’ is hardly abusive,its a term of endearment.

          Reply
          • Nelly Smickers

             /  April 8, 2017

            I’m sorry Catkin…I can’t undertand while your always so dismissive of Wayne 😡 I was simply pointing out, that even though someone may own shares in a Public Company, just because you buy/use their products…..does not guarantee financial return or reward.

            In Trumpy’s case, as David so rightly sez, he would have holdings in numerous companies thru *invesments in the S&P 500*…..all of which he would be required by law to declare. I well remember when MP Nandor Tanzos was a member of the *Green Party*, the Pecuniary Interests Register showed he had a substantial shareholding in a company the made Composting Toilets.

            Reply
          • No it’s not it’s condescending and sexist. Women are not dolls. Dolls are playthings for games of make-believe

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  April 9, 2017

              to hyper sensitive you ..of course ,its sexist and condescending .In context ,it was aimed at Nelly.If she agrees with you I will desist.

            • Nelly Smickers

               /  April 9, 2017

              Nah….all good with me. Wayne’s had one of those blow-up ones in his mancave for ages 😄

  5. It’s quite appalling for reporters to even suggest this. Why aren’t we hearing about Podesta and his significant Russian interests from the objective US press, I wonder. Why isn’t Hillary and her Uranium deal with Putin and the paid speeches getting a run.

    North Korea is one country where conditions are appalling. The man running Tga show is quite indane, unlike Trump.

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/21/exclusive-podesta-was-board-member-of-firm-linked-to-russian-investors/

    Reply
    • Traveller, well said! As far as North Korea is concerned, the people deserve to have a better life! Its like looking at Kiwis in a cage instead of their natural environment. We freed ourselves from being serfs centuries ago! Maybe it is time to open the door and let the smell of freedom to plow in?

      Reply
      • I meant flow in not plow!

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  April 8, 2017

          Podesta isn’t the US president.

          The Hillary Clinton story was a fabrication.

          They are totally irrelevant to the Trump fiasco.

          No matter what the rest of the world may think of North Korea, it’s for the North Koreans to decide. We can’t force them to change, any more than they can force us to.

          Reply
          • David

             /  April 8, 2017

            “it’s for the North Koreans to decide.”

            Perhaps they should have a referendum? I can see it now;

            Option A: Long Live Kim Jong-un!
            Option B: Death

            Reply
          • Yes, precisely Kitty. What I am saying is that there is no validity to this claptrap either KC. People need to take their blinkers off. Give Trump some credit for pity’s sake

            Reply
    • Gezza

       /  April 8, 2017

      “Indane or indan is a hydrocarbon petrochemical compound, with formula C9H10”

      No wonder the beggar’s so volatile.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  April 8, 2017

        That’s insane, G.

        Reply
        • Look on an iPhone or iPad ( if it’s charged), in the mountains with thunder clapping all around me. You’ll have to excuse my typonese 😳😳😳

          Reply
  6. Kevin

     /  April 8, 2017

    Military action against North Korea can’t come soon enough. North Korea is a communist prison. It’s about time the people of North Korea were liberated.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  April 8, 2017

      they haven’t got any oil…Kevin.

      Reply
      • David

         /  April 8, 2017

        Afghanistan doesn’t have any oil.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  April 8, 2017

          no but they have strategic territory for an oil pipeline .

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  April 8, 2017

            The North Koreans are the only ones who can liberate themselves. How can they be forced out of their belief in Wonderful Leader (or whatever he’s called-I know that it’s something like that) ? Can someone be forced against their will to accept that their partner is abusive and leave them ?

            Reply
            • Kevin

               /  April 8, 2017

              Who says they support their leader? If you live in North Korea you can’t exactly speak up against the leadership.

          • David

             /  April 8, 2017

            Where is this pipeline?

            Reply
            • David

               /  April 8, 2017

              So a gas pipeline between India & Turkmenistan, being run by Türkmengaz with a bunch of Turkish and Japanese companies is somehow something to do with US oil interests?

              Explain.

            • Blazer

               /  April 8, 2017

              can’t spoon feed you all night ..Dave ..DYOR.

            • David

               /  April 8, 2017

              I have done my research. Not a single US company involved, no US oil, no oil going to the US,

              All I can conclude is it has nothing at all to do with US interests, oil or otherwise.

            • Blazer

               /  April 8, 2017

              Hey Dave ,why do you think the U.S were in..Afghanistan?

            • David

               /  April 8, 2017

              For reasons that did not include gas pipelines for India to buy gas from Turkmenistan built by Turks and the Japanese.

      • Kevin

         /  April 8, 2017

        At night from above you can see South Korea all lit up while North Korea is completely dark – no lights, no cars, nothing. So you’re right. They don’t have any oil because the country is so broken they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it.

        Reply
  7. Oliver

     /  April 8, 2017

    As the resident military expert I think North Korea should nuke the USA. The USA has done nothing but wage war since it stole the country from native Americans. Please NK do us a favour and rid the world of the evil Americans. I think I prefer kimchi over hamburgers.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  April 8, 2017

      You’ve convinced us that no-one should care what you think, Oliver.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  April 8, 2017

        He now has Level 5 clearance….. a license to spread disinformation while talking BS.

        Reply
        • Bill Brown

           /  April 9, 2017

          Shame it’s a 50 story building and level 5 is still a carpark level in the basement

          Reply
    • patupaiarehe

       /  April 8, 2017

      Reply
    • Kevin

       /  April 9, 2017

      What are they going to do? Send a dirty missile over with a hundred starved North Koreans inside?

      Reply
  8. Blazer

     /  April 8, 2017

    ‘Last year in June, the United States discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond what was previously estimated. The mineral wealth of Afghanistan was no secret for Afghans. They knew Afghanistan was an intact mineral reservoir, and for centuries they used crude tactics to extract accessible resources. This recent discovery indicates that Afghanistan has a rich prospect ahead, and the country could be raised by its own bootstraps with the revenue from the mining industry. However, the real question is if the Afghan government is ready – and has the tools – to responsibly develop these deposits.

    In 2007, the Afghan government auctioned off the largest copper deposit in Aynak, and the winning bidder was the China Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC). Aynak holds the second largest known unexploited copper deposit in the world. This contract represents the largest foreign investment in the history of Afghanistan. The signing bonus was the biggest, and offered the highest royalties to the Afghan government, as well as building infrastructure, such as establishing an extensive railroad from Uzbekistan in the north to Pakistan in the south to carry copper ore back to China.’…..Quora.

    Reply
    • Oliver

       /  April 8, 2017

      Brazil and many of the poor African countries have great mineral resources but that hasn’t helped them become first world. I suspect Afghanistan will be no different.

      Reply
  9. Zedd

     /  April 9, 2017

    I think Mr T is a ‘business bully’.. now he has the power to be a ‘global bully’. I think he is just looking for any excuse to ‘nuke’ those he opposes; North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria… Russia & China… any more ??

    The guy is a total ‘nut-job’ driven by self-interest ONLY, but claiming he is about looking after all Americans. 😦

    Mr English has reportedly said ‘NZ supports his actions’. Speak for yourself man !!

    Reply
  1. Military strike on North Korea only option? – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s