Trump Begging for Nuclear War on North Korea? The Ravings of a Madman Politician

Region: ,
In-depth Report: ,
Nuclear weapon


(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

War on the DPRK would be madness – if nuclear, risking catastrophic slaughter and destruction on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere regionally.

No precedent exists for trying to destroy a nation’s nuclear capability by military means. The possibility of nukes detonating on the Korean peninsula should deter any country from risking the world’s first nuclear war.

Trump earlier threatening a “major, major conflict” with Pyongyang sounded like the ravings of a madman.

He rejects diplomatic outreach, the only possible way to resolve differences, avoiding a war only a lunatic would launch.

Trump’s trip to five East Asia countries, nearing completion, is all about selling war and weapons.

During his visit, Washington launched provocative Asia/Pacific drills, involving three US aircraft carrier strike groups, along with Japanese and South Korean warships.

Pyongyang considers it rehearsing for war, blasting Trump’s trip as “a warmonger’s visit for confrontation to rid the DPRK of its self-defensive nuclear deterrence.”

Its Foreign Ministry said he “laid bare his true nature as destroyer of the world peace and stability and begged for a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula.”

He insulted the nation and its leadership, recklessly accusing Pyongyang of “threaten(ing) (US cities) with destruction.”

A Foreign Ministry response said

“(t)he reckless remarks by a dotard like Trump can never frighten us or put a stop to our advance.” The nation will defend its “sovereignty and rights to existence and development by keeping a real balance of force with the US.”

North Korea’s UN envoy Cha Son Nam said

“(t)he DPRK will not lay its nukes and ballistic missiles on the negotiating table in any case, unless the hostile policy and nuclear threat of the US against the DPRK are thoroughly eradicated.”

“Despite the serious concerns of the international community, the US continues to stage, annually, the aggressive joint military exercises, with the aim of planning a nuclear attack against the DPRK.”

On November 11, Professor of International Law/staunch human rights defender Francis Boyle delivered the following remarks sent me by email at a Chicago anti-war rally, saying:

“The US government threats of “preventive warfare” against DPRK are illegal and criminal.”

“The Nuremberg Tribunal in their Judgment of 1946, which the US helped organize, condemned ‘preventive war’ when the lawyers for the Nazis made the argument on their behalf.”

“This is an illegal and criminal threat in violation of international law. According to the World Court in its Advisory Opinion (1996) on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the legality vel non of a threat stands or falls on the same legal grounds as if the threat were carried out.”

“The repeated US government threats to ‘destroy’ or ‘annihilate’ DPRK are an international crime under the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the United States is a party.”

“These genocidal threats are also illegal and criminal under the rationale of the 1996 World Court Advisory Opinion mentioned above.”

“The United States has an absolute obligation under UN Charter article 2(3) and article 33 to open ‘negotiation’ with DPRK in good faith in order to produce a peace resolution of this dispute. Instead, the US government has repeatedly rejected these obligations under the UN Charter.”

“The proposal by Russia and China for a ‘dual-freeze’ is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between the USA and DPRK as required by the UN Charter.”

“The United States is deliberately provoking the DPRK, ratcheting up these provocations in the hope that they will provoke the DPRK to commit an act of aggression against the United States that the USA can then use as a pretext for war.”

“Pursuant to the terms of their mutual self-defense treaty, China has stated that if the US attacks first it will defend the DPRK, but that if the DPRK strikes first, China will remain out of any war. So the United States is trying to provoke DPRK into striking first.”

“It is an extremely dangerous situation. It is really up to the United States to take the first step down the Ladder of Escalation that it has constructed here.”

“Instead it appears that the Trump administration is going to escalate up the Ladder of Escalation in the hope and expectation that DPRK will capitulate.”

“This is what International Political Scientists call a Game of Chicken – with cosmic consequences. Who will blink first? Anything can go wrong.”

“Thank you so much for being here today to prevent World War III.”

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Stephen Lendman

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." Visit his blog site at Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]