“Trump is ensuring that the United States, South Korea, and Japan get a real deal from Kim Jong-un rather than just another summit that improves Pyongyang’s position and weakens everyone else’s. By pulling out of the talks earlier this week, Trump is forcing his allies to get in line, and is increasing his leverage in the forthcoming talks—which, we can safely assume will happen at some point this year.”
“No, it is not in America’s interest to simply ignore Assad’s repeated chemical weapons use, or to empower his regime — at the expense of our regional allies. That would actually force America to expand its role in the Mideast at precisely the time it needs to reduce its physical presence there. Thus, a retaliatory — proportional — strike against Assad for his chemical weapons attack would be a justified use of American force (and would actually solidify America’s position in the region, without expanding our role there).”
“The Pentagon must understand that deterrence in the 21st century is not about mutually assured destruction. It is about nonreciprocal annihilation. The threats we face today are asymmetrical; the way America handles these challenges will necessarily be asymmetrical if they are to have a chance at success.”
“The Kim regime’s entire existence is wedded to the idea that only that family can remake Korea whole and protect it from the outside world. Deals with the West buy North Korea time, and are wholly one-sided. Inevitably (and sooner than anyone thinks), the North will strike out with nuclear weapons, and we are entirely unprepared for that day.”
“What is certain that, at present, the North will have a working nuclear arsenal that can threaten anywhere in the world no later than 18 months from now. What is also certain is that, the longer that the Trump Administration delays decisive action, the more likely that the United States will have to say “goodbye” to one of its prized cities, and will still be forced to defend South Korea from a probably invasion from the North (and/or retaliate against the North for likely attacks against Japan).”
“The Air Force is institutionally incapable of fully resourcing space operations, and will always view space as a secondary function to their primary mission of air dominance.”
“By placing a reliable missile defense system in orbit; by potentially placing non-nuclear offensive weapons in orbit, American deterrence would be assured, and our competitors would be put on their heels. A missile defense system in space would neuter the threat that nuclear weapons pose, and offensive strategic weapons in orbit would hold our rivals hostage, in much the same way that nuclear weapons held the world hostage in the Cold War—minus the risks to our people.”
“The only thing that can be done is to give America a proverbial ace up its sleeve; without it, we will be in a crushing war in North Korea that will likely break the American economy; destroy our fighting forces; and ratchet tensions between the U.S., China, and Russia to untenable levels. America must develop and deploy a space-based missile defense system with due haste.”
In this lecture, geopolitical analyst, Brandon J. Weichert, details how the increases in volatility in the global energy market (thanks to greater tensions with Iran) will disproportionately benefit the Russian Federation, which is almost entirely dependent on the price of fossil fuels being high, in order to make Russia strong.
Don’t worry about the new Russo-Saudi alliance. It actually might be a net positive for the United States in the long-run.