If we view DPRK’s nuclear & ICBM programs as “wild horses”, are they: “A force not subject to human control & normally stronger than a man.”? Or should we seek to “tame” them? The US/ROK/Japan/UN et al see them thru the former lens, DPRK thru the latter.
2/We have tamed wild horses and employed them down thru the ages. When Kim Yo Jong says: "It would be easier and more favorable for the U.S. to rack its brains to make our nukes no threat to the U.S., rather than racking it to dispossess our nukes.", she's
3/implying that DPRK's nukes & ICBMs are like wild horses the US should be "racking its brains" trying to "tame" rather than eradicate. DPRK's nukes can be "tamed" if they become a component of a peace settlement that terminates the Korean War whereafter the DPRK has normalized
4/w/ the international community. In a sense DPRK will let their nuclear & ICBM programs "be captured" and domiciled (not eradicated), i.e. be limited in agreed-on maximum #s of warheads, ICBMs/SLBMs & nuclear subs. If the US/ROK/UN et al can live w/ a DPRK, the DPRK can muzzle
5/their programs according to the accepted guidelines hammered out in a "Nuclear Peace Deal". Then, as peacetime inundates the Korean Peninsula, the two Koreas will integrate their economies and become veritable allies. Seoul would then be under Pyongyang's nuclear umbrella and
6/the USFK and Mutual Defense Treaty will still be in full force so no one's going to be messing with South or North Korea!! THIS its what Choe Son Hui means in the vid 👇:

"DPRK's nuclear weapons are non-negotiable, unless the U.S. is prepared to co-exist
7/"with the nuclear DPRK. Because this is the only way to ensure lasting peace on the Korean peninsula and stability and security in the North East Asia."

The DPRK isn't budging from using nukes as its guarantor or survival. They're never giving them ALL up but they'll end the
8/drive of advancing of their programs to attain a better 2nd-strike capability if the US et al decides to coexist w/ the nuclear DPRK, and agree to maximum limits on their nuclear/ICBM arsenals (IMHO). Because if that's what it takes to coexist peacefully w/ the US then that's
9/the ticket. DPRK won't need 2nd-strike capability if the Korean War comes to an end thru a "Nuclear Peace Deal", The trade-off is DPRK concedes advanced 2nd-strike capability and US concedes living w/ a limited nuclear DPRK. Limits are always good. When we agree upon limits the
10/sky's the limit. When we can't, there's no "meeting in the middle" and negotiating becomes futile. The US has to let DPRK to keep a minimum nuclear deterrence. After all it's its national sovereign right to defend against perceived nuclear threats from other nuclear nations.
11/DPRK's position, objectively speaking, is totally rational and based:

North Korea has a No First Use Policy
12/North Korea won't strike U.S. first despite inflammatory threats, experts say
[November 17, 2017]
“Despite repeated threats to incinerate the United States with its nuclear weapons, North Korea takes pains to note it won't strike first.”
13/And Kim Yo Jong says:

"We do not have the slightest intention to pose a threat to the U.S. and Comrade Chairman has already made it clear to President Trump.

Everything will go smoothly if they leave us alone and make no provocation on us."
14/Choe Son Hui implies that if "the U.S. is prepared to co-exist with the nuclear DPRK, their nukes will be negotiable. But right now they're not, and it's highly dubious whether anything Biden proposes will find favor w/ Pyongyang. We'll soon see. "Negotiable" means on the
15/table and the business of bartering. Indeed it will be no simple feat for DC & Pyongyang to establish both Maximum and Minimum limits/numbers for DPRK's nuclear & ICBM/SLBM arsenals. Some "brain-racking" will have to occur. Some numbers will be too high for the US, some too
16/low for Pyongyang, but w/ the finish line in sight we could find the right balance. We all want to live in peace and no one want's conflict, we all agree on that. There has to be give and take. The problem lies in the US viewing DPRK's nukes & ICBMs as being wild horses that
17/are "uncontrollable".

The U.S. has never wavered from its stance that it won’t sign a peace settlement or diplomatically recognize DPRK until it ends its nuclear programs. Peacetime on the Korean Peninsula is being held hostage by the U.S. & the ransom price is DPRK’s nuclear
18/ program. DPRK’s position howerver is: “No dice, U.S.. Our nukes are our survival.”

The US/ROK/UN believe they have the winning formula: Maximum Pressure strategies + UNSC Resolution sanctions = full denuclearization of DPRK, & the way to get to work is to tweak the
19/components: Apply more sanctions, get China to enforce sanctions, Quad in solidarity supports the “complete denuclearization of North Korea”. The fact that DPRK’s nuclear program is more advanced now than ever before and includes nuclear subs shows the futility of the
20/“strategy” of using Max Pressure sanctions to get DPRK to end their nuclear program a la Libya. This lends credence to its programs being “wild horses” - not even all the Western forces combined can slow down the pace of DPRK’s nuclear & ICBM programs. Yet this perception is
21/deceptive b/c the extent of DPRK’s nuclear program is in fact “subject to human control”, but in an un-obvious manner.

There’s direct proportionality b/t US’s hostility (unilateral demands, conditions, sanctions) towards DPRK and the pace of DPRK’s
22/nuclear & ICBM development. When the former increases, so does the latter. Were the former to stop, so would the latter.

In other words the extent of DPRK’s nuclear program capacity is variable, dependent on the US’s NK policy. When the US is hostile, adding more sanctions
23/and making threats, DPRK bolster’s its nuclear program as a national defense strategy of building 2nd strike capability to deter the US from attacking, regime change or nuclear first strike. However if the US were to propose accepting a limited nuclear DPRK, normalizing
24/relations and committing to the peace process, DPRK would surely cease advancing their nuclear weapons. The very advanced type of system needed in case the US attacked North Korea wouldn't be needed any longer if the US reversed 68 years of hostility and basically said: “OK,
25/"let’s coexist together. We can do this.” Once peace is inked, the Korean War will become water under the bridge "forever", esp. as North & South Korean relations warm up, their economies integrate and peace, stability & security takes hold on the entire Korean Peninsula.
26/So the fact that DPRK’s nukes & ICBMs can change on a dime - the dime being the US deciding to coexist & normalize relations w/ a limited nuclear DPRK w/ a view to ending the War - shows that they are NOT uncontrollable “wild horses” but that they can indeed be “tamed”.
27/Again: Kim Yo Jong: "It would be easier and more favorable for the U.S. to rack its brains to make our nukes no threat to the U.S., rather than racking it to dispossess our nukes."

Dec 20, 2018 Commentary by “Jong Hyon” (KCNA): “It would be better to
28/"to search for a new way rather than face a barrier in the old way”.

Anyone w/ a keen sense of objectivity can see the US isn't deviating from sanctions, hostile coercive policy in seeking its goal of "fully denuclearizing" DPRK & position of withholding peace until DPRK
29/ends its nuclear program - which anyone w/ half a brain knows isn't going to happen. So the US is just reinforcing the "barrier in the old way", which compiles DPRK to foster their 2nd-strike capability and the cycle continues. Since the US wants DPRK's nukes eliminated,
30/"taming" them is against the national interest. And like an uncomprehending beast that is incapable of adding 2 = 2 to get 4, DC must think of DPRK's nuclear program as "wild horses" - “A force not subject to human control and normally stronger than a man.” This erroneous and
31/misguided perception is dangerous and not build in reality, but in subjective paranoia not moored by objective reasoning and concrete knowledge. The DPRK is willing to stop developing its nuclear & ICBM programs (IMHO) if the US will normalize relations w/ them as a nuclear
32/state, but when the US refuses to do so it watches the exact opposite of what they want happen: DPRK further developing its programs to the point where you think the Washington suits are all shaking in their boots afraid that Kim will suddenly attack South Korea or the US.
33/But wild horses can be tamed, and the US can tame them by agreeing to:

1) Coexist w/ a limited nuclear DPRK
2) Normalize relations w/ DPRK
3) Commit to ending the War

DPRK’s nukes will be domesticated b/c they’ll conform to the conditions & rules of the agreement made b/t US
34/& DPRK. Liked domesticated horses employed in human service, DPRK’s nukes, strictly as a national defense force of deterrence like USFK, will bring stability, security & ☮️to the Korean Peninsula. When will Washington realize this? ☮️ starts w/ the US!!!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Michael L Bonic

Michael L Bonic Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BonicMichael

3 Apr
As long as the US keeps playing this game of holding ☮️ (the end of the Korean War) hostage to DPRK’s “full denuclearization”, DPRK’s nuclear deterrence & 2nd strike capability will keep growing. I’d immediately negotiate accepting a limited nuclear DPRK, normalization & ☮️. 🤩
2/Nuclear DPRK, Ltd
There’s direct proportionality b/t US’s hostility (unilateral demands, conditions, sanctions) towards DPRK and the pace of DPRK’s nuclear & ICBM development. When the former increases, so does the latter. Were the former to stop, so would the latter. The
3/geniuses (not) in the Beltway don’t seem to grasp this elementary relation tho. Instead of worrying Kim will break his self-imposed double moratorium, they should entice DPRK to agreeing to Maximum Limits on their nuclear & ICBM programs (maximum allowable nukes & ICBSs).
Read 13 tweets
3 Apr
Let’s Share The Korean Peninsula
(What a brilliant idea, why didn’t I think of it? Oh wait, I did.)
[A Theatrical Parody]

A diplomat stands up to address the other diplomats seated at a table:
2/DPRK Diplomat: “OK we fought a bloody war to decide who gets control the Korean Peninsula. It was too brutal so we signed an Armistice. And now you you want us to decide who rules over a reunited Korea in this room?!”

ROK Diplomat: “Pretty much. It’s better than fighting.”
3/DPRK Diplomat: “We’ll never give up our Socialism. How can we resolve in this room what couldn’t be settled on the battlefield?”

US Diplomat: “Just give us all of your nukes DPRK, and all of the splendors of Western capitalism will be yours to enjoy.”

DPRK Diplomat: “Ha! You
Read 13 tweets
3 Apr
Historical backdrop to the “Korea Question” still unanswered today
[From MAY 26, 2009]
Are We at War With North Korea?
Um, sort of, in a way …
“Sort of. The 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement, signed by the United Nations Command, North Korea, and China,
2/“ended the conflict in a practical sense. It set up a system for exchanging prisoners of war, created a north-south boundary within a demilitarized zone, and marked the suspension of all open hostilities. It was not, however, intended as the final say on the matter. In fact,
3/“Article IV of the Armistice recommends that “the governments concerned on both sides” convene a conference within three months of signing to organize the withdrawal of foreign forces from the peninsula and settle the “Korea question”—roughly, who would rule over a reunited
Read 10 tweets
2 Apr
@duyeonkim @BulletinAtomic The US's nuclear triad is more dangerous and they know it. It is beyond ludicrous, it's delusional to think DPRK is planning to attack South Korea. They have a No First Use Policy and their nukes are only for defense if say the US attacked them. Besides
@duyeonkim @BulletinAtomic 2/attacking ROK/US/allies/territories would be suicide and DPRK definitely want's to survive - and thrive in socialist economic prosperity.

Why DPRK Has Nukes (A Primer)

You KNOW why DPRK has nukes right? The US, by its policy, can do a nuclear first
@duyeonkim @BulletinAtomic 3/strike on North Korea in the name of “self-defense”. Read John Bolton’s piece. DPRK has read it. So DPRK is deterring the US from attacking/regime change/nuclear first strike thru textbook deterrence theory. They just did self-defense exercises which every sovereign nation has
Read 16 tweets
1 Apr
“In China, the people can’t change the government, but the system keeps changing. In countries like the US, the people can change the government, but the system can’t be changed.” quora.com/How-safe-is-Ch…
2/“Finally, came Deng Xiao Ping who famously said:“It doesn’t matter black cat (Capitalism) or white cat (Communism), as long as it catches mice, it’s a good cat”. His preference in pragmatism than ideologies has transformed China. This thinking allowed China to make plans which
3/“suit the actual needs in the country, instead of rigidly bounded to ideologies. By embracing market economy, it signified China had stopped pursuing the goal of a communism state...

In just 40 years, the CPC have lifted 800 million people out from poverty. The rate of growth
Read 8 tweets
1 Apr
Biden’s NK Policy Review, likely a step-by-step/phased approach of denuclearization rewarding DPRK at each step w/ sanctions relief, clashes w/: "[W]e shall never barter our system, the safety & future of our people for the likes of lifting of sanctions”.
2/Additional threads:

Kim Yo Jong calls out the hypocrisy of the double standard in self-defense exercises in Moon Jae In’s rhetoric in a statement of scathing critique.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!