Thread by @BonicMichael

No First Use DPRK’s textbook nuclear deterrence is purely defensive. John Bolton argues for a preemptive nuclear first strike on North Korea. So the US is the real threat to DPRK.
@Mister_G_2
Proactively countering North Korea’s advancing nuclear threat
atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-resea…

2/I would argue that since the US broke the rules and nuclearized the KP in the first place (when NK was waiting on a ☮️ treaty), what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If US armed ROK w/ nukes DPRK has the right to defend by nuclear deterrence.

https://twitter.com/bonicmichael/status/1466663622554259456?s=21

3/There’s a reason DPRK calls John Bolton “human scum”. He forced their hand strategically & politically (domestic optics) to put the pedal to the metal on strengthening their nuclear deterrence. In case the US ever does a preemptive nuclear first strike.

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1434719079126863874?s=20

4/DPRK’s nuclear deterrence is its national defense policy. Does the US put its national defense on the bargaining table? Neither does the DPRK. It’s astounding how US willfully refuses to use critical thinking to perceive reality, preferring delusion.

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1425963174705057792?s=20

5/Can it be that the US Intelligence Community is completely oblivious to how Barack Obama’s refusal to lift a finger to pick up the phone to call Kim Jong Un was the catalyst for the implementation of the April 1 2013 Nuclear Law passed less than 2 months

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1425966477455216642?s=20

6/after Kim’s hope that Obama would live up to his word (that he’d indeed meet w/ “the leader of North Korea” (him)) met w/ a door slam? If so, how is it that I’m more well-informed than US Intel? 🤔
What do you think if this hypothetical scenario? 👇

https://twitter.com/bonicmichael/status/1473762718033268741?s=21

7/For the sake of expediency I’ll assume the US IC’s response has always been, effectively: “That dam Rubik’s Cube is impossible to solve. We have no viable strategy if they won’t fully denuke.”
The light at the end of this tunnel is SECURITY GUARANTEES:

https://twitter.com/bonicmichael/status/1468672348333088771?s=21

8/I would suggest that the US IC buy a brain somewhere and formulate a strategy before it’s too late and the paranoid Western bloc (nuclear superpower USA + ROK + UNSC + Allies) believes DPRK’s nukes are so threatening that not just the US homeland &

9/it’s Allies are in “imminent threat” of a nuclear attack by DPRK, but that world stability, the planet & the the solar system are under threat, and decides in the name self defense to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on DPRK to rid the world of such a dangerous menace.

10/I mean forget that ten million or more will likely perish and Seoul will be reduced to rubble right? It’ll be “worth” the cost in blood and treasure, even if it results in a nuclear war (Korean War 2.0 or WW3) and half the planet is destroyed - b/c God forbid that we let DPRK

11/have the chance to defend itself against the threats our gov’t has made against thru nuclear deterrence. And oh yeah, it’ll happen “over there”. There is no logic or existent sound analysis on DPRK. I must understand Kim Yo Jong better US Intel. The “greatest hypocrisy of the

12/modern era” is seen by DPRK who has been on the short end of the stick every time in dealings w/ the NPT, UNSC & US. Is the IC that blind? Wearing blinders and disregarding actual reality that the DPRK has nukes - not to reinvade ROK but dissuade the US from attacking?

13/The power of belief, an irrational faculty, can be a boon when it brings us peace of mind from a spiritual path, as well as a bane when “blind faith” causes a person’s or nation’s objectivity to fly over the guardrails. Your piece will fuel the false narrative that DPRK’s goal

14/is to reinvade South Korea and retake the KP by force, the reason its strengthening its nuclear program. You do realize the grave consequences if your premises are wrong? If NK has zero intent of doing such? No scientific theory worth its salt would base itself on premises

15/that have the unverifiability that hand-me-down surmises & speculations of an antiquated Cold-War “logic” informed more by subjective fear & paranoia than objective critical thinking have. But of course this is war, not science, right? To hell w/ critical thinking then?

16/I can argue that, as Mike Pompeo said, every country has the right to defend itself. I’m 1000% convinced that DPRK’s nuclear stance is: Their nukes are purely/strictly self-defense. Kim Yo Jong has alluded to a way forward (which would require security guarantees acceptable to

17/both sides being reached):
"It would be easier and more favourable 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."

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1282559621870178304?s=20

https://twitter.com/BonicMichael/status/1282575600918487041?s=20

18/It doesn’t strain credulity that you or US Intel have never given a thought to what Kim Yo Jong is implying by her words. But I understand her perfectly. Woe be it to me that I have the credulity to think I know what DPRK is angling for re its nukes in US-DPRK negotiations.

19/A wall of mistrust of the DPRK has been erected and the bricks of misinformation, fear & propaganda are being stacked on one by one. Your piece is just such a brick. Lead-ups to world wars happen like this. But I bet if I were able to have a conversation w/ Kim Yo Jong I’d

20/get answers to 100 questions the US has never had the audacity to ask. I'll just assume no one is man enough to sit one-on-one w/ Kim Yo Jong for a "Building Trust Meeting". Of course she'd have her entourage and team of security and perhaps FM Choe Son Hui w/ her. US has its

21/rep and entourage and security. It should be framed like the third Trump-Kim meeting at the DMZ, not the hype of "photo op, theater & reality TV", but along this line: "The US and North Korea sit for a frank informal Q & A to better understand one another." You need a cool

22/head, a guy who respects women and esp. KYJ's and CSH's high rank, who's never been saddled w/ pushing a political narrative but whose only concern is to get to the truth. With the world's spotlight on such a trust-building meeting, DPRK's words will have been measured

23/carefully ahead of time. In fact, in a super casual world where the US rep had a chance to speak w/ KYJ ahead of time he'd say: "I'm going to ask these questions:
1) Has DPRK renounced it's once-held ambition of retaking there KP by force to reunite Korea under socialism? If

24/when, and why?
2) Are DPRK's nuclear weapons strictly for self-defense, being used as nuclear deterrence? Explain.
3) Explain what you mean when you said:
@KCNA_KoreanNews
"It would be easier and more favourable for the U.S. to rack its brains to make our nukes no threat to

25/"the U.S., rather than racking it to dispossess our nukes." I interpreted it to mean that DPRK is willing to put a maximum limit and permanent cap on it's nuclear & ICBM programs if the US ends its "hostile policy" and chooses to live w/ a nuclear DPRK.
4) Is DPRK willing to

26/do this? And live w/ USFK staying in South Korea under the Mutual Defense Treaty (w/ the condition that joint military exercises targeting DPRK will permanently end)? Agree to the rules of nonproliferation? Sign non-aggression pacts w/ the US, ROK & Western allies?

27/
5) Explain why you call the US policy towards you as "hostile"
6) Does DPRK feel wronged when its application to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was rejected, claiming the clock had to restart at 0 and that you didn't have valid reasons for leaving?
7) What impact

28/did John Bolton's article "The Legal Case of Striking North Korea First" have on DPRK's national defense strategy?
8) My understanding is that DPRK is opposed to a German-style reunification, and that Kim Il Sung's Democratic Federal Republic of Koryo is how you envision

29/Korean reunification. I see ROK and DPRK butting heads tho. Moon has said socialism in the north "isn't in South Korea's national interest". Obviously, renouncing socialism isn't in DPRK's interest. It seems that the two Koreas just getting along and accepting one another is

30/what's most important. Can DPRK coexist peacefully w/ ROK as two separate, sovereign countries? For that to happen you'd have to each amend your constitutions to acknowledge the sovereignty of the other. Would you be willing to discuss this w/ President Moon?

31/
9) Last question. For the benefit of everyone watching and hearing this meeting, if indeed the DPRK never intends or plans to forcefully reunify the KP under socialism, can you heart fully persuade those watching and listening how today is different from the past and that

32/South Korea, the US & the international community can be assured that DPRK's socialism will be limited to its national ideology?

This is doable. I bet that Kim Yo Jong would welcome such an informal conversation b/t her team & a US team in Davos, Sweden or somewhere else.

@threadreaderapp compile