News & commentary by Dave Maxwell. Edited and published by Daniel Riggs.
1. Exclusive: U.S. pushes arms sales surge to Taiwan, needling China - sources
2. U.S. Set to Sell Taiwan $7 Billion in Arms
3. Pentagon chief says China is no match for the US Navy, even if it has more ships
4. The Top Ten Statements Regarding Jihadist Use of Cyberspace
5. With New State Department Web Page, US Ramps up Emphasis on China's Xinjiang Abuses
6. Joint SOF Should Drive ABMS Requirements
7. France, Israel, S. Korea, Japan, Others Join Pentagon's AI Partnership
8. Senior U.S. official to visit Taiwan this weekend amid China concerns
9. UN Chief: COVID-19 Pandemic 'Out of Control'
10. Taiwan Calls For Global Defence Against China 'Threat'
11. How Bob does it: 5 secrets behind the power of Woodward
12. An Answer to Aggression: How to Push Back Against Beijing
13. As Pentagon chief shows some independence, Trump launches attacks but leaves him in office
14. Army Issues New Memo About Protecting Bases from Climate Change
15. Defense Intel Head: We 'Did What We Were Supposed To' With COVID Warning
16. U.S. Charges Chinese Nationals in Cyberattacks on More Than 100 Companies
17. Steve Bannon Is Behind Bogus Study That China Created COVID
18. Lieutenant General Eric P. Wendt, of California, to be Ambassador to the State of Qatar.
19. Someone stole Leroy Petry's Medal of Honor license plate
20. Alexander Vindman: Trump Is Putin's 'Useful Idiot'
1. U.S. proposes talks with North Korea on humanitarian aid
Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The Korean people in the north are suffering (due to the poor policy decisions of Kim Jong-un that makes the recent natural disasters even worse). However, we should be under no illusion. Any humanitarian assistance that we and the international community might provide will not change Km Jong-un's decision making calculus and behavior. If (and this is a big if) Kim Jong-un accepted humanitarian aid it will be because he believes he can exploit such aid and actions. He will not be accepting aid in order to sincerely help the Korean people who are suffering in the north. However, I am doubtful that he will accept aid especially because of the strings we must attach to ensure transparency and that such aid gets to those who need it. All that said I have spoken with escapees who believe we should not provide humanitarian assistance to the north because the regime will use it for its political benefit and we will only be helping the regime to continue to survive. They argue the the people's suffering will continue as long as the Kim family regime is in power and doing anything that aids the regime will make the people suffer longer.
2. Ex-Trump chief of staff says there'll be 'deal of some sort' with N. Korea if Trump wins reelection
en.yna.co.kr · by 송상호 · September 17, 2020
I hate to be a naysayer but Kim Jong-un gets a vote. And I fear his "vote" for an agreement will come at a high cost for both the US and South Korea.
3. Japanese media report U.S. reviewed use of 80 nuclear weapons
The "80 nuclear weapons" comment in Woodward's book is generating confusion and controversy. Here is the excerpt from the book.
“Mattis sat quietly in the candle-lit War Memorial alcove. He had been in enough fights to know what one on the Korean Peninsula would entail. Chaos, blood, death, uncertainty, the drive to live on. Yet the question he needed to ask himself was how to carry out his assigned role knowing his decisions might have epic consequences? If the country were in peril, he would have to stop an escalation by Kim. Nuclear weapons existed as a deterrent, not to be used. Use would be madness, he knew, but he really had to think the unthinkable to defend the United States.
These awful thoughts had been in the back of his mind for months, and it was now time to bring them out front. He did not think that President Trump would launch a preemptive strike on North Korea, although plans for such a war were on the shelf. “
The Strategic Command in Omaha had carefully reviewed and studied OPLAN 5027 for regime change in North Korea-the U.S. response to an attack that could include the use of 80 nuclear weapons. A plan for a leadership strike, OPLAN 5015, had also been updated.
Mattis stayed in the chapel for ten minutes, unburdening himself as much as possible.”
Here are my comments to some journalists questions on this issue. I have provided some of these comments with previous news reports on these issues.
1. Does OPLAN 5027 include the possibility of using 80 nuclear weapons against North Korea?
The defense plans are classified documents and the operational details cannot be exposed to the enemy. However what is important to understand is the ROK/US Combined Forces Command is charged with deterring a north Korean attack and if deterrence fails it will defend the Republic of Korea and employ the full spectrum of military capabilities to defeat the north Korean People's Army to protect the sovereignty of Republic of Korea. The ROK/US CFC will then support the political solution to the "Korea questions" and support the attainment of an acceptable durable political arrangement that will serve the interests of a new United Republic of Korea and the U.S.
The employment of nuclear weapons is a U.S. national level decision. Kim Jong-un must understand that if he uses even one nuclear weapon the US reserves the right to respond in kind and eliminate all of the north's nuclear capabilities.
The use of 5027 and 5015 is probably the result of Woodward’s research assistant reading about them on the Global Security website to make the book seem more credible. I doubt any security professional would have used those numbers and described plans in this way.
Here is Global Security's "history" of OPLAN 5027.
Here is Global Security's discussion of OPLAN 5015.
Although not mentioned in Woodward's book as a bonus here is Global Security's description of OPLAN 5029.
2. In response to the article, Blue House said "there is no use of nuclear weapons in the operation planand the use of force on the Korean Peninsula is impossible without the consent of South Korea." What is your take on this? Is the Blue House accurate?
To the advisors at Chong Wa Dae: This is unhelpful for the alliance (but I understand why it has had to make this statement). You do not get a veto or a vote in ANY use of force. It is time for you to grow up. The right of self defense is never denied. If the US has intelligence the north is mating a nuclear warhead to an ICBM that could strike the US the President of the United States is going to be faced with a decision only he can make. Should he conduct a pre-emptive strike to defend the United States? The US does not need south Korean consent or approval to do so. I would ask about the South Korean kill chain concept and conducting a strike of a north Korean missile site before launch? I would ask about South Korean military responses to north Korean provocations? Has the South sought US approval in every case? The right of self defense for anyone or any country is never denied. The US president will decide how to best defend the US just as the ROK president will decide how to defend South Korea.
As a practical matter I would always recommend consultation for any use of force because of the likely blowback from the north.. But time and security may dictate otherwise. There may be little time from an intelligence warning to probable launch. The US may also be concerned with intelligence ties to the north from within a South Korean administration.
Execution of the operational defense plans does require approval and consent of both governments because they are combined plans and require forces from both countries. The US also cannot act unilaterally from South Korean territory. Any operation launched from South Korea will require South Korean support but most importantly South Korea is a sovereign nation and South Korea has a say in how foreign forces use South Korean territory. However, the US has the capability to conduct a pre-emptive strike against a north Korean ICBM armed with a nuclear warhead without any use of South Korean territory or South Korean military support.
Yes Chong Wa Dae has to make this statement for domestic political purposes. But there are uses of force that can and will be conducted without South Korean notification and approval.
3. This is what Woodward wrote in his book. "The Strategic Command in Omaha Had Carefully Reviewed and Studied OPLAN 5027 for regime change in North Korea - the US response to an attack that could include the use of 80 nuclear weapons."
donga.com · September 17, 2020
As you know there are multiple Korean translations of excerpts of Woodward's book. The problem is we have not seen his book (I expect my copy to arrive tomorrow). Some say the US planned to strike north Korea with 80 nuclear weapons and others say that the north would employ 80 nuclear weapons against the ROK/US alliance. I think there is significant misunderstanding in the press about military planning and in 2017 when tensions were high it was a normal and prudent measure to review the war plans and to develop options in response to potential north Korean action to include a nuclear response. The use of 80 nuclear weapons, whether north Korean or US nuclear weapons was likely a misinterpretation and not grounded in reality. Planners may have identified 80 potential targets related to the north Korean nuclear and missile program (though most if not all would not need to be attacked using nuclear weapons). I would also note that long before the north could employ 80 nuclear weapons the US would have responded decisively so that it is unlikely the north could employ such a number. However, since we are only seeing excerpts (and Korean translation of excerpts it is difficult to know for sure what Woodward wrote based on what he was told). I may be able to provide further comment when I have read Woodward's book and I can examine the statements in full context.
4. There are signs N. Korea may be preparing to launch a SLBM on Oct. 10
dailynk.com · by Lee Sang Yong · September 17, 2020
Interesting speculation. It answers a question we have had about the effects of the Typhoon on the Sinpo Shipyard.
If we are seeing preparations for a possible launch, it is because the regime wants us to see them. They may want to be overt and show us the capability. Then again, being masters of denial and deception, they have us laser focused on the possibility of an SLBM test. What are they not showing us? What are we not seeing? What are we missing?
5. North Korea: South 'digging its grave' with military spending
upi.com ·by Elizabeth Shim
South Korean defense spending is a threat to the regime. This propaganda is demonstrating the regime's fear. My fear is there are those in South Korea who may be influenced by north Korean propaganda and come to the conclusion that the South should reduce spending to appease north Korea in the misguided belief that doing so will lead to a resumption of north-South engagement.
6. Chagang Province begins efforts to "resolve" local food shortages
dailynk.com ·by Mun Dong Hui ·September 17, 2020
This is an important indicator. If the regime cannot adequately resource munitions factories the nKPA is going to have severe problems. Compare this with South Korean defense spending.
The paradox is the only way to "resolve" local food shortages if the party's public distribution system is not functioning is through market activity. But the regime's COVID defense measures have shut the border to legal trade and smuggling thus crippling market activity.
7. North Korean Hackers In League With Russian Cybercriminals: Researchers
Barron's · by AFP - Agence France Presse
Of course. This should be no surprise. To borrow from Frank Hoffman's hybrid conflict concept, this might be described as a kind of "hybrid cyber conflict" -the partnership of state and criminal organizations to achieve their objectives.
8. Seoul: North Korea may conduct underwater-launched missile test
militarytimes.com · by Hyung-Jin Kim, The Associated Press · September 16, 2020
What are we not seeing?
9. Kim Jong-un is dealing with coronavirus and a string of natural disasters. Can he maintain his grip on power?
ABC.net.au · September 16, 2020
This is the question. Although he Korean people and the regime have proven to be incredibly resilient the conditions may be far worse than the Arduous March or great famine of 1994-1996. But these extreme conditions themselves will not in themselves drive instability and regime collapse. What will cause collapse will be the loss of central governing effectiveness - the ability to govern and rule the entire north from Pyongyang. This is combined with the coherency of the military and its continued support to the regime. Both can be impacted by the multiple conditions exerting tremendous pressure on the north - both the regime and the people. If resistance rises in outlying areas and the party loses control it could have severe consequences. This is why the regime has implemented such draconian population and resources control measures that really shut down market activity. The excuse is to protect against COVID but it is really about protecting the regime. But if the military cannot be fully supported with resources from the regime and units begin to be deprioritized will we see competition for resources among military units. And if there is an outbreak of covid in the military we could see units being isolated and deprioritized which will lead to loss of coherency and support of the military.
I am not making any predictions. But we need to be observing and assessing all the indicators for possible instability.
10. Donald Trump on North Korea in a Second Term: A Policy on Autopilot?
The National Interest · by Denny Roy · September 16, 2020
I would rather have it on auto-pilot than to make concessions and lift sanctions in pursuit of a deal that will only fail because of making concessions and lifting of sanctions (once we do that we confirm that Kim's blackmail diplomacy works for him and rather than make a sincere deal Kim will pursue his long con to remove all sanctions while keeping his nuclear program in some form. And he will continue his long term strategy to dominate the Korean peninsula under his control to ensure survival of the Kim family regime.
11. Daily 90 minutes must to learn about Kim Jong Un: North Korea's new order
hindustantimes.com · September 16, 2020
When times get tough in north Korea the solution is to increase ideological education, even to pre-schoolers.
12. Democracy in South Korea is Crumbling from Within
aparc.fsi.stanford.edu · by Stanford University · July 14, 2020
I missed this report. It is most troubling.
13. Harry Kazianis: North Korea and Trump - Here's what Bob Woodward doesn't get about president's strategy
foxnews.com · by Harry J. Kazianis
Hmm... I do not think we needed Woodward's book to understand that the only decision makers in north Korea is Kim ong-un and that his negotiators are not empowered to negotiate. But do we really think it should be only Trump and Kim hammering out the details of the agreement?
14. In first DMZ visit, unification minister praises Comprehensive Military Agreement
koreajoongangdaily.joins.com· by Shim Kyu-Seok
The CMA has been a one sided agreement with only the South and the Alliance making substantial contributions to it (that damages military readiness). There has been no reciprocity from the north and other than the initial changes to the JSA and the removal of some guard posts in the DMZ the north has done nothing to reduce tensions or execute the CMA in good faith.
15. N.K. economy at risk of 'perfect storm' crisis: expert
en.yna.co.kr · by 이원주 · September 17, 2020
Perfect storm is a perfect description on multiple levels.
16. Another Favoritism Scandal Rocks South Korea in Setback for Moon
Bloomberg · by Jeong-Ho Lee · September 16, 2020
17. Denuclearization is key
Key point: "Nevertheless, there is an aspect of the Moon Jae-in administration that causes Kim to look down on South Korea. The Moon administration has been clinging to dialogue with the North and did not properly respond to North Korea's provocations. When North Korea wielded its nuclear program as the ultimate weapon and threatened Korea's survival, South Korea asked the international community to ease sanctions."
18. Korea Ranked 17th Best Country to Live In
---------------
"People everywhere enjoy believing things that they know
are not true. It spares them the ordeal of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for what they know."
- Brooks Atkinson
"If you can put the question, 'Am I or am I not responsible for my acts' then you are responsible."
- Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Take your life in your own hands, and what happens? A terrible thing: no one to blame."
- Erica Jong