Cart 0

Trump appears to be using the Carrier Vinson as bait to get an excuse to attack North Korea

Posted by John Reed on

Why did Trump send the Carl Vinson carrier strike group to the vicinity of North Korea?
My Unelected President allowed a carrier strike group to stay in the Persian Gulf, to his great regret, but he did not send one to North Korea.
Trump declined to comment on what’s next in Korea. Smart. But smarter not to draw attention with the strike group to begin with.
Readers of my Unelected President novel probably can see what’s going on very clearly.

The Unelected President novel
1. That carrier can be sunk by North Korea.
2. The U.S. can “sink” North Korea—with just one of the US boomer submarines that Trump went out of his way to mention to Maria Bartiromo. Actually, we can sink about ten North Koreas with just one of those subs.
I think the strike group is bait or a provocation in the warped mind of Kim Jong-un but not the mind of the sane world. The strike group is in international waters.
Kim threatening a nuclear attack on us in response is Kim taking the bait.
Trump just attacked Syria after a gas attack on civilians including children and got almost universal, enthusiastic praise for it around the world and even from Democrats. I think he is teeing up Kim to be an Assad-like villain and to be the target for another U.S. missile strike.
Major point: The boomer submarines to which he referred are very different from the destroyers that fired the Tomahawk cruise missiles at Al Shayrat air base in Syria. Tomahawks have 1,000 pounds of high explosive—conventional high explosive. The boomer Trident missiles carry 12 independently-targeted nuclear warheads each.
It looks like Trump is trying to get justification like that provided by Assad and his poison gas attack. What might that be? A Kim Jong-un attack on the carrier strike group or a Kim Jong-un attack on Seoul.
What form would such an attack take? Nukes. North Korea is often said to have the fifth biggest-military on earth. Yeah, but I’m not sure they have boots or rifles. North Korea’s military is a one-trick pony: nukes. Their multi-million man military is a Potemkin village of a military.
The key moral difference between what Trump seems to be doing and what my President “Mike Medlock” did in my novel is the “don’t shoot first” objective.
In 1941, FDR could see war coming. He had instituted a draft and increased the size of the military. But he wanted the enemy to take the first shot so he would have political support. He issued a written order to that effect.
The first shot may sound abstract, but if you were at Pearl Harbor or Corregidor or Wake Island, it was anything but abstract. Mike Medlock does not like his guys taking that first shot—especially in the nuclear era.
If Kim nukes that carrier, would Trump have public support to take North Korea out with Trident missiles? Absolutely. If Kim nukes Seoul, would Trump have public support to take out North Korea with Trident missiles? Absolutely.
A nuke attack on the carrier would kill about 10,000 U.S sailors. A nuke attack on Seoul would kill about 2 million people. Pearl Harbor, in comparison, was 2,500 killed.
Mike Medlock would consider either immoral if it could be avoided. There is no requirement to send a strike group to the vicinity of North Korea. The Aegis missile cruisers in the strike group can shoot down North Korean missiles. But they do not need the carrier.
The carrier launches piloted aircraft. They can carry all types of weapons but are vulnerable to anti-aircraft weapons.
Trident missiles are vulnerable to nothing. The carrier planes also have a shorter range than the Tridents. The Trident missiles could reach North Korea if they fired them from San Francisco Bay.
So the main offensive motivation for the carrier getting closer would appear to be to deliver conventional weapons on North Korea. But North Korea can only fight nuclearly. They don’t have the money to afford both a conventional and a nuclear defense.
So maybe the purpose of the carrier is a “Go ahead, make my day,” message to Kim. That is, sink my carrier so I thereby get moral authority to nuke you.
I would think Assad might deescalate, maybe resign and move to Iran to spend more time with his family. Kim has no choice but to be the nuclear mad man. He has no weapons to speak of other than nuclear. If he backed down, he would almost certainly be assassinated. Trump is backing a crazy nuke dictator into a corner. If those destroyers cannot shoot down a bomber flying toward the carrier or a missile aimed at the carrier, it will be sunk by a nuke explosion. Then Trump takes out North Korea.
If Kim shoots a nuke at Seoul—25 miles from North Korea—I doubt it can be stopped. But Trump thereby gets moral authority to nuke North Korea.
It looks to me like Trump is trying to provoke Kim into an outrageous action that will give Trump an excuse to attack North Korea with nukes. Furthermore, he is doing so in a way that could cause the deaths of thousands or millions below the South Korean border with North Korea.
Would China intervene if Trump nuked North Korea? I don’t think so. It would be a national disaster for the benefit of a 33-year-old punk dictator of another country.
What will Kim do? I don’t know. He should not call Trump’s bluff. Can he survive that internally? Don’t know. What happens if Kim attacks?

Share this post

← Older Post Newer Post →

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.