SHARE

“ROGUE NATION” RAMPS UP NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES

This time last year the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea – a.k.a. North Korea – was engaged in some serious trash talk against the United States. Of course this “rogue nation” didn’t match its bark with bite – as U.S. security analysts openly questioned whether dictator Kim Jong Un had the capability to strike the mainland United States with a nuclear payload (something he repeatedly claimed he had the ability to do).

This year Kim is “a little less talk, a little more action …”

According to the U.S. think tank 38 North, Kim’s regime tested the engine for its KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missile in late March or early April of this year. North Korea is aggressively developing both a missile capable of striking mainland America – and a miniaturized warhead to put on top of it.

Beyond its ramped up missile testing, an April 28 report written by former Pentagon analyst Mark Schneider ominously concluded that North Korea “currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles.”

In other words they have mastered miniaturization.

“This is disturbing news,” the report noted. “The North Korean regime is one of the most fanatic, paranoid, and militaristic dictatorships on the planet.”

The report added that “North Korea has long made occasional nuclear attack threats, the scope, magnitude, and frequency of these threats have vastly increased in 2013.”

Scary, huh?

If you live in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago or Washington, D.C., “yes …”

Relax, though, U.S. President Barack Obama’s national intelligence czar James Clapper says Schneider’s analysis is wrong … and we know he always tells the truth.

Anyway, North Korea’s nuclear program presents an interesting conundrum for our non-interventionist foreign policy. On the one hand, we believe “North Korea has every right to pursue its nuclear destiny and leverage that power toward whatever end it seeks – whether it be intimidating a dying superpower or forcibly reuniting with South Korea.”

On the other hand, “assuming there is credible evidence of an impending strike against America, then the United States’ military should preemptively strike with overpowering force.”

Who penned such an insightful policy?

We did, of course …