North Korea Pushing World to Nuclear Brink

2016 Cuban Missile Crisis?

 This situation has not garnered the attention it deserves in the press nor by the markets. Should tensions escalate to the point of causing a nuclear event then such an engagement could lead to wider actions  bringing  the involvement of respective allies and the bigger powers. 

Even the limited use of nuclear weapons places the world in greater peril than most appreciate or know at first glance. Why? Russia operates a mechanized nuclear defence program that is often termed and referred to as  " the dead-hand system" because the missile-launch- order can  be triggered when its sensors determine that the radioactivity in the atmosphere is beyond preset acceptable levels. Breaching of these tests causes the system to conclude and assume that a nuclear attack is being carried out against their nation and it will then automatically order the launch of Russian missiles aimed at predetermined targets. 

There is no human involvement. 

 Originally the system was designed to provide for an immediate  retaliatory strike in the event that  the leadership in the Kremlin was destroyed 

by a first strike by an aggressor. 

and thus decapitating the decision-making powers ability to respond.  The premise of the system embraces the cold war  assumption  that the threat of mutual annihilation would deter  the superpowers, at the time, from ever entering into any confrontations using nuclear weapons.

However, today  this old and perhaps antiquated system could inadvertently  launch  missiles because the sensors detect the radiation from a much smaller nuclear conflict. Right now, as long as tensions remain high in North Korea there is a great danger that aggressions could expand rapidly into the global theatre. Such a possibility, to our knowledge has not been experienced since the Cuban Missile Crisis, in 1962, when the world was was gripped by fear and  just seconds away from a global nuclear war that could have wiped out all of humanity in mere days.

 In light of the concerns mentioned, and their potential consequences and devastation  - this situation is to be given the highest priority and attention in the days and weeks ahead. It is also noted that certain  US Presidential candidates indicated, in February, that they would approve a preemptive strike against North Korea - that does not sound like such a  good idea should it also lead to those same sensors detecting and acting upon excessive radioactivity in the atmosphere. Moreover, leadership in North Korea is far from stable or sensible - you have a child holding a loaded gun.      

In the last analysis, the world again is walking on eggshells; one misstep having frightening ramifications 

Will South Korea Have to Bomb the North, Eventually?

As North Korea expands its nuclear arsenal, will Seoul have to consider targeting missile sites at some point?

As North Korea continues to develop both nuclear weapons and the missile technology to carry them,pressure on South Korea to take preemptive military action will gradually rise. At some point, North Korea may have so many missiles and warheads that South Korea considers that capability to be an existential threat to its security. This is the greatest long-term risk to security and stability in Korea, arguably more destabilizing than a North Korean collapse. If North Korea does not arrest its nuclear and missile programs at a reasonably small, defensively-minded deterrent, then Southern elites will increasingly see those weapons as threats to Southern survival, not just tools of defense or gangsterish blackmail.

READ MORE

http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/will-south-korea-have-to-bomb-the-north-eventually/

North Korean Leader Wants Nukes Ready to Fly

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has ordered nuclear weapons to be readied for use, the state-controlled Korean Central News Agency reported Thursday.

 READ MORE

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/03/03/north-korea-readies-nuclear-weapons/81284690/

HUMANITY'S TOP PRIORITIES

Humanity’s

Top Priorities

Rule #1: Top priorities are non-linear

A few days back a number of colleagues were discussing whether over-population or climate change should have a greater priority. One person stated that such a debate was meaningless, as they both must be addressed in equal form and substance. I agreed, but took it all one step further. Writing that there are multiple threats facing humanity that need to be dealt with concurrently and equally. As each threat entails unknown, unknowns which could bring about unspeakable events. Our fragility has never been so complex and exposed. 
   
 Terry



Comments: October 17, 2013

I concur and believe there is no sense debating what problem has the greatest priority, as there are just too many unknown, unknowns. Four practical concerns come readily to mind. One, the other reactors at Fukushima could blow sky-high at any moment with undefinable outcomes.Two, all pollinating bugs could disappear everywhere, in short order; seriously disrupting global food chains.Three, biochemical events could rapidly accelerate the acidification of the Oceans in just months - then all bets are off. Four, a limited nuclear outburst in the Middle East could trigger Russia's automated and antiquated "dead-hand launch system" that effects an all-out strike on Western targets.

Notably, these concerns do not include more popular discussion topics such as; financial collapse, climate change, and overpopulation. Suggesting that we face multiple issues whose ranking values in terms of priority are hidden. Leading one to assert that the actual problem is that there is no complete solution because humanity ultimately faces the universal constraints of entropy and infinity. To my knowledge, applied physics has not discovered any devices or means that would allow us to leap over these barriers. 

It is then paradoxical that there is no solution, which in and of itself is the solution.    

Moreover, facing the governing laws of physics and the vast number of unknown, unknowns it seems debating, discoursing or conversing about prioritising these concerns would bear little fruit as there are no absolute metrics that could be applied to objectively weight these concerns. Even if that were possible, there is always the possibility that some other concern would jump onto the agenda, seemingly out of the blue  - making all preceding concerns and debates completely irrelevant. 

So , that's why I agree with you and conclude that we'll just have deal with them all concurrently, notwithstanding what gets in our way.

Sincerely,

T.A McNeil

First Financial Insights

October 17, 2013