Guest Post by Scott Adams
North Korea is building nukes and ICBMs to prevent the United States from attacking. Meanwhile, the United States does not want to attack North Korea. And yet we find ourselves at the brink of nuclear war while not actually having a root problem on which we disagree. They don’t want to be attacked and we don’t want to attack them. Doesn’t that seem solvable?
The problem, as I see it, is psychology more than weaponry. As long as North Korea sees the United States as a military threat, expect North Korea to keep upgrading their nuclear arsenal.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
So what would it take to “reframe” the situation from two mortal enemies on the brink of war to something less dangerous?
Perhaps we should look at the same reframing strategy President Trump is using to apparent success with ISIS. The president reframed our involvement from temporary to permanent. Then he added a momentum change courtesy of General Mattis. Under President Obama, ISIS probably saw the U.S. military involvement as a temporary problem because that’s exactly how it was framed. Now they see it as permanent … and they observe themselves losing. The “permanent loser” frame is a different framing than before, and it might be the reason we see more surrenders. (Or we might be seeing more alleged surrenders because exaggerated reports of that type would be good persuasion too.)
At the moment, North Korea sees the economic sanctions as temporary. They also see our threats as temporary until they have full nuclear deterrent. The temporary frame is a losing frame for the United States.
On top of the temporary frame, things look personal between the U.S. and North Korea. Dignity is in the game. Ego is in the game. Those things need to be reframed out of the situation to get any kind of solution.
So consider the following reframe. Imagine depersonalizing the North Korean situation by pushing for a United Nations rule that any not-yet-fully-nuclear country building nukes and ICBMS is permanently barred from any form of global commerce. Ever. Period. And it’s not personal to North Korea. It’s just the new rule.
It’s the “ever” part, along with depersonalizing things to a generic rule that creates the new frame. In this frame, there is no winning to be had for North Korea. They can build their nukes, but only at the expense of permanent and total economic collapse, courtesy of the the rest of the world as expressed by the United Nations.
I don’t think total economic ruin of North Korea was ever a realistic strategy option until recently. But China seems to be onboard. And President Trump is unlikely to take his boot off Little Rocket Man’s tiny wallet anytime soon. I can’t imagine President Trump backing off until he gets what he wants. But we haven’t framed it as permanent. And we could, with the help of the United Nations.
Let’s call this the “I’ll just take my ball and go home” strategy. And it works best if we reduce military presence to something more obviously defensive. In this model, it’s not personal. It’s just a rule the UN agreed on.
There is great persuasive power in saying something is a general rule as opposed to a specific action against one player. It takes ego out of the game and it has a non-negotiable feel from the start.
Note: My main topic for this blog lately is persuasion. I’m not an expert on North Korea or international affairs. I don’t expect anyone to take my noodling on this topic today too seriously. If you learned something about persuasion by reading this far, that’s all I’m hoping to achieve here.
The UN…..seriously Scott, get a grip on reality. Based on UN lack of achievement and corruption would you even want it to host a cooking show?
Historically, South Korea has far more to fear from North Korea than the North has to fear from anyone.
In reality, other than Iran and China no one in the world really wants anything to do with North Korea, much less wants to attack them. and would prefer to just ignore them. China probably would too if North Korea wasn’t directly on its border and they didn’t have to deal with that situation.
Our current military presence there is of a defensive nature, it is a bare minimum that would be needed in case of a likely North Korean attack if it were not present or significantly smaller.
North Korea is the tail that wags China and to a certain extent Russia/USSR
Sigh. Is there anything Mr. Adams can’t solve by reframing?
I think he should reframe his career choices by going back to only drawing Dilbert cartoons.
Way over-analyzed. It is much simpler than that.
First, North Korea is a Chinese satellite state, and the weapons and missiles all come from China. Because North Korea is nominally independent, it allows the North Koreans to test Chinese technology without reproach. Even if it is not full missiles, they can test components (like guidance systems).
Second, China is also a financial disaster more rife with graft and corruption that the US. This is evidenced, most starkly, by the recent 3-hour speech by Xi Jinping where the Chinese are going to attempt to put the economic genie back into the bottle. By encouraging a war through their satellite state (NK), they can try to pull themselves out of the economic turmoil that is coming by channeling Keynes.
Third, the US is a financial basket case. Just like China, the US government is channeling Keynes.
That’s it – the entire story.
The only thing left is the trigger because both sides want plausible deniability for starting WWIII – which is why each side is taunting the other. The best thing we can hope for is that the crash comes soon causing both governments to shrink because they pissed all the money away and can no longer afford socialism.
Let’s step back and take a more ‘Macro’ look at NK:
North Korea has had a chip on its shoulder, going back 2 generations, to Kim’s father and his father before him. The U.S. flattened every building in the country and killed (millions?)
NK has done nothing but seek revenge the entire time since. Now, it has nuclear weapons. We toss the word ‘nuclear’ around anymore as if it were of no more worry than a teenager with a BB gun.
NUKES have the ability to END ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET. FOREVER AND EVER, AMEN. And now, the ability to do so is in the hands of ONE MAN, a man with a 2-generation chip on his shoulder.
Can you see where this is leading? If Kim has his way, he’ll get his revenge on the U.S., all right. He’ll possibly destroy all life on Earth, as a side-effect.
Can we really take this chance?
Hit em in the pocketbook. I think it is a pretty good strategy.
Clearly Scott Adams is playing three level Star Trek chess, just like his hero, President Trump. It’s not he shoots from the hip or anything…