Yes of course, no ammo for parades makes sense!
Been thinking more about the risk of an attempt, there is probably less incentive for someone in the military to risk their life. By comparison with the civilian population, maybe they have an almost privileged life.

Where to begin.

I have never been given any reason to doubt our intelligence agencies. I don't doubt them now.
Snowden warned us of their excesses - not their incompentance.

As for the Russians - it's the FBI's job to investigate Russian activities in America.
Trump's team was very cozy with those same Russians. They would have been remiss not to look into it.

War with NK? Make no mistake OBJ's - are hawks.
Reason holds sway, but when it is time for war it is time to wage war.
Most times all-out war is not required to achieve our goals, but it should not be avoided when the time has come.

A strong Commander in Chief whose will to act is indisputed can do many "impossible" things.

Like nuke Korea.
If that is the only way to destroy their nuclear program - so be it.

Neither China nor Russia will respond in kind to support thier ugly step-child.

As for sanctions working or not - it's not only about regime change - it's about having economic relations with tyranical regimes.
We should not.

Communism must be opposed not appeased.
The Soviet Union fell because we won the Cold War.
Its fragile "managed" economy couldn't bear the cost of the next generation Arms Race.
Then, when it began mewling its benevolence and started making the smallest steps toward freedom, we allowed it to fall.

Only after we forced into financial insolvency.


Whereas Communist China is now stronger than ever - with the world's largest economy - because we made them our preferred trading partner.
But free-er? Really? Show me the personal freedoms?
Just three months ago "President" Xi Jinping eliminated term limits removing any impediment to becoming President for Life.

Fail to oppose tyrannies and they will only grow.

And your comment about North Koreans "voting with their feet" is almost humerous since that is the one thing no communist citizen - anywhere on earth - can do.
Leave.

And that is why their regimes must be opposed by any and every means neccessary. Because those nations are abominations to the modern world.
Prison states that incarceate their citizens for the fact they breathe.

That is the OBJ way.

(Sorry writing is so rough - trying to slam it out.)

From the article: “How should the United States deal with a problem such as Jong-un’s regime? The only moral purpose of the U.S. government is to protect the lives and rights of Americans. If U.S. intelligence has evidence that the regime poses a serious threat to Americans, then our military should eliminate that threat immediately and by any means necessary. If the regime is not a threat to Americans, then our government should implement and sustain all possible sanctions on North Korea until the regime collapses, or is overthrown, or becomes a threat warranting immediate destruction.”

After Iraq and numerous other false flags, Edward Snowden and others' disclosures of mass surveillance, and apparent intelligence agency complicity in the effort to depose Trump, would you trust an intelligence assessment that the North Korean regimes “poses a serious threat to Americans?” If you do, how do you propose eliminating “that threat immediately and by any means necessary?” Are you willing to risk war with China and/or Russia? Are you willing to risk the deaths of millions of South Koreans within range of North Korean artillery? Are you willing to risk the deaths of millions of Japanese and now Americans who may be in range of North Korean missiles? Are you willing to go nuclear, with its potential for eliminating humanity?

If North Korea is not a threat, the author recommends “all possible sanctions...until the regime collapses, or is overthrown, or becomes a threat warranting immediate destruction.” Could it be that other approaches might serve the interests of both the US and the North Korean people better? We’ve been sanctioning North Korea since the armistice in 1953, through three generations of Kim dictators. Still no regime collapse or overthrow and the North Koreans are still repressed and tyrannized. The sanctions approach hasn’t really worked for us in Cuba and Iran, either.

Here’s something to consider. What if we did all we could to effect a rapprochement with North Korea, Cuba, and Iran, opening the US to trade, tourism, and other peaceful interactions with those countries? Isn’t that what we did with the USSR and China? We had fought a Cold War with both countries. Then Nixon went to China and Reagan met with Gorbachev. Who knows if the Chinese and Soviet leadership were better or worse than Kim Jong Un; they were certainly tyrannical. The Soviet Union collapsed and China changed, radically. Would either have happened if Nixon and Reagan had adopted the posture recommended by Craig Biddle? It’s impossible to say, but both Russia and China today are freer and more prosperous than they were under the old systems. Not perfect, but better.

If Trump successfully negotiates an agreement with Kim, might the same thing not happen in North Korea? Might not such an agreement increase the security of the US, South Korea, and North Korea’s other neighbors? North Korea wouldn’t be the Objectivist ideal (neither is the US), but it would be less dangerous and it’s not impossible to envision a diminution in tyranny as North Koreans begins to trade with and are exposed to South Korea and the rest of the world. It will be a lot harder for Kim to tyrannize his country if his countrymen can vote with their feet. If those were the outcomes, then could you say that Trump’s negotiations, including flattery, were unwarranted?

Much as I agree with Biddle’s ideals, I can’t help wondering if they are the enemies of a more secure world and a better life for North Koreans in the real, less than ideal, world. In other words, is the perfect the enemy of the good? I yield the floor to discussion.

Whoa! What you're wondering may be very well dead on.
Come to think of it, when I was in the Marines, we were never issued ammo for inspections and drills. I'm sure that also applies to parades.
New thought: Live rounds can be smuggled, though.

Yep, there's always that. Don't really believe Cray Kim will get rid of all his nukes.
Even if he gets rid of his ICBMs for lifted sanctions, bet there will be some kinda "Little Boy" and a "Fat Boy" stashed away someplace.
Doubt starving North Korea is anywhere near as powerful than Hitler's Third Reich. The Germans were eating well BEFORE World War Two.

Ali, you may be right bout it geing a negotiating ploy, but this comes to mind: ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ95ffnU4Sw

So true. It only takes one soldier willing to trade his life to fire off a few shots. Makes me wonder if they might be all (secretly) issued only blanks for those ceremonial occasions.

This article doesn't bring anything new to light. We know about both them, the current situation between the 2 nations, and have a good idea to both of their intentions. They just restated the obvious.

I wonder how many smiling for the camera starving North Korean soldiers fantasize over gunning down their doughboy as Crazy Kim reviews their ranks.
All in sudden me dino is reminded that a Crazy Caligula was killed by his own Praetorian Guard.

Pious pronouncements do nothing to alleviate the pain of the oppressed. Trump has shown Kim how effective we can be applying economic pressure until it hurts even his top echelon, and has brought him to the table. North Korea will have to open its society to accommodate the changes necessary to benefit from the vision offered by Trump, and that will institute the changes needed to lift the oppression. Can Kim survive the anger of his slaves who have been tormented?

Mr. Art Of The Deal has been very consistent about putting America first.
Me dino is certain Trump is very much aware of the horrors being endured by the enslaved people of North Korea. Even that soldier who recently got shot up escaping into South Korea revealed that even the North Korean Army goes hungry on short rations.
Methinks at this stage Trump has been buttering up the only fat person in North Korea to successfully get a handle on all the ICBMs that are no longer being let loose all over the place
and crazy Kim's nuclear program.
This policy may be two-faced, but you can't make deals with a monster by telling him how truly monstrous he is.
Personally, me dino hopes Crazy Kim chokes on all the food he gorges down and catches emphysema and throat cancer on all those super expensive cigarettes I read that he loves to smoke.

Drawing conclusions on isolated events within a negotiating "process" is fatuous.

I don't think President Trump's praise for Kim Jong-Un is meant for consumption in the free world. We know North Korea is not equal to liberal democratic republics. We know it's tragically absurd to say Jong-Un is a good leader who cares about his people.

I suspect (really a wild guess) that President Trump thinks the costs of giving legitimacy to Kim Jong-Un are low. The North Korean people will get similar propaganda either way. So Trump's shaking things up by talking to a ruthless enemy and seeing what shakes out of that. Maybe Trump has a more long term plan; or he might just be stupidly acting as if his job were still reality TV; I don't know. But it's possible he's going to flatter Kim Jong-Un, then make a demand they relinquish all nuclear weapons, and then grudgingly agree to accept their relinquishing only some of their weapons and initiating some limited human rights reforms. If Trump's lucky the MSM will run articles about how Kim Jong-Un totally took advantage of Trump's being in over his head. Trump can show the articles to Kim Jong-Un: "You got me, Kim. You got a good deal from the guy who wrote the book on deals."

And US comes away on better terms with North Korea and with more concessions than it could have gotten any other way, and without spending money or firing a shot.

Still an open question as to which evil is greater in the long term, imo. ;^)

"So-called"?

C'mon, Zero, quit pulling your punches.
You mean the so-called lesser evil is still evil?