Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."



The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is the perfect example of what will happen when rogue regimes acquire nuclear weapons. They use them to intimidate their enemies, extort concessions from those that will negotiate with them, and sell the technology to the highest bidder. Regime change or war is the only way to stop them.  (Read the full column at EWRoss.com)


Filed under: China-Taiwan, National Security, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses

  1. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    If we didn’t have Obama for our Campaigner-in-chief, we wouldn’t be intimidated by this little miscreant in pajamas. What we need is a strong President, one that actually cares for the country and will spend some time in D.C. doing actual work for the country, not against it.

    By Michael Talley

  2. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Seventy-five years ago. Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain granted concessions to Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist (NAZI) government, whetting Hitler’s appetite for conquest; WWII broke out. About sixty years ago, General Douglas MacArthur spoke before Congress, warning that the limited Korean “Police Action” without victory would eventually bring about a disaster. Forgetting Korea, Congress tired of the same kind of endless “limited war” in Viet Nam, and ended it by cutting off funds. Before 9-11-2001, terrorists were encouraged by the US reputation for cowardice. President G.W.Bush rightfully identified the “Axis of Terror,” Iran, Iraq, and North Korea,” and proceeded to avenge the death of approximately 3000 innocent Americans. For that, he was villified and slandered for leftist political gain; only one-third of the “Axis of Terror” has been defeated, the other two thirds have become nuclear powers, and we now have our very own Chamberlains in the White house and State Department. What will it take to awaken America to its foolhardiness?

    By Ronald Bouwman

  3. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Ed, Regime change would mean we get involved? We don’t need to to fight another Countries war. Turn North Korea into a, Crater? Maybe, however, there are innocent civilians, that most likely disagree with their, ‘childlike leader’, but are too scared, hungry, and weak to do anything about it. I do believe, however, something has to be done soon. North Korea’s leader is acting like a child, and I myself, would rather have a gun pointed at me by a immature adult, who would think before he shoots, rather than a immature child, who controls some pretty nasty weapons. Some kind of action does need to happen, and quickly.

    By Paul Rivers

  4. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Time has long past to rid the World of this menace. Obama as taken an offensive posture. This may be the classical case to do the reverse,

    By Mark Davis MD

  5. Reposted from LinkedIn says:


    By David Rich

  6. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Ed it is much like the Zionists of Israel. They have more nukes than all other countries except Russia and the US. Which shows the power of Nukes.

    When Bush Jr was in charge a lot of folks were afraid the little bastard would leave a big toxic hole where Iraq was. In a way they did. Depleted uranium was in many of the bombs they used and illegal white phosphorus was used as well.

    By Jim Hyder

  7. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Left alone NK will keep trundling on as they have for over 50 years. If you remember the new guy’s dad did the same thing when he came into power; blowed a lot of smoke and did nothing except blow up a few small compounds around the border. After all the son is only 28 and needs to puff up his feathers and show the world he isn’t some little fat kid with a pretty starlet as a, show piece, wife.

    By Jim Hyder

  8. Reposted from LinkedIn says:


    What worries me is all the attention that is being drawn to the east coast of north Korea although I wonder if someone is watching those tunnels we found that go from the north to South Korea under the DMZ and who might be in them with suitcase nuclear devices? We cannot see the movement from above nor ground surface but it takes only a few north koreans to come out of one of the tunnels carrying a suitcase filled with a dirty bomb and head to Seol and denonate it.

    By Robert A. Kinsler, SSG(p), USA, Ret, DAV

  9. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    No David, with all due respect, it sounds a LOT like us. Most of the “Rogue Regimes” we contend with today are only “problematic” because of the weapons that we either sold or gave to them – including nuke technology. The problem has been identified: It are US.

    P.S. to Ed: “Regime Change” IS war. You can’t WAIT for the next one, can you?

    By Stephen S. Noetzel

  10. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Well Said Peter, I too, am tired of the word, ‘negotiate’. It means absolutely nothing to any of the countries we are enemies with. It’s time to aim, Our missiles where they can do the most good, the Central Government of North Korea, and no holding back

    By Paul Rivers

  11. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Pres Nixon tried ping pong diplomacy with “big charlie” and it worked. Pres Obama can try basketball diplomacy with “Junior”….they both love basketball !

    By Vasili Liarakos

  12. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    Alas, Solstad! Truman was right in firing MacArthur. No American President can accept a general who thinks himself above his leadership, and his insubordination predetermined his fate.

    Regardless of that aspect of the issue, by design, people’s perspective is shaped by their viewpoint. MacArthur was not concerned by the notion of dragging in the PRC as a nuclear participant if he proceeded past the Yalu River. Truman, wisely saw things otherwise. That is what MacArthur lacked, as do so many of those who would like to rewrite history here – wisdom.

    While many of you denigrate negotiation and discussion, arguments over engagement, you fail to recognize that argument is engagement! Discussions are a different, but superior form of engagement and action. Engagement is not inherently weak, nor is it appeasement in the case of North Korea.

    The fact is that no one doubts that North Korea has zero chance at winning any kind of war they would start against the South. There will never in our lifetimes or those of our children’s children be a unified DPRK. Ergo, what we will have for the undetermined near future is a hamlet nation that is belligerent yet largely impotent to truly chart its own course until it re-enters the peaceful circle of nations.

    The circumstances that existed in 1950 no longer exist, and it is safe to surmise that the Chinese government will not stand for some military action that endangers their own plans of economic growth and global stability. War interferes far too much in Chinese plans, and the DPRK cannot possibly even think they could prevail absent Chinese intervention on their behalf. That said, we cannot take for granted that the PRC is going to remain sedentary should allied forces be compelled to push beyond the 38th parallel in a counteroffensive after having lost round one in the surprise attack from the North.

    So as much as Solstad likes to call their language “trifling,” while he recklessly abuses the virtues of the legal profession, he is simply wrong. Anti-intellectualism is expected from North Korea, but that is essentially Solstad’s argument! Justice and truth are indeed in the purview of lawyers, yet Solstad incorrectly would presume they find better accountancy in the hands of soldiers! This is of course nonsense, for justice and truth have never been the purview of the soldiering profession.

    Unquestionably wiser, more astute and more knowledgeable people have contemplated this question, yet fortunately for us all, they do not, in fact, agree with Solstad. Rather they side with Truman, they side with a negotiated peace, and they side with the fact that notwithstanding the rhetoric of the DPRK, our current negotiated settlement has largely kept the peace for over 60 years.

    Other than being belligerent, the DPRK has essentially done nothing other than take a stick and provoke others. So what!? Their people are starving, their message of Juche is not gaining in global support, and they are essentially isolated. Their leadership has studied the case of the DDR in extreme detail and they know that in a unified Korea they have zero place or position – so ultimately, their irrationality in blustering is going to have to be accepted, just as much as we know that any attempt at war is akin to them signing their own death warrants.

    As for Solstand’s equation of prosperity with virtue… well, I’ll leave that to the less secularly-minded scholars among you, but I find nothing in scripture that supports that viewpoint myself.

    By Kenneth Bobu

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

EWRoss on Twiter

RSS EWRoss.com RSS

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
%d bloggers like this: