Skip to main content

Trump's Plan

In case you haven't noticed, Trumpy's got a plan. It's probably not a great one and it's probably not going to be too well thought through, but it seems to be a plan nonetheless. He's using 'expendable' Islamic militants to send messages to Fatty.

His military point man, Mad Dog, is advising him to use his reputation for nuttiness (unpredictability and outright lunacy) to scare the crap out of the biggest danger facing the world today. A fat finger on the nuclear button (reference to financial sector keyboard inputting errors causing meltdowns, not being fattist).

The supreme leader (Big Un) knows the US is awash with nukes. So Trumpy doesn't have to prove he's got the potential to make S Korea an island. But what he does have to do is demonstrate he's prepared to use them at the slightest (or not even the slightest) provocation - and he's demonstrating this on universally recognised baddies who can't retaliate - at least no more than they already are. Namely an already defeated and largely grounded military in Syria (replaced by Russia), and the friendless (except by those lovely IS chaps) and relatively toothless Taliban in Afghanistan - who are going to get really really angry. Boo!

59 cruise missiles to flatten one air base in Syria?! Come on. 2 would have been overkill.

A MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs - ie one click short of nuclear) to take our a few tents???!

Trump is using expendables to send clear signals to NK (NuKe? The word was even invented for them) that he won't hesitate to remove the gorgeous one from power and that he will be the next target for a shower of cruise missiles armed with MOABs. Defend yourself against them if you can chubs. Can't huh? Not playing fair with lots of missiles not tipped with nukes?

So assuming this is the motive (and it's not hard to guess it is), then what's the end game?

That depends on Russia blustering but realising it's not personal, and China playing along behind the scenes, but overtly continuing to criticise US belligerence. They cannot be seen to let the US get away with this, but there can't be any doubt they don't want the Big Un to start a war. His only value to China is to prevent vast numbers of refugees from invading from the South by maintaining NK as a vast refugee camp at his expense. They really don't want him around any more than anyone else does (including his terrified citizens).

So my prediction is that China will let the US drop a MOAB on Kim Jong Un and then agree to take over NK with financial support from the USA in return for devaluing their currency... but will Japan and South Korea agree to this? It's out of their hands. They're never going to declare war on China if the USA isn't going to stand behind them. So bye bye Spratly Islands and the South China Sea. Small price to pay for removing KJU from the world.

Sounds like some sort of plan to me... oops did I give it away? Doh.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo

To kill or not to kill.

Had an interesting discussion with a Muslim friend today about the ethics of killing. Could it ever be morally justifiable? Abrahamic scriptures, especially the old testament, are awash with murders and killings, some sanctioned by the prophets and assorted mouthpieces for god. Some killing is even mandatory. For example all Jews are instructed in the old Testament to kill everyone belonging to the 7 Canaanite tribes for example - Deut 20:17 , or to slaughter Amaleks, especially their children - Deut 25:19 . So accepting for a moment that these draconian instructions were written in times when tribal leaders had fewer options available to them with respect to managing miscreants and maintaining some sort of law and order, I suspect that most people today would agree that killing people is a bad thing and should not be condoned except under extraordinary circumstances. My friend and I then proceeded to try to list those circumstances. We started with self-defence or perhaps protecti

Successful Entrepreneurs Don't Aim to Make Money

Of course all entrepreneurs want to make lots of money. Who doesn't? But the difference between entrepreneurs who do make money and those who don't, is that successful ones don't focus on making money. They focus on building their businesses. And that relies on having an attitude of pouring any money their businesses do make, back into them, rather than rubbing their hands and taking it out as soon as they can. True entrepreneurs are gamblers and thrifty by nature. Given the choice of a holiday of a lifetime versus the chance to create a great business, they'll always choose the business - and take it for granted that if the business does eventually make surplus money, they can have that holiday - although entrepreneurs can become so hooked, holidays become a guilty wrench away from the businesses they need to protect. I didn't have a single days holiday, or off sick, for 10 years after I started my first business. I probably could have afforded it (in fact my wif