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.


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

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat