British Secretary Of State Refuses to Rule Out A "Preemptive Strike" On North Korea

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

Boris Johnson, the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, has said the option of military action against North Korea “must theoretically remain on the table” in discussions about the country’s nuclear crisis. Johnson refuses to rule out a preemptive strike.

According to The Independent UK, while speaking at Chatham House, the Foreign Secretary said it was “the duty” of United States President Donald Trump to keep the possibility of a preemptive strike against Kim Jong-un’s regime available at all times.

“It is the duty of any president of the US given the threat that his or her country could face from a nuclear-armed North Korea, it is the duty of the President at least to explore those military options and keep them on the table,” he said.

 

“And yet clearly it must remain on the table. The possibility of some kind of military option – there is a spectrum of things that could be done – that possibility must theoretically remain on the table.”

When pressured as to whether or not the United Kingdom would support a preemptive strike against North Korea, Johnson stressed that he preferred the “productive avenue” of talks orchestrated by China. “I don’t think anybody can conceivably want a military solution to this problem, and I know many who have studied the matter find it hard to see how the military solution might play out,” he said. He was also asked if it was now time that the world accepted the hermit nation as among the club of nuclear states. Although it didn’t appear that he answered that question directly, he did make reference to the Cold War.

“The public can be forgiven for genuinely starting to wonder whether the nuclear sword of Damocles is once again held over the head of a trembling human race,” Johnson said. However, the British politician did say the Pyongyang regime’s nuclear ambitions would not make the country safer.

“No one wants any kind of military solution to the problem,” he said.

 

“But Kim and the world need to understand that when the 45th President of the United States contemplates a regime led by a man who not only threatens to reduce New York to ‘ashes’, but who stands on the verge of acquiring the power to make good on his threat, I am afraid that the US president – whoever he or she might be – will have an absolute duty to prepare any option to keep safe not only the American people but all those who have sheltered under the American nuclear umbrella.

 

And I hope Kim will also consider this: that if his objective is to intimidate the US into wholesale withdrawal from East Asia, then it strikes me that his current course might almost be designed to produce the opposite effect.”

Johnson’s comments come on the heels of Donald Trump’s decertification of the 2015 pact with Iran. Trump said that his predecessor Barack Obama was taken advantage of in negotiations, and last week repeated his threat to pull out of the landmark deal entirely. Johnson alleged that the Iran deal proved crucial at a time when the country had been “only months away” from producing a nuclear weapon, which could have triggered an arms race in “one of the most volatile regions of the world.” He said: “Think of the nightmare that deal has avoided.” Johnson also added that Trump had not “junked” the deal and with “determination and courage” the joint comprehensive plan of action deal could be preserved.

Johnson also acknowledged concerns about Iran’s support for Hezbollah, its supply of weapons to Houthi rebels in Yemen and interference in Syria.

“But that does not mean for one minute that we should write Iran off, or that we should refuse to engage with Iran or that we should show disrespect to its people,” he said.

 

“On the contrary, we should continue to work to demonstrate to that population that they will be better off under this deal and the path of re-engagement that it prescribes.”

Comments

Slack Jack Innominate Tue, 10/24/2017 - 06:04 Permalink

Engdahl says Kim Jong Un is false opposition.

Engdahl says that Kim Jong Un lived in Switzerland from 1991 until 2000. He attended the Liebefeld Steinhölzli school in Köniz near Bern. The strongest hint that Kim Jong Un is a "Pentagon" puppet and not a communist (Chinese) puppet is that he had China's best friend in Pyongyang, Jang Sung-taek, executed. He also ordered the systematic execution of all other members of Jang's family including children and grandchildren (and others that were considered too close to China).

Other hints are that he is usefully (to the US) provocative and doesn't seem to listen to China.

Engdahl also thinks North Korea is an Pentagon Vassal State, but it seems more likely that Kim Jong Un is indeed a "Pentagon" man but that North Korea is (i.e., will be treated as) an enemy state.

https://journal-neo.org/2016/11/01/north-korea-is-an-pentagon-vassal-st…

Remember: The first rule for fighting a (real) war is to place your own puppet as the leader of the enemy.

Also, one should not forget that Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton are all Jews.

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=630

http://mileswmathis.com/trump.pdf

And as an example of how real wars are fought,....

Proof that Adolf Hitler was a double agent.

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1174

It seems pretty weird when you first read it, but its clearly true.

In reply to by Innominate

oncemore Dormouse Tue, 10/24/2017 - 09:02 Permalink

You say A, you do not say B.
Yes the 100th aniversary.

But tell me,who
1. established theoretically comunism ( hint: it was Mordechai Mose Levi at the time of birth, and Karl Marx in the moment of his death)
2, has done the revolutions (hint : Leon Bronstein T the time of his birth, Leo Trotzkij in the moment of his death)
3. Who riggered, commenced this communism revolution, exported it outside to other countries (was this by US citizens e.g. Jacob schiff, his grandsone is a senator. Maybe president Wilson intervened in UK, on their journey they got captured there.
Sure, communism is US baby). Have a nice day.

In reply to by Dormouse

Ghordius medium giraffe Tue, 10/24/2017 - 05:22 Permalink

+1 "You shouldn't talk to Boris." or listen to himproblem is, the United Kingdom has put a hat on his head that says: "This is our Foreign Minister. Talk to him, listen to him"one of the many desperate solutions of a parliamentary Tory minority that has lost it's marbles, imhothe foil of shouting "oh, look, there is a Marxist hiding under Corbyn!" is starting to look increasingly... weak(note that PM May has now practically begged her counterparts in the EU Council to find a solution for her team)"those who the gods want to destroy, they first make mad" was the ancient quote/quip. harsh, perhaps too harsh, but I really start to worry for Dear Blighty. how did it deserve such a... man? how did it deserve such bunch of lunatics?

In reply to by medium giraffe

Ghordius 07564111 Tue, 10/24/2017 - 06:23 Permalink

if Russia is the arbiter of who is mad or not, according to whom it's government talks, to whom it's government trusts for agreements, then this "EU" part is to be taken out of your commentbecause Russia's government talks with France and Germany, at the same table as Ukraine, for exampleand Russia's government is as mad as other european countries about that thing with Iran, for examplenote: Russia's government. not Russian propaganda, which has more, and more varied views, including some which are sponsored by Russian oligarchs of the "Right Wing everywhere" persuation, and has funny similarities and "agreement fields" with even US MIC warmonger propaganda and some US "right wing" views(talking about Russia because of your avatar, note)

In reply to by 07564111

Ghordius Tue, 10/24/2017 - 05:15 Permalink

well, last time PM May said: "Boris... is Boris"when he is not busy diplomatically insulting foreigners, he is busy talking rubbish about Brexit optionsmeh

Ghordius medium giraffe Tue, 10/24/2017 - 06:08 Permalink

problem is, in the current UK's divide between "Leavers" and "Remainers", you just scored several points against the first and several points for the seconds, in this commenthave you ever had a discussion on that with "smacker"? he is a fan of Jacob Rees-Mogg, you know?you Brits here don't talk with each other enough, for my tastes. it's a very bad sign, for me

In reply to by medium giraffe

medium giraffe Ghordius Tue, 10/24/2017 - 06:57 Permalink

I've shared a few good exchanges with smacker over the years tbh.  Rees-Mogg is an articulate, passionate and extremely intelligent chap, with some very rational and compassionate viewpoints - one of the few figures in British politics I have any shred of respect for - mostly for being outspoken on Syria.  He's still a Tory Monarchist though....The leave/remain division is overplayed by these hacks, many people just feel unrepresented and disenfranchised across the spectrum.  I have very libertarian/minarchist/meritocratic/voluntaryist leanings (in the same way ZH did before the Trumptard flood), I'm constantly surprised by how many people are starting to agree with these sentiments here.  The establishment has a vested interest in proclaiming this to be political apathy.  I think they are very wrong.

In reply to by Ghordius

Ghordius medium giraffe Tue, 10/24/2017 - 07:06 Permalink

well, you are definitely raising the standards of comments here, with this one. +1Jacob Rees-Mogg's many good sides are not actually what I wanted to talk aboutmy problem is... his lies. they are very difficult to expose... for lack of interest, mainlyand this is what gets me. that lack of interest, that apathy. my suspicion is that the British establishment is interested in keeping up that apathy, but that it is 100% a spontaneous, "from the bottom" popular phenomenon. a demand, of sortthe same kind of demand that leads smacker to enjoy Murdoch's et al jingoistic media "products"... while having a very low regard of it at the same time"many people just feel unrepresented and disenfranchised across the spectrum"feel? you are. if Germany had the same electoral method, Merkel's CDU would have had a smashing victory, instead of having to cobble a coalition of three, with expected three months of haggling and a hundreds of pages long "coalition contract"what did May? she... threw a billion at the DUP, and that was itand whenever I write about such a thing.... cricketsanyway, thank you for the excellent comment. cheers and good luck

In reply to by medium giraffe

medium giraffe Ghordius Tue, 10/24/2017 - 07:59 Permalink

You're welcome Ghordy.  Yes, we've discussed the absurd plurality system a few times previously on these pages - something I think we can both agree on, many voters are simply unaware of the ramifications.  Apathy probably does play into the hands of the plurality scheme rather well. Regardless, I will continue to not vote accordingly.  I simply can't bring myself to endorse these prostitutes.  Rather the tradgedy of the commons than the travesty of the banksters.

In reply to by Ghordius

smacker Ghordius Tue, 10/24/2017 - 13:44 Permalink

Coupla points:1. I'm not sure I've ever said that I'm a great fan of Rees-Mogg. You might recall that it touched my humour when he was recently introduced as the "Honourable Member For The 19th Century". But there are a number of his views that I do not share, so whether I would support him remains to be seen if the occasion arises.2. When you use the word ((apathy)), I wonder if you really mean ((antipathy)). The political elites like to use the first word (to pass blame onto the electorate for being lazy), but seasoned commentators often use the second (which blames the political elites for wrecking the country and turning voters away from politics altogether). And trust me antipathy is the problem not only in the UK but in the US, Aus and even in Brazil!Like so many other Brits, I am not apathetic about our political pantomime, I am truly antipathetic about it. The single biggest reason for me is that I am a strong constitutionalist and I believe we need one today more than ever. ((We have too much government)) and that applies whether we have a Labour or Tory government. In my lifetime there has never been a UK government who left office with government being smaller than when it came into office.

In reply to by Ghordius