Worry a little bit more about Korea but not that much

It’s time for another 2007 Revival! carrier watch post.

It looks like the forward-based carrier, Reagan, is fully ready. Nimitz is committed to the Middle East. Bush is eight thousand miles away, in UK home waters. Truman, Lincoln, and Vinson are in early phases of training. Eisenhower, Washington, and Stennis are in bits in the dry dock. Roosevelt has done her COMPTUEX work-up. Technically she needs to do the JTFEX with the other ships in the task force, but in a pinch that could happen en route.

The time frame to get to the other side of the Pacific is about two weeks assuming they don’t bother doing anything clever on the way. The US has quite a few airfields in the western Pacific, but North Korea just promised to drop rockets all round the biggest, so you can probably see the value of the carriers here. Conclusion: if Roosevelt, aka the Big Stick and wouldn’t the Donald love that, gets her skates on, it’s time to worry.

9 Comments on "Worry a little bit more about Korea but not that much"

  1. What’s missing here is a rather significant “if” relating to the very big assumption regarding NK’s current ability to lob anything further than Nayim’s lob over Seaman over twenty years ago.

    “North Korea. Who haven’t successfully launched a missile further than their own backyard. Who have no money and no resources and no international pull.”


    A place whose nuclear program is a joke and whose missile tests routinely fail. Including one just last month.



    The Media hyperbole is little more than smoke and mirrors and to quote from the article in the first link above:

    “The worst case scenario here is that the American and Japanese experts are all 100% correct: One small, poor country MIGHT have one small nuclear bomb that they can’t aim, can’t shoot, and would burn up in the atmosphere if they tried to use.”

    Even Anne Coulter of all people has a better handle on this issue, accurately identiyng it as a trash talking pissing contest, than the silly season bullshit from the corporate media judging from last night’s Channel Four News piece. Though to be fair she was up against Britain’s answer to the birth pill plugging his new novel (sic).

    Anyone wanting to know what’s really pissing off the crazy gang on the other side of the pond, and their sycophantic followers, could do a lot worse than this article:



  2. Dave Hansell,
    That last link makes the same shortsighted mistake about North Korea that nearly every one else does when pronouncing on the big mess there: It views Pyongyang in isolation.
    North Korea has always had a fairly solid defence against any (imaginary) US designs upon it, in the form of China.


  3. Imaginary eh?

    The evidence does not support such an argument. Leaving aside the obvious examples which need no repitition, not just recently but for well over a century, see for example:


    in which the US leads the world in interfering either directly or indirectly in the affairs of every country on the planet; there is also the matter that the US has In the region of 800 or more military bases and installations in 156 countries across the globe.


    Despite the fact that the UK and France are under the nuclear umbrella of NATO led by the US nuclear arsenal, which dwarfs that of all other countries put together, both countries insist on having the own nuclear deterrant. Is it being argued here, on the basis that what is sauce for the goose etc, that because a smaller country is under the nuclear umbrella of a much larger State that the UK and France don’ t need nuclear weapons? Or does that only work one way?

    The fuss over NK is merely a proxy to put pressure on China, who are the real target here along with Russia. The aim being to continue The Great Game by eliminating any oppoisition to the US Corporte State access to and control of the vast resources of the Eurasian landmass.

    As usual, yawn, it’s all about whose the biggest, baddest and bestest.


  4. Well, so Ann Coulter agrees with the website that talks about a “US-backed right-wing coup” in Ukraine… that doesn’t increase my confidence that either of them might be right.


  5. Most rational individuals prefer objective evidence rather than subjective personal feelings like “confidence.”


    1. Leaving aside the question as to whether any evidence would be accepted which might challange or undermine anyone who may have invested their psyche in a particular narrative and world view, I guess the first question which needs to be established is whether or not there exists right wing forces involved in recent events in Ukraine?

      Let’s see. How about starting with this Newsnight report:


      The insignia and attitude to those considered insufficiently ethnic are certainly giveaways, but who are they and do they have any power as a result of the events which they certainly took part in?

      Let’s go to the Huff Post for some background:


      Or even Channel 4 News:


      But perhaps these are considered too “left wing” ?

      How about The Nation:


      But how did this come about. Spontaneous combustion? Act of God? Magic?

      Thankfully we have US functionary Victoria Nuland, as well as others both on tape and in photograph ( including John McCain) discussing US support for and sharing platforms wth these outstanding specimens of humanity:


      Which includes, The Nation again:


      What we cannot do here is criticize the US for inconistency. Hell even their own Generals understand what’s going on:


      Every right wing regime change on the planet has the the US fingerprints over them. From the installation of the Shah of Iran and the Wahibi House of Said, through to the Regime of Saddam, its eventual removal, Pinochet’s Chile, Nicaraguan Contras and the School of America’s, the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, AQ in Libya, IS in Syria (both under the guise of ‘moderate’ (sic) rebels) , and the crazy plots to oust Castro. They are at again in Venuezala as we sit here.

      Even the bookies won’t take bets on whose going to be next.


  6. Ajay,

    Your request delivered two days ago. Still not here.

    Another blog site fails the Guardian CiF test.


  7. Apologies Alex. The delivered request has now appeared. Please delete this and the above post whilst I replace my browser.

    Dave Hansell


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.