by Steve James on Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:10 pm
The threat of war is more profitable financially in the long run. We end up with trillion dollar stockpiles that eventually become obsolete before they're used. Supplying weapons in order to create more business opportunities is also common. The US supplies and deploys weapons systems to the South, and China does the same for the North. Follow the profits, and you will find the reasons.
Did you hear that Betsy DeVos's brother, the guy who founded Blackwater, put in a proposal to turn the Afghan war over to a private army? It'd probably never be implemented. But, it'd be the clearest illustration of war being commercialized. And, mercenaries in the f-in opium paradise of the region? And, there's already an opioid crisis --um, make that demand-- in this country that's growing.
So, I don't buy a NK threat to the US, even Hawaii. It is just too profitable for Kim and the arms manufacturers to really want a war they can't win. Extortion doesn't work if the victim is dead. Not to mention that the ones who are really at risk from the North (barring its own people) are those in the South. And, their president has already said that they don't want a war, let alone a nuclear exchange on the Korean Peninsula. The reason should be obvious. But, an intensification of conventional weapons and ballistic-missile defense systems should be expected. '
Again, follow the profits and the most vociferous celebrants of the low unemployment rate. The one thing that alters the equations and calculations is the public reaction to the casualty numbers.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."