Monday, September 4, 2017

Why Trump should let China take the lead on North Korea - Guardian

Why Trump should let China take the lead on North Korea
Isaac Stone Fish
Beijing could still be a good partner for the United States in countering Pyongyang’s brinkmanship and aggression – if handled correctly
Isaac Stone Fish is a senior fellow at the Asia Society’s Center on US-China Relations
‘Beijing has more to lose if North Korea collapses.’
Tuesday 5 September 2017 01.46 AEST
After North Korea conducted its sixth nuclear test on Sunday, US President Donald Trump once again responded by putting pressure on Beijing. “North Korea is a rogue nation which has become a great threat and embarrassment to China,” Donald Trump tweeted that morning, “which is trying to help but with little success.”
In a subsequent tweet, Trump threatened to stop all trade with countries that do business with North Korea – which includes most of the world’s large nations, but targets China, through which North Korea conducts roughly 90% of its trade. “We’ll work with China,” US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said on Sunday, “but people need to cut off North Korea economically.”
The Trump administration must know by now that Beijing will not crush North Korea by halting trade. In early July, Trump seemed to finally realize this: “Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter,” he tweeted. “So much for China working with us – but we had to give it a try.”
And yet, he continues to try. In early August, he convinced Beijing to sign on to a tougher set of sanctions against Pyongyang. In mid-August, he pressed China to “do a lot more” to rein in North Korea. And yet, North Korea continues its provocative weapons tests.
Trump seems to have equated Beijing’s refusal to economically strangle North Korea with a refusal to work with the United States on restraining North Korea. By doing so, Trump ignores Beijing’s needs, and increases the likelihood his North Korea strategy will fail.
North Korea nuclear test: South Korea says it expects further missile launches – as it happened
Seoul is poised to give green light to install four more batteries of controversial Thaad system amid tensions with Pyongyang
Luckily, Beijing could still be a good partner for the United States in countering Pyongyang’s brinksmanship and aggression. How? By cracking down on North Korea in the ways that benefit both Beijing’s interests and the United States’, and by conducting diplomacy in a way that respects Beijing’s sovereignty.
Trump seems to think sanctions will so weaken North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that he is forced to negotiate, while China’s President Xi Jinping seems to believe the opposite: that only by opening up its economy will Pyongyang evolve into a responsible (or at least, not sullen and truculent) nation.
There is, however, a small area where Washington and Beijing’s strategic goals overlap: the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The United States doesn’t want Pyongyang to have nuclear weapons, and Beijing dislikes both Pyongyang’s arsenal, and that South Korea falls under the United States nuclear umbrella.
Indeed, after Beijing agreed to sanctions in early August, Foreign Minister Wang Yi said their purpose was to bring the “peninsula nuclear issue back to the negotiating table, and to seek a final solution to realize the peninsula denuclearization.”
Instead of focusing on sanctions in his discussions with Beijing, Trump should frame the North Korea issue around denuclearization – which is the eventual goal of sanctions for both Washington and Beijing.
The second issue is more delicate for Trump, but arguably more important. Beijing resents Trump’s hectoring tone on how to deal with a country that has long been part of its sphere of influence. “North Korea is an important piece on Beijing’s diplomatic board,” the historian Sergey Radchenko wrote in the online magazine Chinafile. “Bringing Kim to his knees on behalf of the international community does nothing to advance Xi’s vision of a China-centered order in East Asia.”
Trump – to borrow parlance used to mock Barack Obama’s foreign policy – needs to lead from behind. Let Beijing accept praise if North Korea denuclearizes, and censure if it continues to conduct nuclear and missile tests. He must understand that, besides the extremely unlikely event of a war, Beijing has more to lose if North Korea collapses: starving refugees fleeing into the country, a peninsula unified under a pro-American government and the specter of American troops on China’s border, among other consequences.
The president should publicly admit that the strategy for containing and constraining North Korea are Xi’s ideas and initiatives instead of Trump’s – regardless of how the ideas arose. Trump should also shift the narrative away so that the focus stays on China’s relationship with North Korea, and not the United States’.
As strange as this may seem, Trump has led from behind before with North Korea. In February, while Trump hosted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Pyongyang launched a ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan. The two men held a press conference that evening to respond to the missile test.
Trump let Abe speak first, and, surprisingly succinctly, told the assembled press that, “I just want everybody to understand and fully know, that the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100%.” He then sat down.
Trump should adapt a similar strategy with regards to China and its relationship with North Korea. Although allowing others to occasionally take credit for one’s ideas is a basic management strategy, Trump may lack the humility and self-assuredness needed to implement it. And yes, China and the United States are not allies, but there are ways for Trump to publicly demonstrate his respect for Chinese interests, in a way that does not make Trump look weak.


Beijing won’t help Trump economically strangle North Korea. Living with a nuclear North Korea, or allowing Beijing to drive the situation, is a far better option than risking war.

If You Bought $100 Worth of Bitcoin One Year Ago, Here’s How Much Richer You Would Be Today ? - TIME Business

Posted: 01 Sep 2017 10:19 AM PDT

Bitcoin surged to a new high of $4,880 on Friday.
It must have been cause for cheer among investors who bought bitcoin a year ago.
Back then, the price of bitcoin was a more affordable $572 per token, according to CoinDesk — less than half the price of an ounce of gold. So, had an investor in theory decided to invest about $100 at that point, their stake would be worth about $850 today.
Still, bitcoin has been a highly volatile currency, easily losing, or gaining, $200 over the course of a day. Even now, analysts such as those from investment banking giant Goldman Sachs expect the cryptocurrency to fall some time in the near future before rising once more.

Bitcoin’s sudden rise has drawn comparisons to other investments that shot sky high— only to come plunging down—like tech stocks in the late 1990s and real estate in the early 2000s.
That means while it’s fun to gawk at Bitcoin’s huge gains — much like gawking at PowerBall jackpots — experts say Main Street investors should stay far away.
“It’s really, really not worth it for the ordinary consumer,” Matthew Elbeck, a professor of marketing at Troy University told MONEY earlier this year.
Bitcoin’s advocates, however, say Bitcoin has much further to rise. Charlie Shrem, an entrepreneur and founder of the Bitcoin Foundation, recently said that he believes bitcoin is cheap at any point below $100,000.
Correction: The original version of this story misstated the past and present value of Bitcoin. It closed at $572 per token on Sept. 1, 2016, according to CoinDesk, not $474 per token. It reached a record high of $4,880 per token on Sept. 1, 2017, not $4,980. The story also misstated how much a $100 purchase in Bitcoin one year ago would be worth now. It would be worth about $850, not $85,200.

What’s the Difference Between a Hydrogen Bomb and a Regular Atomic Bomb? - New York times

North Korea claimed that a nuclear blast on Sunday was a big advance from its previous five tests because it had successfully detonated a hydrogen bomb. But some experts suspect the North may have tested a “boosted” atomic bomb.
How are a hydrogen bomb and a regular atomic bomb different? And why would that matter to the United States and its allies? Here’s what the experts say.
How do nuclear weapons work?
Nuclear weapons trigger an explosive reaction that shears off destructive energy locked inside the bomb’s atomic materials.
The first atomic weapons, like those dropped by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, did that with fission — splitting unstable uranium or plutonium atoms so that their subatomic neutrons fly free, smash up more atoms and create a devastating blast.
How is a hydrogen bomb different?
A hydrogen bomb, also called a thermonuclear bomb or an H-bomb, uses a second stage of reactions to magnify the force of an atomic explosion.
North Korea Nuclear Test Puts Pressure on China and Undercuts Xi SEPT. 3, 2017
What Motivations Lie Behind North Korea’s Nuclear Arsenal
Can North Korea Actually Hit the United States With a Nuclear Weapon? AUG. 22, 2017
North Korea’s Program Is Probably at an Intermediate Phase of Development
The secret to achieving more destructive power is to increase the amount of thermonuclear fuel that an exploding atomic bomb can ignite. North Korea said that Sunday’s test was a hydrogen bomb, but analysts were skeptical of this claim.
STAGE 2
Boosted Atomic Bomb
uses a bit of thermonuclear fuel inside the atomic core
STAGE 3
Layered Atomic Bomb
uses more thermonuclear fuel outside the atomic core
STAGE 4
Hydrogen Bomb
uses lots of hydrogen fuel that the nearby atomic core ignites
STAGE 1
Implosion Atomic Bomb
uses conventional explosives to compress and ignite atomic fuel
Note: Destructive power for each stage is based on early tests in the U.S. and U.S.S.R., not on current stockpiles.
By The New York Times
That stage is fusion — mashing hydrogen atoms together in the same process that fuels the sun. When these relatively light atoms join together, they unleash neutrons in a wave of destructive energy.
A hydrogen weapon uses an initial nuclear fission explosion to create a tremendous pulse that compresses and fuses small amounts of deuterium and tritium, kinds of hydrogen, near the heart of the bomb. The swarms of neutrons set free can ramp up the explosive chain reaction of a uranium layer wrapped around it, creating a blast far more devastating than uranium fission alone.
The United States tested a hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll in 1954 that was over 1,000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Britain, China, France and Russia have also created hydrogen bombs.
What would a successful hydrogen test mean?
North Korea claimed that it successfully staged a hydrogen bomb test in January 2016, but experts were skeptical.
Can North Korea Actually Hit the United States With a Nuclear Weapon?
Six systems that North Korea needs to master to achieve a long-sought goal: being able to reliably hit the United States.
A successful test this time would show that the North’s nuclear program has become more sophisticated and that the country is closer to making an atomic warhead that could be fitted on a long-range missile able to strike the mainland United States.
The underground blast, which caused tremors felt in South Korea and China, was the first by the North to surpass the destructive power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If the North has the capability to build a hydrogen bomb, it could open the way to making warheads that pack much more destructive power in a smaller space. It could also enable North Korea to enhance the threat from its limited stocks of enriched uranium.
What will experts look for?
Analysts who advise governments on nuclear weapons will study the shock waves from the blast measured by monitoring stations. They will also look for clues from traces of nuclear gases that could float into the atmosphere.
Those traces may tell if this test was really a hydrogen bomb, or perhaps something less than a full-scale thermonuclear device. But it can take weeks for the gases to leak out and be detected.
Correction: September 3, 2017
An earlier of version incorrectly described both deuterium and tritium as radioactive. Tritium is radioactive, but deuterium is not.