Armed Forces

Highways to Hell. Railways to Ruin

ED0EC837-4F4B-44BC-8674-3E8F7E464F5E.jpeg

Zero Hedge has an interesting expose on a report that China is expediting the construction of a 6 lane highway toward North Korea’s border. It makes perfect sense and supports what CM has said about China taking action on North Korea and replacing Kim Jong Un with a puppet they can control. Forget the WW3 rhetoric. It is far cleaner to have China deal with the problem. The constant jaw-boning from Trump is to get China to hurry up. Of course there is a limit to the patience. The so-called G1112 Ji’an–Shuangliao Expressway is under construction. China’s Jilin province has even upgraded road infrastructure inside some parts of North Korea. It would be useful in getting tanks and troops to the border quickly. There is method in the madness and it is quite a common infrastructure to put in place for obvious reasons. North Korea is hugely strategic to China’s border security – a buffer from the US backed South Koreans.

Probably many are unaware that Mongolia which divides China and Russia has a railway developed by the Russians which runs on a Russian rail gauge. Mongolia is rich with resources so any raw materials exported to China must change bogeys at the border. It is the same with the Kazakh-China border. Russian rail gauges. So in the event of war, troops and supplies can be efficiently transported. Sure an enemy can bomb a railway but in terms of transporting lots of equipment and heavy armaments quickly rail is very efficient.

While the news looks startling it is nothing more than business as usual for the Chinese. Before the highway is completed the Chinese still have around 150,000 troops stationed near the border.

Try taxing the bullets if guns won’t be banned

39B8A026-136E-4E30-8EFB-FA759E6E4BFB

Sensless acts of violence as we saw several days ago in Las Vegas once again sent out calls to ban guns. The latest stats from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) can be seen here. There has been a huge shift in gun manufacture since GFC. Over 9mn guns of all types were made in the US in 2014 ( the latest figs to hand), Twice the level of 2008. Less than 5% are exported. One can see the proliferation in weapons sales by type below. Banning guns in the US is a taboo subject because there are many “responsible” gun owners as they like to view themselves. Comedian Chris Rock had perhaps the best solution if guns couldn’t be banned  – to tax bullets to exorbitant levels that the cost per shot would limit such atrocities. To be sure if Paddock went to a gun smith asking for $100,000 worth of bullets then surely that would be a red flag in itself!

20DA2D39-A8FB-466E-9C16-3F249FFC49C5

60 deaths and 500 wounded people is no laughing matter but we should ask ourselves why have weapons manufacture/purchase skyrocketed like they have? If less than 5% of guns are going overseas then the home market is the only place they are ending up. Note these stats only include civilian and police purchases not military.

While 2014 sales were down from the peak of 10.5mn ownership is still estimated by the ATF to be around 35% of households down from 50% in the 1970s.

Smith & Wesson and Ruger shares have soared as demand has fueled earnings since GFC. Since 2017 the shares have slackened off for both companies. Is this because there is a feeling of economic hope and a lower level of uncertainty? Or could it be the risk of a ban on weapons was greatly reduced when Trump took office. The latter seems most plausible.

Do we deduce that the rebound in gun sales since GFC has been driven by the fear of a lack of security? The concern that localized theft, car jackings and break & enter would rise pushing the need for self protection? The FBI stats (below) show the prevalence of crime has been in a long term decline per head of population for almost 25 years  in 2015 there has been a small bump but relatively inconsequential.

430E8BB6-520F-4B70-A8DD-66DC560621C2.png

Perceptions can often be far removed from reality however the purchase stats speak for themselves. Economically the value of crime in a recession should fall as the access to black markets is curtailed and the “bang for the buck” per stolen item is likely less meaning the risk-reward ratio is more acute.

Reading through the newsfeeds on who Paddock was, which political affiliation he had or those host of other conspiracy theories the fact remains innocent people were slaughtered. Parents, children, relatives and friends must surely carry a psychological burden which is unfathomable.

After the Port Arthur Massacre in Australia in 1996 the federal government had an amnesty where the state bought back guns. In Australia there was nowhere near the scale on an absolute or relative basis versus the US. Will the US amend the second amendment? It is unlikely but Rock’s suggestion of an exorbitant bullet tax would certainly limit the extent of damage and flag irrational purchase orders.

The other question lies in the black market. If one wants to get a gun, provided they have the financial ammunition there is little to stop such atrocities even if guns were banned. Yes Australia hasn’t seen a massacre since yet there was never a big problem in the first place. 661,000 firearms were removed from circulation. Or 1 gun for every 33 people. In the US it is c.1 gun for every person in circulation. Even if a third of households have them we are looking at 1 gun per 3 people in the US.

The Aussie government offered $500/gun average. If Trump ran the same programme (albeit 21 years later) and taking into account inflation then conservatively at $1,000 a gun he would be looking at a cost of $320bn. To put that in perspective the annual US military budget is around $680bn. So a combined spend of $1 trillion.

Let’s hope the Feds don’t take the same biases in investigations

CF3369CC-B6BB-49BC-AA1E-D30D6F053C46.jpeg

Here we go again. The slippery slope of ‘diversity’ which does everything else other than promote inclusivity because by its very nature it is all about singling out exclusivity. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) brazenly states in its recruitment campaign that they want to get to 50/50 women. Of course there is no issue with hiring women. No ifs or buts. If you are a male, your chances of joking the AFP will be diminished no matter how qualified you might be. What has gender got to do with work performance, let alone the desire to ‘protect and serve’? In most police forces around the world the split is 70/30 men/women. Maybe it is just reflective of individual choices in careers rather than women being selectively discouraged?

The AFP wrote in response to their post,

There’s been a lot of commentary on the fact that we’re targeting women with this recruitment. We’d like to clarify a few things.

In the AFP, women currently comprise 22% of sworn police and 13.5% of protective security officers. Our goal is to increase this proportion to 35% in both streams by 2021.

Today’s ‘special measure’ recruitment action is designed to supplement our current recruitment process – we already have a pool of suitable male and female candidates who applied recently.

This action we’re taking will provide us with additional female candidates. It’s not going to displace existing recruitment pools and it will require applicants to meet all the existing gateways.

Under Section 7D of the Sex Discrimination Act, the special measures we’re taking to achieve substantive equality between men and women in this organisation are legal.”

This lame excuse is yet another spineless rolling over to pander to political correctness. If. 20 candidates apply for 10 positions and there are 10 men and 10 women, wouldn’t it be best to hire 10 women if they were better qualified for ability than the 10 men? Or vice versa? So hire 5 extremely qualified women and 5 inept males just to keep a balance?

Last month CM spoke of the same garbage ‘diversity’ argument in the army.

Recruiters at the ADF have been told they must hire women or face relocation if they don’t comply. The recruiters say there are no jobs available for men in the in the infantry as a rifleman or artilleryman. But these positions are marked as ‘recruit immediately’ if a female applies. If a 50kg woman is in the artillery a 43.2kg M-107 shell is over 80% of her weight. An 80kg man would be lifting the same shells at around half of his weight. This is basic physics.

The West Australian newspaper reported one recruiter who said, “This is political correctness gone mad. I don’t care if it is a man or a woman – I just want to get the best person for the job.”

Yet the political correctness is promoted from the top. Defence chief, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin, stressed the importance of diversity for the ADF. “A diverse workforce is all about capability. The greater our diversity, the greater the range of ideas and insights to challenge the accepted norm, assess the risks, see them from a different perspective, and develop creative solutions.”

So once again we are told to view this nonsense as completely acceptable. That the AFP puts gender above ability. Ability and passion are all that matters. Shame on the AFP for having a blonde white woman instead of one from a coloured background for maximum virtue signaling mileage. For all of the AFP’s expertise in forensic science it is an embarrassment to see them use a most flawed identikit for recruitment.

So what is next after the 50/50 target is hit? After all the AFP seeks to match society. Surely what follows is balance in sexual orientation, faith, race and other irrelevant aspects which should be irrelevant to job performance – all in the name of diversity – what a joke. Let men and women chose the AFP of their own volition and take the best of the crop.

Welcome to the nanny state.

Lawnmower man rightly points out the United Nations needs to cut its own lawn

IMG_0809

President Trump made a good speech to the UN with few surprises reiterating much of what he said in the State of the Union address. No doubt the mainstream media will find fault at his use of the word “Rocketman” and so forth but he was spot on to call on nations to lift their socks instead of  sponging off American taxpayers when it comes to global cooperation. His slap of the UN for becoming a bloated bureaucracy was right on the money. Indeed it needs to trim its own grass. To quote Contrarian Marketplace from 7 months ago,

“If you are in the UN of course you want it to continue. The pay scales are incredible, On top of generous income tax free pay you can get housing support, kid’s schooling assistance, health insurance and other cost of living allowances that would make most people loyal slaves to the cause. Salaries consume 74% of the  $5.15bn budget. The average salary of the 41,000 that work there is c.US$100,000. In Japan a D1-D2 level would be looking at $320,000 peer annum. No wonder they need members to keep chipping in more and more into the UN coffers to keep the circus going, Is it any wonder that pay for play is how you buy influence on councils.

The Heritage Foundation did an interesting study on the UN’s budget which shows how much it has exploded in the last 40 years. The UN’s budget has grown 10-fold in that time.

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations. Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74 percent of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

Note the peacekeeping budget is on top of the administrative side of the UN. The US currently contributes 27.1% of the total peacekeeping budget which is around $9bn.”

It is refreshing to see a world leader wake people up to unpleasant truths rather than sugarcoat everything in comforting lies. The UN does need to trim its out of control lawn. Whether the UN or NATO the US pays an overwhelming larger proportion of these budgets and has a right to point it out.

The most telling part of this speech was once again to point out to other countries to start doing their own heavy lifting. To begin looking after their own citizens and not feel guilty to protect their history and culture.

The world needs a wake up call and sadly Trump is one of the few politicians who speaks candidly. Not a Macron who promotes the idea that Americans should feel proud to be conditional citizens if they don’t like their leader, a Trudeau or Turnbull who willingly muzzles free speech to a May who treats her constituents as mugs.

Trump is far from a saint. He has many flaws however he is exposing everyday what Americans hate about the political class. The Democrats hate him (surprise, surprise) but the Republicans hardly have love for him either. DACA has provided a unique perspective on this. Failing to get GOP support he sought Nancy Pelosi of all who people who ended up being eviscerated by her own mob for working with the President towards a solution. People are growing sick and tired of gridlock which only cements his chances for a 2020 win. Americans want their country back. It’s not a difficult concept. He made it clear again in today’s speech.

I’ll stick with my instincts rather than fall for a Harvard study because it is from Harvard

IMG_0858.JPG

Harvard University is without question one of the top schools globally. It has an enviable reputation and having that on one’s CV is hardly a hinderance. It is a status symbol.  In a discussion over global warming an individual was trying to legitimize climate alarmism by citing a Harvard University study. Harvard by the way is ranked top 5 worldwide in Environmental Science. The study as it turns out had been funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a US government agency responsible for allocating 24% of science funding that had been raked over the coals by the US Senate for gross mismanagement, fraud and waste. The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope” paper from 2011 documented some of the misappropriation of funds as follows,

An $80,000 study on why the same teams always dominate March Madness”, a “$315,000 study suggesting playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships”, a study costing “$1 million for an analysis of how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names”, a study costing “$50,000 to produce and publicize amateur songs about science, including a rap called “Money 4 Drugz,” and a misleading song titled “Biogas is a Gas, Gas, Gas”;” a study costing”$2 million to figure out that people who often post pictures on the internet from the same location at the same time are usually friends”; and “$581,000 on whether online dating site users are racist”.Ineffective management examples, cited in the report, included “ineffective contracting”, “$1.7 billion in unspent funds sitting in expired, undisbursed grant accounts”, “at least $3 million in excessive travel funds”, “a lack of accountability or program metrics to evaluate expenditures” and “inappropriate staff behavior including porn surfing and Jello wrestling and skinny-dipping at NSF-operated facilities in Antarctica”.

It is often a tactic to cite supposedly credible bodies to legitimize and seek to win an argument. However at what point do we view Harvard’s stance on climate change as balanced? On Harvard’s own climate change page it is littered with a predetermined view. It is not to doubt the intelligence of the professors and scientists within the university but intelligence and ethics do not have to be mutually inclusive especially when it comes to procuring funds.

One has to wonder that the  NSF, which dispenses 24% of all university grants (some $7bn) is best positioned to fulfill this role given its past. As the Harvard climate page reveals there does not seem to be much attention paid to the alternate view. The offshoot of that is if the NSF wants to get ‘green policy’ outcomes, best pour funds into those schools that will help give the results they’re after.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that “two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

While I do not pretend to be a climate scientist by trade or study, fraud is fraud. The supposed beacons of virtue such as NOAA, IPCC, the CRU of the UEA have all been busted for manipulation of data to fit an end cause. The lack of ethics in certain cases has been so profound that had many of these scientists been in financial services they’d have lost licenses, paid multi billion in fines and served jail time. One person commented that too few in financial services have been locked up. I replied name me one scientist busted for fraud and misuse of public funds has seen the inside of a jail cell, much less fined or barred from teaching? The answer – NONE

I don’t need to possess a degree in astrophysics or science to determine poor ethics generally mean the science papers put forward should be viewed with deep skepticism. Yet we’re constantly told that the science is settled. How so? If one has to lie and deceive in order to scare us into action, how can one say that it is legitimate work? In fact I have been at pains to mention that the scrupulous acts of a few only ends up undermining potentially credible work conducted by others. Yet climate change has become a purely political issue and there is no question that sourcing funding dollars is easiest met when supporting alarmism. After all why would people want to throw dollars at skeptics who may come out with an alternative view? Don’t debate it. Some have suggested sceptics are like pedophiles and even more extreme views have suggested jail sentences. When people think that the only way to win the argument is to jail non believers you can be absolutely sure that the data is completely flawed in that it can’t stand on its own as an argument. Hence the manipulation to try to bully the movement onwards. Some Aussie universities (state funded mind you) are refusing a climate think tank being established on their campus for possessing an alternative view. You have to worry if universities, the bedrock of free thinking, are trying to ban it. Then again if kindergarten schools are being taught they are gender fluid and cross dressing is acceptable then you know there is a more sinister movement at work.

It was no surprise that Hurricane Irma has become Trump’s fault. Alarmists drew any data possible to connect Global Warming and hurricane activity despite the IPCC claiming several years back it  has little supportive data to prove it. So expediency is put before principle. Hopefully if no one has seen the IPCC climb down perhaps we can still convince them we can save the planet. All the meantime the IATA forecasts air travel will double in terms of passenger numbers between now and 2030 and SUVs top most vehicle sales in major markets.

To add to the farcical care factor for climate change by the masses The Australian noted, “On June 30 2017, after 12 years of “advancing climate change solutions”, the Climate Institute is closing its doors in Australia, a victim of the “I’ll ride with you but won’t pay” industry. You would think that Cate Blanchett, so happy to appear in the institute’s ads, could have taken the hat around her Hollywood A-list mates, such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Bono, Emma Watson and Brad Pitt, to tip in a few hundred thousand a year for the cause….But alas, the caravan has moved on and the greatest moral challenge of our time is now the Trump White House. For celebrities who fly eyebrow groomers to the Oscars, climate change is kinda yesterday. Still, to humour the faithful and to keep the dream alive, the 10th anniversary of Earth Hour was celebrated last Saturday night. You didn’t notice?”

When I was a staunch opponent of Greenspan’s reckless monetary policy in 2001 and said his actions would lead to a financial calamity in 6-7 years, many laughed at me. I bought gold at under $300. People thought I was mad as did the Bank of England. Barbs were frequent – “how could you possibly possess the intelligence of Greenspan? Back in your box!” I was told. Of course as a contrarian by nature, speaking out against pervading group think was met with a constant wave of ever increasing vitriolic criticism. Of course the simplest thing would have been to roll over and join the band wagon but I stuck to my guns. GFC was the result. In all that time, people used to shame my thinking by citing Harvard or other Ivy League studies on new paradigms. Indeed many of the brains behind the CDOs which eventually brought the financial sector to its knees were brainiacs from the Ivy League. In the end my instincts were bang on. Nothing to do with education levels.

The same arguments were hurled at me during Trump’s presidential campaign. Many people defriended me because my data kept showing to me he’d win. I am not American, I can’t vote but casting my own instincts ended up being a no brainer. Not once were credible arguments made to counter why Trump could win. People would post NY Times polls, CNN polls and so forth to legitimize the argument. Then say I was blind, stupid, bigoted, racist and the usual leftist identikit used to demonise a view. Group think is so dangerous. What it is doing is suppressing real views which show up in the polling booth.

Everywhere I read, the media wants to throw Trump to the wolves and run the lunatic, racist white nationalist card. For 9 months now. To be honest I think he will comfortably do two terms because the media has learned nothing and anything he does is vilified. Most Americans aren’t looking to him for spiritual guidance. He is vulgar and his manner is far from conventional and sometimes not very fitting of the office he serves. However he gets no credit for anything. The latest UN sanctions on North Korea are in large part because Trump has told China to get on with it. Trump said on national TV that he wants “China to sort it out and to stop delaying otherwise we’ll do it for you”. Yet the media is drumming WW3 rhetoric.

Same goes for the Paris Accord. What a stroke of genius. Let France, Germany and other nations pick up the tab for their ‘green policy’ madness and make up America’s renewable shortfall. It is kind of ironic that none of these nations ever pick on China, India or Russia which make up 50% of CO2 emissions for their lack of adherence to actually doing meaningful things to abate climate change albeit signatories to the UN accord. I argue it is like NATO in reverse. US pays a way bigger share into NATO, why not collect a refund via other nation’s virtue signalling which actually helps America First by making other nations less competitive. Brilliant.

DACA – many Americans, including 41mn on food stamps, will welcome the removal of illegal immigrants from their country who in their view are siphoning their ability to get out of poverty. DACA to them isn’t about not being compassionate but realizing that a $20 trillion deficit and loading more onto an overcrowded system isn’t helping. Once again regardless of what people think of Trump he had the fewest white voters and largest share of black and Hispanic voters than Romney or McCain. Hardly the result for a white nationalist, racist bigot. At the current rate if the Democrats run Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or any other identity politician against him in 2020 they’ll lose. The mid terms won’t be as bad as many calling. The one midterm already returned a Republican despite massive Hollywood support even ferrying voters to booths.

Transgender in the military. I spoke to two dozen US military personnel last month to ask their opinions. The 100% response was, “we think it is inappropriate for the taxpayer to fund sexual reassignment surgery while serving including several years of rehab and ongoing drug therapy…it is taking the p*ss…we serve our country because we love it and we don’t have room to support social experiments to protect freedom!” There was no real issue of transgender per se rather a problem of providing funds in n already tightly allocated budget for such medical expenditure. Several even spoke of the stupidity of LGBT pride day in the armed forces. What has the ability to fight got to do with what goes on in the bedroom? One said “if we had a heterosexual pride day” we’d never hear the end of it.

So when you communicate with the real people you find the truth if you are prepared to listen. The beauty of social media and indeed Google (which happily acts as a Big Brother on what it considers acceptable) is that many people reach for articles they probably haven’t read properly and use them as ways to ram home an argument because they carry a brand name. Harvard is a wonderful institution but as we’ve seen it has run into questions of conflicts of interest.

I happen to think that social media is having the opposite effect on brainwashing to tell the truth. 99.9% of what I see posted has little thought to it. The more people I speak to the more they are ignoring noise. Many people share articles without putting some basis of why they post it. In many cases people are too afraid to face a doxxing or backlash. Bring it on. To me if you post things in the public domain then be prepared to invite criticism. On my site I do not censor, cut off or delete readers. They are free to come and go as they please. I only request they keep profanity to a minimum.

So in summary, the idea that we bow down to venerable institutions to seek guidance is as flawed today as it ever was. I’ll gladly stick to gut instincts because to date they have worked so far. Having said that I should put a disclaimer that was always plastered on financial services product, “Past results are no guarantee of future performance”

Why China will effectively annex North Korea

IMG_0581.JPG

PDF REPORT HERE

I’ve been saying this for months. Think through the logic. China doesn’t want to lose the strategic buffer North Korea provides.. Beijing doesn’t want US friendly forces on its border. How to make a bad situation work for China? Bite the bullet and annex North Korea. Kim Jong Un has been brazenly telling the world to shove its diplomacy thinking the decades old practice of threats will keep on working. He’s wrong.

China must realize that the West is against Trump taking action for no other reason than he’s Trump. It is a strange world where many of America’s long term allies are backing the other side. Trump is merely filling the geopolitical  vacuum left by his predecessor. Trump is absolutely right to consider taking an increasingly dangerous threat off the table and China knows it is no longer dealing with a political powderpuff.

Still China wins in many ways by turning North Korea into its own administration. First, it isn’t Trump. Second, China will not be condemned for removing the threat and installing its own puppet. Third, China keeps the strategic geographical buffer and fourth China gets to show itself a proper force to be reckoned with in the Asia Pacific region by taking a credible threat off the table.

While no credit will be given to Trump for forcing China’s hand, be sure that an effective annexation by China will be a major win for him. Sure North Korea most likely retains the name and the sovereignty but China’s military becomes a form of blue helmets administering PyongYang’s every move. Kim Jong Un is on borrowed time. Sometimes long used strategy outstays it’s welcome.

How will financial markets react? While they may sell off initially expect them to rally hard if China pulls off regime change with precision. Surely Kim will soon get the ‘horse’s head in the bed’ scenario handed to him anytime soon from Beijing. It is the only viable solution which actually works remarkably well for China.

Kim’s pulse will be electromagnetic if he picks the wrong target

IMG_0578
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) is the latest buzzword coming from North Korea. The subject of EMP was revealed in James Bond 007 GoldenEye when Xenia Onnatop stole a helicopter and helped detonate ‘Petya’ over Sevrenaya. Anything with an electric circuit would be rendered unusable. Japanese breakfast programs were talking about what EMP might do if Kim Jong Un detonated a nuke at low altitude. Don’t forget the bomb dropped on Hiroshima exploded at 500ft. The impacts are greater.

The reality of EMP is more relevant in space. Much of the US military backbone comes from a vast array of spy and military satellites which help smart bombs and cruise missiles hit targets with such precision and connectivity between land, sea and sky. Much of the modern US satellite hardware is EMP resistant but it isn’t “bulletproof” to space junk. If Kim was able to detonate a nuke in space it could knock out some of the network. Apart from the billions invested in satellites we need to understand just how seriously America regards space as a sanctuary. Around 5 years ago the Chinese fired a missile to shoot down one of their older satellites. Apart from the advancement in Chinese technology which was of concern to the US it was also the amount of space junk from floating schrapnel that could damage US assets in space. If Kim hits satellites in low orbit he also risks taking out Russian and Chinese satellites too.

Remember when Reagan spoke of Star Wars in the 1980s? The point to weaponise space such that rogue enemy ICBMs could be taken out in the outer atmosphere.

The point here is simple. Should Kim threaten to drop an H-Bomb on Tokyo he leaves such a massive exposure to himself. US satellites remain active and he would be squashed in no time by military reprisals. There would be no way that China could stand by and back him were he to make such an attack.

The more disturbing point here is that he is rattling a sabre which is bearing ever closer to a line where the West is forced to take action to prevent his rogue status from having proper fangs. War on the Korean Peninsula is not an impossibility and the more the US chain is yanked the higher the likelihood action is taken. Markets aren’t pricing this.