Talking to Kim - what about?

Rex Tillerson is quite a tease. He has revealed that Washington is talking direct to Pyongyang. So who exactly is talking to whom? Surely not Kim himself? After all his vows to annihilate the US, how do you start the conversation? Perhaps it's one of his fawning generals, but he wouldn't be able to say anything without the authority of Kim. So, again, how does the conversation develop, unless Kim is in the same room?i That could make for a very tricky chat, with Kim mouthing from across the room about refusing to give up his nuclear bombs. Still, it's a breakthrough. It has to be good that Washington and Pyongyang are having a little talk, even if it's about the weather. So when did these chats begin? Surely not during the mad, crazy rhetorical sniping that has been going on between Trump and Kim Jong-un. That would be weird to say the least. This dialogue must have begun AFTER the threats of war, to try and calm things down. So I'm assuming there'll be no more "Rocket Man" stuff in Trump tweets. Who knows, perhaps Trump and Kim will get to like each other!! Despite what Tillerson revealed, I for one do not feel totally reassured because I'm still convinced that whatever words are passed down the telephone line, Kim wants to be a nuclear warlord, he wants parity with Trump. Only then will the little chats have any real meaning. But we shall see. Better talk talk than war war.

Isis leader alive and well

I never thought Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was dead. The Russians made great play about the intelligence they had received that they, the Russians, had killed him with a precision airstrike more than three months ago. Every newspaper in the world grabbed the story and wrote big headlines. Well, I'm sure the Russians were pretty well convinced but it was always going to be a risk to pronounce it in public. US intelligence was not exactly dismissive. They just said they had no evidence that Baghdadi had died. In other words, no body on display, and no chatter on signals intelligence that Isis had lost its leader. Assuming the latest video of Baghdadi calling on his supporters to continue fighting the fight is genuine and current, and not a clever techie job, then the Russians will be feeing somewhat chastened. Claiming successful hits from 15,000ft is a bit of a mug's game. Generally the Pentagon waits quite a long time before declaring the death of an Isis operator, even when the victim's supporters have acknowledged the death on their social media platforms. A multitude of checks have to be made but eventually they usually get the confirmation they are after. In Osama bin Laden's case, of course, it was all very different. The US Navy Seal climbing the stairs at bin Laden's compound in Pakistan saw the al-Qaeda leader peering out of his upstairs room. There was never any doubt that this was the man they were after. The codeword, "Geronimo" was signalled to the White House and up bobbed Barack Obama to give the news to the rest of us. It was Obama's most dramatic moment. When/if Baghdadi is killed, and there is positive confirmation, I doubt it will have such a momentous feel about it. His grand plan for an Islamic state caliphate has failed and most of his hierarchy has been eliminated. But it will still be big news when it happens. Every aspect of the American intelligence-gathering capabilities, from eavesdropping satellites to special forces, are hunting for him. Will there be another Geronimo moment? If it's the Americans who find and kill Baghdadi, Trump will surely give it the Hollywood touch when he announces it from the Rose Garden.

Beijing acts at last

Well I'm not in the mood to apologise to China for taking them to task in a blog the other day for doing nothing to stop North Korea from threatening nuclear war against the United States. But Beijing's latest move, ordering all North Korean companies in China to close in 120 days is bold and timely, though belated, and will be another stab in the back for Rocket Man. America's current action to stop North Korean banks from dealing on the American financial market will also close doors and cause problems for the world's only truly Communist country. However, Kim Jong-un is already angry with China for siding with the rest of the UN Security Council in approving sanctions against him and now knows for sure that Beijing is no longer a loyal friend. So will the company-closure order make any difference in Kim's scheming? South Korean intelligence is already picking up indications that Pyongyang is planning something next month, either additional ballistic missile flights or some sort of demonstration to prove that Kim has not been cowed by the world's opposition. It's all about saving face which in his case is nuclear face. He will want to give two fingers to the world and I bet even now he is plotting with his generals to launch another and longer-range ballistic missile over Japan. Putting myself into Kim's mind, which is difficult, I don't think he will do what the North Korean foreign minister suggested, which is to explode a hydrogen bomb in the atmosphere over the Pacific. If he does do that, Trump will summon his generals to the White House "Situation Room" and will select from Option One to Option Six on the list of military action devised by the Pentagon. I think Kim is wary of going too far. That doesn't mean to say he will stop working on his nuclear programme. He will carry on with that regardless until he knows he can announce to the world, but mostly to Washington, that North Korea is a nuclear power capable of sending atomic warheads all the way to any city in the US. But if he were to explode a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific, it would be the most dangerous come-on to Donald Trump since the current war rhetoric between the White House and Pyongyang began. But Kim may think he can get away with another ballistic missile test in the next few weeks without provoking US military action. Russia and China are screaming that any military action by the US would have devastating consequences. So Trump, who knows Moscow and Beijing are right, will get very angry if Pyongyang launches another missile, but I think he would avoid the Pentagon option. As for Kim, he wants to survive and he wants his regime to survive. So I really don't think he will be stupid or rash enough to explode a hydrogen bomb over the Pacific. If I'm wrong, God help us all.

Euro barmy army

When European leaders go on about the need to have an EU army, or as President Macron said today, a European integrated military force, I start to think that Brexit maybe isn't as bad as I thought after all. Actually I do think Britain leaving the EU is a terrible mistake, but the idea of an EU army always sounded to me like a giant step too far. There is a perfectly good military organisation called Nato which embraces all the Europeans, so why complicate the European security framework by having a potentially rival force? Macron said it would be a complementary, not a rival set-up, but we've heard that one before. This debate has been going on for years. There used to be a thing called the Western European Union that set itself up in grand style, had its own headquarters in Brussels but achieved very little and eventually died a death. The best force available for major emergencies, military or otherwise in Europe or further afield is Nato or a coalition of the willing. I'll call it COW, because every organisation needs to be an acronym. COW can be led by the US or Britain or France, all of whom have substantial or semi-substantial military capabilities, and others can latch on if they want to. We've seen COWs work well all over the place, masterminded by the US. But a Euro army, with every member of the EU sending officers and enlisted soldiers and armoured vehicles and aircraft and missiles - I envisage a nightmare. Every time I hear of plans to have a United Nations standing force I think...nightmare. UN peacekeeping missions CAN work sometimes, but more often than not, hundreds of badly trained troops arrive with light blue berets and wander around in uncoordinated fashion or drive brand new Toyota Land Cruisers all day with no particular mission in mind. That's probably a bit harsh but you get the picture. The world does not need or want a huge European army, or an EU integrated military force overseen by Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission and a national of Luxembourg which most Americans have never heard of! So, Mr Macron, suck your thumb and think of something new, forget about a European army, it was never a good idea when it was first thought of decades ago, and it is still a rotten idea and a waste of time and money.

Trump and Kim, stop it!

I think enough is enough. Please, Trump and Kim, stop all this dangerous hate rhetoric. The world doesn't just centre around you two. There are billions of us lesser mortals who would like a peaceful life without having to think of nuclear war in our daily activities and thoughts. The war of words has now got to a point where both Trump and Kim Jong-un need to step back. Neither is going to concede an inch, I understand that, but shouting at each other COULD lead to a military disaster. So, give it a rest. Meanwhile, please someone explain to me what China is up to. Beijing professes to want to be a global power but without taking any responsibility for anything outside its own selfish interests. President Xi Zinping wants to go down in history as a great leader but he is failing to make the moves that will end this potential calamity across its borders in North Korea. He is playing footsie footsie diplomacy even though he has a big stick in his cupboard. Why not take courage into your hands and pay a visit to Pyongyang and get hold of this miscreant nuclear bombmaker and teach him the facts of life. Not on behalf of Trump and the United States but on behalf of the world - in other words, us lot. I don't think he will, because he doesn't have the leadership qualities or the vision to do anything that might help the globe - apart from his climate change acquiesence. I think he likes having a troublesome nuclear bombmaker on his doorstep because it helps to keep the US at bay. Kim's ballistc missiles and nuclear warheads are a better deterrent to America's perceived interference in the Asia-Pacific than China's anti-carrier missiles and South China Sea island-building. That's why Xi Zinping won't move a muscle, and that's why he will never be a great global leader. In the mean time, the rhetorical insults from Washington and Pyongyang must stop. But of course that will not stop the Pentagon's military planning. Kim knows that, but can't he see that it's pretty stupid to invite Trump to blast his little kingdom to hell. Then we all lose, including the self-satisfied Chinese government.

Trump's sunset strip

Oh my goodness I agree with Trump. The Iran nuclear deal's "sunset clause" under which the limits on uranium-enrichment are lifted in 2025 is unbelievably irresponsible and asking for trouble. How could Obama's negotiating team which included the incredibly bright, but unfashionably shaggy-haired energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, have effectively agreed to let Iran restart its full-scale uranium-enrichment programme - vital for building a nuclear weapon - ten years after signing the deal which restricted Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb and/or a nuclear warhead for its ambitious ballistic missile programme. It was only a ten-year deal! When I read that after the deal was signed in Geneva in 2015 I thought that was the most foolish small print I had ever read. Why not make the deal last for 20 years or preferably 100 years? I know what Obama was thinking. Hopefully, he surmised, things would change so much in Iran in ten years that any thought of reverting to building a nuclear bomb would be anathema to the vibrant, western-loving Iranian people. The ayatollahs would be replaced by millionaire businessmen and the Iranian Republican Guard who are responsible for all things military, including nuclear, would be turned into boy scouts. Well, dream on Obama. That was never going to happen. In ten years, the same Mafioso will be running Iran, and by 2025 they will have devised a cunning plan to take up where they left off in 2015. So, a nuclear-armed Iran by 2028. Trump obviously thinks along the same lines and has made clear his rejection of the sunset clause. He is right! If the Iranian government wants all sanctions to be lifted, then the sunset clause needs to be extended by several decades. Whether Trump will ever be able to persuade the other signatories to the deal - China, Russia, UK, France and Germany - we shall have to wait and see.

Trump's plan to destroy North Korea

Exactly what does Trump mean when he says he can destroy North Korea? Perhaps Jim Mattis, his trusty defence secretary, has come up with a plan to literally obliterate North Korea from the face of the earth. Is this possible? Is this just Trumpism or is there really a military option which can do this? Well, of course there is. It's the nuclear option. Dropping 500 tactical nuclear bombs on every military/nuclear site and Kim Jong-un's residence, destroying in a wave of B52, B2 abd F35 nuclear attacks North Korea's ability to retaliate. Hiroshima and Nagasaki on a huge scale. Total annihilitation. But even if North Korea had launched a preemptive nuclear strike on, say, Los Angeles, would the president of the United States have carte blanche to eliminate a whole country and reduce its people to a smouldering radioactive graveyard? Is this truly what Trump has in mind when he talks of destroying North Korea? I cannot envisage any other way of annihilating a country. Massive bombing with ccnventional munitions would never have such a result. It would be devastating but North Korea would survive, and would still be able to retaliate. Trump sometimes speaks off the cuff and does so with rhetorical hyperbole, and the world has got used to that. But this was a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech was written down. It clearly included the words, "I will totally destroy North Korea." So there must be a nuclear option on the list of potental military action put together by Mattis. If I'm thinking this, then so must Kim Jong-un. Hopefully, that is what Trump had in mind, to scare Kim. But trying to scare Kim doesn't seem to work. So I'm guessing Trump must have asked Mattis one big question when the retired four-star Marine Corps general presented him with the military options for attacking North Korea: "Can I launch a nuclear attack on North Korea if Kim sends a nuclear ballistic missile to hit the United States?" The only answer I guess is: "Yes, Mr President."

Trump's axis of evil

Trump has copied the old master, George W Bush, in declaring his personal axis of evil. In his speech to the UN General Assembly, Trump identified North Korea and Iran has his two betes noires. Well that's two out of the three highlighted by George W in his 2002 State of the Union address to Congress. But Iraq, the third country pinpointed on Bush's hate list was then a super enemy, ruled by Saddam Hussein who had tried to assassinate George HW, his father, in retaliation for the Gulf War of 1991. These days, Iraq is a friend and ally and partner and fellow killer of Isis, so they are definitely off the axis of evil list. But North Korea and Iran are firmly in Trump's mind as the nations to watch. There are probably not too many people who will disagree with that, although for some reason I personally have high hopes for Iran. There is such potential in Iran for it to become a flourishing and decent member of the world community, especially with its high percentage of mobile-owning, internet-reading, Facebook-following yunger generation that it might just make a turn for the better. It's just the Ayatollahs and all-powerful Republican Guard hard boys who keep the country on Trump's hate list because, apart from still dreaming of being a nuclear-armed power, they sponsor, finance and support some of the most feared extremists and terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Republican Guard are fomentors of trouble and evil. But, with a little bit of miracle-working, Iran could come off the bad list. Right now, under Trump, there's no chance because he hates the Obama-inspired nuclear deal and thinks Tehran should continue to be punished for supporting anyone who opposes America. But North Korea is going to be the axis of the axis of evil for ever unless Kim Jong-un has a sudden change of mind or a heart attack or chokes on a CIA-delivered fishbone. Trump's speech at the UN General Assembly will no doubt be interpreted as another example of his tweet-style simplicity: Rocket Man is committing suicide, some countries are going to hell etc etc. But don't forget the words of George W. Apart from his axis of evil warning, he also said to the world: "You're either with us or against us." This, of course, was after the trauma and slaughter of 9/11. But Trump is not saying much more than Bush did. "If you're against us, we can destroy you." That was his message to Kim Jong-un. I don't suppose the North Korean dictator will take a blind bit of notice. But I'm beginning to think, and fear, that Trump really means it.

Rocket Man hohoho!

Trump really does pick his words off the cuff. He is now calling Kim Jong-un Rocket Man. It's like a joke! What I loved most of all however were the comments from HR McMaster (Herbert Raymond) the National Security Adviser, who looked rather po-faced when asked what he thought of the Rocket Man description. He pointed out as a matter of fact that the rockets were after all coming from North Korea so.... but actually it was a very serious business, so, possibly, calling Kim Rocket Man was maybe possibly not a very good idea. Oh dear, General Herbert - can I call you Herbert? - what a tricky life it is being National Security Adviser to a tweet tweet president. He knows that while a president like Trump, with his background and personality, can call Kim Jong-un Rocket Man or Vladimir Putin Muscle Man or Boris Johnson Huff and Puff Man or Emmanuel Macron Fancy Man, he, General McMaster has to choose his words more carefully. He is servant, not master (just McMaster!). But since Trump took over, many of his top advisers have had to face this agonising moment when some troublesome TV interviewer asks about the latest Trump tweet blast. Jim Mattis has had these moments, Rex Tillerson too and others. The important thing is to put the Trump tweet into context.....well what he really meant was etc etc, but then to add...although of course he is the president and it's a matter for him what he says, does etc etc, but never say, what the president said was rubbish! So I think Herbert Raymond did pretty well. In his mind he was thinking it's pretty stupid to call such a dangerous man Rocket Man but because it's Trump, his boss, he has to explain to the uninitiated that in terms of accuracy Kim IS a rocket man because that's what he does, builds and launches rockets. But if you're a military man like Herbert Raymond, you want to get across the message that calling Kim Rocket Man is taking the edge off the real danger he poses. In my view, "rocket", for example, is less threatening than "intercontinental ballistic missile" but I guess calling Kim ICBM Man has less of a ring about it. So Rocket Man it is from now on. But just to put it totally in context, read the words of Nikki Haley, superstar US ambassador to the UN. She said that as far as she was concerned, she would be happy to hand over the whole North Korea business to Jim Mattis because he has so many military options at his disposal. Jim Mattis, by the way, is Big Chief Military Man, but also, thank God, Sensible Man.

Trump getting tamed

Since the expulsion of Stephen Bannon from the White House, Trump has taken a big breath and started to behave like a proper human being. He whizzed off to Texas to visit the victims of Hurricane Harvey - twice - he agreed to keep going in Afghanistan, then having told the so-called Dreamers, the young illegal immigrants, to get out of the country, he realised most of them were doing their bit for the US and some were even serving in the military. So of couse they must stay, he said. Stephen Bannon claims he is on the phone to Trump two or three times a week, and is no doubt bending his ear, reminding him that he was elected to be a super-conservative president and to forget about other people's wars. But Trump is in a tricky position. Instinctively he loves everything Bannon says to him over the phone, but then as soon as he puts the phone down in strides General John Kelly who reminds him that he is president of the whole world, or at least he is a president with a global reach and shouldn't listen to Bannon. "He is no longer your strategic adviser, Mr President, I'm your strategic adviser and I say, listen to me not to Bannon." So, Trump listens and softens his position on just about everything. I think he now knows he's never going to build That Wall. No one's going to pay for it. He has stopped tweeting about it. Bannon probably reminded him that the wall must be built. But dear General Kelly, an old Marine and always an old Marine, says walls are to be climbed over, Mr President. "When I was training in the Marine Corps....." "Yeah, yeah," interrupts the president,"I know all about your bloody wall."

Why Jean-Claude Juncker is so smug

There is something distinctly unpleasant about Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission. He looks and sounds smug. He behaves as if he is one of the most important political figures in the world. He thinks Britain is stupid and will regret leaving the European Union. Well, he is right there, the latter bit at least. We in Britain are all going to regret Brexit for the rest of our lives, except for Nigel Farrage, Michael Gove and the people who wear nationalist anti-immigrant T-shirts for breakfast. Nevertheless, I have this nagging feeling that President Juncker is inwardly chortling over Britain's decision to return to being a small island of not much significance. When you are president of the mighty bureaucracy in Brussels you like member nations to do as they are told and conform to his vision of a federal Europe with its own army and everything. It's partly because of people like Juncker and his over-inflated opinion of himself that a lot of voters in this country put the cross in the Leave box on Referendum Day. As soon as the UK has finally left the EU, Juncker is going to wrap his arms around the remaining member nations and draw them ever closer together so that he can keep a proper eye on them. Well good luck with that, Juncker, and no doubt he will raise a few glasses of his favourite chateau wine in celebration once those awkward Brits have gone. There seems to be a feeling in the UK that the EU really needs us and that Brexit will be as much regretted by the other EU nations as most sensible people in the UK will regret it. I'm not convinced. I think the likes of Juncker have already written us off and care little for our post-EU existence. He believes in club rules and we are about to be blackballed. Juncker and his negotiating team are definitely not in the business of doing the UK any favours. So, David Davis, the Brexit minister, and his Leave acolytes are going to come away with a paltry and very expensive deal that will benefit the EU and not the UK. Juncker knows that which is why he sounds even more smug than usual.

Kim gets away with it

Thanks to China and Russia, Kim Jong-un is laughing his head off. So there are new tough sanctions but they bear no resemblance to what Trump had in mind for the "crazy fat kid", to use the immortal description by Senator John McCain. Had Trump and delightful-looking UN ambassador Nikki Haley got their way, all oil and gas exports to North Korea would have been banned, and Kim's personal assets around the world would have been frozen. That would have theoretically destroyed North Korea's economy and brought Kim to his knees. I say theoretically because, as Putin knew when he got his ambassador to the UN to water down the sanctions, there are plenty of Russian businessmen prepared to sell North Korea what it wants, never mind the sanctions. So, in Putin's mind, what was the point of angering Kim so much with the toughest of all sanctions and give him an excuse to retaliate with a new ballistic missile test or nuclear test? Soften the blow and hope Kim doesn't go mad! It's crazy politics but in a Kremlinesque sort of way, the watered down version, supported by everyone in the UN, might make Kim think. I could be over optimistic but might Kim say to himself: "Ok, more sanctions but my friends in Moscow and Beijing have played a blinder and stopped that dreadful man Trump from trying to destroy my country. Soooo, I better be a good boy for a bit to show my appreciation. If I piss off Putin and Xi Zinping and go ahead with another ICBM launch, the next round of sanctions could really be tough." I don't know whether Kim thinks logically but if there are any advisers who have the balls to actually advise him, they should whisper into his ear that now is not the time to do another nuclear test or launch another missile. But there probably isn't anyone in his inner or outer circle who has such balls and Kim will be so angry at Trump for his sanctions wish list that he might ignore common sense and go for a big one - a Guam-directed missile launch. But, Kim, my advice is bite your tongue, take a breather and send a post card to Moscow and Beijing saying thanks for their support.

Hurricanes dominate the news

The hurricanes have been dominating the news agenda. Quite right too. But it is bizarre that as the hurricanes have caused flooding, fear and devastation in their wake, world news has almost stopped. Kim Jong-un did not launch any new ballistic missiles, as had been expected over this last weekend, and the UN sanctions resolution to punish North Korea for the ballistic missile launch over Japan is being watered down somewhat, presumably to keep China happy. But the only other major news story around has been the refugee turmoil in Myanmar's (Burma's) western Rankhine state. As the UN has said, the Myanmar government operations against the minority Muslim Rohingya community looks a lot like ethnic cleansing. But like so many emotive news stories, it's more complex than that. Those fleeing into Bangladesh for safety are as much victims of the militant Rohingya insurgents fighting the government forces in the area as they are from the soldiers trying to quell the insurgency. Violence breeds violence and the minority community are caught in the middle. Had there not been a hurricane raging across Florida, perhaps the tragedy of the Rohingya refugees would have made more of an impact in the US. The most poignant issue in Myanmar is the role of Nobel prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto leader of the country who has a face of suffering and innocence. So long a martyr to her human rights cause against the Burma military junta, she is a political goddess, especially in the eyes of the rest of the world. But her statements about the fate of the Rohingya have been worringly equivocal. If there is ethnic cleasing going on, she, of all people, must condemn it and stop it. But Trump has his face turned to Florida. For the moment, the hurricanes rule.

Will Hurricane Harvey make Trump see the light?

I wonder, after his personal viaits to Texas to see the devastation of Hurricane Harvey, whether Donald Trump will begin to get nagging doubts somewhere in the periphery of his brain. Could this terrible hurricane and now Hurricane Irma tearing through the Caribbean and due to hit Florida tomorrow, have anything to do with climate change - the big CC question? Trump says he doesn't believe in climate change caused by human beings. He tore up the historic Paris Treaty which most of the world signed up to, acknowledging the dangers posed by man-made climate changes. He wants to go back to heavy-duty coal-burning power stations. But once he returned to the White Houe after his two visis to Texas, did he say to himself or perhaps to his daughter Ivanka: "Yer know, darling, there might be something in this climate change rubbish after all." Or, of course, he might have said: "Yeah well, these things are all cyclical, aren't they? There ain't nothing we can do about it. We're in the Lord's hands." Or something along those lines. But then you throw in the worst earthquake in Mexico for 100 years and there will be more to come. Then will the doubts set in? Trump hasn't got Steve Bannon in earshot anymore to convince him climate change is fake news, although the two are still regularly on the phone apparently. So I reckon Trump might just start to think intelligently about whether this planet of ours is heading towards a grim weather future. My children believe climate change is happening and that's good enough for me, although I believe it too. It's the younger generation whose future we should be worrying about, not your age group, Mr President. So, go to Florida when Irma causes devastation and then have a long chat with Ivanka. After that, ignore Bannon and get real about climate change for all our sakes.

Let Kim eat grass

For once I agree with Vladimir Putin, although he was only half right when he said that Kim Jong-un would rather eat grass than give up his nuclear weapons programme and that new sanctions would be meaningless. But the point is that Kim is never going to have to eat grass. His poor suffering people who live outside Pyongyang in the rural areas probably eat grass already. But not for our Kim. The only grass he eats or is likely to eat is lemon grass to flavour his pasta dishes. Kim has grown in size in the near-six years since he succeeded as Supreme Leader and the reason is he eats very well. He has a yacht for goodness sake, where the fridges no doubt are stuffed with caviar or whatever his personal foodie taste may be. So, Mr Putin, your grass analogy was unfortunate athough I know what you were trying to say, and I agree. NOTHING will stop Kim from completing his nuclear programme and then carry on building more and more intercontinental ballistic missiles. In his six years at the top of the dynasty, Kim has test-fired more than 80 missiles and bombs, according to US intelligence estimates. This compares with only 20 carried out by his father, Kim Jong-il, during his 17-year rule. So the present Kim has been in a hurry to get on with his nuclear programme and is not interested in dialogue or deals. Once he is surrounded by all of his nuclear ballistic missiles, then he might turn to the world and say: "Ok, what will you give me if I promise not to launch a launch attack first?" Apparently, according to a former British ambassador in North Korea, Kim Jong-un is an affable sort of chap, who likes to be social, enjoys his family around him and can be quite pleasant when he is in the mood. Well, I expect Hitler was affable on occasions, and Stalin loved a good joke. But affability isn't going to help the rest of us right now. I can't imagine Kim being affable with Trump! No, Kim must be treated as a potentially hugely dangerous individual who has taken so many risks in his life already at the tender age of 33, that if he survives for another three or four decades, heaven knows what he will be like when he's 60 or 70. Mind you, if he does reach a venerable age, I guess that probably means the world will still be around!! But be warned, Kim, according to a story in today's papers, the US Navy Seal Team 6 - killers of Osama bin Laden - is currently training South Korean special forces to assassinate the North Korean leader if called upon to do so. Now will that make Kim shudder and hide in the wardrobe or will he just order his personal chef to send out for more lemon grass?

North Korea and the Cuban missile crisis

There is no direct comparison between the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and the North Korea nuclear crisis of 2017. Yet there are some similarities and perhaps some reasons to hope for the best, based on what happened 55 years ago. Krushchev was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear Armageddon but just when the world thought this was it, a nuclear holocaust, the Soviet leader backed down. His ships carrying missiles and other equipment to Cuba sailed close to the US naval blockade off the island and then turned around. The crisis was over. But there had to be a deal first. In exchange for removing the missiles from the sites in Cuba, Krushchev was told the US would remove its nuclear ballistic missiles from Turkey. John F Kennedy won the "blink" contest but Krushchev did not go away empty-handed. What could Kim Jong-un get by way of a deal with Washington? The trouble is his ballistic missiles and their nuclear warheads are located on North Korean territory, so there is no comparison here with the Cuban situation. But could the US suggest that if Kim keeps all his current stock of missiles and nuclear warheads in storage and stops developing any more, then negotiations could begin to transform North Korea's economy, trade and standard of living for its desperately poor people. In other words, accept that North Korea is an effective nuclear power but in mothballs, not threatening anyone. It would go against everything Trump, and Obama before him, said about North Korea never being allowed to become a nuclear power, but the reality is, Pyongyang has built missiles that have a range of 6,500 miles with a capability to carry nuclear warheads. That puts western and central parts of America in the target area. But to be brutally frank, the whole of the United States is already in the line of fire of ballistic missiles held by Russia and China. So it's not a unique scenario. Of course, no one expects Russia or China to launch nuclear missiles at America. Not now anyway. And North Korea just might. So again the situation is different. But ultimately Washington and the rest of the world are going to have to come to terms with a nuclear North Korea, and find someway of coping with that. As I wrote in a blog yesterday, someone very senior from the US needs to take a delegation to Pyongyang, preferably with some high-ranking Chinese officials in tow, to deal with Kim direct.

Kim Jong-un stays one step ahead

Nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to stop Kim Jong-un from developing a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile. Trump said that would never be allowed to happen. But it IS going to happen. He's not far away now from reaching his dream of being able to hit the United States with a nuclear ballistic missile. This third dynasty Kim just carries on doing what he wants despite all the pressure from around the world. He bats off sanctions as if they were butterflies. Warnings of war from Trump he dismisses as Washington bluff. So, he has apparently successfully tested a massive hydrogen bomb and probably plans to carry out another test in due course. He has revealed to the world what his hydrogen bomb warhead looks like and it seems pretty genuine from the photos. So North Korea which joined the nuclear club after the first atomic test, now, after six tests, seems to have proven a capability to join the nuclear elite who can send nuclear warheads thousands of miles into space. It's a very very sobering thought. But condemnation by the UN will scare Kim not one tiny bit. I am so fed up hearing politicians saying that "everything is on the table" - Boris Johnson said it today - because it means very little. It's supposed to mean that if Kim doesn't stop what he's doing he will be bombed out of existence! But, really, Boris, are you planning to send British bombers to Pyongyang? I don't think so. The more Kim does to complete his nuclear missile programme, the more difficult it is to do anything military against him. Stop him now before he gets there, yes that is an option, but it will be an act of war that will have devastating consequences. So, the truth is, there is no military option. There can be no surgical strike which will end Kim's dreams and make us all sleep better at night. And Kim knows that. Unfortunately, the only realistic option is to go talk to this wretched man and ask him: "What the hell do you want?". And then try to convince him that the US is not planning to invade North Korea. People from the real world need to get to him and tell him the facts of life. But it may be too late. With Trump shouting at him and even Beijing no longer being so supportive, Kim might just think the best way forward is to keep on going until he is so dangerous that all the world will keep quiet and be submissive to his demands. But he doesn't want war, and he knows Trump doesn't want war, and he surely knows Boris doesn't want war. It's total stalemate.

Civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria

The issue of civilian deaths caused by US-led airstrikes in Syria and Iraq will be one of the defining judgments to be made once the war against Isis in these two countries is over. In war it's impossible to bomb from the air without causing some civilian casualties. The American-led coalition goes through an agonising process before authorising airstrikes. But there cannot be a fullproof system. Houses known to contain Isis snipers are legitimate targets. But can the experts planning the raids at the US base in Qatar be absolutely sure there are not women and children nearby. No they can't. So the latest figures povided by US Central Command for Operation Inherent Resolve in Syria and Iraq make uncomfortable reading. Since the air campaign began in August 2014, at least 685 civilians are believed to have been "unintentionally killed" in strikes involving aircraft and artillery. But the US military are still examining 455 other reports of civilian fatalities which may in due course be added to the death toll. The US admits to civilian casualties only when they have pretty good evidence that the coalition is to blame. There are always multiple claims of civilian deaths, but a huge percentage of them have been caused by Isis, either deliberately slaughtering families trying to escape. killing people who refuse to obey their edicts or by their mass use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and boobytraps. Sometimes it's difficult to be sure whether the coalition is to blame or Isis. For example, there was a tragic case in Mosul when the coalition targeted snipers in a building, but the bombs dropped caused a daisy-chain of detonations when Isis IEDs and ammunition stores blew up. About 100 civilians were killed. The coalition was to blame for dropping the bombs but Isis was also to blame for filling the houses with ammunition and explosives. The latest figures of admitted civilian deaths demonstrate the most unforgiveable aspect of warfare. But it is right they should be put into some sort of perspective. Since August 2014, the US-led coalition has carried out 24,160 strikes involving 51,038 separate engagements. The percentage of engagaments which resulted in civilian casualties was 2.29 per cent, according to Central Command. That is tragic but low. But the toll of civilian deaths and injuries breeds hatred and fear and more militancy. This is unavoidable. And the truth is that despite the careful assessments by the coalition, daily airstrikes over a period of three years do more than risk civilian deaths. They create a generation of war children whose lives are for ever destroyed by horrific memories and experiences. Isis is totally to blame for attemptng to force their hateful ideology on the people of Iraq and Syria. But to eliminate them, the US-led coalition has had to add to the daily traumas suffered by hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.