Should addictive video games be banned as Prince Harry suggested?

My answer on Quora

I have a twelve year old son who like countless other twelve year olds has a passion for that current flavor-of-the day - FORNITE. Not a day goes by when the subject of this exact question stares me directly in the face. I am sure that I am not alone among parents, in wishing that games like this were not only banned, but did not exist in the first place. To say that such video games have an addictive quality when not managed properly would be putting it mildly. I have heard FORTNITE in particular being referred to as ‘crack’ for kids.

How Fortnite became the biggest game of 2018

However in spite of this ‘inner want’ I do NOT believe, when all factors are considered, that these video games should be banned.

To insist that the some state wide regulatory body should step in and deny access to these games is wrongheaded and I believe will ultimately facilitate more harm than good. We don’t need a cadre of busybodies dictating to the rest of us how we should run our lives.

Parenting is ultimately the responsibility of the parent which I realize to some may come as a shock. So-called experts are free to offer advice and these ought to be looked at with a critical eye on a case-by-case basis, however it is the parent who is the ultimate gate keeper of home access to these games. Not the State.

If I am unhappy with my son’s usage of the game. The solution is simple. I tell him then he needs to finish off playing and I remind him that he has been on the console long enough. Homework takes precedence over gaming as does his daily chores, and his non-gaming extracurricular activities. That is the reality.

Now of course he will put up a fight (it is only natural). If he has a solid argument I may agree to his request but if he doesn’t and insists on playing hardball, the solution is simple. Off goes the console feed. No power = No gaming. State intervention is not required.

Yes it can be tough for one, or both parties, but parenting is much more than hitting softballs out of the park. This is one of those moments. The only regulatory body needed is the parent with moderation being the driver.

There is however another aspect to this question. Are the games intrinsically bad in and of themselves? The busybodies would argue that they are but I am not convinced this is the case. In fact there is some indication that the ‘danger’ angle has been greatly overstated.

Are video games bad for your kids? Not so much, experts now believe

It also depends on what you play. http://ttps://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/09/542215646/video-games-may-affect-the-brain-differently-depending-on-what-you-play

Looking deeper into several of these games it also seems evident that children may be learning much from the play that could be lost should the games be banned. Social Interaction, strategy, planning, 3-D visualization, situation assessment, material budgeting are just a few skills that several of these games emphasize and that indeed may resonate with the modern learner. They also make the acquisition of these skills fun.

Minecraft is particularity strong in stressing visualization skills that are useful in Engineering and Architecture Source: Minecraft-Mindcraft 1

In any event rather than jumping head with the ‘banning’ angle, which will no doubt stimulate an underground supply of these types of games (Prohibition 2.0…don’t underestimate the power of the market), a far better approach would be to offer parental assistance for managing video games.

A special focus, on helping the parent/child optimize game usage with a moderate context will likely be far more effective. There may indeed be a free market opportunity available here. Let us exercise it, before giving more undeserved power to the Nanny State when it is simply not up to the task.

Is the Democratic Party leadership more conservative than its base?

My answer on Quora.

I am not convinced at all that the leadership heading into 2020 is more conservative than its base. In fact it appears to be the other way around. There is virtually nothing that echoes conservatism when one looks at the Presidential tickets of Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and indeed Joseph Biden (circa 2019…yes even Biden…listen to his rhetoric lately if you don’t believe me…Biden criticizes 'white man's culture' as he talks violence against women).

Maybe the leadership is planning to pull the bait and switch later, as they did with the re-branding of Obama in 2008, but the way it stands all of these leading figures can be rightly filed under the Progressive banner certainly in terms of policy advocated.

Meet the Leaders Source: CARTOON: The 2020 Democratic field

Now there are some fringe candidates that may offer more of a genuine Liberal alternative (Andrew Yang perhaps) but the chances of them going the distance are slim. This is not the party leadership of Bill Clinton, JFK or Harry Truman. The Progressives own the show and those who aren’t Progressive better get with the program…STAT.

Here however is the inconvenient reality. As of 2017, in a widely cited Gallup Poll American ‘liberals’ make up just 26% of the electorate. This translates to a figure of 50% when looking at voters who self identify as Democrats.

U.S. Still Leans Conservative, but Liberals Keep Recent Gains

Granted the 50% number has increased since 2001 (it stood at 30% then) however what it does show is that at present, half of the Democrats are NOT liberals.

Now the polling of course does not distinguish between the terms progressive and small ‘l’ liberal (read Charles Tips for more on this….Are Republicans really still conservative and Democrats really still liberal?), however it is not unreasonable to infer that all of those who see themselves as small ‘l’ liberals may not see themselves as progressive, especially when one factors in the collectivist approach that progressives have towards economic control. This of course would lower the 50% value….perhaps to 40%.

Leftward leadership drift

So then why is it that every leading Democratic Party Candidate today is running a Progressive agenda? What about the rest of the base? You know…the 50% or 60%?

The answer in my opinion is that the Democratic Party leadership believes that the progressive platform is a winning one. The reasons for this are as follows

• Barack Obama won elections in 2008 and 2012. Although there is debate as to the strength of his progressive credentials he did address several Progressive talking points;
• The strong showing of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party Primaries in 2016;
• A perceived change in demographics which Progressives believe works in their favor;

However this is likely to be a strategic miscalculation for a number of reasons that I believe outweigh the former points.

• The US as a nation is not as a whole on board with the Progressive agenda. It is still very much a right-of-center country.
• Part of the Bernie Sanders success in the Democratic Party race of 2016 was that Hillary Clinton herself was not a great candidate and the alternatives (O’Malley, Webb, Chaffee etc) were weak. A stronger centrist candidate (with less baggage) would have likely created more distance between themselves and Sanders.
• The rest of the US (the so-called fly-over states) have very different concerns than that of the coastal regions where the elites framing Progressive policies are largely located.
• An element of group think reinforced by a partisan media is likely skewing perception here - When Democrats do succeed in key swing state areas, such as they did with Conor Lamb (Pennsylvania) in April 2018, its largely a consequence of the fact that they ran a candidate with solid Blue Dog credentials;
• The Obama victories in 2008 and 2012 have likely been blown out of proportion. His popularity did not transfer to HRC in 2016 and his victory in the 2008 election was to a large extent a function of the centrist re-branding of Obama (as mentioned earlier), the downswing in the economy and the inept campaign ran by John McCain. Mitt Romney in 2012 was hardly much better than McCain.
• Progressives policies are all too often impractical and easy to lampoon. People can sense a money grab even when it is couched in glitter and platitudes. They also create conflict among various party stakeholders (remember Amazon v Sanders/AOC over the New York move).

Now the claim could be made that leaning to the left is part and parcel of the age old methodology behind securing the Democratic Party nomination in the first place. Perhaps, but if you lean too far to the extreme that you lose the elasticity to reset yourself later, the voters were duly reward you in the Presidential race with the runner-up tag.

A strategy of adhering to a centrist line would present real problems for Trump in 2020. As it stands right now he just has to point to his opponents and laugh. He couldn’t have wished for more.

The 2019 Israeli Election

Like any election there are big winners and losers and in Israel there is always a great deal of fuzziness in-between. From Netanyahu’s perspective he has a clear mandate to go forward with his pro-business initiatives, trade policies and his security and foreign relations detail. Kudos to him for pulling off another victory at the election box.

Here are the results of the 2019 election as they stood at the 97% mark.

Israeli election 2019 results - As of April 12th 2019 Likud picked up one more seat to move to 36 while Shas dropped one to go to 7 . The vote count reached 100%.

Source: Israel Elections: Where Does the Israeli Left Go From Here?

The Winners

Likud - Once again Likud has emerged as Israel’s largest party taking 36 seats in the 120 seat Knesset. This represents a pick up of six seats over the 2015 results. While the economy is undoubtedly a big factor, Likud likely benefited by picking up votes from those who in 2015 opted for the right wing Jewish Home or the centrist Kulanu.

Netanyahu has now won his fifth election (fourth in a row) . He assumed office in 2009 and if he completes his new four year term can claim seventeen years as Prime Minister (well ahead of the nation’s father David Ben-Gurion).

If one considers that Likud were reduced to 9% of the vote in 2006 and a meager 12 seats in the Knesset, Netanyahu’s accomplishments in turning around the party of Menachem Begin, are all the more impressive.

However as is the case after every Israeli election he will have to cobble together a coalition with various parties in order to govern. Common wisdom is that such a coalition will include Shas, UTJ, Yisrael Beitanu, United Right and Kulanu. In other words, a mixed bag of religious parties, centrists and those parties to the right of Likud.

Benjamin Netanyahu - Onward to a fifth term as Prime Minister. Source: Jewish Telegraphic Agency - The Global Jewish News Source

Blue and White Political Alliance (BW) - Despite finishing as runner-up to Likud, BW (Kahol Lavan in Hebrew) performed extremely well in this election and will enter the 20th Knesset with 35 seats. The collapse of Labor and Meretz no doubt augmented their performance.

Various media sources in the West have portrayed BW as a left-of-center alliance. They are not. The alliance consists of three major parties - the Israel Resilience Party (Benny Gantz), Yesh Atid (Yair Lapid) and Telem (Moshe Ya’alon) and has largely a centrist position with strong Zionist credentials.

BW’s biggest challenge will be the maintenance of the alliance in the four years that follow. Benny Gantz, who heads BW is not personally popular with the Israeli public and will no doubt be challenged by Lapid, who is more charismatic and very outspoken.

BW also needs to formulate what they stand for beyond the anti-Netanyahu focus. They need to convince the average Israeli what they can bring to the table that Netanyahu hasn’t already. Failure to take the initiative here, could doom BW to taking on the moniker of another anti-Netanyahu alliance from the past, the now dissolved Zionist Union.

Benny Gantz - Strong military credentials. May be Prime Minister in the future. Source: Show us who you are, Benny Gantz

The Religious Parties - Between the two of them United Torah Judaism (UTJ) and Shas picked up a total of 15 seats, with each party gaining one more than they did in 2015. Religious Party momentum will likely increase into the future as per demographic trends.

UTJ largely represents Haredi Ashkenazi Jewish concerns while Shas draws support from observant Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews.

Both are likely to feature prominently in the governing coalition which from a secular perspective does not necessarily bode well, especially if the very polarizing ‘Who is a Jew?’ question becomes front and center of the debate platform once again.

Oddly enough United Torah Judaism attracted some Arab votes because of the good work of Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman shown above. Source: https://www.israelhayom.com/2019...

The Losers

Labor and Meretz- Every Israeli Prime Minister from 1948 to 1977 was a member of the Israeli Labor Party (Mapai). As late as 1999, the Party’s leader Ehud Barak defeated Benjamin Netanyahu in the run off for Prime Minister. The failure of both the Oslo Agreement and the 2000 Camp David Summit however, exposed the center-left Labor as a spent force.

Fast forward to 2019 and the party of David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin has become a shell of its former self. Six seats in the Knesset in 2019 is its worst ever performance. This was two more than the number of seats won by the left wing Meretz Party. However this does not offer much comfort as Meretz came within a hair’s breath of missing the minimum cut off for the Knesset (they were likely saved by Druze voters). Next stop for Labor and Meretz though is irrelevance. The Israeli left needs to rethink its strategy.

Ehud Barak - His Labor Party may be on the verge of extinction unless they can find a way of convincing the Israeli electorate that they are worth voting for. Looking at the last two election cycles this does not appear to be the case. Source Picture: Jerusalem Post

The Arab Parties - Low Arab turnout (believed to be a response to the Jewish nation-state law) did not help the two Arab alliances Hadash-Ta’al (six seats) and Ra’am Balad (four seats). This represents a drop of three from the Joint List (JL) tally of 13 that these parties achieved when they pooled their resources in 2015 to run under the JL banner. Other factors may be at play here, including a disenchantment with the party’s leadership whose socialist economic policies seem to be out phase with the country’s embrace of free market principles.

Right of Center smaller parties - Yisrael Beitanu (Avigdor Lieberman), the United Right (Rafi Peretz) and Kulanu (Moshe Kahlon) won a total of 14 seats but this represents eight less seats than the number they achieved in 2015. The net benefactor of this seat shift appears to be Likud. Gone from the 20th Knesset are such figures as Naftali Bennett (once believed to be a rising star…he may still be) and Moshe Feiglin who will likely have to rework their future election strategy as the right consolidates around Netanyahu.

So where does this all leave the country?

Netanyahu looks stronger politically than he did in 2015. He can put together a more robust coalition, going into the 20th Knesset with 65 seats as opposed to the 61 from four years earlier. Likud is also stronger than they were in 2015.

His partners in the coalition will demand their ‘fair’ share of ministerial positions and this will create the expected problems. Lieberman in particular is often at loggerheads with the PM (at times for good reasons) and Bibi can expect push back from the religious parties.

The pro-settlement United Right could also be problematic as is evident by the rhetoric of their leader Rafi Peretz. Netanyahu needs to stand his ground and should not give into the growing one state chorus.

Israel’s Right-Wing One-State Solution Won’t Work — But Neither Will the Left Wing Two-State Solution

The smaller parties in the coalition need Bibi just as much as he needs their seat count in the Knesset. They are unlikely to achieve more success in a BW dominated coalition and Netanyahu must make this clear from the get go. Israel can ill afford to be held hostage for example by Haredi politicians over matters of religious orthodoxy or by the United Right’s drive to pour money into a renewed settlement drive.

The Prime Minister though has several cards in his favour. The Free market direction that has defined his administration has largely been successful. Israel is the quintessential model for start-up nation and has developed into a hot spot of technological excellence. While there are issues about the spread of the wealth from the tech boom to the rest of the country, Bibi’s policy of global outreach is bearing the necessary fruit. There is largely an upbeat tone about Israel on this front with the necessary reservation expected.

Israel's Economy Beats Expectations on Consumer Spending

Israel's coming election will give the winner control over a booming economy

Bibi also enjoys a strong working relationship with the American President. The movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem, American withdrawal from the flawed Iranian nuclear deal and Trump’s recognition of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights are all positives. Relations with the White House have improved remarkably since the dismal days of the Obama administration, when the former US president made no secret of his animosity towards Netanyahu and indeed intervened in the Israeli elections at the expense of the Israeli Prime Minister.

Obama, Netanyahu spat seeps into Israeli elections - CNNPolitics

However Netanyahu has to be cautious. The Democratic Party is a powerful force in US politics and sooner or later will return to power. This may not occur under Bibi’s tenure, but Netanyahu needs to resist the temptation to play the partisan line with respect to the US. This could damage US-Israel relations in the future.

There is still - despite the posturing of Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Bernie Sanders and others - considerable support for Israel among US Democrats, as there rightfully should be. It is after all the only real democracy in the Middle East and its survival resonates well with the American electorate.

Iran’s belligerent stance will continue to threaten Israel and this will likely be Netanyahu’s biggest challenge over the next four years. The Iranians have renewed clout in Syria (with Russian backing) and will continue to use their proxy Hezbollah forces in Lebanon to harass Israel.

The lifting of sanctions that followed the implementation of the P5 + 1 agreement (aka the Iranian Nuclear deal) has greatly benefited the Mullahs and strengthened Tehran’s hand in the region. Trump’s pullout from the deal is much welcomed but a great deal of damage has already been done and may still occur with the Europe Union and various other players often gaslighting Iran’s obvious threat to Israel.

The P5 +1 Iranian Deal https://www.sampsoniaway.org

With respect to the Palestinians, Netanyahu doesn’t have to push any renewed initiative at all, nor should he until the Palestinian get their house in order or at least show an inclination to do so. At present they have failed miserably at the task.

Gaza is controlled by an Islamist regime (Hamas) that regularly lobs missiles at Israeli civilian targets and encourages the storming of borders, using human shields, to create international incidents that play into a scripted false victim hood narrative.

Add to this the great deal of resources that Hamas has spent in digging tunnels into Israeli territory for the sole purpose of inflicting misery on the Israeli population and it is even more clear how morally repugnant they are as a political force, let alone the de facto government in Gaza.

Hamas is not a partner for peace not as long as its existence continues to be predicated on the destruction of Israel as opposed to the establishment of a viable and workable Palestinian state in Gaza.

The situation in Judea and Samaria (West Bank), with the corrupt Palestinian Authority (PA) serving as the poster child for government ineptness, is only marginally better.

Mahmoud Abbas has essentially abandoned democracy and is now in the fourteenth year of what should have been a four year term of office. The PA continues to support an education curriculum that advances antisemitism at the school level and refuses to drop the Palestinian Right of Return from its political agenda (a euphemism for the destruction of Israel).

Mahmoud Abbas - Focus of his policy by all indications is to hold on to position of power for as long as possible. In that respect he has been remarkably successful. Source: Mahmoud Abbas is here to stay, says Mahmoud Abbas

Abbas himself often plays the antisemitic card. He has a tendency to minimize the Holocaust and as late as 2018 gave a speech at the Palestinian National Council that was so repugnant that it was jointly condemned by the United Nations, the European Union, Israel, several former Obama officials, Peace Now, the ADL and the New York Times. https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israe....

Yes he is tainted but does deserve credit for bringing together forces that often take different positions with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issue to universally condemn him.

Abbas is not a peace partner either. Like his Hamas counterparts there is not much evidence to suggest that he believes that Israel has the right to exist within peaceful and secure borders.

If Abbas showed meaningful movement in this direction he could make a strong case for a Palestinian state. The Palestinian people could greatly benefit from Israel’s economic and technological clout. I am not holding my breath.

Such progress is unlikely to be forthcoming. Nor does it appear to be on the agenda for the future, so long as the Palestinian obsession with destroying Israel dominates over the need to build a workable infrastructure of their own. Bathing in a culture of victim hood and not moving on towards the future is ultimately self-destructive. The BDS movement exemplifies this pathology in spades.

This is the great tragedy here. The Israeli population knows this and is well aware that the attitude would not change if Gantz, Lapid, Barak or any other mainstream political figure were in power in Israel.

In the mean time Israel is looking forward. Problems persist on the home front (education and housing) but at the 71 year mark in its history the prognosis is looking good. We will wait and see what the future brings.

What-makes-you-question-the-conspiracy-theories-around-The-New-World-Order?

My answer on Quora.

The same reason that I question conspiracy theories about 911, Elvis Presley’s death, UFO abduction, the Obama’s birthplace and the Anti-Fluoride movement. There is simply a lack of evidence to support the thesis upon which their theories are predicated on.

Remember the burden of proof for any claim resides with the individual making the claim and as Carl Sagan put it “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (although it is believed that the phrase predates him…may be associated with Pierre-Simon Laplace). This is often referred to as the Sagan Standard.

Carl Sagan Source: Carl Sagan

Now I am a skeptic to begin with. I believe that this is consistent with the application of science and is certainly integral to the empiricism inherent in our Western Philosophical tradition. David Hume’s contribution is invaluable here.

Having said that though one needs to balance this skepticism with an openness to new ideas. However in the final reckoning the value of any theory must dovetail with the evidence. If it doesn’t then the solution is simple - the theory must be discarded.

Now its not just the evidence that calls into question the merits of a great deal of conspiracy mongering (which occurs on both the left and the right by the way). There is more to it than that. These are some other issues that call into question the validity of a conspiracy theory.

• The sheer number of players who would have to be involved and indeed sworn to secrecy to maintain the theory. On a practical level alone this seems to be completely unrealistic.
• The tendency by proponents to move the goal posts when the conspiracy is questioned coupled by the swiftness in resorting to the ad hoc fallacy. For those who are not familiar with the term here is the logical form of the ad hoc explanation.

Claim X is true because of evidence Y. Evidence Y is demonstrated not to be acceptable evidence.Therefore, it must be guess Z then, even though there is no evidence for guess Z. Source: Ad Hoc Rescue

Conspiracy Theory Check List Source: The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers.

• conspiracy theories are often self serving. They seem to exist to confirm the worldview of the proponent instead of adding objective criticism of an established position. Case in point is the fondness by antisemites of the Rothschild banking conspiracies.
• conspiracy theories under closer investigation often conflate fact with speculation. Certain events, which support a narrative are flagrantly overplayed while others that do not are diminished in importance are completely relegated to the trivial. Weighting systems with respect to events are manipulated to satisfy the conspiracy theory.
• They fall with the slightest application of Occam’s Razor. How Occam's Razor Works. This does not mean that the simplest explanation is always the correct one. However it all too often is. Conspiracy Theories without fail never pass Occam’s razor.

Source: Occam's Razor: The Principle of Simplicity

Additional Reading

1. Popular Mechanics Investigates 9/11 Myths: FAQs
2. Among the Truthers: by Jonathan Kay
3. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-director

Why should we not blame NZ mosques' attack on Sam Harris, Bill Maher and Douglas Murray?

My answer on Quora.

am Harris, Bill Maher and Douglas Murray have never once advocated shooting up a mosque. Nor do they encourage any violence towards Muslims. They do take issue with the philosophy of Islamism itself, which is understandable in light of the vast amount of terrorism that has been carried out in the name of the Armed Jihad.

In addition all three of these figures (who are atheists) actually support the right of individual Muslims to follow their religion (within a context that is consistent with the nation’s laws ). While they don’t agree with the central tenants of the belief system they don’t object to peaceful practice.

This was not the case with the shooter who was acting based on individual agency with the sole intent of catalyzing a broader conflict. Others have read what he has read and have not acted as such.

No, the fault of the killing lies completely with the shooter alone. He made the choice to commit violence and acted on it.

What is your take on the Donald Trump-North Korea Summit?

I answered this on Quora.

Mixed thoughts. I am not optimistic overall and I have to admit that there is a great deal that is disconcerting about both the earlier Singapore summit and of course the recent follow up in Hanoi.

Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump Source: Singapore, North Korea and Donald Trump's 'seat of the pants' success

At present though Trump is correct to walk away. By Failing in Hanoi, Trump Almost Succeeds | National Review

This is what bothers me

• Trump’s praise of Kim Jong-un. The North Korean dictator is a despicable human being. Look no further than the county’s human rights record or the way opponents of the regime or even those who have fallen foul of Kim have been terminated to see evidence of this. Kim doesn’t deserve even a smattering of praise. The fact that Trump used the phrase special relationship (normally reserved for the US-UK alliance) when discussing Kim is also cringe-worthy. There is absolutely no reason to stroke this man’s ego.
• I don’t like the fact that Trump is leading the negotiations. The leg work here should have been carried out by Mike Pompeo (and the State Dept) with Trump entering the fray at a later stage when many of the sticking points have been resolved. There is still a giant rift in positions between the two parties.
• North Korea has been playing the West for some time now. They signed agreements in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2005, 2007 and 2012 and violated everyone of them. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence indicating that they plan to discontinue this practice of double dealing.
• Trump appears to be treating the summit hoopla as an opportunity to have a big win on the foreign policy front. This is a recipe for a bad deal. Obama did the same with the weak Iranian deal and was rightly criticized for that. If Trump follows suit, placing public relations over resolute foreign policy (that reflects American strength) his efforts here will be counted as a failure. Conservatives should be no less critical of Trump then they were of Obama several years ago. North Korea has not transformed just as the Mullahs didn’t at the time.
• Trump failed to take North Korea to account for the torture and murder of American, Otto Warmbier. He spoke openly about doing so in 2017 and has walked back this promise. Taking Kim at his word here, in his claim that he was largely unaware of the details of this case, is extremely disturbing.

However this is what Trump has got right so far in his dealings with North Korea

• The US can accomplish a lot that is positive when opening dialogue with its enemies especially if the National leadership comes to the table from a position of strength. Richard Nixon understood this as did Ronald Reagan, even if extreme caution is necessary.
• In order to improve its global image in this regard and improve its case North Korea did not launch a missile test in 2018. In terms of global tension this is a very welcome sign. However not all are convinced that the Trump factor is the key driver here. Kim Jong Un launched no missiles in 2018. Here's why.
• The US recently walked away from the table when North Korea pushed forward to end the sanctions issue. This was the right move by Trump. The US holds the aces here. North Korea needs to deliver first.
• He pushed North Korea to return the remains of American soldiers killed in the Korean War. They complied. US forensic analysis says bodies returned from North Korea are likely the real deal
• He rightfully celebrated the release of detainees Tony Kim, Kim Hak-song, Kim Dong-chul by North Korea. This was carried out ahead out in May of 2018. North Korea has just released 3 American hostages
• Trump has largely acted in accordance with the current South Korean government which is seeking to amend relations with the North through negotiation. Since South Korea is in the immediate range of fire it is critical that the policies of both the US and South Korea be aligned. For the most part they have been during the Trump era.

Where do we go from here?

I honestly cannot see North Korea relinquishing their Nuclear Weapon development capabilities unless the pressure on Pyongyang is upped by an order of magnitude. Its this single ingredient that gives Kim added play in the power politics of the region. He also needs it to maintain the strong man persona that he has cultivated back home.

If Kim is to budge here I expect that China will have to play a pivotal role. Beijing has used North Korea as a reliable irritant against the West and they have more clout than any other player in turning the screws on Kim. Trump may have some leverage with China with respect to the Trade negotiations but I am not convinced that he will make use of it with respect to North Korea. He ought to but there may be other factors that are at play here.

Whatever it is, this issue will not be resolved for now. One could make the case that Kim may be turning around as he has seen the ‘light’ as this article suggests but I think such analysis is premature. Editorial: Trump has many flaws, but he deserves credit for his surprising success over North Korea

There is a reason that the menace that is North Korea has dogged presidents since Truman and it isn’t likely to disappear overnight. Its better to proceed with caution and carry a big stick than to put pen to yet another paper that will be invalid before the ink dries. Let’s wait and see.

Sources: All the Times North Korea Promised to Denuclearize

Meeting With North Korea Is a Win for America