I liked this video with Ted Postol and Col. Wilkerson. Postol describes the theory behind the "superfuze" on the W-76 nuclear warhead and why it's destabilizing. Wilkerson describes the so called escalate to deescalate tactical nuclear war ploy. I cued the video to Wilkerson's presentation. Postol had an article on the superfuze in 2017 in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. His presentation is before Wilkerson's.

VOA's William Gallo criticizes Yoon and his new defense minister on their nuclear weapons view-

"It appears to be the first time a sitting South Korean defense minister has publicly entertained the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons...His predecessor repeatedly and firmly rejected the proposal under any condition."https://t.co/1LsKoRtxro

— Tim Shorrock (@TimothyS) September 9, 2024

The last defense minister, Shin Won-sik, was no prize either. Shin Won-sik is now National Security Advisor. His views are about as radical far right as you can get, yet even he wouldn't endorse South Korean development of its own nuclear weapons. Now apparently, it's "normalized." I noticed Gallo's article didn't say anything about potential martial law "conspiracy theories" associated with appointment of the new defense minister, Kim Yong-hyun and his circle. Who will be the boss in the new National Security Advisors office, Shin or his "deputy" Kim Tae-hyo? Kim Tae-hyo has been running Yoon's national security policy thus far. In the earlier Lee Myung-bak presidential office, the latter brought tensions with North Korea to the breaking point.

David Maxwell, who served five tours of duty with the U.S. Army in Korea, raises a problem for Seoul.

“Those who advocate for the development of indigenous nuclear weapons by South Korea are providing direct support to Kim Jong Un’s political warfare strategy to subvert the [South Korean] government and society and drive a wedge in the alliance,” he told me.

US help isn’t enough: South Korea wants its own nuclear weapons

The idea that having their own nuclear weapons will enhance South Korea's survival chances or those of Korea as a whole in the future is simplistic and wrong. Such possession would just increase the chances of nuclear war in the region. Particularly in the case of an administration like the present one, which has been antagonistic and provocative with North Korea. Yoon has repeatedly asserted that Korea would be unified in 2025. Such actions and attitudes are more likely to lead to military confrontation, either by accident, mistaking intentions on either side, or intentionally with unnecessary bluster and sabre rattling, to create an atmosphere of security crisis to resolve domestic political challenges.

For anyone who may be interested I posted the links below to two youtube videos featuring Warwick Powell, an expert on Chinese Taiwan issues, their history, and China-US relations. I think he's Australian of Chinese ethnicity.

On the first one, you could just skip over the other German professor on China to save time, although I suppose some might consider her view more balanced:

The INSANE Plan to Bait China: Push Japan, Philippines Into WAR | Profs. S. Weigelin-S. & W. Powell

This one below is rather lengthy, in depth, at 2 hours- (I'm only half way through):

China's Secret Strategy EXPOSED: Warwick Powell shares What You Didn't Know

The view in the video below is the polar opposite of Warwick's from a former Director of Naval Intelligence-

Ret. Naval Intelligence Chief: There's a 60% Chance of War with China. It's Time to Wake Up.

The RAdm. Studeman presentation represents the career military cloistered view that says "we can walk and chew gum at the same time" with respect to a "two front" war. Further, Americans need to unify, make sacrifices, and "we can win." It's also about an hour. China analysis was this guy's field, in intelligence, believe it or not. He says one of the problems is that Americans don't know much about the far east, never lived there, etc. If they did, he contends they'd understand the threat better (like him). Studeman appears more radical than even Elbridge Colby. They are both the product of national security elites from the former generation. I'm very wary of these advisors.

Elbridge Colby: “I am signalling to China that my policy is status quo”

An amusing thumbnail characterization of "Bridge" in the article-

With his preppy hair and high pedigree, he evokes an earlier time when men with names like, well, Elbridge “Bridge” Colby monopolised the US establishment. But the mid-century aura can also cut in his favour, recalling a bygone age of global stability and American mastery. It is a more richly textured legacy than it might at first appear.

Is this sarcasm or it this supposed to be reassuring to fellow "high pedigrees?"