Photo, left: Abraham Lincoln Battle Group 2001.
 
JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW
 
Co-host: Gordon Chang, Forbes.com & Daily Beast.
 
Hour One
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 1, Block A: Bob Collins, 37-year veteran adviser to the Department of Defense, in re: the latest on North Korea, including http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-nuclear-idUSKBN17D0A4
..
U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, spoke about North Korea by telephone April 12, China's state broadcaster CCTV reported. The call came hours after Trump said on Twitter that "it would be great" if China helped with the tension building around North Korea, adding that the United States could still "solve the problem" without Beijing. Xi reportedly said during the call that peaceful means should be employed with regard to North Korea. At the same time, an April 12 editorial in the Global Times, a publication that sometimes reflects the opinions of high-ranking Chinese leaders, warned that China could allow tougher U.N. sanctions against North Korea in the event of another nuclear test by Pyongyang. According to the article, these measures could include restricting vital oil imports. The growing momentum for possible measures against North Korea comes as the isolated country prepares to celebrate the birthday of its founder, Kim Il Sung, on April 15. 
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 1, Block B:  Alan Tonelson, independent economic policy analyst; blogs at RealityChek and tweets at @AlanTonelson, in re: I gave up on having a president who truly put American interests first Everything that could go wrong, did.  . . . Does the president have a real handle on his Asia, China. Economic strategy.   . . .  Pres Trump gave in to China’s Hundred-Day Plan, who advanced it in response to Trump’s earlier plans. Wilbur Ross sis say, “I hope there’ll be way-stations of accomplishments” [meaning: this is a plan to have a plan]  so China can be obliged to [be honest].  Were I president, I’d have said, “This is not a negotiation.  Quit predatory practices or pay for it.”  Hundred days will be over on 6 July, when Chinese industry is shipping Christmas goods. Today is X minus 95.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2017/04/09/did-trump-just-roll-over-on-china-trade/#579c724d26b6
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 1, Block C:  Chris Harmer, Institute for the Study of War, in re: “PRES TRUMP: We Are ‘Sending an Armada, Very Powerful’ Including Submarines to North Korea”  The USS Carl Vinson and other warships are on their way to North Korea.
Carl Vinson strike groups steaming toward Korea. Pres Trump to Maria Bartiromo on TV this morning:  “We have submarines that are far more destructive than carrier strike groups.”  An Ohio-class ballistic missile sub with 200+ SLBM warheads is the most destructive [entity] on Earth.   US is sending a heck of a big force there.  PACOM always want the strike group to be [in a place it chooses].   Trump is prepared to obliterate North Korea?  Better not to have said it out loud.  Both Koreas and Chinese and Russian heard that.   A certain amount of unpredictability is good; irrationality is not.  / THAAD system.  Arleigh Burke-class destroyer can shoot down a missile by Aegis-class system, long range, and expansive angles. (Likelihood of 99.99% to hit a DPRK test missile. Local commander would want a minimum of three, from three ships at three different angles.)   Wide firing platform.  If we shoot down a North Korean missile, does China respond? Would have to in order to maintain its claim that it controls DPRK. Might not be military, might be diplomatic or economic, to maintain credibility. 
..
Trump — or at least defense secretary James Mattis and National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster — know this. And they know message that Strike Group 1’s diversion will send the Chinese: “Pressure North Korea with economic or political restrictions, or you can expect the U.S. to get in your face.” It’s a clever move insofar as it anticipates China’s geostrategic thinking: Beijing believes everything should be on the table in negotiations, but it also values respect alongside perceived strength. The Vinson’s diversion thus joins a stick to the carrot Trump just offered President Xi Jinping by warmly welcoming him at Mar-a-Lago last week. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446615/donald-trump-north-korea-china-strategy-shift-diversion-uss-carl-vinson-aircraft-carrier
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-12/us-deploys-nuclear-sniffer-plan...
Of course, this latest news follows an order revealed earlier this week from Pacific Command to turn the USS Carl Vinson strike group toward waters near the Korean peninsula for the second time in recent months, rather than onward to Australia for planned port visits.
Moreover, as we noted this morning, it also follows an unexpected call from Trump to Chinese President Xi this morning to discuss the rapidly developing situation on the peninsula.  
“China insists on realizing the denuclearization of the peninsula, insists on maintaining peace and stability on the peninsula, and advocates resolving the problem through peaceful means,” Xi was quoted as saying in the call according to Chinese state broadcaster CCTV said.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang, who said Trump had initiated the call, urged everyone to lower the tension. "We hope that the relevant parties do not adopt irresponsible actions. Under the current circumstances, this is very dangerous," Lu told reporters at a regular press briefing.  Kang also said Wednesday at a regular briefing in Beijing that it was a “good thing” that the two leaders were in touch again days after meeting in Florida.
Translation: Trump is strongly urged not to launch a unilateral strike on North Korea as he did on Syria without express Chinese prior approval.
T&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights.
https://www.ft.com/content/1db3819e-1f20-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c
“Had a very good call last night with the President of China concerning the menace of North Korea,” Mr Trump tweeted. His latest comment on the escalating crisis on the Korean Peninsula came after Mr Trump told a US television network on Tuesday that Kim Jong Un was “doing the wrong thing”, in a reference to the growing threat from his nuclear programme. “We are sending an armada. Very powerful,” Mr Trump told Fox Business Network. “We have submarines. Very powerful. Far more powerful than the aircraft carrier.” The White House did not release details about the call between the leaders. But the Chinese foreign ministry urged Washington and Pyongyang not to take “irresponsible actions”, which it said would be “very dangerous” under the current circumstances. On Tuesday, North Korea threatened to respond to any US aggression. “Our revolutionary strong army is keenly watching every move by enemy elements with our nuclear sight focused on the US invasionary bases not only in South Korea . . . but also in the US mainland,” said the state-run Rodong Sinmun newspaper. Mr Trump has made North Korea his top foreign policy priority. He has warned China — first in an interview with the Financial Times — that he would take unilateral action if the Chinese government did not put more pressure on Pyongyang to rein in its nuclear programme. He repeated that message directly to Mr Xi when the two leaders held a summit at Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort last week
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 1, Block D:  Gordon Chang, in re:  At Mar-a-Lago there were two Trumps: the [clever negotiator] and the Trump who let Chinese roll him on trade with the Hundred-Day Plan.  A chump. Now with the Carl Vinson en route, Chinese must be feeling defensive, as China does not want a carrier strike group anywhere near it.  After Pres Obama decided not to respond strongly to an earlier North Korean provocation/murders, DPRK saw a green light and killed more South Koreans.   
..  ..  ..  ..  ..
US President Donald Trump has said Nato is "no longer obsolete", reversing a stance that had alarmed allies. Hosting Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House, Mr Trump said the threat of terrorism had underlined the alliance's importance. He called on Nato to do more to help Iraqi and Afghan "partners". 
Mr Trump has repeatedly questioned Nato's purpose, while complaining that the US pays an unfair share of membership. The Nato U-turn wasn't Mr Trump's only change of heart on Wednesday. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he said he would not label China a currency manipulator, despite having repeatedly pledged to do so on his first day in office.
At a joint press conference with Mr Stoltenberg, Mr Trump said: "The secretary general and I had a productive discussion about what more Nato can do in the fight against terrorism."
"I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change, and now they do fight terrorism.  "I said it [Nato] was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete." But Mr Trump reiterated his call for Nato member states to contribute more funding to the alliance.
 
Hour Two
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 2, Block A:  James Holmes, professor of strategy at the Naval War College and a former surface warfare officer, in re:  Japanese self-defense forces are combining with the Carl Vinson strike group – first such military activity by Japan since Yamamoto in WWII.  China hates the alliance. Japan’s navy is an amalgam of  . . . an offshoot of the US Navy (under Adm Arleigh Burke) and the Japanese navy founded in the 1870s which resoundingly won over Russia and China.  Almost the spirit of Adm Tōgō Heihachirō.  Royal Australian navy is now 104 years old; designed to work with British navy.  US can use all the support we can get. We used to have frigates; no longer. We’re not in a good place right now. In NE Asia, everyone is worried about everyone else and tracks everybody.  Surveillance jests, satellites, ships.  We’re back to 1979, when Brezhnev moved into Afghanistan.  Soviets seriously considered nuking China to prevent China from [having nukes?].    Togo, Nimitz and Yamamoto all together again. http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/04/12/17/japan-plans-joint-show-of-force-with-us-carrier-headed-to-korean-peninsula-sources
See: 38North.org
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 2, Block B:   Charles Burton, professor at Brock University, in re: the Mar-a-Lago summit, including this — http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-us-china-showdown-mar-lago-how-trump-undercut-xi-20106
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 2, Block C:  Victor David Hanson, Hoover, in re:  China has been put on warning that the eight years of concessions under the previous US administration are over.  The US is not a power in decline – not by GDP, demographics, education, militarily. The most dangerous moments in history have occurred when a rising power mistakes the strength of the greatest power; Japan thought it could beat the combined power of Britain and the US in WWII.
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/04/09/victor-davis-hanson-ancient-laws-modern-wars/100082714/
The most dangerous moments in  foreign affairs often come after a major power seeks to reassert its lost deterrence.  The United States may be entering just such a perilous transitional period. Rightly or wrongly, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Middle East-based terrorists concluded after 2009 that the U.S. saw itself in decline and preferred a recession from world affairs.
Also: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446622/susan-rice-obama-administration-zelig-appearing-many-scandals  (1 of 2)
..
"In general, primitiveness and loutishness are very characteristic of the current rhetoric coming out of Washington. We'll hope that this doesn't become the substance of American policy," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Russia's state-owned RIA news agency.
“China insists on realizing the denuclearization of the peninsula, insists on maintaining peace and stability on the peninsula, and advocates resolving the problem through peaceful means,”Xi was quoted as saying in the call according to Chinese state broadcaster CCTV said.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang, who said Trump had initiated the call, urged everyone to lower the tension. "We hope that the relevant parties do not adopt irresponsible actions. Under the current circumstances, this is very dangerous," Lu told reporters at a regular press briefing.  Kang also said Wednesday at a regular briefing in Beijing that it was a “good thing” that the two leaders were in touch again days after meeting in Florida.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said during an April 12 interview with Mir 24 television that Russia will support governments belonging to the Collective Security Treaty Organization against any unrest or attempts at domestic destabilization. Putin's comments demonstrate how Moscow is using rising instability in Central Asia to deepen its security cooperation with states in the region, particularly with those that are already close to Russia. Putin also said Moscow is ready to work with countries in the region to combat the threat posed by militants who left to join the fight in Syria. 
..
BEIJING, April 7 (ChinaMil) -- Global Times mentioned the bottom line of China on DPRK nuclear issue in an article titled Commentary: The United States Must Not Choose a Wrong Direction to Break the DPRK Nuclear Deadlock on Wednesday, triggering wide speculation.
According to the article, China very much hopes that the DPRK nuclear issue can be solved as soon as possible. But no matter what happens, China has a bottom line that it will protect at all costs, that is, the security and stability of northeast China. 
In connection with this, DPRK's nuclear activities must not cause any pollution to northeast China. In addition, the DPRK must not fall into the turmoil to send a large number of refugees, China will not allow the existence of a government that is hostile against China on the other side of the Yalu River, and the US military must not push forward its military forces to the Yalu River, the article said. 
Some experts interpret this as China’s acquiescence to the United States’ strikes to the DPRK. Is this really the case?
First, “DPRK's nuclear activities must not cause any pollution to northeast China.” 
Is this sentence designed for the United States? Maybe, but it is designed for the DPRK more. We all know that the DPRK's sixth nuclear test is imminent, and various parties, especially China, are generally worried about this.
It is very insidious for the DPRK to select Punggye-ri, located in Kilju County of North Hamgyong Province in DPRK, as the site for the nuclear test. The place is the farthest point from Pyongyang within the DPRK territory, but near the border of China and DPRK.
Residents in northeast China suffered every time DPRK launched a nuclear test. The news may remain fresh to us: buildings showed cracks, and students in classes were evacuated to the playgrounds. 
With the increase in nuclear equivalents, the threat to the Chinese people nearby also surges. In particular, if by any chance nuclear leakage or pollution incidents happen, the damage to northeast China environment will be catastrophic and irreversible.
This is the bottom line of China, which means China will never allow such situation to happen. If the bottom line is touched, China will employ all means available including the military means to strike back. 
By that time, it is not an issue of discussion whether China acquiesces in the US’ blows, but the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will launch attacks to DPRK nuclear facilities on its own. 
A strike to nuclear facilities of the DPRK is the best military means in the opinion of the outside world.
Firstly, the locations of DPRK nuclear facilities are fixed and known to the outside.
Secondly, once the attack is launched, the DPRK’s nuclear weapons process will be permanently suspended. It has limited resources of nuclear materials and is strictly blockaded in the outside world, erasing the possibility for DPRK to get the materials again.
Thirdly, nuclear weapons is DPRK’s trump card for its defiance of China and the United States. Once this card is lost, it will become obedient immediately. 
Finally, if DPRK's nuclear facilities are destroyed, they will not even fight back, but probably block the news to fool its domestic people. The DPRK will freak out if its nuclear facilities are destroyed.
Second, “the DPRK must not fall into the turmoil to send a large number of refugees, it is not allowed to have a government that is hostile against China on the other side of the Yalu River, and the US military must not push forward its forces to the Yalu River.”
This sentence is meant for the United States, because the premise of it is that the US military has launched attacks to the DPRK. We can understand it from two aspects. 
First, the 16th Group Army and the 39th Group Army of the Chinese PLA are both responsible for armed isolation of DPRK refugees. There is more than one such armed isolation zone which will not be laid exactly along the Sino-DPRK border, nor in China, but a few dozen kilometers from the border in the territory of DPRK.
Second, the statement of “the US military must not push forward its forces to the Yalu River”, and that the US's ally Republic of Korea (ROK) must not push forward troops to the Yalu River as well is actually understood by the United States and ROK militaries that their troops will not encroach on the Yalu River.
During the Korean War in the 1950s, the United States-led united army troops from multiple countries announced that the united troops would not advance the battlefront to the Yalu River, but would stop at 40 miles (64 kilometers) south of the Sino-DPRK border. They called this line MacArthur Line back then.
The Global Times editorial also mentioned "it is not allowed to have a government that is hostile against China on the other side of the Yalu River." What does that mean?
This is implying that once the US and ROK initiate the strikes, the Chinese PLA will send out troops for sure to lay the foundation for a favorable post-war situation.
From this perspective, the Chinese PLA’s forward operations beyond Pyongyang, capital of DPRK, are for sure.
China will not allow the situation in which areas north of the 38th Parallel are unified by the US and ROK.
Now who[m] do you think this editorial by Global Times is deterring?  By Jin Hao from the Global Time
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 2, Block D:  Victor David Hanson, Hoover (2 of 2)
 
Hour Three
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 3, Block A: Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor; in re: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-idUSKBN17E1AF
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 3, Block B:  Thaddeus McCotter, WJR, The Great Voice of the Great Lakes, in re:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/12/congress-expands-unmasking-probe-amid-questions-over-rice-role.html
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 3, Block C:  Richard A Epstein, Hoover Institution, Chicago Law, NYU Law, in re: BREXIT Shakedown.  @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst .
Unfortunately, the EU’s Barnier, echoing Germany’s Angela Merkel, took a frostier tone. He, of course, recognized that both sides would lose from the failure to reach an agreement within the two-year period. But he then adopted a needlessly tough negotiation stance that increases the odds of a breakdown. He stressed that the EU had to show “unity” in dealing with the crisis, and then blamed the UK for introducing “uncertainty” into the ongoing relationships with the EU member states. Most critically, he then announced that it would be “very risky” for the two sides to negotiate the terms of their future relationship until they sorted out the mechanics of leaving. In so doing, he explicitly rejected May’s proposal for parallel negotiations on the two issues. His dubious assertion that the EU was not legally in a position to negotiate with a still-member state—because it is not yet an outsider—would seem to contradict the language of Article 50. In order to complete the divorce proceedings, he insisted that the parties first settle, to the last penny, the sums that the UK owes to the EU for obligations previously incurred as a member. He then set that figure at €60bn (£51bn) to cover the key items of account: budget commitments, pension liabilities, loan guarantees, and EU spending on UK projects.  (1 of 2) http://www.hoover.org/research/brussels-gets-brexit-wrong-again
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 3, Block D:  Richard A Epstein, Hoover Institution, Chicago Law, NYU Law, in re: BREXIT Shakedown.  @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst  (2 of 2)
 
Hour Four
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 4, Block A: Salena Zito, New York Daily News, CNN & The Washington Examiner; & Dr Lara M Brown, Associate Professor & Interim Director, Graduate School of Political Management, George Washington University (1 of 2)  http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/kansas-house-special-election-district-4
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 4, Block B:  Salena Zito, New York Daily News, CNN & The Washington Examiner; & Dr Lara M Brown, Associate Professor & Interim Director, Graduate School of Political Management, George Washington University  (2 of 2) http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/kansas-house-special-election-district-4
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 4, Block C: Nicholas Wade, New York Times, in re: Mr. Baron spent three years visiting museums throughout the world and assessed important dinosaur fossils for the presence of 457 diagnostic anatomical features. Based on this information, a computer program called TNT arranged the dinosaur specimens in possible family trees. After analyzing 32 billion trees, the computer spat out the best possible arrangement of Mr. Baron’s three years’ worth of data collection. The run took just five minutes.
The new family tree of dinosaurs, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, is quite unlike the old. “The results of this study challenge more than a century of dogma and recover an unexpected tree topology that necessitates fundamental reassessment of early dinosaur evolution,” Mr. Baron and his supervisors write.
Essentially they have found that the Ornithischian dinosaurs have many similarities with the theropods and so probably shared a common ancestor. As it happens, Thomas Huxley, the celebrated 19th century champion of Darwin’s theory of evolution, also thought Ornithischia and theropods belonged together in the same group, which he called Ornithoscelida. Mr. Baron says this name should be revived, with the two main branches of the new family tree being the Ornithoscelida and the Saurischia.    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/science/dinosaur-family-tree.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fnicholas-wade&_r=0  (1 of 2)
Wednesday   12 April 2017  /Hour 4, Block D:   Nicholas Wade, New York Times, in re: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/science/dinosaur-family-tree.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fnicholas-wade&_r=0  (2 of 2)