It was known to the various experts that North Korea poses no real "nuclear threat". It has sound reason to build nuclear weapon systems and it had never threatened to use them in any offensive capability.

But the "western" public learned little of these issue until now. It is somewhat refreshing to find two newspapers today which explain the basic issues.

First: Why does North Korea believe that nuclear weapon capability is to its people advantage?

Mr. Kim was using the rare political gathering to rally the party behind his so-called “byungjin” policy. On Saturday, Mr. Kim said that policy was not a temporary step but his party’s “permanent strategic line.”

The byungjin — or “parallel advance” — policy calls for stockpiling nuclear weapons in the belief that the deterrent would allow the country to focus on economic recovery.

During the Korea war North Korea was totally devastated. Nearly a third of its population died. Its industries were destroyed. Hardly any structure with more than one level had not been bombed. Thereafter North Korea poured an immense amount of human and material resources into the build up and maintenance of a large conventional army. The threat from the U.S. army and its South Korean cannon fodder was perceived as huge. All civil development was subordinate to a "military first" policy.

Attempts to find some accommodation with the U.S. failed. The probably best chance had been the Agreed Framework of 1994 that would have compensated North Korea for giving up any nuclear plans with hydrocarbon fuel deliveries and commercial nuclear reactors. Both the Clinton and the Bush administration first sabotaged and then abandoned the framework.

North Korea then decided to proceed with its byungjin policy. A credible nuclear weapon capability as deterrent against any invasion or decisive strike would allow for massive decreases in front line troops and mass artillery units. The saved expenses and resources would then be used for civil purposes. There are some signs that this strategy actually works. Currently neither the U.S. nor South Korea would dare to attack North Korea even though its nuclear arsenal is only small and unproven. According to some estimates the North Korean economy is now growing at a healthy 7% per years.

But "western" hawks, especially the revisionist rightwingers in Japan, want to use the imaginary "nuclear threat" from North Korea to build up their own (nuclear) capabilities. The U.S. military wants to use the "threat" from North Korea to install long range missile defense systems in South Korea. These systems would be useless against any North Korean system but could probably neutralize Chinese capabilities.

It is therefore important that North Korea now declared that it would not use its new weapon systems against South Korea or Japan unless these countries themselves deploy nuclear forces against it:

During the congress, Kim repeated the line that North Korea would not go on the offensive with its weapons.

“As a responsible nuclear weapons state, our republic will not use a nuclear weapon unless its sovereignty is encroached upon by any aggressive hostile forces with nukes,” Kim told the meeting, according to KCNA.

One might argue that such declarative policies are of no value but the seventy years history of nuclear deterrence have been build on such declarations and so far all of these have held what they promised.

There is reasons to believe that this "airstrike" did not happen:

Syrian monitors say at least 28 people have been killed in airstrikes on a makeshift refugee camp close to the border with Turkey. The attack on Sarmada, in Syrian rebel-held territory, follows more deaths in Homs.

Sarmada is in north-west Idleb province, just three miles from the Turkish borders and air defense.

Wounded were rushed across the border for treatment in Turkey, said the Britain-based Observatory for Human Rights, adding that the death toll was likely to rise.

Social media footage showed the charred frames of tents that had been pitched in a muddy field. The Observatory said those killed included women and children.

It was not initially clear who had carried out the raids on Sarmada in rebel-held territory in Syria's northwestern Idlib province and about 40 kilometers (25 miles) west of divided Aleppo.

Abu Ibrahim al-Sarmai, an activist, said "two aerial strikes" hit the makeshift camp for displaced people.
…
Nidal Abdul Qader, an opposition civilian aid official who lives about one kilometer (half a mile) from the camp, said around 50 tents and a school had burned down.

Take a look at the video evidence the rebel propaganda put out.

The camp is in a rather wide, flat but stony area. The tents and plastic tarp structures are 15 to 30 yards from each other. Both videos show the skeleton of one larger tent that burned down. There is smoldering school material on the ground. Fire fighters in expensive equipment are dousing some hot spots. These are "White Helmet" rescue workers, part of the large U.S. and UK government financed anti-Syrian propaganda campaign.

bigger

The burned down tent is supposed to be the prove of an airstrike. But other tents and flimsy tarp structures just some 10-20 yards away from the fire show no damage or blast effects. None at all. Their thin plastic covers are intact. There is a small mobile phone antenna mast visible in the first video which also shows no damage. There are no people around but the rescue workers. There are no casualties visible, no ambulances, no blood, no civilians looking for next of kin or salvaging damaged property. There is no impact crater visible and no ammunition debris. There is also no potential military target around.

bigger

If this was an airstrike the pilot must have dropped some fire crackers from his cockpit. Any bomb or air to ground missile would have created an explosion blast that would have blown off tarps and created damage all around.

bigger

So what happened here? It was windy. A local fire burned down some tents. Maybe some people got hurt. A nearby "reporter" and a few well paid "White Helmet" background actors make a show out of it. The media, even with zero real evidence of an airstrike or casualties, takes that as truth and splashes it around.

-UPDATE-

Someone just pointed me to this video which purports to show the alleged second airstrike on the camp. But the sound of the airplane in the video is not original. There is no sound at all of an impact or explosion. Nor is that tiny "explosion" dust cloud the result of an air delivered bomb. Why are there no civilians around? And why is that fireman, just after the "impact" of that second "air strike", so completely unfazed and busy taking pictures of his expensive engine?

-End Update-

This story, like others, is a diversion from the ongoing massive attacks by al-Qaeda and "moderate" rebels, again united under the Jaish al-Fatah label, against positions of the Syrian government south-west of Aleppo city and elsewhere. These attacks continue despite a ceasefire Secretary of State Kerry had agreed to in the name of the "moderate", U.S. financed and equipped opposition.

A portrait of Obama's spokesperson and policy guru Ben Rhodes explains how government propaganda works. This part is about selling the Iran deal to the U.S. public:

As Malley and representatives of the State Department, including Wendy Sherman and Secretary of State John Kerry, engaged in formal negotiations with the Iranians, to ratify details of a framework that had already been agreed upon, Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,” he said. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked.” He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal.

You can replace the "Iran deal" with "regime-change in Syria", "Russia's aggression" or some big trade deal the White Hosue wants to push through. It works the same way with every issue. Some experts in some (well paid) thinktanks get fed some juicy bits, they go out to cheerlead clueless reporters who then write whatever validates the various White House claims.

It is all test driven and works. Unless of course people have time and energy to inform themselves through other than the usual sources. Only few are able to do so.

• The Super-Quick Implosion of Donald Trump’s Candidacy – Huffington Post, Andy Ostroy, June 30 2015
• Donald Trump is surging in the polls. Here's why he won't win. – Vox, Andrew Prokop, July 2 2015
• Trump won't win, but yes, he matters – CNBC, Ben White, July 17 2015
• Trump campaign implodes after McCain war hero insult – New York Post, Aaron Short, July 18 2015
• Trump won't be the nominee: Want to bet? – Journal Sentinal, Christian Schneider, August 11 2015
• How Trump Loses – BloombergView, Jonathan Bernstein, August 13 2015
• Why Trump Will Never Make the Ballot – Daily Beast, Stuard Stevens, August 20 2015
• Here's why Donald Trump won't win the Republican presidential nomination – Guardian, Tom McCarthy, August 22 2015
• Nate Silver: 'Calm down,' Donald Trump won't win the GOP nomination – Business Insider, September 10 2015
• 5 Reasons Donald Trump Can't Win The GOP Nomination – US News, Brian Walsh, Spetember 15 2015
• Eight Reasons Trump Can’t Win – The Stream, Warren Smith, September 16 2015
• Mitt Romney: Donald Trump won’t win the GOP nomination – New York Post, October 1 2015
• Trump will lose, or I will eat this column – Washington Post, Dana Milbank, October 2 2015
• Why Donald Trump Won’t Win – Political Wire, Taegan Goddard, October 18 2015
• Numbers show why Trump can’t win – Yakima Herald, Cokie and Steven Roberts, November 30 2015
• No, Donald Trump Won’t Win – New York Times, David Brooks, December 4 2015
• Donald Trump Won’t Win Just Because More Voters Are Paying Attention – FiveThirtyEight, Harry Enten, December 4 2015
• The Donald won't win as a Republican or as an independent – US News, Lara Brown, December 11 2015
• Yes, Donald Trump will implode. Here's why. – Vox, David Roberts, January 8 2016
• Keith Olbermann Returns And Perfectly Explains Why Donald Trump Will Not Win – Politicus USA, Jason Easly, March 25 2016

Kasich Dropping Out Of Presidential Race; Donald Trump Assured GOP Nomination – NPR, May 4 2016

And now keep this in mind:

Paul Danahar @pdanahar

Hmm, all the reasons given for why Trump could NEVER win the nomination are now being used to explain why he’ll NEVER win the presidency

The U.S. government, via its CIA, has financed the "moderate" anti-Syrian mercenaries fighting against the legitimate Syrian government with at least $1 billion a year. The Wahhabi dictatorships in the Middle East have added their own billions to finance al-Qaeda's efforts against the Syrian people. The U.S. continues to purchase and transport thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to feed the war against the Syrian people. It also pays the various fighters and opposition groups. The U.S. efforts for regime change in Syria have been running since at least 2006 when the U.S. government started to finance anti-Syrian exile TV stations and held intensive planning talks with various anti-Syrian Islamist elements.

Together with the British government it also runs the current pro-mercenary public relation show to influence the "western" public to support its imperial meddling in Syria.

The Guardian now unveils one of the British government efforts to effectively run the complete "Free Syrian Army" media show:

The British government is waging information warfare in Syria by funding media operations for some rebel fighting groups, …
…
Contractors hired by the Foreign Office but overseen by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) produce videos, photos, military reports, radio broadcasts, print products and social media posts branded with the logos of fighting groups, and effectively run a press office for opposition fighters.

Materials are circulated in the Arabic broadcast media and posted online with no indication of British government involvement.
…
Through its Conflict and Stability Fund the government is spending £2.4m on private contractors working from Istanbul to deliver “strategic communications and media operations support to the Syrian moderate armed opposition” (MAO).

The contract is part of a broader propaganda effort focused on Syria, with other elements intended to promote “the moderate values of the revolution” …
…
The documents call for contractors to “select and train a spokesman able to represent all the MAO groups as a single unified voice”, as well as providing media coaching to “influential MAO officials” and running a round-the-clock “MAO central media office” with “media production capacity”. One British source with knowledge of the contracts in action said the government was essentially running a “Free Syrian army press office”.

The British and the U.S. media also run various "civil" groups to further their regime change goals.

The "White Helmets", known for fake "rescue" videos and their strong cooperation with al-Qaeda (vid), are financed with $23 million by the U.S. government through USAID, with £18.7 million by the U.K. Foreign Office and with several millions more from other governments. But are the "White Helmets" not "moderates" who only want to help people? The U.S. government does not seem to believe that. It just banned the head of the "White Helmets" from entering the United States even though it finances his activities.

Many social media accounts like @raqqa_sl, which are promoted in "western" media, also distribute fake pictures and videos as part of these propaganda efforts.

But even when these media manipulation campaigns and fake "moderates" get exposed their operations continues unabated. The Guardian, after publishing the above, will not for one moment reflect on how its own publishing on Syria was influenced by the government financed fakes. It is, just like other mainstream media, an integrated part of the campaign.

No unveiling of the truth about the "western" attack on the Syrian state and its people seems to any effect on the ongoing media operations. On April 20 the U.S. military spokesperson for the anti-Islamic State coalition told some truth about the role of al-Qaeda in the "rebel" occupied eastern Aleppo city:

That said, it's primarily al-Nusra who holds Aleppo, and of course, al-Nusra is not part of the cessation of hostilities.

Only two weeks later the NYT propagandist Anna Barnard has the Chutzpah to claim that al-Qaeda only

has a small presence in Aleppo

Lies get repeated even after they have been debunked again and again. The relentlessness of the propaganda onslaught is effective in suppressing any larger opposition to it.

U.S. Secretary of State is in Geneva today to renegotiate a cessation of hostilities between the Syrian government forces and the foreign supported "rebels" in Syria. But there is something very curious going on with these negotiations. Kerry will neither talk with the Syrian government nor with the Russians. The Russian Foreign Minister is not even expected to come.

No, Kerry is negotiating  with the U.S. allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia who support the same "rebels" that are opposed to the Syrian government that the U.S. itself supported all along. He now asks them to separate their proxy forces in Syria from the terrorist organization al-Qaeda/Jabhat al-Nusra.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday he hoped to make progress in talks in Geneva over the next two days toward renewing a cessation of hostilities agreement throughout Syria and resuming peace talks to end the fighting.

"The hope is we can make some progress," Kerry said at the start of a meeting with Jordan's Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh shortly after arriving in Geneva.
…
The Syrian army announced on Friday a "regime of calm", or lull in fighting, which applied to Damascus and some of its outskirts, and parts of northwestern coastal province Latakia. But it excluded Aleppo.

Kerry made clear that a ceasefire was needed throughout Syria and he hoped to be able to reaffirm the cessation of hostilities after talks in Geneva. He is due to meet Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir and De Mistura on Monday.

According to military spokesperson of the U.S. alliance against the Islamic State, Colonel Warren, the "rebel" occupied parts of Aleppo city are under control of al-Qaeda:

[I]t's primarily al-Nusra who holds Aleppo, and of course, al-Nusra is not part of the cessation of hostilities. So it's complicated.

Two UN Security Council Resolution calls on all UN members to "eradicate" al-Qaeda/al-Nusra. ALL UNSC members agreed to Resolution 2254 which:

Reiterates its call in resolution 2249 (2015) for Member States to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), Al-Nusra Front (ANF), and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda or ISIL […] and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Syria, and notes that the aforementioned ceasefire will not apply to offensive or defensive actions against these individuals, groups, undertakings and entities,…

There is simply no basis for Kerry to beg for a ceasefire for "rebel" held areas of Aleppo city when his own military says that these are in the hands of al-Qaeda which the UNSC calls to eradicate. The Russian's have said that much.

So here is what Kerry is left to do: Beg the U.S. allies to move away their "Free Syrian Army" proxy groups from al-Qaeda so al-Qaeda can be eradicated by the Syrian Army and its allies.

But al-Qaeda is by now an integrated part of those Saudi/Qatar/U.S. paid proxy forces and well accepted by those groups. It gets its weapons and ammunition from the very proxy groups the U.S. now wants to separate from it. Even if the Saudis and Jordanians assert their influence over these groups it is unlikely that the fighters on the ground will follow their directives.

The Russian air force is ready to renew its bombing campaign against all opposition forces in Syria that do not agree to a cessation of hostilities.

No U.S. propaganda campaign can wave away al-Qaeda's presence in Syria nor the UNSC resolutions the U.S. itself agreed to. Either Kerry manages to pressure Saudi Arabia and Jordan to move their proxies away from al-Qaeda or there will be again an all out Russian campaign to eradicate them. It is unlikely that any of those proxies would survive such a campaign.

Kerry is now left to negotiate with U.S allies against al-Qaeda. He now has to argue from the same perspective as the Syrian and Russian government. This is a mess of his own making. How will he escape from it?