Beyond the number, range and the striking capability of the missiles, there is a single political-military question that needs to be answered.

During the Cold War years, the world discovered the following question that will lead to the answer: “Is this crisis controlled?”

If your answer to this question on the escalating missile crisis between the U.S. and North Korea is “yes,” you can watch the “defiance” between the two countries/leaders in the calm of summer nights.

But is that the case?

The rivalry of great powers feeds on their market searches and generally ends with a “give-take” exchange.

Just as North Korea does not appear to be in search of any kind of negotiation, it also has no critical goods to give or take. It is paid for the certain minerals it sells to China with weapons and now those are also under sanction.

We are in a time when contracting organizations and countries are on a rise. But it seems the China-North Korea relationship has taken a special form.

It possesses typical contractor power qualities: creating an advantage for China in Pacific balances, making it difficult for the U.S., which is trying to collect supporters to establish balance/equality in the region, to make its moves, threatening those who are enthusiastic, making them spend energy, money and time, et cetera.

It also stands as a country whose limits are hard to estimate, which rarely has any values to lose, in possession of medium-long-range missiles. Everyone knows what will follow.

For example, if the U.S. launches a missile and hits one of North Korea’s military establishments, one of their attack platforms, can we estimate how Pyonyang will respond to this?

Who can give a complete guarantee for the claim: “An American ship or base cannot be struck”?

Meanwhile, the U.S. can strike numerous critical targets simultaneously and North Korea can prevent very few of them. In other words, U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis’s statement: “Our armed forces –meaning the U.S.- in this world remain the best-led, the best-equipped and the most lethal in the world” 

What about China? Does China have a limit?

We will see.

We need to choose the difference in tone well. U.S. President Donald Trump made two statements on the matter; 1.They will be met with the U.S.’s fire and fury. 2. North Korea must come to its senses or else it is going to face troubles faced by very few countries in this world.

If you were the addressee, which of these statements or words would have disturbed you?

“Fire” and “fury” are strong expressions and symbolize how American pride and wars are seen as part of the mission given to them by God to regulate the world. And a conservative message to the country itself.

The second statement is also powerful, but a couple words are the most critical and what do “very few countries” and “trouble” mean?

Obviously they are not referring to the “Mother of Bombs” dropped on Afghanistan, which do not scare frogs. Besides, similar bombs were dropped on many countries.

If a reference is being made to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it complies with the conditions of the statement, now this might be a bit “problematic.”

There are so many faults in the acceptance that the “evil” should not have nuclear weapons but the “good might have them.”

Regardless of what the state of the crisis with Pyonyang is, it cannot be considered as independent from Seoul. This situation, which seem impossible in terms of geography/history as well, is felt less now. Of course South Korea is responding to threats, but it is no longer North Korea’s addressee, America is. This shows the world that North Korea is getting stronger and also confirms the opinion on who is behind it. (Guam Island being chosen is the same. It is the Pacific balance.)

Thus, we need to know the presence of those who focus on Seoul. “President Moon Jae-in, who came to office in South Korea in May, made a sudden decision to make large-scale changes in the command ranks of the armed forces. President Moon appointed new generals to seven of the eight high-level command ranks. The swift alteration in military ranks led to comments on whether a coup threat was warded off. Moon Jae-in is known to have moderate policies aimed at North Korea in South Korea. In a speech he gave after being elected president, Moon had stated that he might visit the North Korean capital Pyonyang to decrease the tensions in the region.

There is also the technical aspect of it all: why is North Korea going to launch four missiles simultaneously? Isn’t it just a test, what does it matter if there was only one?

It’s obvious that a kind of “bluff is being called” on behalf of the owner. The American THAAD or AEGIS defense systems are known to be strong and impervious Are they? If they fail to catch the launched missiles, it would destroy their reputation.

North Korea would not hit Guam in any case. That would mean a war. However, the missiles falling at a certain distance, for example, falling into dark waters would mean Washington reciprocating.

Will it certainly reciprocate?

If not, Trump who is already staggering, will be accused of beingpowerless.

Finally, the news its timing by the U.S. press (The Washington Post) stating that North Korea is producing miniaturized atom bombs are signs of danger. Regardless of whether it is true or not.

As for China’s red line…

China believes that if the missiles are first launched by North Korea it should remain impartial, but the U.S. should not be allowed to change the way the country is run.

What do you think, are the missiles being launched or not?