A signal of acceptance? Probably not. And that's grim.

At the UN, yesterday, Bozo barked that if NK forces the US to defend itself or its allies the US will have no choice but to totally destroy NK.

Some people saw that as a threat to destroy NK when it finally has nukes with which to hit the US, before they have a chance to use them, if NK continues development.

But if so the threat was far from explicit.

It could have been meant differently.

NK seeks nukes to enable it to invade the South without fear of US intervention.

The possibility they would nuke San Francisco would deter, they hope, the US from significant intervention, despite the presence of US forces in and around NK.

Was The Duce specifically addressing that hope, telling them not to count on it and that any move against the South would result in the utter destruction of the North?

And was that a signal of acceptance of NK having nukes as the new reality?

Of course, if that is what his remarks meant, then it will be up to future Trump, or any future president, to decide whether the threat has become a bluff, should NK actually force a decision by invading the South.

On the other hand, is Trump really the man to do all this barking and then not bite?

Remember all his mockery of O's Syrian red line against use of gas?

Remember what Trump did when the Syrians used gas, just to show he wasn't a wuss like O?

Update.

If Bozo repudiates the Iran deal the only alternatives will be acceptance of a nuclear armed Iran and war.

The American Zionists, some of whom openly called for war rather than acceptance of the deal O negotiated, know that quite well, and Bibi probably does, too.

It is absurd that The Duce plans to reject the deal in order to accept a nuclear armed Iran.

So, if he rejects the deal that means he intends war, unless he actually thinks that he can get a better deal.

And he might think that.

Bibi might think that.

Most people don't think that.