I Became Park Jeong-ui’s Nephew - Chapter 79



Only Krnovel

He became Park Jeong-ui’s nephew. – (79)

“What should Korea do?”

“Well, first of all, we need to reduce our military spending. We also need to get them to sign a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons.”

This is the United States. Ahead of the presidential election, the Democratic Party has summarized its pledges.

The Democratic Party’s pledge is anti-war + denuclearization + anti-dictatorship.

President MacArthur went to war in China to prevent the expansion of the Communist Party, and increased the U.S. nuclear arsenal from about 1,000 to 17,000.

The Democratic Party is gaining public support by promising to overturn all of these by drastically expanding the FBI’s authority and implementing a dictatorship that allows people to be wiretapped.

The problem is whether the Democratic Party’s claim of anti-war + denuclearization + anti-dictatorship is realistic.

The United States had nuclear weapons that overwhelmed the Soviet Union, but American nuclear armament accelerated Soviet nuclear armament.

Can the United States really keep the Soviet Union in check even if it reduces its military spending?

Democratic presidential candidate Kennedy noted the “flexibility” of former Army Chief of Staff Maxwell Taylor.

“It is impossible to contain the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. We must devise various methods to respond to all types of war, from small-scale local wars to full-scale wars, by expanding conventional forces.”

In short, since the Soviet Union cannot be suppressed with nuclear weapons, it must be pressured in various ways.

But this is logically flawed.

The Democratic Party has pledged to reduce military spending, and while reducing military spending, they will increase conventional weapons. Does that make sense?

In fact, the “flexible response” that the Democrats talk about is consistent with President MacArthur’s policies.

President MacArthur pressured the Soviet Union by increasing its nuclear arsenal while also reinforcing its conventional weapons and even increasing the military spending of its ally, South Korea.

Because the United States was strong, the Soviet Union proposed reconciliation first, and ultimately, the peace that Americans wanted was thanks to President MacArthur’s foreign policy.

But the Democratic Party opposes President MacArthur’s policies on every issue. Do you think they will increase conventional weapons while using flexible operations?

In the end, the Democratic Party has only opposed for the sake of opposing, and NATO is also expressing concerns about the Democratic Party taking power.

“As the Soviet Union accelerated its nuclear power buildup, the gap between the nuclear powers of the United States and the Soviet Union narrowed, and now the question of who would use nuclear weapons first became important. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party in the United States is insisting on arms reduction for peace, and if this continues, the countries that have joined NATO will no longer be able to trust the United States.”

President MacArthur has so far pursued a strategy of ‘assured destruction’.

Maintaining the ability to neutralize the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, thereby deterring the possibility of a preemptive strike by the Soviet Union against the United States and its allies;

As a result, NATO remained a strong alliance under President MacArthur.

The moment the Soviet Union attacked America’s allies, it was finished.

But now the United States can no longer give that confidence to its allies.

So will the Democratic Party, even if belatedly, continue MacArthur’s policies?

At that moment, all I could do was admit that MacArthur’s policy was right, but I couldn’t do that because it would be like shooting myself in the foot.

A politician is someone who takes care of his pride even if he dies soon.

Presidential candidate Kennedy consistently advocated arms reduction.

“Don’t touch us.”

“The President didn’t touch the FBI. If he did, then you and I would both be dead.”

This is not the only flaw in the Democratic Party’s pledges.

That’s the FBI,

The FBI, with the support of President MacArthur, established a surveillance network throughout the United States.

As a result, the FBI has secured a huge information network that allows it to monitor the private lives of not only politicians but also famous actors, so it is not difficult to dig up the secrets of any politician.

If the Democratic Party wants to achieve anti-dictatorship, they have to kick out the FBI, but that’s impossible now.

Who would dare mess with the FBI when politicians might expose their own corruption?

In the end, the Democratic Party’s claims of anti-war, anti-nuclear, and anti-dictatorship are all impossible to achieve.

However, the reason the Democratic Party has so much support is because President Kennedy promoted arms reduction and a small government.

In short, America is a mess right now.

Will the United States be able to continue to provide trust to its allies? World public opinion is paying close attention to America’s actions.

***

“Nice to meet you. I am Kim Seo-jun.”

“I am Kim Yohan.”

This is Shanghai, two people face each other in a quiet space.

Their true identities are intelligence agents and spies representing Korea and the United States, so they were unable to use their real names and ended their self-introductions using pseudonyms.

There is a high probability that Democratic candidate Kennedy will be elected in the next US presidential election. How will Korea respond in the future?

Will South Korea give up its nuclear weapons program and even reduce its conventional weapons as the Democratic Party demands?

According to FBI sources, the chances of that happening were slim.

“Presidential candidate Kennedy is ostensibly demanding that South Korea reduce its military spending, but it won’t be easy. There is considerable opposition from the defense industry. Still, he will continue to protest to South Korea because he has to show the American people something.”

“Then, can Korea continue to expand its military in the future?”

“Of course. The Democratic Party wants South Korea to spend more on the military instead of the United States.”

The Korean Central Intelligence Agency agent nodded.

If what the FBI says is true, there won’t be any major disadvantages to South Korea expanding its military in the future. The problem is the anti-dictatorship that the Democratic Party claims.

The United States holds presidential elections every five years, and there is a possibility that the president will change each time, but it is no longer a problem for the Korean president to choose to remain in power for life.

Considering his accomplishments so far, it would not be surprising for him to become king.

MacArthur’s administration acknowledged it, but would Kennedy acknowledge it too?

The Democratic Party’s slogan is anti-dictatorship, so if the South Korean president chooses to remain in power indefinitely, the atmosphere will become strange.

We can turn a blind eye to South Korea’s military expansion, but if the president chooses to remain in power forever, the Democratic Party has no choice but to pretend to hit South Korea.

The FBI was concerned about that.

“Does the President of Korea intend to remain in power indefinitely?”

“No. The Congress pushed for permanent rule, but the President rejected it.”

“Then there will be no problem between the United States and Korea.”

“Yes, I understand that.”

This means that the alliance between the US and South Korea will continue even if the president changes.

But if the favor continues, isn’t it sometimes mistaken for a right?

As Korea obediently followed instructions, presidential candidate Kennedy demanded more from Korea.

[South Korea must permanently abandon its nuclear weapons development. It must not extract plutonium from its reactors, and its president must give up permanent power.]

The South Korean government was outraged by President Kennedy’s stance.

Who are you to tell people what to do now when they haven’t even been elected yet?

Is it okay to ask for reconciliation from the Soviet Union, with whom we have been staring at each other as if we were going to die, while ignoring South Korea, which has been through thick and thin with the United States?

The Korean National Assembly threatened that it would not be able to work with the Kennedy administration if things continued this way.

“If you, Democrats, come out like this, we will create a third world.”

“You think we can’t do it? You’re making NATO member countries nervous because you’re talking nonsense about reconciling with the Soviet Union. You’re making a big mistake.”

If Korea and Japan unite, a huge economic zone with a population of 100 million will be formed.

The average per capita national income in Korea and Japan has long since exceeded $5,000, and even when considering only the domestic market, they are not far behind the United States.

In addition, the situation is that the US and UK have the oil fields of Kuwait and Venezuela, which they have designated as neutral zones.

If the United States were to block the Venezuelan-Kuwaiti oil fields, it might join hands with the Soviet Union as a last resort.

If the United States is reconciling with communism, is there any reason why Korea cannot establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union?

If we just buy that kind of oil from the Soviet Union, that’s fine. The Soviet Union is secretly hoping for that too.

Since the United States and the liberal bloc controlled 80% of the world’s oil, the Soviet Union had to sell its oil to some country to earn foreign currency.

It would be great if Korea would buy that.

In this way, Korea will emerge as a third power that is not bound by either the United States or the Soviet Union.

Is that what the US Democratic Party wants?

As the Korean government took a strong stance, the Democratic Party showed signs of bewilderment.

“The world is now moving towards an era of peace, so what good will come from developing nuclear weapons? And dictatorship is against the flow of the times….”

“So now you want to tell President Park Sang-geun to step down?”

“If things go this way, we will split up with the United States.”

This incident has caused the Democratic Party in the United States to lose trust not only in Korea but also in the FBI.

The FBI, which wielded absolute power during the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, will maintain its power only if it continues to exchange information with Korea and beat up the Soviet Union.

The Democratic Party, which keeps talking about anti-war + anti-nuclear + anti-dictatorship, is just an obstacle.

He set out to tame Kennedy early on.

What would be gained by opposing Korea, which brings in more than $700 million in revenue annually, to the US defense industry?

Even before becoming the ruling party, the Democratic Party faced challenges from interest groups.

***

‘Just let him stay in power forever?’

Today, I was stuck in my office, struggling through the same routine.

Although I say this, I am proud to say that I have been a servant of the United States up until now.

Even when the United States demanded that they give up their nuclear weapons, they complied without question and pursued diplomacy that pursued practicality rather than pride.

But the Democratic Party is the one that crossed the line that should not have been crossed. President MacArthur guaranteed various privileges on the condition that South Korea give up its nuclear weapons.

But what has the Democratic Party done for Korea?

They are talking about an absurd reversal + denuclearization, but they know better than anyone that it is impossible.

Then, I should do better for Korea in the future, but you dare to call me a dictator.

‘I didn’t want to be a dictator either. But you guys are like that, so why do you want to do that?’

I had a gut feeling that it was time for Korea to change its diplomatic strategy.

It is time to diversify our routes and not become too dependent on the US. The US is reconciling with the Soviet Union, so why can’t Korea do the same?

This is an opportunity to import resources from the Soviet Union and normalize diplomatic relations, possibly even holding a summit meeting.

If we can escape from the influence of the United States to some extent, permanent rule is possible.

Who dares stop me?

Going forward, Korea has made it clear that it will not move according to the will of the United States, or rather, the Democratic Party.

[Is Korea breaking free from American control?]

[The Republican Party and the Democratic Party do not have the ability to properly control Korea.]

When Korea made a surprise attack, public opinion in the United States also wavered sharply.

NATO member countries are also wavering and distrustful of the United States, and if Korea is in this situation, America’s diplomatic status will only fall to the bottom.

Is it really the best thing for the Democrats to take power? The Republican Party launched a barrage of criticism, saying the Democrats had shown diplomatic incompetence.

Within the Democratic Party, support for President Kennedy also plummeted from 88% to 81%.

The Democratic Party election camp, feeling a sense of crisis, had no choice but to change its election strategy.