Thursday, November 30, 2017

Skip to Navigation Skip to Main Content Skip to Related Content Sign in Lifestyle Home Follow Us Style Beauty Wellness Pop Culture News Holiday Horoscope Video Meghan Markle’s natural hair is making the internet cheer






 Kathmandu :nnovember 11/30/2017/ thursday /Birbal Tamang.
 Earlier this week, news broke that Prince Harry proposed to his girlfriend, Suits actress and activist Meghan Markle. The masses rejoiced at the idea of having Markle, a woman of color, in Kensington Palace. It is a dream come true. Black and Brown girls all over the world need this representation.
It’s crucial that women of color see themselves in positions of power. Unfortunately, our society has recently decided to use diversity as a marketing tactic, a mere ploy to seem woke and to generate more sales/traffic. This is upsetting, especially since it’s beautiful when variety is unforced and organically occurs in everyday life.
It’s nice to see fuller lips, tan skin, and textured hair in places where they were once denied (whether inadvertently or purposefully) for so long. This is what makes today’s latest revelation about Markle so special.
Today, blogger and former Miss Teen USA, Kamie Crawford, shared photos of the duchess-to-be rocking her natural hair texture.

You can catch the latest addition to the royal family looking absolutely stunning while she dons a head full of coils.

Now, we’re asking even more questions. What products does she use? Are Bantu knots ever a part of the equation? Does our duchess press her hair? What brush works best for her? Hopefully, our royal angel lets us know at some point.
As I said, it is HUGE to see Meghan Markle letting her hair do its thing. We need more of this authentic representation and are looking forward to seeing it.
By:Writter
Birbal Babu<<

Dutch probe Bosnian war criminal's live UN court suicide






Slobodan Praljak swallowed what appeared to be poison as the UN war crimes court upheld his sentence (AFP Photo/-)

 Kathmandu:November 11/30/2017/ thursday/

The Hague (AFP) - Dutch prosecutors are investigating how a Bosnian Croat war criminal managed to dramatically take his own life Wednesday, apparently after drinking poison he had smuggled into a UN court, in scenes that were broadcast live.
In shocking footage beamed around the world, Slobodan Praljak drank from a small brown glass bottle and exclaimed he had taken poison moments after UN judges upheld his 20-year jail term for atrocities committed during the 1990s Balkans conflict.
The 72-year-old died in hospital after being rushed from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), casting a cloud over what should have been a successful end to the court's tenure.
Prosecutors said their investigation would focus on what killed Praljak and whether he had received any outside help in obtaining the suspected poison.
"For the time being the inquiry will focus on assisted suicide and violation of the Medicines Act," the Public Prosecution Service said in a statement late Wednesday, adding it would not be commenting further.
The unprecedented drama came as judges handed down their very last verdict at the court in the appeal case of six Bosnian Croat political and military leaders.
Praljak, a former military commander of a breakaway Bosnian Croat statelet, shouted out angrily: "Praljak is not a criminal. I reject your verdict."
Standing tall, with a shock of white hair and beard, he then raised a small brown bottle to his lips, and tipped it into his mouth. The hearing was quickly suspended as Praljak's lawyer interjected: "My client says he has taken poison."
ICTY spokesman Nenad Golcevski told reporters that Praljak "quickly fell ill" and died in hospital. He could not confirm what was in the bottle.
The stunning events caused a shockwave in Croatia and intense embarrassment at a war crimes tribunal that closes next month more than two decades after being set up at the height of the 1992-1995 Bosnian conflict.
Among the questions to be answered will be how he managed to evade tight security to smuggle the bottle into the tribunal.
And if the liquid was indeed poison or noxious, how did he acquire it in the UN detention centre in The Hague where he was being held?
- Moral injustice -
Croatia's Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic slammed the "injustice" of the UN tribunal and expressed his condolences.
"His act, which we all unfortunately witnessed today, speaks mostly about the deep moral injustice towards six Croats from Bosnia and the Croatian people," he told reporters.
Praljak's act demonstrated "what sacrifice he was ready to make" to show he was "not a war criminal," said Dragan Covic, the Croat member of Bosnia's tripartite presidency.
"It is a humiliation of this institution which has existed since 1993."
Late Wednesday candles were lit in the former breakaway statelet's capital Mostar by Bosnian Croats and other residents in tribute to the late general.
It is not the first time that defendants have taken their own lives at the ICTY.
Former Croatian Serb leader Milan Babic killed himself in his cell at the UN detention centre in 2006, after another Croatian Serb, Slavko Dokmanovic, in 1998.
And former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his cell in 2006 from natural causes before his trial could be completed.
- Serious crimes -
In the complex ruling, the judges upheld the jail terms against all six defendants, including a 25-year sentence imposed on Jadranko Prlic, the former prime minister of the breakaway Bosnian Croat statelet, known as Herzog-Bosna.
Praljak had been specifically charged with ordering the destruction of Mostar's 16th-century bridge in November 1993.
In their ruling, the judges allowed part of Praljak's appeal, saying the bridge had been "a military target at the time of the attack." But they refused to reduce his overall sentence.
The bloody 1992-1995 war in Bosnia, in which 100,000 people died and 2.2 million were displaced, mainly pitted Bosnian Muslims against Bosnian Serbs, but also saw some brutal fighting between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats after an initial alliance fell apart.
The appeal judges said all six men, who had been found guilty of seeking to remove Bosnian Muslims from the territory, "remained convicted of numerous and very serious crimes".
In statements sure to anger Zagreb, the judges upheld the original trial finding that the men had been part of a joint criminal enterprise whose "ultimate purpose was shared" by late Croatian president Franjo Tudjman, and other leaders.
The aim of the scheme was to set up "a Croatian entity that ... facilitated the reunification of the Croatian people."
Terms ranging from 10 to 20 years were also upheld against the four other defendants.
Wednesday's verdict comes a week after the judges imposed a life sentence on former Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic.
His judgement had also descended into confusion when he accused the judges of lying and had to be dragged away into a nearby room.
The ICTY closes its doors on December 31, having indicted and dealt with 161 people.
 By:Writter 
Birbal Babu<<

Roast chicken takes center stage in Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's proposal





 Kathmandu: November 11/30/2017/ thursday/
 Roast chicken is getting its moment in the spotlight.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle shared their engagement news with the world Monday and revealed that Harry popped the question during a "cozy night" at their cottage over dinner.
"It happened a few weeks ago, earlier this month, here at our cottage; just a standard typical night for us," Harry told the BBC in the couple's first interview Monday.
"We were just roasting chicken," added Markle, 36, detailing their love story.
"Roasting a chicken, trying to roast a chicken," Harry, 33, jokingly chimed in.
"Trying to roast a chicken and it just -- just [was] an amazing surprise, it was so sweet and natural and very romantic. He got on one knee," the former "Suits" actress said.PHOTO: Britain's Prince Harry and his fiancee, U.S. actress Meghan Markle give their first interview following their engagement, Nov. 27, 2017. (Pool via Kensington Palace)PHOTO: Britain's Prince Harry holds hands with Meghan Marklem wearing an engagement ring in the Sunken Garden of Kensington Palace, London, Nov. 27, 2017. (Toby Melville/Reuters)
The detail about the roast chicken during the royal couple's proposal story stirred up chatter about the famous myth of the "engagement chicken," a recipe that promises to help get the cook engaged.
The "engagement chicken" recipe was created by a fashion editor at Glamour magazine over 30 years ago and reportedly led to many proposals among the staff.
The editors went on to publish the famous recipe in the magazine and ultimately made a cookbook featuring the dish in 2011, where they wrote that more than 60 women say they got engaged after making it.VIDEO: Can Chicken Get a Man to Propose? (ABCNews.com)
Celebrity and pet activist Beth Stern was one of them, crediting the dish with helping her seal the deal with now-husband radio superstar Howard Stern after he swore he would never marry again.
What's the "secret"? In 2015 "Good Morning America" made the recipe, which calls for lots of lemon and herbs. Glamour dubbed the juice that collects in the bottom of the roasting pan during cooking the "marry me juices" and instructs cooks to pour them on top of the sliced chicken before serving. Click here for the full recipe.
It's extremely unlikely that Markle and Harry were cooking up the famed "engagement chicken" recipe the night that Harry popped the question.
However, Harry and Markle may have made a recipe from "The Barefoot Contessa" star Ina Garten. In a 2016 interview with Good Housekeeping, Markle said she was a fan of Garten's roast chicken for dinner parties.
"There is nothing as delicious (or as impressive) as a perfectly roasted chicken. If you have an Ina Garten–level roasted-chicken recipe, it's a game changer. I bring that to dinner parties and make a lot of friends," Markle said.
Garten even congratulated the couple on their engagement on Twitter, saying roast chicken has "magic powers."
By: Writter 
Birbal Babu<,

Donald Trump Jr. mixes political fundraising with hunting again






 Kathmandu:November 11/30/2017/thursday/

Donald Trump Jr. appears to be making a habit of mixing political fundraising with his love of hunting.
Last month, the president's oldest son went pheasant hunting with Rep. Steve King while in Iowa attending a fundraiser for the Republican lawmaker.Fast forward a month, and the Trump offspring once again campaigned with a Republican lawmaker, and went hunting: This time, he headed to Kansas to attend a Tuesday fundraiser for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach's campaign for governor, and then on Wednesday, the pair went pheasant hunting.
"Great time with Kris Kobach today in Kansas," Trump Jr., donning hunting gear and carrying a rifle, wrote on Instagram Wednesday. "After speaking to a sold out crowd of his supporters for his run for KS Governor last night we were able to squeeze in a bit of time afield before my flight back to NYC this am. We met through outdoor friends before politics and it’s great to be able to help a where I can. #kansas #ks #outdoors #upland."
Kobach tweeted a photo from their outing, writing, "Showed @DonaldJTrumpJr some Kansas pheasant hunting before he returned to New York City. Great morning in the field! #2A #NRA #hunting."
The presence of Trump Jr. at the fundraising dinner, held Tuesday in a hotel in the Kansas City suburb of Overland Park, hammered home the point that Kobach has a close relationship -- closer than other Republicans in the race -- with President Donald Trump.
Kobach serves as vice chairman of a presidential commission on election fraud. His early campaign for governor has echoed many of themes the president espouses.
"I think he's actually given conservatives the ability to actually to feel free to speak up again," Trump Jr. said of Kobach at the event, which raised more than $100,000.
Kobach told the Associated Press of Trump Jr., "I think the fact that he's spending his time in Kansas shows that he views this race as an important enough one to get a true conservative in the office."
By:Writter 
Birbal Babu<<

Chinese actress Liu Yifei cast as Mulan






 Kathmandu:november11/30/2017/ thursday.
Chinese actress Liu Yifei, also known as Crystal Liu, has been cast to play Mulan in an upcoming live-action film, Disney announced Wednesday.
The movie will be based on the 1998 animated film about a woman in fifth-century China who disguises herself to take her father's place in the army. Niki Caro will direct.
A release date has not been given.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, which broke the news, Liu was hired at the end of a yearlong, worldwide search that involved a team of casting directors visiting five continents and interviewing nearly 1,000 candidates for the part.
The publication reported that Liu, reportedly 30, is nicknamed "Fairy Sister" by the Chinese public because of her sweet image. She has served as spokeswoman for Dior, Garnier, Tissot and Pantene, and has appeared in films including "The Forbidden Kingdom," "Outcast" and "Once Upon a Time.

By:Writter 
Birbal Babu."

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Ann Curry and Natalie Morales speak out about Matt Lauer's termination


 PHOTO: Natalie Morales attends the International Women's Media Foundation 2017 Courage In Journalism Awards at NeueHouse Hollywood, Oct. 25, 2017, in Los Angeles. (Earl Gibson III/Getty Images)

 Kathmandu:november11/30/2017 / tursday / Birbal Tamang.
 Hours after NBC announced the termination of Matt Lauer in light of a sexual misconduct allegation, his former "Today" co-anchors Ann Curry and Natalie Morales spoke out about the news.
Curry left "Today" in 2012 after one year as a co-anchor and 15 years with the show. Morales departed last year and hosts NBC's "Access Hollywood."
In a previously scheduled interview with People magazine to discuss her upcoming PBS docuseries, "We'll Meet Again," Curry declined to comment specifically about the news.I'm still really processing it," she said, adding more generally that "we need to move this revolution forward and make our
 workplaces safe.Morales said on "Access Hollywood" that she was "in shock."
"The 'Today' show, of course, has been my family for 16 years now, and it is difficult — I think everyone is saying how difficult it is — to process the news," she said. "The story today is about the courage of a colleague, who did come forward."
NBC News fires Matt Lauer for alleged 'inappropriate sexual behavior'
What Matt Lauer's former co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Hoda Kotb said about his termination
On Wednesday morning, NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack announced that Lauer, 59, was fired after the network received "a detailed complaint from a colleague" on Monday night detailing "inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer." Attorney Ari Wilkenfeld, who said he represents the unnamed accuser, told ABC News in a statement that his client "detailed egregious acts of sexual harassment and misconduct by Mr. Lauer."
"It is our hope that NBC will continue to do what it can to repair the damage done to my client — their employee — and any other women who may come forward," Wilkenfeld said. "While I am impressed by NBC's response to date, I am awed by the courage my client showed to be the first to raise a complaint and to do so without making any demands other than asking the company do the right thing. This is how the system should work."
Echoing Wilkenfeld's sentiment, Curry offered her support to all women who have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.
"I admire the women who have been willing to speak up both anonymously and on the record. Those women need to keep their jobs, and all women need to be able to work, to be able to thrive without fear. This kind of behavior exists across industries, and it is so long overdue for it to stop," she said. "This is a moment when we all need to be a beacon of light for those women, for all women and for ourselves."
Lauer has not commented on his termination.

Analysis: N. Korea may declare 'victory,' turn to economy




 Kathmandu:November/11/29/2017/ wednesday/ Birbal Tamang.

People cheer as they watch the news broadcast announcing North Korean leader Kim Jong Un&#39;s order to test-fire the newly developed inter-continental ballistic missile Hwasong-15, Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, at the Pyongyang Train Station in Pyongyang, North Korea. (AP Photo/Jon Chol Jin)
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — In the dead of night, North Korea test-launches its most powerful missile yet. Six minutes later, rival South Korea unleashes a barrage meant to show it will hit back — hard — if war ever comes.
The nightmare scenario, made reality again Wednesday, is terrifying and increasingly routine. Yet there are signs it might also signal something surprising: a calculated bit of restraint as Pyongyang nears a unique potential declaration, possibly in leader Kim Jong Un's annual New Year's Day speech. The North, some speculate, may announce that since it now considers itself a nuclear power equal to the United States, it can put more effort into Kim's other priority of trying to fix one of the world's worst economies.
In short, could the end be near for North Korea's years of headlong, provocative nuclear development?
Wednesday's test of what the North called a new ICBM capable of hitting the entire U.S. mainland was, like all the others, calibrated to both convey defiance and boast of a dramatically improving military capability to Washington. But Pyongyang also did very specific things that kept the launch well back of the point of shoving U.S. President Donald Trump toward any military attack:
— It did not shoot its missile over Japan, which it has done twice in recent months.
— It did not fire its missile, as it previously suggested it might, into the waters around the U.S. military hub of Guam in the Pacific.
— It did not conduct potentially the most worrying next step short of war: An atmospheric test of a nuclear weapon flying onboard a long-range missile over the Pacific.
Small victories, maybe. Certainly no guarantee of what the future holds for a country that prides itself on keeping outsiders guessing and on pushing its weapons development to the brink. But the glimmer of restraint suggests the North may see itself nearing the point where it can claim military victory, however far that might be from the truth, and turn more toward other matters by next year, the 70th anniversary of the country's founding.
A strong indication backing this analysis is right there in Pyongyang's official statement on the launch, which was read on a special TV broadcast hours after the missile lifted off.
After watching the Hwasong-15 missile blast into the pre-dawn darkness, "Kim Jong Un declared with pride that now we have finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force, the cause of building a rocket power."
While everything North Korea says in its propaganda must be viewed with extreme skepticism, the country does have a habit of laying out goals and meeting them, or at least claiming it has met them.
North Korea's test could indeed indicate that the country will soon consider its nuclear program "done" and focus on its sluggish economy, said Vipin Narang, a nuclear strategy expert at MIT. "But there are many things that can intervene to accelerate or decelerate it," he says.
"The pessimist in me says they are trying to get the range (of the ICBM settled) first, and then, if we still doubt" their abilities, could conduct a full-blown operational atmospheric test of a live nuclear warhead atop a ballistic missile, Narang said. "But the optimist in me says that's so risky it would take a major provocation or insult to get them to try it."
Trying to predict what North Korea will actually do next — a favorite if frustrating game of analysts and government officials for decades — is notoriously futile. And Pyongyang may simply continue its torrid testing pace of its weapons, which, despite internal and global hype, are not yet a match for those of any of the established nuclear powers.
It's important to realize, Narang says, that the North's program is truly developmental, which means "it needs to hit certain milestones. Range, reliability and re-entry are what they are probably focused on most intently at the moment."
Many observers expect at least one more big test aimed at showing the full range of the ICBM by sending it flying over Japan and deep into the Pacific. And the North has yet to perfect its submarine-launched missiles.
A bigger worry would be if the North, trying to quiet doubts about whether it has a warhead small enough to fit on a long-range missile, attempted a risky thermonuclear atmospheric missile explosion. North Korea's foreign minister in September suggested his country may test a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean.
Amid the speculation over what comes next, the North chose words Wednesday that suggested it was aiming to reassure, not to panic.
The new ICBM, it said, "meets the goal of the completion of the rocket weaponry system development set by" the North. In a reference to Kim Jong Un's double-pronged goal of boosting both the nuclear program and the economy, it shows the North Korean people's ability to uphold "simultaneous development of the two fronts with loyalty" so that they can stand up to the U.S. "nuclear blackmail policy" while enjoying a "peaceful life."
After months of tests and a drumbeat of war threats by both Koreas and the United States, many will be eager to accept the North's claim of nuclear "completion." But Pyongyang's suggestion that it signals a "peaceful life" around the corner? That's a much harder sell.

 By:Writter
Birbal Babu.

The first trailer for “Avengers: Infinity War” is the most heart-pounding, stressful thing you’ll watch today






The first trailer for “Avengers: Infinity War” is the most heart-pounding, stressful thing you’ll watch today


 Kathmandu:November/11/29/2017/ Wednesday/ Birbal Tamang.

Is your Spidey sense tingling? Good. It must mean that the trailer for Avengers: Infinity War is here — and it finally is. 
After debuting at Disney’s D23 Expo and San Diego Comic-Con this past summer, the first footage from the movie has finally made its way into our lives. And judging from the first trailer, that’s not necessarily a good thing for us, let alone the Avengers. Thanos — that purple bad guy who has been teased over the last handful of movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe — is up and out of his chair, ready to collect all the Infinity Stones for his Infinity Gauntlet, and rule (and possibly destroy) the galaxy.
He’ll stop at nothing to get these stones, and he’ll destroy everyone who stands in his way. Good thing there are like, 30+ people who will be standing in his way, when the Avengers — ALL! THE! AVENGERS! — come together to take him down…hopefully.
Judging from the first trailer, this task will be a lot harder than it looks, and there’s no getting around it: One, if not multiple, Avengers are going to fall, and not get back up again. Start bracing yourselves for the most heart-pounding, stressful, and emotional Marvel movie to date.

The trailer teases that the Avengers were initially assembled to come together like this, and save the world when others could not and — MY GOD LOKI WHAT ARE YOU DOING, HAVEN’T YOU TRIED AND FAILED TO GET THE TESSERACT CUBE ENOUGH, THERE ARE BIGGER THINGS AT HAND. Dude, you need to pick a side and stick with it. 
Marvel
Aside from the fact that Loki might be good, he might be bad, who knows anymore, the Avengers from far and wide — and that includes space, talkin’ about you, Guardians of the Galaxy — are here to save us. But can they? When they get knocked down, who’s going to save them?
By:writter
Birbal Babu. 

Trump retweets anti-Muslim videos from far-right British party

President Trump on Wednesday posted anti-Muslim videos on Twitter that had originally been posted by a leader of a far-right British party

Senate and House Republicans have different ideas about what your tax bracket should be — here's the divide in two charts

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  Donald Trump Tax Brackets
  •  
  •  Kathmandu:november11/29/2017/wednesday /Birbal Tamang.
  •  
  • Income tax brackets could change in 2018 if tax legislation is enacted under President Donald Trump.
  • The Senate's bill proposes keeping seven tax brackets but changing the income ranges, while the House's version of the bill would reduce the number of tax brackets to four.
  • Both plans propose eliminating the personal exemption and increasing the standard deduction.


House and Senate Republicans have taken two different approaches in their attempt to overhaul the US tax code by releasing separate proposals with sweeping changes.
The House voted to pass their version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and Senate Republicans are racing to vote on their own tax legislation soon. President Donald Trump has said he wants the tax reform bill on his desk by Christmas.
Business Insider put together two charts showing how both the House's tax plan and the Senate's tax plan could change federal income-tax brackets in 2018 compared with those in 2017.

By:Writte
Birbal Babu .

Protesting the Republican tax bill

 
 Kathmandu:November/11/29/2017/ wednesday /Birbal Tamang.
Protesting the Republican tax bill
U.S. Capitol Police officers remove a protester from the Senate Budget Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
U.S. Senate Republicans rammed forward President Donald Trump’s tax-cut bill on Tuesday in an abrupt, partisan committee vote that set up a full vote by the Senate as soon as Thursday, although some details of the measure remained unsettled.
As disabled protesters shouted: “Kill the bill, don’t kill us,” in a Capitol Hill hearing room, the Senate Budget Committee, with no discussion, quickly approved the legislation on a 12-11 party-line vote that left Democrats fuming. (Reuters)
Here’s a l
ook a tax bill protests in Washington, New York, Florida and Colorado.
By:Writter
Birbal Babu.

North Korea: Why War Is the Only Option Now

 

 

 kathmandu :November11/29/2017/wednesday / Birbal Tamang .

Millions of lives could be saved. 

North Korea: Why War Is the Only Option Now Choosing to deter North Korea is to engage in a gamble: you avoid the costs of a preventive war today when North Korea is relatively weak, but you run the risk of an accidental nuclear war later when North Korea is vastly more powerful. Using plausible estimates of the probability of accidental nuclear war derived from the U.S.-Soviet experience during the Cold War, I find that gambling on deterrence will lead to 7.5 million U.S.-South Korean-Japanese deaths on average (under optimistic assumptions) while a preventive war now will lead to 1.4 million deaths (under pessimistic assumptions). So, not only is deterrence a gamble, it is a reckless and foolish one.  Preventive war is the wise and prudent response to North Korea's nuclear threat.
Dealing with North Korea's Nuclear Threat: The Options
The North Korean regime is completely committed to its nuclear program, and no diplomatic option will lead to North Korea freezing or disbanding it. This being the case, North Korea is and will be capable of launching a nuclear strike at the U.S. and its allies (either on purpose or by accident). To deal with this risk, the U.S. can either: i) limit North Korea's incentives to launch a nuclear strike through deterrence; or ii) eliminate North Korea's ability to launch a nuclear strike by means of a preventive war that eradicates the Kim regime and North Korea's WMD program.
Recommended: This Video Shows What Happens if Washington, D.C. Is Attacked with Nuclear Weapons
Deterrence can (let us suppose) eliminate North Korea's incentive to launch a deliberate attack, but deterrence cannot eliminate the non-trivial chance that North Korea launches a nuclear strike by accident. Preventive war now can eliminate the risk of both a deliberate and an accidental nuclear attack in the future. But, obviously, a war aimed at eradicating the Kim regime will inevitably lead to North Korea launching (or at least attempting to launch) a nuclear strike at South Korea and Japan. So, by choosing deterrence rather than preventive war, the U.S. would be taking a gamble that the benefit of avoiding a war now is greater than the risk posed by the chance of accidental nuclear war in the future. Is this a wise or a foolish gamble?
Recommended: 8 Million People Could Die in a War with North Korea
Let us measure the cost to the U.S. and its allies of the preventive war and deterrence options by the number of by civilian deaths that follow from each choice in South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. I implicitly assume here that: 1) economic and other costs are proportional to lives lost; 2) military deaths are small in proportion to civilian deaths. I assume that North Korea will pose a threat for 30 years (until 2048), after which time the probability of nuclear war falls to zero.  
Recommended: Why North Korea Is Destined to Test More ICBMs and Nuclear Weapons
The expected number of deaths that results from each option is a function of the deaths resulting from a war if one happens at a given point in time and the probability of a war at that point in time. Consider each factor in turn.
North Korea's Nuclear Arsenal
Following Congressional testimony by David Albright of the Institute For Science and International Security, I assume that North Korea's 2018 nuclear weapon inventory consists of 25 weapons each with a yield of 20 kt and that North Korea will be able to build four additional weapons per year. In light of North Korea's now demonstrated ability to construct thermonuclear weapons and North Korea's rapid advances in missile design, I further assume that all new weapons will have a 250 kt yield and that these weapons can be launched at the U.S.
On targeting, I assume that: 1) the 20 kt weapons will be targeted at South Korea and Japan with a 50%-50% split; 2) the 250 kt weapons will be targeted at South Korea, Japan, and the U.S. with a 25%-25%-50% split; and that: 3) only 50% of weapons successfully detonate over their target (due to a combination of mechanical defects, guidance problems, and missile defense). These targeting assumptions do not make a material difference to the overall outcome of the analysis. And while the actual proportion of successful strikes is of course highly uncertain and will affect the absolute number of deaths resulting from each option, any constant success rate used will not affect the ranking of the deterrence and preventive war options.   
I calculate the deaths a successful detonation will cause by using the NukeMapwebsite. Since not every weapon can detonate in the same place, I set a weapon's impact equal to the average of a detonation over a range of cities. A weapon that detonates in Japan will cause deaths equal to the average of an air detonation over Tokyo and Kyoto. A weapon that detonates in South Korea will cause deaths equal to the average of an air detonation over Seoul and Busan. A weapon that detonates in the U.S. will cause deaths equal to the average of an air detonation over Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C., and New York. I weigh South Korean, Japanese, and American lives equally. So, a successful detonation of a 20 kt weapon causes expected deaths of 112 thousand and the successful detonation of a 250 kt weapon causes expected deaths of 546 thousand.
Given these assumptions, a war in 2018 will cause 1.4 million Japanese-South Korean-U.S. deaths (25 weapons (20 kt) * 50% chance of successful detonation * 112,000 deaths per successful detonation). The number of deaths resulting from war will increase by 1.1 million per year (4 additional weapons (250 kt) * 50% chance of a successful detonation * 546 deaths per successful detonation). It follows that a war in 2019 will cause expected deaths of 2.5 million, a war in 2020 will cause expected deaths of 3.6 million, and so on. A war in 2048 will cause expected deaths of 34.2 million.   
The Risk of Accidental Nuclear War
While both the Americans and the Soviets were rational actors during the Cold War (at least as rational as Kim Jong Un, anyway) and while both the Americans and the Soviets knew that nuclear war would have disastrous consequences, there were nonetheless a number of occasions when the Americans and the Soviets came very close to starting a nuclear war by accident. These near misses arose from a combination of military misunderstandings, technical malfunctions in early warning systems, and human error. To illustrate:
Military Misunderstandings: During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets sent a squadron of 4 submarines armed with nuclear torpedoes towards Cuba with the intention of establishing a base on the island (Operation Anadyr). The subs ran into the U.S. naval blockade. In the tense circumstances of the Crisis and under an enormous amount of stress, the captain of one of the subs came under the mistaken impression that his sub was under attack by a U.S. task force led by the carrier USS Randolph and that war may have already broken out. Thinking that they were doomed, the captain cried out "We will die, but we will sink them all..." using the nuclear torpedo. It is highly likely that a Soviet attack that destroyed a U.S. carrier with a nuclear weapon at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis would have led to a full-scale war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and that this war, in turn, would have led to a nuclear exchange. Fortunately, the squadron chief of staff was also on board, and he was able to dissuade the captain from pursuing that course of action.  
Reflecting upon the Crisis, Graham Allison wrote that while President Kennedy thought that the chance of nuclear war was between 33% and 50%, "what we have learned in later decades has done nothing to lengthen those odds."  
Technical Malfunctions: In 1983–a time of high U.S.-Soviet tension–the Soviet Union's early warning system detected a signal that the U.S. had launched a first strike. The system indicated that the signal was of the highest possible level of reliability. In this situation, it was the duty officer's responsibility to report the alert and its reliability level to his superiors. Soviet nuclear protocols then required that the Soviets launch a counter-strike before the U.S. missiles hit. Fortunately, the duty officer on the night was Stanislav Petrov. He had a skeptical streak due to his scientific background, and he thought that the attack signal might be too reliable to be real. Torn between reporting and not reporting the alarm, he finally decided to disobey his explicit orders and to instead notify higher command that the system had malfunctioned. He believed that if any of his colleagues (all of whom had a military education) had been on duty that night, they would have reported the alarm as an attack. If the alarm had been passed on, it is possible and perhaps even likely that the Soviets would have followed protocols and launched an accidental first strike at the U.S.
Human Error: In 1979 a training tape simulating a full Soviet nuclear attack was somehow loaded onto the main NORAD early warning system. Fortunately (again), the flight time of Soviet missiles gave NORAD time to check the raw radar data to see if it confirmed the information on the early warning system before the U.S. had to take a launch-no launch decision. Finding that it did not, the U.S. did not launch a retaliatory strike by accident.   
Examining nuclear war near misses using engineering reliability assessment methods, Barrett, Baum, and Hostetler estimate that there was a 2% chance per year of an accidental U.S.-Soviet nuclear war during the Cold War. Since President Kennedy's estimate of the probability of nuclear war arising from the Cuban Missile Crisis alone puts the probability of accidental nuclear war at between 1.4% and 2.4% per year over the course of the Cold War (1960 to 1989) without even considering the Petrov incident, the NORAD training tape incident, and other such incidents, this 2% per year probability seems very plausible.
Does this Cold War estimate apply to North Korea? Examining the factors that contribute to the probability of accidental nuclear war, I think that the probability of accidental nuclear war with North Korea is if anything higher (and probably much higher) than was the probability of an accidental U.S.-Soviet nuclear war.
To err in favor of the deterrence option, then, I estimate the cost of gambling on deterrence under two cases. In the first, I assume that the probability of an accidental U.S.-North Korean nuclear war is 2% per year. In the second I assume that there is one incident over the next 30 years that creates a 25% chance of an accidental nuclear war.
Should the U.S. Take the Deterrence Gamble or Launch a Preventive War?
If the U.S. chooses to deal with the North Korean nuclear threat by means of a preventive war, then there is a 100% chance of a war in 2018 (clearly, if the U.S. is going to launch a preventive war, then the sooner the better). This war will lead to North Korea launching 25 nuclear weapons (20 kt each) at cities in South Korea and Japan and will lead to 1.4 million deaths (given the assumptions above).
I note that this is an extremely pessimistic estimate. A preventive war will almost certainly begin with a U.S. nuclear strike on North Korean command-and-control and nuclear assets with the goal of eliminating North Korea's ability to launch a nuclear attack. Furthermore, the U.S. will utilize its missile defense assets to defend South Korea and Japan against any North Korean attack. However, to err in favor of the deterrence option, I assume here that this U.S. strike has no effect on the probability that North Korea can detonate a nuclear weapon on target. While it would certainly be rash to assume that the U.S. efforts to eliminate North Korea's nuclear threat will be 100% effective, it is highly likely that the U.S. will be able to degrade the effectiveness of North Korea's nuclear threat to some degree.  
If the U.S. chooses to gamble on deterrence, then the probability of accidental nuclear war will lead to 1) 7.5 million deaths on average in the 2% chance of accidental nuclear war per year case; or 2) 4.4 million deaths on average in the single 25% chance of accidental nuclear war case.  
This estimate of deaths under the deterrence gamble is extremely optimistic. First, I assume that the probability of a successful detonation remains constant over time. However, it is highly likely that North Korea's ability to successfully detonate a nuclear weapon on target in the U.S. will increase over time as North Korea continues its rapid advance in weapon and missile design. Second, I assume that North Korea's ability to increase weapon yield stops at 250 kt. Instead, it is highly likely that North Korea will eventually be able to develop full hydrogen bombs and so increase the yield of their weapons to far higher levels. It follows that an accidental war in the future will be far more devastating than I have assumed and may be sufficiently severe so as to pose an existential threat to the U.S.
On the other hand, I am also assuming that advances in missile defense do not eliminate the North Korean nuclear threat. While I strongly support a much stronger effort to improve U.S. missile defense capabilities, caution advises against assuming that missile defense will be completely effective (and certainly those making the case for gambling on deterrence are not doing so because they think that missile defense will work). But, to the extent that one is willing to bet on missile defense, the case for deterrence is strengthened.
So, the bottom line of this analysis is that gambling on deterrence is far more dangerous than launching a preventive war now.
Conclusion
To deal with North Korea's nuclear threat by choosing to deter them is to gamble that avoiding a war now with a relatively weak North Korea is worth the risk of an accidental nuclear war in the future with a vastly more powerful North Korea. In essence then, to choose deterrence is to bet that North Korean adventurism in times of political tension will never lead to an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, to bet that North Korean early warning systems will never be subject to human error, and to bet that North Korean officers in the nuclear command-and-control chain will rely upon skeptical gut instincts rather than follow direct orders given a seemingly reliable signal of a U.S. attack. In other words, to gamble on deterrence is to bet that, since we spun the cylinder and survived a round or two of deterrence roulette with the Soviets, fortune will always favor us. Needless to say, any bet that requires continuous good fortune is a reckless and foolish one.
The fecklessness of the Obama administration's policy towards North Korea has left us in a hole, but we are where we are. The goal of U.S. policy must now be to eliminate the enormous risk of an accidental nuclear war with a more powerful North Korea in the future. Preventive war is the only way that we can accomplish that goal. Consequently, preventive war is the wise and prudent response to the North Korean nuclear threat.  
Kevin R. James is a Research Fellow in the Systemic Risk Centre at the London School of Economics (@kevinrogerjames). This first appeared in RealClearDefense here.

By: Writter
Birbal Babu.