America’s Grim Options on North Korea
For the past week, the stunning report of nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker regarding North Korea’s uranium enrichment program has been sending shock waves throughout the world. This is indeed an extremely grave development, although the most serious aspect of it is not what most people think, i.e., the mere fact that North Korea has the bomb — that particular horse left the barn several years ago.
Instead, the most dangerous aspect of North Korean nuclear-state status is the fact that the DPRK has a very consistent record of selling every weapons technology it possesses to literally anyone who will buy. This record includes the regime’s well-known deal with Pakistan to obtain uranium and uranium enrichment technology in exchange for missiles. Other customers included Iran, Libya, Syria, and Yemen.
To many, the idea that North Korea might actually sell nuclear warheads to Islamic extremists might seem implausible, even for the North Koreans. It is obvious to outsiders that to even attempt this, in the current international climate, would be suicidally reckless. But North Korea is perhaps the ultimate rogue state. It has never paid any attention to the normal rules of international conduct: it sells narcotics; it forges currency; it blows up passenger airplanes; it murders the entire families of defectors; it kidnaps children from neighboring countries; it assassinates diplomats; it digs invasion tunnels; and, as we saw yet again with the Yeonpyeong island attacks, it lashes out militarily whenever it feels the need.
The result of the DPRK’s dramatically enhanced uranium enrichment capacity is a situation much worse than the one which nearly triggered a war in 1994, during the Clinton administration. Compared to then, North Korean nuclear capability is now a fact, not a possibility; and unless action is taken, the regime will begin adding warheads to its arsenal at the rate of perhaps one a month.
What to do now? Unfortunately, we are at the point where the easy options have all evaporated. Contrary to the bizarre conclusion of Dr. Hecker in his report, it is obvious that further direct diplomatic approaches to North Korea itself will be pointless. All the years of frantic diplomacy to date have only succeeded in buying the North time to bring its nuclear weapons program to successful fruition. It is now perfectly clear that, from the very beginning, North Korea was never sincerely willing to bargain away its nuclear activities. And even if that had been the case, how could one trust any agreement with the North, given its consistent willingness to violate agreements almost before the ink was dry?
There are, however, some meaningful countermoves available to the United States and its allies in East Asia, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Two of these measures, in the author’s opinion, are mandatory as the minimum necessary response to the current crisis. In addition, if we are serious about dealing with the North Korean nuclear problem once and for all, there are several more serious steps we urgently need to consider.
Necessary Step 1: Nuclear Terrorism Means War With North Korea
The first immediately necessary step is required because the U.S. must prevent, at any cost, the sale of nuclear warheads by the North. Al-Qaeda is only the most frightening of many possible buyers. The U.S. must now make it clear to Kim Jong-Il, in no uncertain terms, that if a terrorist nuclear weapon ever detonates on U.S. soil, the U.S. will not wait for an investigation before retaliating directly and massively against the North Korean leadership itself. In other words, the North Korean government must be convinced to totally abstain from nuclear proliferation for the sake of its own physical survival; and if a direct threat to the lives of the Kim family is the only way to do that, then such a threat must duly be made.
I first suggested in 2005 that this explicit linkage between any incident of nuclear terrorism and a state of war between the U.S. and North Korea had been made inevitable by the North’s acquisition of nuclear weapons; nothing I have seen since has led me to change my mind. Indeed, the increase in enriched uranium capability implied by the Hecker report has only made the need for this policy more dire.
It is crucial that the personal accountability of the Kim family be openly stated by the U.S. government. It is no longer appropriate or useful to maintain the fiction that the North Korean government exists as a separate entity from the Kim family dictatorship. All the important decisions in North Korea are made by the Kim family, regardless of the family members’ wisdom, qualifications, or competence. The Kim family is supremely indifferent to its neighbors’ desire for peace. Moreover, contrary to its propaganda claims, it does not care a whit for the welfare of the Korean nation; the lives of Korean people; or the reunification of Korea — after all, the North’s acquisition of nuclear weapons has made reunification far less likely, and obviously placed Korean lives in far greater danger, both north and south of the DMZ.
The regime has already proved conclusively, by its own actions, that it cares about one thing and one thing only: the perpetuation of its dictatorial power. That is why it is now necessary for the U.S. to make it clear to the Kims that they will personally be made to pay a price for any nuclear proliferation activity. This might strike many as a crude Mafia tactic unsuited to the U.S. government. Perhaps so, but that very fact is precisely why such a threat would be clearly understood by the Kim family — which is already an organized-crime organization in essence — and lead to an actual change in their behavior, which is now mandatory if we are serious about avoiding a truly apocalyptic war which could pull in China and Japan.
Necessary Step 2: Restore U.S. Nukes to South Korea
The second urgently necessary step is to restore nuclear weapons to South Korea. Until they were removed in 1991 as part of an arms control agreement between the U.S. and USSR, the U.S. maintained several dozen B-61 gravity bombs in the ROK, intended to be used against DPRK armor in the narrow Korean mountain passes if the North ever attacked the South. This step is necessary now simply to provide minimal security for South Korea, in light of the new strategic situation that the North has created with its nuclear program. In fact, it is so obviously necessary that South Koreans themselves have begun to suggest it, something unthinkable only a few years ago when huge crowds were demonstrating in Seoul’s streets against the U.S. presence in the peninsula. The mood in the ROK has changed dramatically since then.
Furthermore, the U.S. should seriously consider going beyond the status quo in 1991, not only in the sense of introducing more modern warheads than the antiquated (and probably decommissioned) B-61s, but as a deliberate strategic step to put economic pressure on Pyongyang. For example, the U.S. and South Korea could jointly announce that, in order to secure the ROK in light of the North’s many provocative acts, the new nuclear policy will be to, at all times, maintain a 5-to-1 numerical superiority in warheads on the peninsula.
This calibrated escalation would have several highly desirable effects. First, it would confront the DPRK regime with the choice of either 1) accepting a permanent state of strategic inferiority (one very obvious to elements of the DPRK military, which might be looking for an excuse to get rid of the Kims), or 2) bankrupting itself to keep up with the increasing warhead count of the U.S.-ROK alliance (we must not forget that the North’s weakest point is its laughable economy). Also, this step will ramp up the pressure on China, which is the only nation that has the power to effect peaceful change in Pyongyang; this is especially the case if Seoul is granted command authority over the nukes (more on this possibility on the next page).
Thanks for writing this. It’s given me several minutes of good belly-laughs.
Good one. Whack up some tariffs on chinese goods. You almost have a chance of breaking even in the subsequent trade-war. Go right ahead.
And last I checked, nuclear weapons can be launched from anywhere in the world. Putting them on south korean soil is just for show.
Wild talk about nuking north korea if there is ever a detonation on US soil sounds clever, but jeeze – you really wouldn’t want to get that wrong, now would you? Look up the word “consequences”. The US is five percent of the world’s population. Try to remember that. So you nuke pyonyang and kill tens of thousands and it turns out that the bomb was stolen from russia. How do you walk THAT back? You could kiss goodbye to that “south korea and japan are our allies” thing.
As for “Unfortunately, we are at the point where the easy options have all evaporated”
Oh, REALLY? What were these “easy options”? I suggest that happened some time ago. If there were easy options, then one of the bushes would have taken them, even if you think clinton was too wussy.
I can’t imagine japan being at all concerned if south korea went nuclear again. Surely they’d just sit on their hands, right? (not). And … what do you suppose happens when japan goes nuclear? Your description says you’re in china, so how do you think they’d respond? And how about russia? Google the kuril islands.
In any case, the treaty isn’t just whatever the US wants – it’s a multilateral treaty:
http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf/NPT%20%28in%20alphabetical%20order%29?OpenView
I can promise you that australia would take japan going nuclear about as joyfully as a poke in the eye with a stick. And what do you suppose the phillipines would think about it? And malaysia? Remember WWII? Because they do.
In any case, I think you’ll find that the japanese population will go bezerk if a leader tries to start a nuclear program. I think you’ve seriously misjudged the japanese population – they have a unique point of view, having been on the receiving end.
But we agree that china is the key. If they get serious about quarantine, it won’t really matter what DPRK tries to sell, it won’t get out of the country. How about we try that first, then make a hash of everything?
Good one. Whack up some tariffs on chinese goods. You almost have a chance of breaking even in the subsequent trade-war. Go right ahead.
-A trade war would be extremely costly, but more for the PRC than for the US. The US can replace Chinese-made goods, but China cannot replace US demand. Recall, we got by just fine before the 1980s without PRC-manufactured goods.
And last I checked, nuclear weapons can be launched from anywhere in the world. Putting them on south korean soil is just for show.
-On the contrary, it’s an important symbolic step that makes any general attack on South Korea dramatically more risky – to the point of suicide – for North Korea. Which is why this was US policy until 1991.
Wild talk about nuking north korea if there is ever a detonation on US soil sounds clever, but jeeze – you really wouldn’t want to get that wrong, now would you? Look up the word “consequences”. The US is five percent of the world’s population. Try to remember that. So you nuke pyonyang and kill tens of thousands and it turns out that the bomb was stolen from russia. How do you walk THAT back? You could kiss goodbye to that “south korea and japan are our allies” thing.
-Military action against North Korea would cost many lives, but as past history has shown, leaving the Kim regime in place will cost even more lives. Recall: this government allowed a famine to kill as many as 1 million people rather than give up power. If you want to help those people, get rid of the Kims. Suppose it turned out, as you say, that a terrorist nuke came from elsewhere. This would mean only that a useful and moral thing had been done unnecessarily. No regrets here. Also, I’m not clear why you think South Korea and Japan would regret a regime change in North Korea. Based on recent evidence it would appear they would strongly support it.
As for “Unfortunately, we are at the point where the easy options have all evaporated”
Oh, REALLY? What were these “easy options”? I suggest that happened some time ago. If there were easy options, then one of the bushes would have taken them, even if you think clinton was too wussy.
-Bush did take the easy option, which was continuing the six-party talks, i.e., multilateral diplomacy – which failed, leading directly to the present situation. If you are a liberal, you may find it difficult to grasp the notion that multilateral diplomacy could ever fail, because that is the liberal’s recommendation for pretty much all foreign policy problems.
I can’t imagine japan being at all concerned if south korea went nuclear again. Surely they’d just sit on their hands, right? (not).
-Already acknowledged this.
And … what do you suppose happens when japan goes nuclear? Your description says you’re in china, so how do you think they’d respond? And how about russia? Google the kuril islands.
-Uh…China and Russia are already nuclear powers, and I don’t see the relevance here of the Kurile islands dispute between Japan and Russia, which I already know more about than you ever will, thank you very much. What are you saying, that Japan is going to start a nuclear war to recover the Kuriles, or Russia would pre-emptively nuke Japan to prevent them gaining nuclear arms? Don’t be ridiculous.
In any case, the treaty isn’t just whatever the US wants – it’s a multilateral treaty:
http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf/NPT%20%28in%20alphabetical%20order%29?OpenView
I can promise you that australia would take japan going nuclear about as joyfully as a poke in the eye with a stick. And what do you suppose the phillipines would think about it? And malaysia? Remember WWII? Because they do.
-No, they won’t like it, but they are also sophisticated enough to recognize that Japan has evolved politically since WWII. Also, it’s really hard for a US ally to attack another US ally (just ask Greece and Turkey).
In any case, I think you’ll find that the japanese population will go bezerk if a leader tries to start a nuclear program. I think you’ve seriously misjudged the japanese population – they have a unique point of view, having been on the receiving end.
-Basically agree with you here (I’ve been to the Hiroshima memorial). But don’t forget, there are conservative nationalists in Japan; there is widespread and growing dislike and fear of North Korea due to the kidnappings among other factors; and self-preservation tends to focus the mind powerfully.
But we agree that china is the key. If they get serious about quarantine, it won’t really matter what DPRK tries to sell, it won’t get out of the country. How about we try that first, then make a hash of everything?
-A trade cutoff is not the PRC’s most powerful lever over Pyongyang although they do give them energy and a commercial lifeline. (In fact the DPRK, because of the Juche policy, is probably less vulnerable to a trade embargo than any other country on earth.) Their most powerful lever, as I said, is the threatened withdrawal of military protection. As to which, of the policies I’ve suggested, should be tried first, that’s debatable.
Holey moley. A response! And it’s … thoughtful! (not a dig at you – it’s just a rare treat on some of these threads). Kudos.
I’m regretting my initial rambunctious tone, now.
I’ll write a follow-up, but reality intrudes now (it’s monday here).
Pull the US troops out and let the locals slug it out.
oh poop…we’re not going to do one thing except talk loud and cower
Giving in to the isolationist impulse means, in practice, that North Korea, with Chinese backing, would win the Korean War and extend the Kim system over the entire peninsula, which is why the Kims have been trying to get us to do exactly as you suggest ever since 1953. Personally, I have a lot of Korean friends and I’m not prepared to see that happen. Of course, there are also knock-on consequences elsewhere in the world from failing to live up to treaty obligations, among many other arguments.
I can appreciate that you have a lot of Korean friends, but most of us have a lot of American family. They must risk their blood in perpetuity on behalf of South Korea? There’s a reason the isolationist tendency never goes completely away, and that’s because people get sick of Americans dying in other people’s wars.
I can appreciate that you have a lot of Korean friends, but most of us have a lot of American family. They must risk their blood in perpetuity on behalf of South Korea? There’s a reason the isolationist tendency never goes completely away, and that’s because people get sick of Americans dying in other people’s wars.
Actually, I share the ire of many Americans at the frequent ingratitude and anti-Americanism displayed in South Korea; indeed, I have written on this topic in the past. But like it or not, we are there; we got involved during the Truman administration, and ultimately, the only way to get out is to win, or to accept a North Korean victory, which is even more unthinkable now than in the past since the nuclear proliferation issue became so dire. Again, the proliferation risk, given North Korea’s past behavior, is the crucial factor that turns this into a large-scale national security crisis: it is simply unacceptable to the basic national interest of the US to allow Pyongyang, with its record of exporting every weapons technology, to set up a large-scale nuke production facility, regardless of what other countries may say or do.
Willpower and staying power are very important in this situation, as in many others. It IS possible to prevail, but we need to hang in there, even if it takes a long time, and it might – look at what happened in Germany, divided for 45 years. When I was growing up, everyone assumed that would be permanent, too. Germans suffered a lot during the Cold War and our relations with West Germany were not always pleasant, but ask them now if it was worth it.
I lived in South Korea and I can tell you that it is a complicated society with a lot of sides to it. Some of those sides are ugly and unpleasant, some of them are wonderful and very appealing. But it wouldn’t have to be a perfect country to be worth our help. The DPRK is so vile that the ROK could be a lot worse than it is and still merit our assistance.
Sometimes one has to take the long view. Pull the camera out, look at how Asia has changed since World War II. Before the war, there was one developed industrial country (Japan), and no democracies – the norm was overpopulated authoritarian states (or Western colonies) filled with desperately poor peasants. Now, there are multiple industrial countries (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, China); and even the less well off ones like Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc. are vastly better off than they were 25 years ago. Most of these are also reasonably functional democracies, despite the near-total lack of experience with democracy here before 1945. A convergence in living standards is under way, which will ultimately lead to a set of similarly developed countries that are unimaginably affluent by their own past standards. Altogether, the transformation in only two generations has been remarkable – and much of this, although it’s debatable how much, came about because of conscious, deliberate American policy.
I guess this sounds like a pep talk. Well, it is. There is a prize here, even if the mainstream media doesn’t talk about that, and it’s worth it: a peaceful, wealthy, democratic Asia that can be a powerful and friendly partner for the US, politically, commercially and sometimes militarily. Much of this vision has already come to pass, largely because of the fires that we have been through as a nation in this part of the world: digging Japanese troops out of caves with flamethrowers, Marines freezing to death at the Chosin reservoir, jungle fighting in Vietnam. We didn’t win every battle, but we are winning the war.
And when the fighting spills out? What to do then?
Great article! The only problem is that it makes so much sense that the politicians will ignore it. Why? Because it would work, of course!
THE TET OFFENSIVE, NORTH KOREA AND THE DEATH OF WALTER CRONKITE
What significance does the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War and the death of Walter Cronkite have with the growing crisis over North Korea: its acts of war, support of terror and proliferating nuclear ambitions? Nothing on the surface. But when we dig deeper what comes to light are ominous signs connecting the above; signs warning Obama of the costs to his presidency and US strategic interests and security if he doesn’t slough off his appeasement mentality and taking a hard ruthless stand against Kim Jong il seek the destruction of his evil regime……..
Click my name ApolloSpeaks and read on.
Moreover, the reining in of the Kim mafia would also send a resolute message to the Iranian Hitlerite regime.They are watching the pitiful actions of Washington and taking notes.
In essence, a decapitation of two for the price of one.
Good article. but we have our own problems we can’t be the policeman of the world surely Russia and china can put pressure on north Korea but letting them know it will be tit for tat if you use nukes
We agree. Also, Seems everything we ‘meddle” in turns to crap. Not because our military people are incapable, our leaders are. We’re so PC it’s disgusting
Covert action is required or walk away, take our people out and let China govern it. N Korea is going to kill, or help kill a lot of people.
Interesting thought exercise, but absolutely zero chance that the current administration does anything remotely like any of the author’s suggestions. Recall, even “Cowboy” Bush was an utter wimp on North Korea.
Well, I say zero chance, but I suppose if Obama is down far enough in the polls going into the 2012 election, then there’s a small chance of virtually anything happening re: North Korea or the rest of the world for that matter.
I didn’t address the likely actions of the current administration (out of the scope of the piece). Unfortunately, I think you are probably right with regard to the “serious steps”, however, with regard to the “mandatory two”, I think there is a chance that at least one of the two might be realized, as the potential consequences of North Korea’s high-speed uranium enrichment start to sink in in Washington.
“All the years of frantic diplomacy to date have only succeeded in buying the North time to bring its nuclear weapons program to successful fruition. It is now perfectly clear that, from the very beginning, North Korea was never sincerely willing to bargain away its nuclear activities. And even if that had been the case, how could one trust any agreement with the North, given its consistent willingness to violate agreements almost before the ink was dry?”
One could say the same thing about Iran. America has to come to grips with the fact that you can’t wish away all our problems through diplomacy. Obama seems to think that all of our problems CAN be solved through diplomacy or, worse, the United Nations. Diplomacy and the United Nations certainly has had a big effect on North Korea, right? In fact, in this case diplomacy has been worse than doing nothing because, while we have been “negotiating” with the North Koreans, the North Koreans have broken every agreement they’ve made and have been building nuclear bombs. So much for diplomacy. Obama and the far left just can’t come to grips with the fact that there are really bad countries out there that are willing to do really bad things, regardless of the cost.
So what do we do about it? We have to start by building up our military in Asia. Threats from us will not mean much if we don’t have the muscle to back it up with. We need to dramatically increase the number of carrier battle groups in the area. With three carrier battle groups, plus all of the American bombers based on Guam, we can show the North Koreans and the Chinese that the time for talking is over. We want results and we want them NOW, before the whole world is dragged into a nuclear war. We can also have a substantial number of aircraft based in South Korea and we can also add a number of land-based missiles in South Korea as well. Add to that South Korea’s substantial forces, and you have a very credible force in which to intimidate North Korea.
Then what? At the very least a naval blockade of North Korea. It forces North Korea to make the next move and it shows China that we’re serious about what we’re talking about. Then, China and North Korea have to decide how far they want to take this confrontation. A naval blockade will probably destroy North Korea’s economy (what’s left of it) and it could stop any shipments of illegal materials from leaving North Korea to other rogue states. But it MUST be a total blockade. Nothing goes in and nothing comes out. If a war is coming anyway with North Korea, you may as well start preventing all of the food and materials they need to wage war from coming into the country. Could they simply get what the need from China? Perhaps, but how far is China really willing to go to support North Korea? Is China willing to destroy herself over North Korea? The more pressure we put on the North will force China to answer that question. And, trust me, this isn’t 1950 anymore. China isn’t ready to fall on its sword for Kim and the crazy North Koreans. The answer will be no, and Kim’s regime will fall.
Put enough muscle into situations like this and your enemy will back down, just like they did in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The entire world knows what we know : that we have a weak, incompetent president. Heaven help us if we get into any real trouble because Obama simply is not qualified to lead us. If it weren’t for the resilience of the American people I would feel we were doomed. This administration is an example of what a far-left government can do to harm the country.
And yet it was the weakness of a Republican conservative president that invited the worst terrorist attack in this country’s history. Go figure.
Islam requires no invitation other than weakness displayed by others that are foolish enough to engage in negotiations demanding secession by blackmail before talks can begin. This practice began even before their handbook was revised after their prophet’s demise. It should have become obvious during 1400 years of continued practice.
If maturity permits, study just a little history beyond the past 10 years to support empty suppositions retained from your last group session.
Jihad requires no invitation other than weakness displayed by others that are foolish enough to engage in negotiations demanding secession by blackmail before talks can begin. This practice began even before their handbook was revised after their prophet’s demise. It’s success should have become obvious during 1400 years of continued practice.
If maturity permits, study just a little history beyond the past 10 years to support empty suppositions retained from your last group session.
LOL. What “conservative” Republican was that? Bah, it matters not. The whole premise of your argument is demonstrably false. People who are motivated by a religious imperative do not require invitation or provocation. You should study the spread of Islam into North Africa for a perfect historical example. The Berbers tried giving them riches, paying tributes, ceding territories, but all for naught because the Muslim Arabs weren’t there for that.
Rememeber Bush had barely stepped into Clinton’s shoes and it was eight years of Clinton just lobbying a couple missiles who gave Bin Laden the impression America was a paper tiger. And after that eight years of Bush undermining who gave Al Quaeda teh impression it could pull another Tet: win the war on America’s public opinion despite losing on the field.
Are you saying that you would prefer Biden and Hillory take the reins?
Tough situation room decision, huh?
What you say makes absolute sense.
The fact that one knows the powers-that-be will follow a suicidal course for the West until, perhaps, they decide otherwise at the last minute is profoundly sad, infuriating and frustrating.
In view of the madness they pursue with such determination, one has to ask what is their real objective?
To obtain peace could be a fairly simple matter. Complex, yes. Easy, no. But in principle, simple. And simple to move towards if done in an honest and consistent manner. Ronald Reagan did it to the extent that he did.
This lot have no excuse and can only be looking to achieve other goals.
There is at least one major problem with the proposals and the discussion of our “grim options.” President Obama is the weakest president since Carter and before him Wilson. This problem is alluded to in the final paragraph of the article, which acknowledges the need for
Whatever else he may have done, President Obama has shown no signs of becoming a “tough-minded” realist even with respect to North Korea, let alone the rest of the world; quite the contrary, and he will be the president at least until January of 2013. “
AppeasementPeace at any price” might well be his motto. Look at President Obama’s May address to the West Point graduating class:President Obama seems to want to follow the lead of Former President Carter, who recently wrote
Senator McCain will not become the president at least until 2013, and that itself is unlikely. By then, whatever happens will have happened.
I agree that North Korea’s use of nuclear resources against the South is unlikely. Aside from delivery problems, they are needed for other purposes, principally of course barter with Iran and other rogue entities. Why waste them, when a massive conventional strike on Seoul, a mere twenty-five miles from the border, would amply suffice to leave Seoul – with her approximately ten million residents – in ruin. North Korea has the delivery capabilities and is showing less restraint daily. That would be a shock from which the South would not soon recover, if ever. The shock posed by a nuclear attack would be greater, but not all that much.
An attack on Seoul, nuclear or conventional, should spell doom for the Kim dynasty as well as for lots of people in North Korea but it might not. Following such an attack, would the South be able to pull off a devastating attack on the North? I don’t know but it seems doubtful. Would the United States under Commander in Chief Obama attack? That also seems quite doubtful. Indeed, use of the phrase “Commander in Chief” in reference to President Obama seems odd.
United States carrier George Washington and her associated flotilla are now engaged in a show of force. Would even a direct missile attack on them result in significant retaliation aside from defensive countermeasures? How about a successful direct missile attack? Would that induce the Obama Administration to “do something” and if so what?
The options are indeed grim and for President Obama to accept any of them seems unlikely. In short, we are in a pickle, largely of our own making. The most likely scenario is some ceremonial breast beating, caving into North Korea’s demands for more economic aid and food to feed her already well fed military and amelioration of sanctions, followed by more interminable and unsuccessful talks about being less of a rogue nation.
Excellent article! However, I fear no one has the fortitude to lead such a course of action. We need a Churchill and all we have are Chamberlains.
We need a Churchill and all we have are Chamberlains.
I doubt that Obama measures up to even Chamberlain, let alone Churchill.
Even Chamberlain, for all his attempts to buy peace with appeasement, ultimately declared war after Hitler attacked Poland. I am not confident that Obama will show similar cojones even if North Korea perpetrates even more aggressive acts than it already has, up to and including an actual major attack on South Korea, such as an artillery bombardment of Seoul.
Keeping a boomer (nuke missile sub) off shore would probably do the trick just in case the ROK says no to new nukes on land. Subs terrify tyrants and for good reason.
I spent 25 years in the Navy and served aboard five “boomers.” Trust me, the Pacific fleet has targeting information for North Korea in their fire control computers. They don’t need to be anyhere near to unload D5 cargo, as the missiles have a range of well in excess of 4,000 nautical miles.
Thank you. This supports my necessarily unsubstantiated thesis that American off-shore tactics are the way to go. Why not apply this to Central Asia as well?
Guess how much water that would hold with a Chinese stealth sub popping up right in the middle of USN maneuvers in the Pacific and a sub fired missile on display for all of California to observe all within a week. of US DoD denials.
Keeping a boomer (nuke missile sub) off shore would probably do the trick just in case the ROK says no to new nukes on land. Subs terrify tyrants and for good reason.
Fairbanks99
I spent 25 years in the Navy and served aboard five “boomers.” Trust me, the Pacific fleet has targeting information for North Korea in their fire control computers. They don’t need to be anyhere near to unload D5 cargo, as the missiles have a range of well in excess of 4,000 nautical miles.
To be sure, the Ohio-class sub armed with the D-5 missile, with its multiple warheads (I had thought it was 10 per missile but apparently reduced to 8 now), remains the single most powerful weapons system in the modern world – a single one of these subs, fully loaded, can reduce any industrial country on earth to rubble in mere hours. However, there is a difference between tactical and strategic weapons, as Fairbanks99 can surely attest.
The problem with simply sending Ohios within range of Korea is twofold: 1) it would not change anything, since we already routinely patrol subs in the Pacific theater, and 2) it does not send a message, since the subs are practically undetectable and we do not normally advise potential enemies that they are being sent. Another problem with this alternative is that the Trident is a ballistic missile weapon; although the Navy has explored arming them with conventional or kinetic energy weapons, to other countries, there is no way to tell the difference between a Trident launched bearing kinetic energy penetrators, and one bearing 8 nuclear warheads. This means that a launch of a Trident near China and Russia would be very risky.
Therefore, in my estimation, re-introducing tactical nukes on land (like GPS-guided aircraft bombs, assuming such a thing exists) is a better idea. It deters potential attack in a very public way, presents the DPRK with a vexing targeting problem, and cannot be mistaken for a ballistic missile launch, if they ever have to be used.
Therefore, in my estimation, re-introducing tactical nukes on land (like GPS-guided aircraft bombs, assuming such a thing exists) is a better idea. It deters potential attack in a very public way, presents the DPRK with a vexing targeting problem, and cannot be mistaken for a ballistic missile launch, if they ever have to be used.
You’re essentially doing “theatre” here, aren’t you?
The problem is that this “theatre” is designed to maintain the status quo…which beasically just “kicks the can down the road”, and sentences our children to deal with a fundamentally same cast of characters under conditions that might be even less favorable than the ones we face now.
To put it in absolutely cold-blooded and rather imperialist terms, the cost to us of taking out the Kim Mafia today MIGHT be the decimation of Seoul.
That would be bad, but it might be preferable to the cost of removing them later on, when it is conceivable that they might have Iranian atomic payloads to tip their missiles with.
As far as it goes, the “Go-No Go” decision in this by rights has to rest with the South Koreans, whose capabilities to topple the Kim regime for some reason seem to have been given short shrift pretty much everywhere…they ain’t potted plants over there.
But if they;re not willing to lose a city in order to save their nation, then maybe they ARE potted plants…and we need to rethink our alliances.
I’d like to propose another option. A very limited stealth strike of about 3 nuclear bombs. Take out ALL of the nuclear facilities and the Kim family in as much of it’s entirety as can be done with one bomb. Finally get this fiasco over and done with. And make damn sure there are no warnings to give them time to go underground.
It would require total annihilation of the East Asian population to extinguish the monstrous aggressive gene pool left by Genghis Khan. The Saudi aristocracy may even be contaminated. Better check your ammo before you pop a cap.
Please remember the fundamental problem with any strike against North Korea (not that it might not be necessary, or even desirable): NK has upwards of 10,000 conventional artillery tubes (and probably rockets as well) aimed as Seoul from underground bunkers. There’s no practical way that either the U.S. or SK could get them all in time to prevent Seoul from being flattened. In addition, the North Koreans – the world’s foremost tunnelers – probably have exits for their tanks and troops coming out well south of the DMZ.
John Parker, you have to be living in another dimension!
With the present administration kowtowing to every dictator in the world plus signing the start treaty with Russia, there would not be a chance in hell of this scenario you have written about.
Korea goes back to the Truman administration who was afraid of Russia getting into the fight when MacArthur wanting to Nuke Manchuria.
With politicians running a war, nothing is for sure except death to the fighting man on the ground. Selective targets- cannot hit that village, too many civilians or cannot find any military facilities in the area.
HIT IT. DESTROY IT! Never happen in today’s world.
Iraq and Afghanistan drag on because of this limitation on hitting every type of facility including Mosques.
Make sure your weapons are clean and you have plenty of ammo because it is coming.
Hit it, destroy it. Never happen in today’s world? Somehow the Israelis seem to manage to hit and destroy, as they recently did in Syria…..
It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to gain permission.
If the Kims are a threat to US security, then they should be removed without mercy or delay.
What are we going to do otherwise? Wait to find out that the NEXT “airplane contrail” off of Los Angeles is actually a short-range missile with a tactical nuke, (Hiroshima-sized),warhead and count the few dead American bodies that aren’t vaporized?
Blow those bastards out by any means necessary, preferably subtle, but if that means a cruise missile shower on Kim’s digs…that’s okay too.
The thing about being a dictator is that it makes you a lot of enemies, and as such, no one is really sorry at all to see you get gakked.
And once the Kims are worm-food, we open his labor camps to the world’s cameras…I don’t think too many people are going to protest too loudly.
No one with any credibility defends the Nazis in the face of what they did in the Shoah, do they?
The Kim regime is essentially no different.
Diplomacy has failed, and it needs to be recognized that it has failed before it becomes absolutely undeniable that this is so.
And if what you say about China’s vulnerability to us is true, then that’s the very reason that they won’t get too worked up about it.
Would YOU trade away an America for a North Korea?
McCain will never be president.
The USA will not invade any brutal dictatorship after Democrats Kennedy and McDemott likened our government to Hussein’s.
The world wants nuclear war. It wants to exterminate Israel. The best course for the USA is cynicism, sand-bagging, and sardonic laughter. The world must remember what’s it like without Pax Americana; without a powerful democracy opposing Socialism. Only after much of the world lies in ruins will America be able to respond.
@17. tehag
>McCain will never be president.
After Gallipoli, they said Churchill’s political career was over. Although McC is getting up there…
>The USA will not invade any brutal dictatorship after Democrats Kennedy and McDemott likened our government to Hussein’s.
The question of whether to allow a country like North Korea to build up a nuclear weapons arsenal, which it will probably export, is not a partisan issue, contrary to popular belief (Clinton’s willingness to consider war proves this). In the mainstream of US politics there is, or will be, agreement on this issue, once the significance of the uranium operation sinks in. I have to believe that reason will win the day because the alternative is an era of nuclear terrorism that could kill hundreds of millions of people.
>The world wants nuclear war. It wants to exterminate Israel. The best course for the USA is cynicism, sand-bagging, and sardonic laughter. The world must remember what’s it like without Pax Americana; without a powerful democracy opposing Socialism. Only after much of the world lies in ruins will America be able to respond.
If the worst nightmares come to pass, yes, that will change global views towards the US in general and on the proliferation issue in particular. But passively allowing this to happen is something we must not do. That is too high a price to pay and I think you know it.
Tread carefully. This is a very complex, multi-faceted chessgame.
1. The Chinese – in the form of Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd – control the ports at both end of the Panama Canal. Shutting down the Canal would seriously impact shipping worldwide. No only that, the ports provide a convenient point to launch missiles – already in the Chinese arsenal – with sufficient range to reach most of the US.
2. And let us not forget Taiwan. I believe that China’s number one strategic goal is the ‘reunification’ of Taiwan. It is not out of the question that the Chinese might say, “The only way we’ll give up DPRK if you give up Taiwan.” What do we do then?
“Tread carefully. This is a very complex, multi-faceted chessgame.”
No, it’s not complex at all, and it’s not a game.
If Kim’s North Korea is a threat to United States security, then Kim or his North Korea or both has to be neutralized.
And to that end, I could give a wet fart about the PRC’s take on the situation.
Y’know what? Let’s let THEM worry about OUR actions for a spell…do not take the counsel of your enemies.
Tread carefully. This is a very complex, multi-faceted chessgame.
-Couldn’t agree more, and it’s even more complex than the “six parties” because what happens in Korea will strongly affect what happens elsewhere in the world (like Iran).
1. The Chinese – in the form of Hutchison-Whampoa Ltd – control the ports at both end of the Panama Canal. Shutting down the Canal would seriously impact shipping worldwide. No only that, the ports provide a convenient point to launch missiles – already in the Chinese arsenal – with sufficient range to reach most of the US.
-I’ve heard the Hutchison-Whampoa conspiracy theory a number of times, and it’s never made any sense to me. Here’s why: In any serious confrontation with the US, the PRC has exactly zero chance of holding on to any real estate in the Western hemisphere, including the Panama Canal. True, China could mount some kind of black-ops or commando operation to damage the Canal (harder than it sounds, that concrete’s pretty thick), but they couldn’t hold on to it for more than a few days (not long enough to make a difference even in the narrow logistical sense), and why bother messing around with the Panama Canal when you have nuclear missiles that can hit US cities?
2. And let us not forget Taiwan. I believe that China’s number one strategic goal is the ‘reunification’ of Taiwan. It is not out of the question that the Chinese might say, “The only way we’ll give up DPRK if you give up Taiwan.” What do we do then?
Now that is an exceedingly interesting and important question you have hit on – a question that I have thought, for many years, we should be seriously debating in the US, BEFORE the crisis hits. If China uses the opportunity of a Korean war to attack Taiwan, we would find it well-nigh impossible to fight both wars at once at current force levels. That raises the question of whether we ought to accept such a fait accompli as a matter of policy. Personally I would 1000x rather Taiwan take over China than the reverse, but in foreign policy, one cannot always have what one wants. Militarily, if we try to win in both cases we might end up losing in both cases.
PUNT???
that’s a solid roundabout story of Asia.I just wonder why they call these countries Communist. I don’t see any communism (my own opinion).I see two countries ruled by thugs. These thugs are of the worst kind! They have inslaved their own people.Of course the economy is gov planned because there is not a shred of information exchange. The populous knows the facts as per the gov. press office.
The part that scares me is that seemingly the USofA is going down that same path.Why do leftists think they can redistribute wealth and equalize everyones social positon.Pure communism can never be a reality. There has to be some one at the top, there has to be middle managers, on down to the lowly peon that performs the most menial of tasks.
Jesus said we will always have the poor. You can take that to the bank. We have self-starters and no starters. I say leave them alone! Observe the Peter Principle and everything will work out. Give a poor lazy man money and position and he will be lazier still and the position that he is given will deteriorate. Soon, whatever company that is forced to take on this kind will have to dumb-down.
What can I conclude from this? A dynamic economy needs dynamic people. Unearned advancement leads to destruction. We are not equal and never will be.
Raid Tamany Hall.Throw the bums out.Shed the loafers. End this social experiment. I call it Obamagov and it is my prime example of what not to do. Never give an incompetent a job he is unqualified for and I don’t care if you do the intellectual falsehood of thinking tis time. This Pres. has no history and no credentials. Why,I’ve seen smarter niggers sellin dope on the street.
Let us put God back in the center and run our gov. with decency truth and compassion.
Uh….,what was the question?
that’s all
Suppose…just suppose…that the US just ignored North Korea and refused to play their extortion game. How about we didn’t offer to give them nuclear power technology this time in exchange for empty promises. Promises that both sides knew in advance that North Korea had no intention of honoring.
Sometimes, the way to win is simply not to play. Sometimes, you just have to call the bluff. Can’t we just send them Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize or something instead?
Well, that’s the Obama team’s current strategy, which they call “strategic patience”. It’s actually not a terrible idea – ignoring a weak extortionist, daring him to escalate. Arguably, the existing escalation has been somewhat beneficial in that it has made South Koreans angrier at North Korea (and friendlier towards the US) than I have ever seen them.
The problem, (sigh) is the enriched uranium. This is why we simply cannot accept the status quo, no matter how much we want to. A regime like North Korea’s, with a history of unrestricted weapons sales, in possession of steadily mounting numbers of nuclear warheads, is a situation that the United States cannot tolerate, in its own right, irrespective of what South Korea, Japan, Russia, China or anyone else thinks. Ignoring North Korea means that one day, suddenly – boom. No more Philadelphia. When and if that day comes, people will finally understand that they would have been better off acting seriously now. Obviously, I hope that is not necessary.
What is ultimately at issue is whether the American people, especially on the left, are capable of perceiving a civilizational risk before it becomes actualized. Unfortunately, our record of nipping Asian problems in the bud, before they become too huge to ignore, is very poor (e.g. World War II, the rise of Chinese communism, Korea, Vietnam).
It’s now time to bring our full national power to bear on the North Korean problem.
The North Korean problem is a sick and dying Kim Jong (mentally) Il who is being replaced by Kim (dim) Jong Un who, reportedly, is a mental midget whose personal stupidity might only be reined in by a cadre of generals.
The North Korean problem is a babbling and ineffective US state department, not to mention various and sundry equally ineffective negotiators over the years like Christopher Hill. Hell, who wouldn’t be emboldened with all this so called diplomatic pressure the Norks have successfully ignored over the decades.
The North Korean problem is the fact that they got away with the attack on the South Korean ship and the killing of many sailors, which has further emboldened this crazy regime.
They’ve also gotten away with getting concessions from “the west” while, apaprently, continuing nuclear programs unabated, much of it, reportedly, underground.
The North Korean problem is that they will proliferate and sell nuclear material to anyone, including, but not limited to, vast exchanges of technology and missiles with Iran.
And then there is Jimmy Carter vis à vis the Norks, past policies and present brain dead remarks.
North Korea’s military strategy is entirely defensive. Its greatest weapon is not the bullet or the bomb–nuclear or otherwise–but the shovel. Its entire military is dug into hardened bunkers and granite caves. It is a porcupine bristling with hidden and hard to hit weapons and soldiery and no American in his right mind wants our men and women engaged in a land war there.
The Achilles heel of North Korea’ defense is gas. Heavy, ground clinging gas delivered by artillery, missiles or aircraft could debilitate or annihilate the North Koreans in their burrows regardless of fortification.
If the North Koreans insist on nuclear proliferation, the civilized world needs to revisit the WWI vintage Geneva Accords and make some hard decisions about limited and local use of chemical weapons with no long term environmental impact vs the worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons and massive environmental contamination.
`
North Korea’s military strategy is entirely defensive. Its greatest weapon is not the bullet or the bomb–nuclear or otherwise–but the shovel. Its entire military is dug into hardened bunkers and granite caves. It is a porcupine bristling with hidden and hard to hit weapons and soldiery and no American in his right mind wants our men and women engaged in a land war there.
-Sorry, but this is just factually incorrect. The North does have extensive defensive fortifications, mostly to protect equipment and troops against air strikes. But the overall orientation is offensive. For example, for decades, the North has dug tunnels into the South – there is no conceivable defensive purpose for these. They have a lot of tanks – inherently offensive weapons. And massive numbers of commando-type forces, which would bring them little advantage in a defensive battle. The late defector, Hwang Jeong-Yop, had a lot to say about DPRK war plans; according to him, the basic strategy was a massive blitzkrieg-style invasion of the ROK (Kim Jong-Il loves the word “blitzkrieg”, according to Hwang), using the tunnels and artillery to clear opposition, and threatening the US with a nuclear attack on Japan if the US intervenes. Of course this is doomed to failure, but the Kim regime is so isolated that it may not realize this.
-Also, infantry-on-infantry, I like the alliance’s chances. The North Koreans have fanaticism going for them. Our side has soldiers that are not only infinitely better equipped and trained, but literally bigger and stronger than the North Koreans, due to better nutrition.
The Achilles heel of North Korea’ defense is gas. Heavy, ground clinging gas delivered by artillery, missiles or aircraft could debilitate or annihilate the North Koreans in their burrows regardless of fortification.
-Actually, gas is a very problematic weapon (tends to drift in the wrong direction and quickly loses potency), although US forces are almost certainly better prepared for its use than the North Koreans are.
If the North Koreans insist on nuclear proliferation, the civilized world needs to revisit the WWI vintage Geneva Accords and make some hard decisions about limited and local use of chemical weapons with no long term environmental impact vs the worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons and massive environmental contamination.
JP: Thanks for the lesson.
“North Korea’s military strategy is entirely defensive. Its greatest weapon is not the bullet or the bomb–nuclear or otherwise–but the shovel. Its entire military is dug into hardened bunkers and granite caves.”
All the better, they’ve half-buried themselves already, all we would need to do is complete the job that they have so helpfully started. If it comes to it, I foresee the largest military,aerial and naval game of “Whack-a-mole”…ever.
In a cold climate like Korea, tunnels and ventilation shafts show up very nicely on infrared. And technology in use in the Oil Patch today is quite good at giving 3-D images of subterranean features.
“It is a porcupine bristling with hidden and hard to hit weapons and soldiery and no American in his right mind wants our men and women engaged in a land war there.”
Which is why it would be preferable to gakk the Kims and their command structure.
“The Achilles heel of North Korea’ defense is gas. Heavy, ground clinging gas delivered by artillery, missiles or aircraft could debilitate or annihilate the North Koreans in their burrows regardless of fortification.”
Interesting approach, although I’m slightly flabbergasted to hear a Jewish fella suggest the use of gas.
Senator McCain has called for serious consideration of regime change. He argued
Regime change has become a politically incorrect concept and talking about it is very good; actually achieving it would be even better. A big question is how could we get it non-militarily (particularly after rejecting military action) even if we had a strong president to push unrelentingly for it. We don’t and won’t at least until 2013, and by then the current crisis will have been dealt with by the Obama Administration. Caving into China’s demands for more negotiations with North Korea is what we will most likely see, and that will just be a continuation of the same sad old song and dance. It almost certainly will not result in regime change. It may result in “peace in our time,” but only until the next time. The next time may well come even during the Obama Administration.
Only during the “global warming” of the cold war, with the release of many Soviet and Chinese documents, did we learn some things about the mindsets of Stalin and Mao during the period leading up to the onset of the Korean Conflict in June of 1950 and during the events thereafter; some of them were surprising, just had been the June 1950 invasion itself and the massive Chinese push to the south after our rout of the North Korean army which had followed the Inchon invasion and occurred during our race to the Yalu.
History does not exactly repeat itself, but it does have useful lessons. The mindsets of the Russian and Chinese leaders now are no less inscrutable and the current Kims of North Korea are mercurial and unpredictable — probably more so than was Kim il-Sung; at least Stalin and Mao had pretty good gasps of his mindset even though our State Department did not. Their plans and their bases for them are even more inscrutable and I question whether even the current Chinese and Russian powers that be understand them very well.
An inconvenient but telling detail that is consistently avoided in any public discussion of America’s “presence”, i.e. our military personnel in Asia, is that we simply are not wanted there.
Note the periodic demonstrations on Japan’s island Okinawa concerning the location of our bases. Part of this (besides the underlying and rankling elementary cultural issue) is the nuclear warhead problem of just where, if anywhere at all, to put these things. The author pointedly reminds us that the Japanese have been on the receiving end of two of our nuclear bombs.
Naturally the South Koreans have similar anxieties. The author reminds us that, regarding nuclear warheads:
….”In fact, it is so obviously necessary that South Koreans themselves have begun to suggest it,[nuclear warheads again in S. Korea] something unthinkable only a few years ago when huge crowds were demonstrating in Seoul’s streets against the U.S. presence in the peninsula. The mood in the ROK has changed dramatically since then.”
Taiwan also has had its anti-American demonstrations with varying causes. So,the mood of our local mercurial allies in that theater is a major issue in any American strategic decision making.
Now, returning, join all this with the ugly main point of the North Koreans selling their weapons to Islamic terrorists. (Conspicuously missing here is the US Dollar cost of maintaining our massive presence in East Asia.) Let us then concentrate on launching any pre-emtive strikes against North Korea from offshore, and apply our U.A.V.s.
We’re caught now in the nasty (author’s word, “grim”) situation of not having the resources to fight a separate war in East Asia along with continuing that two-fronted war in Central Asia. So, in the face of our needs versus our resources to fight our borderless, uniformless, amorphous adversary of Islamic terrorism I’d advocate a withdrawal of our massed ground presence from both Central and East Asia. Let any necessary ground fighting be the special preserve of the locals, admittedly with varying degrees of effectiveness. Let that be a local problem.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, American blood is not an entitlement.
-I actually didn’t mention the US nuclear attacks on Japan although, of course, this historical fact has a profound effect on Japanese attitudes towards nuclear weapons.
-Yes, lots of people in the ROK are opposed to nuclear weapons on the peninsula. That’s why it’s so striking that many are now openly calling for them.
-I agree with you that the infantry in any fighting on the Korean peninsula should be mostly Korean. That was true in the last Korean war and would definitely be true in another; numerically, ROK soldiers form the vast majority of troops fighting under ROKUS Combined Forces Command (the actual military entity that would supervise the fighting), although, in a crisis, the number of US troops would increase rapidly. Arguably, the ROK needs US infantry much less than they have in the past; Koreans fight very effectively when their blood is up, and I have never seen the ROKs’ blood up more than it has been since the Yeonpyeong Island attack (and I used to live there).
Sorry to misquote you, that was probably something I knee-jerked into the script because it was so apparent, at least, to me. When I was in the USAF in Japan in 1955 I went over to Nagasaki to see that site. Later in a local bar, I found myself so glared at by a very red-faced Japanese that I finished my beer, got up and left. In fairness, that was my only anti-American experience in Japan.
My Korean experience was for three months as a civilian in Seoul (mid 1960′s) in the winter(!)where my everlasting lesson was that the Koreans are one very, very, tough people, emotionally as well as physically. I cannot imagine living on Yeonpyeong Island.
It was during the ‘sixties that I lived in Hong Kong and went infrequently over to Taiwan…..so my opinions of East Asia are more than a generation out of date, but I’m sure the underlying cultural factors will remain unchanged.
I want no more American blood shed in Asia.
For John Parker..
….here’s my mini-Eureka moment:
…..” In any case, I think you’ll find that the japanese population will go bezerk if a leader tries to start a nuclear program. I think you’ve seriously misjudged the japanese population – they have a unique point of view, having been on the receiving end.
-Basically agree with you here (I’ve been to the Hiroshima memorial). …..”
I can see now that this is the point at which I misread you and Matthew..I lost track of just who had typed what in your long response to Matthew’s #1.
Now,…if Matthew quips in here that ..”I didn’t say that…”, then I really, really am in trouble.
Mr. Parker, Could it be that China has purposely been providing cover for the Kim family’s control over NK, a situation that has kept NK in virtual isolation for all these years, to have the leverage to ask a dying Kim and an unprepared heir to escalate the situation to create a war-like dilemma for the US with the sole purpose of asking for Taiwan in exchange for controlling North Korea? Kim is done and dying. The fact that China won’t support the US in regards to the serious situations being created by both Iran and North Korean has to have a rational explanation. What better time would there be for this type of scenario? NK has continually emphasized that the world should be fearful of their ability to sell advanced weapons by demonstrating the ease and determination to do so to anyone who has an anti-Israel-USA mindset (especially Iran when our focus is on them). China and the US understand the difficulty of opening up and handling the two additional two war fronts in NK and Taiwan while simultaneously maintaining the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It is clear that this would create a dangerous situation for America’s military and something would have to give. China undoubtedly has also taken into account that the US has a sitting president that has apologized and appeased most of the known communist powers in the world today and giving up Taiwan seems like a very viable option. China always resists real sanctions. Now unleash NK to escalate the situation, given the current US commitments and president, and a Syrian nuclear plant is built, rogue regimes are provided thousands of rockets and weapons that threaten the safety of Israel and our troops in the area. Have NK increase the severity of the situation by sinking a SK battleship and by maintaining an aggressive, belligerent, war-like tone and attitude. Then reveal the lack of world knowledge of the possession of highly advanced uranium enrichment technology and equipment, and finally, violate the long-standing armistice by striking SK militarily, again, along with unprovoked threats of war and retaliation against the US and SK for any credible response to their actions, and China has the unacceptable situation necessary to achieve the unification of Taiwan through negotiations. What do you think sir, could that be possible?
@Rambob2
You suggest that the PRC might have orchestrated this crisis with the aim of forcing the US to, in effect, trade Taiwan for NK. Well…I don’t know about that. It’s not that Beijing wouldn’t be amoral and ruthless enough to consider such a strategy. It’s just that:
1) I don’t believe the PRC has enough control/influence over the DPRK, at the present time (and this is a crucial qualifier, this situation could change in the future), to act as you suggest. Historically, Pyongyang forced China to withdraw most of its troops (I think nearly all of them, maybe someone can check this?). They have never trusted the PRC, in spite of owing their continued existence after Inchon to Mao, and trust them now probably less than ever before. In other words, the North really is as erratic, belligerent and willful as it appears to be.
2) You know how a lot of US policy is just determined by inertia – we’ve always done things a certain way so we just continue to do it without really thinking about it? Well, that happens in other countries too, including the PRC. For policy to change in China, somebody has to stick their neck out and make it change. There is a nationalistic/military constituency within the PRC state that would regard it as treasonous to abandon Pyongyang; even though a lot of Chinese have begun to complain about what North Korea is doing and even the most hardline regard the Kim family with eye-rolling disdain, it is still difficult to change a longstanding policy.
3) The official statements and response from China, so far, is all talk, talk, talk – let’s all calm down, guys; back to diplomacy, etc. This is not the behavior of a government that is secretly seeking to provoke a crisis. If they wanted to do that, there are easier ways.
4) In general, I think conspiracy theories (like this one) are wrong; usually, the correct explanation involves things like bureaucratic inertia, wishful thinking, and plain old stupidity. All three are involved here. Inertia says to the CCP, “the DPRK is our ally”. Wishful thinking says that “their nuclear program could never affect US”. Stupidity dictates that “protecting the “Dear Leader” is more important than hundreds of billions of dollars worth of exports to the US”. See what I mean? Fundamentally, the CCP regime talks to, and trades with, the US but secretly hates and fears us. In countless ways – really too many examples to even mention – they have sought to make trouble for America and create obstacles for US policy. Ultimately, the reason for this is that they correctly perceive a democratic superpower as a threat to their rule. They want to limit American power, and prevent further deterioration of the already very deteriorated position of socialism and authoritarianism in Asia (and elsewhere), solely because this is in their own short-term self-interest. The momentum of this tendency has precluded a consideration of the risks of allowing a rogue weapons exporter like the DPRK to set up a uranium production facility, which, in one of the greatest ironies of this whole situation, may be an even greater threat to China, in the long term, than it is to the USA (Chinese cities are denser and the PRC has been spending more on infrastructure recently – and don’t forget, the PRC also has a problem with Islamic extremists!). I think factors like these are the real cause of China’s recalcitrance on North Korea.
Having said all that, one of the big problems with a war in Korea is that it could very quickly become a Taiwan Strait war as well. Militarily, you are absolutely right to point out that if the US is fighting a major war on the Korean peninsula at the same time that we remain involved in Afghanistan and (to a lesser extent) Iraq, it would become incredibly difficult to respond to a PRC movement against Taiwan. This issue was argued over a great deal in the 1990s, when the major military policy question was whether it was really necessary, post-Cold War, to have a military that could fight 2 theater wars simultaneously. Ultimately the US decided that the answer was no. But the problem this created is that potential opponents can read the newspaper just as well as we can, and may have concluded that a military gambit like invading Taiwan could succeed if it is properly timed. In the past, crunches like this one led to, for example, the Allies nearly losing World War II before ramping up force levels and war production to turn things around. Traditionally, the US is not prepared for major wars. That is one tradition we would do well to change.
Finally, even if the PRC didn’t ACTIVELY seek to create this situation to regain Taiwan, that doesn’t mean that they might not act, opportunistically, to take advantage of a crisis in Korea to move against Taiwan. In other words, it might make no difference in the end whether they actually intended events to develop in that way or not.
Interesting article, but the options presented by the author have a zero chance of being enacted.
First; China will do all in its power to prevent a unified (free) Korea on its border. North Korea (NK) is an errant step child that China lets loose on a leash every now and then, and likes what NK does.
Second, China is the largest holder of our (US) debt. As soon as we start to make waves, they will make bigger waves, and the US dollar which is already sinking like a rock, will sink like a rock with a rocket attached, sending it down faster and deeper.
Third, we have a President who prides himself on being able to talk to anyone. He believes that he can talk to the Kims like he fooled the American electorate. With his pacifist background, there is almost zero chance that the US Government will stand up to NK, and their megalomaniacal leader. Unfortunately, all the Kims want is more giveaways from the US Government. They have already proven that they are extremely proficient at lying, deceit, and treachery, from past actions.
There is one thing that NK respects, raw brut force, and until someone has the guts to realize that, ugly as it sounds, we will be playing second, or maybe even third fiddle to China and NK.
Stop referring to North Korea as a nation.
If the Kim Family is the problem always refer to the Family in all official bulletins, warnings, etc.
We don’t have a problem with North Korea. We have a problem with China. China just flipped us the finger with North Korea over our quantitative easing (printing dollars). It’s our dollar, but its declining value is your problem. So the Chinese play the game of its our North Korea, but its your problem. When the Chinese want to make a geopolitical point with a little monetary shakedown on the side, there’s no better asset than their Hermit Kingdom.
It is all politics until someone gets nuked. What is it going to take for the next big war? The next real war?
We’ve been kissin Kim’s a@@ for goin’ on 30 years and what’s changed? It’s time we initiate based on recent events. A good option may be to establish the security zone and destroy the nuclear launch and enrichment capabilities, then see what develops. Make sure we have the subs, B-2s, B-1s on stand-by to destroy the enemy and preserve our alliance.
The problem as I see it is that S.Korea has lots to lose and very little to gain by any conflict with N.Korea. SK has a successful, stable, functional, and wealthy population. What do they have to gain from a war with NK? Nothing. There is nothing in NK that they need or (really) want. The reunification idea is essentially a dead letter to the vast majority of the SK population today (remember: the country divided 60 years ago). Further, while the USA is the obvious target of a terror cell+nuke device, SK is not. So the medium and long term interests of the USA and SK are divergent. Thus far the SK policy of low-grade appeasement towards NK has been successful. Why should they change? The recent sinking of an SK destroyer and more recent shelling of a border island do not change the calculus of the SK overall strategy. These are pin-pricks.
Could the USA unilaterally adopt a blockade (still less embark on a military option) against NK without SK agreement? I don’t think there is any chance of such a thing. We need the SK approval and they won’t give it.
As a result, we will do nothing, except hope. BTW: I presume we have threatened NK with retaliation if a nuke goes off in the USA. Whether the threat is believed by the Kim “mafia” is an open question…
I have a feeling the N. Koreans will get their asses kicked in a matter of days if they start something, thus showing the superiority of capitalism over poverty inducing communism.
If China agreed to allow Korean refugees into S. Korea instead if sending them back to nk the Kim regime would collapse. Same thing caused the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately the South does not want NK to collapse due to the economic cost. And China is happy with the status quo of a non US ally on their border. Now if the US could address the Chinese and SK concerns I would hope china would allow NK to collapse peacefully. May be some speeches on the refugees in Manchuria?
So let’s say we escalate and try to take significant military or other regime change action – NK announces it has planted a nuclear weapon in Seoul, what do we do? What do you think SK will do?
We really have limited options, which is why we should be bombing the hell out of Iran’s nuclear sites. Instead first Europe said “We’ll talk to them.” Then somehow it became the US’s problem even though Europe promised their talks would stop the Iranians.
Personally, I think both these problems will be festering for another 30 – 50 years.
James Carville just said that Hillary Clinton should give Obama one of her balls and then he would have two. Even then he wouldn’t have the guts to do anything meaningful. Let’s do a Berlin airdrop on major population centers of kimchee, bulkogi, and bebimbap and wait for regime change.
How did North Korea get the advanced centrifuges? Was it an unintended consequence of South Korea’s aid provided by the previous liberal administration?
Our gutless politicians, exemplified by this dangerously naive psuedointellectual President we have, will not take any of the steps described in this article. We didn’t stop Iran from going nuclear and we won’t stop North Korea. We WILL send strongly worded communiques and blistering empty speeches at the UN.
The world hasn’t seen a nuclear detonation in anger in some 65 years; I am 52 and very confident I will see one or more in my lifetime.
We live in dangerous times, and are governed by fools.
God help us.
SERIOUSLY! ARE THESE STRATEGIES [REAL] IDEA’S OR JUST JOKES-OF-THE-DAY?
[" The U.S. must now make it clear to Kim Jong-Il, in no uncertain terms, that if a terrorist nuclear weapon ever detonates on U.S. soil, the U.S. will not wait for an investigation before retaliating directly and massively against the North Korean leadership itself."]
["It is crucial that the personal accountability of the Kim family be openly stated by the U.S. government."]
["...it is now necessary for the U.S. to make it clear to the Kims that they will personally be made to pay a price for any nuclear proliferation activity."]
["...urgently necessary step is to restore nuclear weapons to South Korea."]
Y A W N!
That is a great piece of work representing the typical political and intellectual elitist’s historically failed strategic thinking!
When I read these kinds of “intellectual” thinking and strategies it tells me immediately they are horribly uninformed of the real world outside their little intellectual bubbles.
Our military has offensive/defensive weapons platforms that make all nuke weapon platforms outdated and essentially irrelevant. Yes, of course there is a hitch to using them! There is not currently a defense to their use if directed to the 99% reliant modern “digital” worlds of the U.S. and Europe. The platform doesn’t directly kill a single sole but sets any digital reliant society back into the stone age. Yes, these precisely directed weapons platforms will render any nuke site and attack dead in the water…IF….ordered into use….BUT….then be prepared for an enemy to develop these platforms and threaten use of them.
So, the remaining strategy reverts to either conventional special ops or boots on the ground to take out a government and or its military. “Talking down” an enemy like North Korea or zealot regimes like Iran will NOT work! They do NOT share the same worldly and human life values!
Problem is that right now America’s military is tired and equipment worn out…not to mention we are a financially BROKE nation reliant upon those nations who do not like us to much…for so much of our needs.
Can America take on a North Korea or Iran and win even under the current circumstances? SURE! However, it would take a government that would unshackle the military and stand out of its way. Verbal ping-pong is a loser and allows nations like North Korea and Iran to actually be a [real] dangerous and viable threat.
Decades of failed “political” policy in foreign affairs through that cesspool UN, has placed America into a world position that is coming home to roost. The four powers that the “UN declared” as policemen of the world hasn’t worked out so well has it?
I do believe that someone in the world still thinks that America has power. Please it is time to take your meds.! You lose your power the minute you start worrying what other countries will think about you or what they will do to you. Look China is not going to lose its best customer, over North Korea same with Russia over Iran. The world leaders are out to create a class system and you average Joe do not mean sh_t to them. If America lives in fear of other nations than we already lost to them. Americans are all but stripped searched at airports because of blowing up an airplane, maybe 200 are killed. While you can cross our borders with a nuke and kill 100`s of thousands of Americans! You figure it out Joe!
all this hand wringing, i sit here and think one or both of my sons may very well die on this peninsula, and wonder which of these crazy bastard politicians has the notion to push the button.hmmmm
We’ll do whatever the Council on Foreign Relations and their minions say we’ll do…you can borrow a helluva lot of money whilst in war mode – heck that would buy the global banksters at least 3-4 years time to “resolve”their insolvency. Damn the Torpedos, Full Speed Ahead!
There is an application process and the landlord must fill out papers too. In some cases the landlord is already registered with HUD and approved and that goes faster.