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.
