There are some things to remember about North Korea’s nuclear acquisition in the context of this wider war against Islamism. This week an Al-Qaeda operative boasted that he would take the war to the White House, with nuclear weapons if he could. And where would they come from?
Either North Korea or Iran most likely— the latter watching closely the international consequences, if any, that will follow from the supposed Korean detonation. The extremely low yield of the purported explosion is some ways is even more worrisome, if it indicates ongoing research toward a small (and miniaturized) weapon that would be terrorist-portable.
What can we do in this lose/lose mess?
Surely not what the Democrats advocate—a return to direct Clintonian/Cartesian one-on-one negotiations, when we gave billions in food, oil, and reactors. That only led to the present mess by rewarding in the 1990s North Korean nuclear roguery with subsidies and status to the thuggish Kim Jong-il. It is typical of Jimmy Carter’s shamelessness or dotage that, after the failure of his Nobel-Prize-driven intervention into the Korean morass during the Clinton administration, he now pontificates how George Bush has broken his fine porcelain Korean policy.
And even if Bush were to hold direct talks—so reminiscent of World War II appeasers’ sigh that a chance to have talked to Hitler could have been prevented the war—the contrarians like Sens. Kerry, Biden, Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin et al. would then be screaming about the need for “multilateral” six-party talks with China and other regional partners. How odd this political season that all the failures of the past—Cyrus Vance, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Warren Christopher, and Madeline Albright who variously presided over the Iranian hostage mess, the failed Oslo accords, and the al Qaeda serial provocations of the 1990s that led to 9/11—are now evoked as sober and judicious exemplars.
In fact, China seems to enjoy seeing Japan and the U.S. squirming, while denying it has much leverage on it wayward client, which, of course, it does. I doubt that Beijing is all that worried about refugees, a North Korean state collapse, and all the other supposed reasons that, Western pundits insist, make it necessary for the ascending Chinese economy to cooperate in corralling Korea. They won’t cooperate—and why should they when there is at present little downside?
A better approach would be first to recognize reality:
(1) Nuclear brinkmanship pays: North Korea has earned billions through atomic blackmail, and humiliated humane and liberal governments in Tokyo and Seoul that don’t want to endanger their good life by descending into the gutter to duke it out with a nothing-to-lose brawler.
(2) We need to continue to expand missile defense. The politics of this are bizarre. Surely this is a Republican bonanza, whose political implications are for some reason nearly ignored as the election nears. After Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress cut back missile defense, George Bush rescued it—just in time to get a rudimentary system up that might just stop an obsolete missile or two from hitting the West Coast.
(3) We need to inform the Chinese that they broke the understood rules of the game, those that obligated patrons to ensure their clients did not go nuclear. Unfortunately for them, their sole client is a failed lunatic state, and ours—Australia, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea—are full-fledged regional partners, prosperous and democratic. All could make bombs like Accords and Camrys.
Unless China disarms North Korea, a new non-proliferation doctrine should replace the failed one. The new doctrine should state that the United States opposes the acquisition of nuclear arms by any non-democratic state, and will stop such nuclearization, but if democratic societies choose to go nuclear in response to the stealthily arming of nearby failed states, then we have no objection to such democratically-reached decisions. If Japan had a 1,000 or nukes right now, China would be scrambling to stop Pyongyang from shooting test rockets even near Tokyo.
(4) To work with South Korea, we need to start withdrawing troops to Pusan—and well beyond. Much of the present mess arose from the appeasement of the Sunshine policy—in part, fueled by the revisionism of Korean ingrate leftists who rewrote the Korean War in populist terms of American imperialism and their own victimization. This was, in part, due to Korean nationalism that envisioned an eventual pan-Korea state birthed by slow and insidious osmosis from the south; and, in part, a result of strategic complacence of a half-century made possible by American subsidies and deployments. It made sense to garrison Americans on the DMZ when Seoul was weak and nascent, but not now when its population and economy dwarf the North’s. Getting America off the DMZ would give us more strategic options through air power, and wake up the South Koreans, reminding them that cheap triangulation with the United States has real costs. They can either play Churchill or Chamberlain—but it’s their call, not ours, since we have wider worries protecting Japan and Taiwan that transcend South Korea’s Sunshine nonsense.
(5) Over two years ago I wrote a brief essay called “Another 9/11?” This argued that in advance we should reestablish deterrence, by warning any suspect states that should terrorists hit the United States with strategic weapons, we would respond state-to-state to any country that armed or otherwise subsidized or sheltered such mass killers. That needs to be reiterated in the case of North Korea and Iran. Deniability of culpability was a big Pakistani and Saudi stratagem in the 1990s, but is fading, once the United States warned both about the consequences of another al Qaeda attack. We should revisit that posture, and inform now a Syria, Iran, and North Korea that if they either house terrorists or proliferate nuclear material, fine—BUT their cities, industries, and militaries will become immediate strategic targets in the hours after a terrorist attack on the U.S. Lunacy is an advantage in nuclear poker, but so far they have had a monopoly on supposed craziness. It is time—to prevent a nuclear 9/11—to remind them that the United States, if hit, will not merely be angry, but become the berserker as well.
So much for the ‘End of History.‘
Professor Hanson,
An excellent article as always. I was writing on this very topic yesterday and would like to throw in a few more thoughts.
I am not convinced that much at all has changed since the “Cold War” ended, if indeed it ever did.
Both China and Russia are undeniably obsessed with weakening our power and global standing at each and every turn. Though these countries are not given the enemy status of old, they are most certainly not our allies. I prefer to think of it as an uncomfortable and slowly erroding truce.
To think that China has not given tacit approval to it’s client-state shows a dangerous naivete’. It’s almost hilarious to me that they are taking the innocent bystander approach, and that people are buying it. China is most assuredly relishing the fact that, once again, we are portrayed in world opinion as impotent and internally divided. There is no real downside for them. I think back to the days of the USS Pueblo in ’68 and feel that, while the game has changed, the chess moves still remain the same.
Ditto with Russia. The Kremlin is still smarting from the loss of it’s prior possessions, and holds us directly responsible. To Putin and his bunch, revenge is definitely best when served cold.
No meaningful sanctions will ever pass the UN Security Council in regard to N. Korea or Iran. China and Russia will most certainly see to that.
One need only look at the voting record of each country since the Cold War ended to find that neither has changed it’s opposition to us by any significant degree, nor made more than the most superficial cosmetic posturing of embracing basic human values to lull us into a false sense of security. Their constant exhibitions of passive defiance via the threat of veto, dressed up in all manner of diplomatic double-speak, hasn’t changed in decades.
How very convenient for both Russia and China to be so intertwined with Iran at this particular point in time. Must be an amazing coincidence. It makes scant difference to them what happens in the Middle East so long as “Death to America” never becomes “Death to China” or “Death to Russia”. They could care less what happens to the other Arab countries, as their money and weaponry are riding on the mullahs.
Unfortunately, it is still Us vs. Them. Only in this version, there is a much more complicated cast of front men and confrontational scenarios than in times past. We have the blunderings of Carter and Clinton to thank for that.
While neither country dreamed up the notion of Islamic fascism, they certainly appear to be making the most of it.
Neither Russia nor China gain a thing by actively taking part in any stabilizing actions in either the Middle East or North Korea. On the contrary, they believe they have much to gain in covertly escalating the turmoil which continues to embroil us.
I also have this sobering thought: Neither China nor Russia are really concerned about N. Korea or Iran having the bomb, because they are positioning themselves to be sure it’s never used on them, or so they believe. I’m certain that it doesn’t bother them one iota that we have to add the nukes to our list of worries. What a great thing for them. They don’t have to point their ICBM’s at us anymore. They can just let their buddies do that.
I fear we lack the resolve to take them on yet again. Cunning brinksmanship seems in short supply. We had hoped that we were done with these deadly opponents, that they had changed their ways and we could all just get along, but that is not the case. To me, it’s just Cold War 2.0. Perhaps our only trump card is that they dare not take us on directly.
As an aside, don’t you think it the height of insanity that North Korea sits on the UN Council for Disarmament?
interesting lesson that there is very little that can be done about proliferation…especially when a nation that seeks these weapons cares little about its own people as its real desire is to get attention and spark fear.
i have heard that the chinese offered jong-il help and a plan to institute some free markets, but was rejected
Another great essay.
Few recognize the strategic value of potential “irrational” action and unpredictability.
It may very well be time for us to “over”-react to the next provocation – to bomb the heck out of someone, or destroy their military assets with nukes (air burst for no fallout, of course).
As long as our opponents can predict our reactions, we end up with a situation like Vietnam under Johnson, where escalation was the game, handing control of the war to the enemy. Government enablers of terrorists would be far more careful if they feared that our immediate reaction to a significant attack would be to destroy a suspectg country – or several suspect countries – even without determining who was behind the particular actgion.
The French have now twice threatened to use nuclear weapons against nations which have responsibility for terrorist attacks in France (they didn’t specify WMD attacks either). That is what we should be doing, if we haven’t done it privately already.
Agreed. I think this is exactly, totally right . . .
I read somewhere that Israel had some such plan which they were preparing to implement when it appeared they might lose the Yom Kippur war, though I don’t know if that’s true.
But there’s a certain strategic logic of deterrence in the lunacy of lashing out at both your murderers and their enablers and sponsors when you yourself are doomed or markedly incapacitated, a logic that is as compelling as it is chilling. If you yourself have been savaged by a third party enabled by a second party, why not insure that the second party pays his fair share of the costs?
With respect to Israel, it’s not difficult for me to imagine them doing to death Cairo, Amman, Baghdad, Tehran, Riyadh, Mecca and Damascus, and making Karachi and Moskow glow too if they could have reached them . . . (in future, perhaps they might want to throw in Paris for bonus points).
With respect to the U.S. — such a policy would simply be a 21st Century incarnation of the Doomsday Machine from the old movie Dr. Strangelove. Of course, unlike the world-destroying one in Kubrick’s movie, the U.S. could make it a kinder, gentler Doomsday Machine, one that would visit hellfire only on those foolish enough to enable others to nuke us.
Brian
As usual, you are right on the money, but the one vital element that we lack in this country is leadership with the guts to do what needs done, and so the point is made moot. No matter what course of action is required, it is assured that we will never have any leaders that will take it, because our system now ensures that anyone who is right for the job either will not want it or can never be elected to it.
It has always been politically expedient to take the path of least resistance, but in other times, politicians would pay for their mistakes at polling time; nowadays the media runs such heavy cover for the corrupt, inept cowards who infest Washington, that it is virtually assured that the guilty parties will never be brought to account for their sins, and we will all have to pay.
VDH calls a spade a spade. Carter, Clinton and the rest of their gang were total failures in their approach to North Korea. And now the chickens have come home to roost and we are in a real mess.
I was waiting for VDH to weigh in on North Korea. I hope the White House and Secr. Rice see this sensible essay.
VDH is “all over” the North Korean/”Axis of Evil” issue. In a fit of insomnia this AM, I watched C-SPAN coverage of a CSIS panel discussing the N. Korea problem and the panel had it mostly wrong. Why is it that we always think the more we negotiate with people they will always come around to our way of thinking? We can talk constantly to the leaders of Iran, N Korea, and Syria and we can draft UN resolution after UN resolution and absolutely nothing will come of it. In the final analysis, the leaders of the Axis of Evil need to know it is not in their interest to attack us, directly or indirectly. I think VDH has the correct approach. Outstanding article!!
The aligned members of the nuclear threat club are trying to set up the game to resemble a shell game. Keep your eye on the threat ladies and gentlemen. Watch closely is the bomb under here? Is it over there? who has it? Don’t respond just yet, maybe it’s over in that one. You have to find the right one or you don’t win.
As expected, very well written and a step or two ahead of the game, but truly valuable simply to see the word “berserker” in print.
From DeVoto back to Herodotus it’s useful to reexamine our roots and experience in struggles such as this.
Excellent article indeed. A brief response to Samuel’s question though (rhetorical no doubt): Negotiation is the act of making nothing look like something. If we do not negotiate, then what? Actual action? Heaven forbid! Professor Hansen is correct, we need to remind China, et. al that we can be crazy too. Not only that, but that our crazy is WAY more dangerous than theirs.
VDH is always right.
This article has been linked to here, as well as commentary on how the fifth-column left is contradicting everything they said about Iraq now with NK, only to condemn America.
Nukes don’t kill people, Governments do!
A new non-proliferation doctrine needs to focus on those that hold the trigger, not on the tool itself. So differentiating between democratic and non-democratic systems makes sense.
So is the real enemy here China or NoKo? Are meetings with NoKo at all unhelpful when we should be strong-arming China instead? If China resists strong sanctions (which seems likely, and I’m unconvinced that sanctions do anything to materially harm the actual target of the sanctions in a totalitarian state) then what are the consequences for NoKo when they flaunt the UN and China? I’m not sure there are any consequences we can put on them short of blockading the entire country, thereby declaring war. That would only work with China’s participation. Is China doing something under the table to exact a price from NoKo? Time will tell, but time is running short.
“in part, due to Korean nationalism that envisioned an eventual pan-Korea state birthed by slow and insidious osmosis from the south…”
While the “Sunshine Policy” is wrong, this motive behind it is certainly not. America should do whatever it can to help North Korea go the way of East Germany.
Korean leftists who claim that the USA stands in the way of reunification are brainwashed dupes, but reunification, following the collapse of the evil Kim regime, should be a stated US policy goal.
“Openly offer support for Japan, making clear that the US would have no objections should Japan feel it needs to ammend its Constitution to allow it to develop a nuclear deterrence capability. This is singularly significant since we had a pivotal role in the constitutional restrictions on Japanese military power. This would also have the effect of motivating China to further pressure DPRK, as the last thing they want is to face two nuclear competitors in the Pacific.”
The most important thing we can do in any response is to disabuse ourselves of the notion that anything we do will affect what the DPRK does with any reasonable degree of predictability. Our choice of actions needs to not be based upon what we want them to do, but rather upon what will best help us achieve our strategic security goals. These goals and their pursuit must be decoupled from reliance upon our enemies to act in any certain manner.
Professor Hanson,
An excellent article on the North Korean nuclear detonation and situation. As a native Georgian who couldn’t wait to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 in an effort to end the failed Carter Presidency, I very much hope that President Bush and his chief advisors will heed your wise counsel and tune out the cries for appeasement by Carter and the Clintonites. Jimmy Carter’s is an embittered man and his advice on foreign policy is the bane of America’s national interest.
I am a hard-core free trader, so understand that I propose this begrudgingly: perhaps the only way to put pressure on China is to begin squeezing their exports to the U.S. (via tariffs, etc.). China desperately needs continued accelerated economic growth in order to manage its social problems, and placing hurdles to their access to the powerful U.S. consumer could cause them significant economic and political distress.
Of course, economic saber-rattling can lead to outcomes just as ominous as military saber-rattling. Still, is it in our best interest as a nation to help a hostile China become a stronger, more troublesome nation?
So much for the ‘End of History.’
Indeed. I’ve come to think of Fukuyama as a latter day Dr. Pangloss. But I believe he has recanted his earlier thesis.
The left in this country would have us believe that they are now too civilized to dirty themselves in actual war.
The problem is that our enemies have no such sensibilities.
Very interesting and complete analysis, thank you.
Some believe Japan, perhaps Taiwan, and maybe even South Korea would nuke-up to counter a credible North Korean WMD threat — moves which would also help offset a threat from China — all of it forming some sort of forward front for democracy in East Asia.
But all this is predicated not only upon East Asia’s perception of American strength and commitment to the region, but also upon the subordination of each nations’ economic interests to U.S. strategic interests. A China which puts on a show of reigning in Pyongyang — auditioning for regional security guarantor — would certainly impress its neighbors.
Thus, it is just as likely that Korea, for whom China is now its largest trading partner, could become Finlandized. Taiwan, with its ethnic ties and increasing economic interdependence with the mainland, may reach some form of Hong Kong-style accord which preserves a veneer of independence while allowing the regime in Beijing to declare victory. Even Japan, with huge investments and an even larger potential market in China, may see its economic and security interests best served by neutrality in Sino-American matters.
In the Pacific, we’re likely to see something akin to the shadow once cast across Europe by the Soviet Union, and with it, all of the triangulation and calculation by those living within the shadow we once got (and still get) from the Europeans.
Twilight vigil, indeed.
Professor Hanson: I suspect the apparent sub-kiloton yield of the NK test was the result of an unsuccessful attempt to test a design for a higher yield weapon(perhaps 5-10 kilotons) light enough and small enough to fit in a missile warhead, or in a gravity bomb suitable for fighter-bomber delivery. Thus, I don’t think NK is trying to develop a weapon specifically designed for terrorist use. Unfortunately, any NK nuclear bomb small enough and light enough for missile delivery could be transported by a rental van/moving truck, and thus could easily be used by terrorists.
I also believe there is a downside to this for Beijing: an overtly nuclear NK may hasten military modernization in Japan, and might even make the Japanese reconsider their taboo against developing nuclear weapons.
Reader Brian: My recollection is that in the early days of the 1973 war Israel moved its nuclear force onto a high alert, correctly anticipating that this would be detected by the US and understood as a signal of how seriously Israel viewed the situation. This in turn led to the US to speed weapons deliveries to Israel and allowed the IDF to gain the upper hand through conventional means.
Superb article. The only winge I have is with the contention that the low yield might be an indicator of a miniaturized terrorist-portable device. The likelihood is that this was a fizzle, not a design yield, which in any event would not be a useful indicator of device size. The “sum of all fears” is a miniaturized two-stage device, but that is almost certainly limited to very advanced programs.
The news this morning carried an item about IBM moving a large part of its operation to China. That’s the place to start — Bush needs to call in the CEO of IBM (along with a few others) and convince them to tell China that the area has become too volatile since NorKor’s nuclear test, and they are re-evaluating their move. Wal-Mart needs to send a similar message, as do a bunch of other American businesses. September’s $20 Billion trade deficit with China needs to be a fulcrum for this negotiating ploy — China needs to know there is a cost to them for not controlling their client state. Threaten nuclear armeggedon all you want — the patron states won’t be leaving fingerprints. The better maneuver is to hit their pocketbook. Same strategy applies to Russia. Then they’ll have to decide whether to continue to tweak us or to enjoy our marketplace. F
After the “direct Clintonian/Cartesian one-on-one negotiations, when we gave billions in food, oil, and reactors” and up until 2002 after Bush took office, the fuel rods with enough plutonium to build 8-10 nukes were in storage, sealed and monitored by IAEA representatives stationed on site in North Korea.
After Bush’s alternative approach, that plutonium was removed from storage, taken to a reactor for processing, processed into weapons-grade plutonium, and used to build nuclear bombs.
So on the one hand, a cost of *billions*.
On the other hand, a lunatic dictator known to support terrorism has 8-10 nuclear bombs that he didn’t have when Bush took office.
Wal-Mart get tough with the Chinese? Never. Gonna. Happen. The only mistake that one guy made was when he said it was going to be the Russians who sold us the rope.
Bobb,
You miss a couple of points in the scenario. Up until 2002, the fuel rods were in storage. Unfortunately, a secret Uranium enrichment program was also in process, starting perhaps as early as 1996, detected first in 1998 and confirmed about 2001 (and admitted, then denied, then admitted again by NK) in 2002. The current impasse is a direct result of North Korea’s refusal to abide by any of the numerous commitments they have made over the years. This is pretty much independent of who is President. The Clinton deal would have been a good deal if North Korea had intended to do what they committed to do. Unfortunately, they didn’t.
My concern is that if we are attacked, we will not “know” who caused it. So what if crude nukes in 10 cargo ships in 10 American ports explode. Do we launch against Syria, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China? Or which combination? Even if it was one dirty bomb, the same question. The BS over the Iraqi WMD question indicates that now it would take leadership that is in short supply in our country to respond because everyone knows a response could trigger a world wide nuclear war. The handwringers would say that we would suffer more by a response than by absorbing the attack. I doubt if our citizens would support a response with the potential for a nuclear exchange. The genie is out of the bottle and what to do about irrational leaders controlling nuclear weapons in a world that refuses to recognize that this is not just an American problem is not something I would care to decide. Our country never had the will to stop the acquisition of nuclear weapons in the 80’s or 90’s and even less now. There is no good choice; only the best of all bad choices, whatever that may be.
Either China is dangerously duplicitous or dangerously incompetent. When Taiwan embarked on a nuclear program that threatened and frightened China, the US shut it down immediately.
Faced with a similar situation, China has demonstrated that either (1) it is unable to control its clients or (2) it chooses not to do so.
Neither option speaks well of them.
We had tons of advance warning on this. Why didn’t we have a nuke in cave ready to go? Screw the instrumentation and expense of a real “test”, just blow something up.
Today would have been the perfect day to be ready. As soon as France said “fizzle”, we should have set off something on the 5MT range and said, “see, that’s how it’s done.”
I WANT a cowboy President.
The word “berserker” jumped out at me, so I looked it up. What a great word! I wish I knew it in my hockey playing days; I apparently was one without knowing it.
Regarding the subject at hand, I tend to think the answer is to pressure China, and have them play the heavy toward North Korea. However, the reality of pressuring China’s economy is more complex than some of the other commenters suggest. Yes, China relies on US markets for the sale of consumer goods and a variety of other products and materials, but China is also a major exporter throughout Asia and increasingly the other parts of the world as well. In some categories, (paper products, for example), the growth of US consumption is significantly slower than other parts of the world. Yes, China is taking over more of the US paper market, but that is less important to them than growth in places like India and their own country. This is just one example, and China is becoming a dominant force in many such categories, each of which has their own qualities. So the Bush administration should consider a broad, multilateral effort to isolate China economically as a penalty for not corraling North Korea’s aggression.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see it happening quite like that. While I firmly believe that the answer to one nuke is two, I doubt our leaders have what is necessary to follow thru in all cases.
How do we respond if the nuclear attack is on an ally and not on an urban area? Does a small nuke in Inchon harbor balance a response of a MIRV on Pyongyang? Is that response going to be seen as ‘proportional’ to the kissy-kissy set?
Trading cities for cities is one thing…but do we trade harbors for harbors, a rail Nexis for a rail Nexis, power plants for power plants?
I just think that everyone is expecting a North Korean nuke to turn up in San Francisco or Tokyo. It could turn up under a dam in Shikoku.
I believe the final result would be the same – the end of the North Korean regime – but getting there might be a bit more conventional even with a nuclear provocation.
I have wondered for a while why the US didn’t attack the reactor when it became clear that the Norks were planning to extract the plutonium. It would probably not have required much of an attack to render the reactor permanently unusable and to scatter the Pu around enough that it would be hard to recover.
I can only assume that we were deterred by Nork’s existing ability to kill millions in South Korea and Japan.
But I’d still like to know. It would have stopped the much easier Plutonium path.
The World needs a World Cop — and the UN ain’t it. Such a force needs to be democracies only. Nuke-owning NoKo is connected to Iran, and anti-American China & Russia.
The best hope is to convince India and Japan to join the US in democratic peace-keeping, in a Human Rights enforcement group. US funding of Indian peace-keepers in Darfur would be a great start.
Fred F has the right idea — a 10% tax on all Chinese imports until N. Korea disarms. A tax that increases by 1% every quarter.
The reality is that China is using N. Korea. Some say China has “lost face” — but not if the purpose was to gain another nuclear anti-American state.
The Iran and N. Korean situations show us that the EU, Russia and China will never put principles over greed. For the US the choices are three 1) as Hanson implies apply pressure via proxies/clients- the Cold War strategy. 2) accept it and hope it doesn’t matter (the Clinton strategy) 3) up the ante economically. The US has the stiffest embargoes against Iran and N. Korea. Surely once they go nuclear others will follow our lead?- apparently not. Hence, our policy must be to cease to trade with any nation that still trades with Iran or N. Korea. China is playing Kim and Bush against each other. They will soon offer, with the South on their side, to replace Kim with a transitional client state (with say, a 10 year timeline to unification)…all the US has to offer in return is to permanently withdraw all troops from the peninsula. We must make China pay before it is too late
Bobb said:
That was the North Korean government’s intention all along. They successfully used the threat of kicking out inspectors and resuming nuclear weapon development, in order to extract billions of dollars worth of concessions from the U.S.
The Bush administration recognized this approach is the same thing as paying extortion money if the Norks had assembled nuclear weapons anyway.
Really, what difference does it make if they have a tested and deployable weapon, or if they have the technology and components available to assemble one? Either way they get to use the nuclear blackmail card.
As long as the North Koreans get one-on-one concessions from the U.S. to not “go live”, they get hard currency and street cred for being the principled “non-aligned” state that won’t be pushed around by the imperialists. Whatever happens is completely the fault of the U.S. in this scenario, because it’s the U.S. that does all of the negotiating.
The problem with Bush’s approach is that Nork actions have to be punished through our allies in the region, i.e. arming Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. with nukes. The six-party talks rightly put the burden on the states that have the most to lose in a confrontation with North Korea.
In additon to the six-party talks, the U.S. can adopt a no-bones, publicly stated policy of total annihilation of any state that provides a weapon used in a terrorist attack on the U.S. will get more results.
Until that happens, North Korea will continue to press its advantage in the brinksmanship game.
Cogent analysis. Has anyone considered the possibility that all these events are irrevocably moving the world in the direction described in…the Biblical Book of the Revelation? Sorry to sound so Apocalyptic, but Russian allignment with Arab Muslim radicals against Israel (Chechen Russian troops in Lebanon, Russian missile/anti-aircraft technology to Hez b’Allah, etc.), Chinese expansionism driving toward hegemonic control of the East, economic/military withdrawal/collapse of the West (hence the lack of any mention of such forces in the final battles)??? All right, I know it sounds too…Tim Lahaye for most tastes, but, I’m just saying….
Bob, the DPRK allowed those fuel rods to stay under lock and key and the watchful eyes of the IAEA not only to extract billions of dollars of concessions, but also as a diversion from other research efforts they were still performing. Developing nuclear weapons is not a serial process. By your own accounting, as of 1994 they had already developed and demonstrated the capability to produce and extract plutonium, therefore there was no need for further extraction until development on all other required components was complete. Note also that you acknowledge that the 1994 agreement left the fuel rods in DPRK. They were always able to create an incident (can you say “revelation of a secret program”) to create the pretext for kicking out the IAEA and breaking the seals on the plutonium that never really left their control.
Admit it, we got played. The key now, in the words of The Who is to not get fooled again. As long as our foreign policy vis-a-vis DPRK relies upon assuming they will act in good faith and that we can get them to do anything they don’t want to do we will continue to be played. Our DPRK policy should have as its only concern what we want and need to do, not what we wish they would do.
Dr. Hanson I have always believed as you that when it comes to nuclear brinkmanship lunacy is an invaluable tool. It’s as simple as a school-yard altercation; if you feel threatened act crazy. This may well lead to non-confrontation, and most of the time that is the case. N. Korea, Iran, and Syria must be made aware of “our lunacy”. Everything is on the table including pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Islamo-facists respond not to weakness but only to strength, and yes, some lunacy mixed in will certainly gain their attention. Their response to strength has been shown by the likes of Pakistan and Libya. Conversely their response to weakness has been shown through the Mogadishu, Iran, Hezbo Models. Though the Izzo-Facists hate Bush, they also have some respect for him. They know he is practically the only Western leader who will use force and confront them on the battlefield where they manifest their evil. Reagan and Thatcher defeated Gorbachev with this strategy. In order to defeat evil, the evil must know what you’re capable of, but just as important they must also be left to wonder what extreme you may go to crush them………
Little Kim is a sociopath who feels nothing if millions die in slavery so long as he keeps his power and luxury. The leaders of China are little better.
This is a long standing hostage crisis. Kim’s loyalists are a dead man’s switch to trigger artillery and/or nukes aimed at Seoul.
China will never take action on this. Doing nothing is the best strategy for them. If North and South Korea obliterate each other, China wins. If the Kim family regime is destroyed then South Korea will spend a decade trying to absorb the poverty stricken people of North Korea. China wins while Korea is slowed down.
Do not forget that ethnic hatred plays a role. China, Japan, Korea all have ancient grudges against each other.
Prof. Hanson:
I always enjoy your razor-sharp insights. I quite agree that these rogue states, like NoKo and Iran should be told in no uncertain terms that if we are hit by terrorists armed by them, directly or indirectly, they will suffer full retribution. Actually, I am somewhat surprised that this has not happened already.
Your characterization of one of the sources of the SKor “Sunshine” policy as “nationalism” understates that influence.
Korea vies with Japan as one of the most cheerfully(!) racist (and there’s no other word for it) societies on the planet.
The reason for the muted SKor response is simple: there’s Hangook and there’s Meegook; Korean and Foreigner. This produces the standard tribal response: They may be bastards, but they’re *our* bastards!
Given this, I don’t think that we can count on SKor for much help against NKor for anything short of an outright war/invasion from the north. We’re much better off concentrating our efforts with alies on Taiwan and Japan.
The overt militarism and implicit cruelty of this analysis (and especially the comments) is troublesome. For instance, the reference to “this wider war against Islamism” misframes the conflict as a religous war. (That may be the thinking of those who authorized the U.S. to strike preemptively against Iraq, but it’s not outwardly acknowledged.) Further, calls for a return to nuclear brinkmanship (mostly in the comments) and expansion of our missile defense significantly imperil our safety rather than ensure it. As a strategy, lunacy may work on the playground, but in geopolitics, the stakes are too great to think we can somehow survive even a limited nuclear barrage unscathed.
As to China’s reponse to N. Korea, both USA Today and The Washington Post reported even before the subject post went up that China is in favor of sanctions while acting as a brake on some calls for excessive response that might destabilize N. Korea. So all the conjecture about China’s refusal to cooperate is flatly wrong.
News reports today indicate that no radioactive material was detected as a result of N. Korea’s supposed nuclear test. It’s entirely plausible that either N. Korea is merely rattling a nonexistent sabre, or rather ironically, that a maniacal despot has been duped by his own military, which is frankly unable to execute his commands.
It’s with a great deal of sadness that I observe our thinking as a free society, as evidenced by the subject post and the chorus of cheers in the comments, is still heavily mired in a dangerously outdated model of conflict resolution. We still seek to dominate, or if that doesn’t work, destroy our enemies for having the gall to act in their own self-interest. The 20th century dealt us some serious lessons about the inevitable results of such will to power and venomous hatred of others. Whereas some societies have learnt those lessons and refused to indulge in such base behavior and thinking — typically by suffering a serious loss in a world war or a political collapse — the U.S. in particular has yet to learn that it doesn’t need to dominate or rule the world, indeed shouldn’t, to succeed in ensuring the welfare of its citizenry. That enlightened self-interest, as distinguished from the brutal selfishness we currently exhibit, will have to wait. Pray that we survive that long.
Suggestion for the Comment Section: It would further enhance the comment section if Posters followed Mark Steyn’s guidelines for his Mailbox as quoted below:
“It would be helpful if you could indicate your city or town or, at least, your state, province or country. Failing that, your continent or hemisphere will do…”
Patrick,
Chicago USA
News reports today issued the statement that radioactive material was detected as a result of N. Korea.
Appeasement is the outdated model of conflict resolution; apathy and pacificism is what creates greater destruction. wreck and ruin.
Further, only a fool would imagine that US needs to dominate the world; ridiculous even to think such a scenario since the US in all it’s existence has NEVER imperialized any nation on planet earth.
Beside which Brutus you are defending the right for a dictator to starve his people in a society which has never known the freedoms you live to enjoy. Do you hate starving N. Koreans that much as to aid in their demise?
Brutus, I see your comment as mostly an emotional reaction. You do not properly argue against what was said, just the tone of it. You don’t seem to say anything more than, “Let’s sit quietly and hope everything works out.” If you could give more of an argument, I’d be happy to read it and comment on it.
People like Brutus cause me to fear for our future. They imagine that mankind has “moved on” and that “conflict resolution” can solve problems, while militarism is an unnecessary relic.
This sort of delusional thinking is remarkably common in today’s world. The cause may be the long peace of the cold war – allowing people to not personally feel the impact of evil; it may be the impact of “modern” silly philosophies and their deconstruction of rationality; or, perhaps it is a denial reaction – an inability to confront the true, threatening state of reality.
Whateve, the result is to seriously endanger the ciivilized world – essentially by overdefining civilization and thus constraining our action and emboldening our enemies.
There is danger outside, but there is a bigt danger amongst us: fantastical thinking by Brutus, et. al. Many of us feel like it is 1938 again – the fools believe we can solve the problem with talking, and decry rational discussions of retaliatory scenarios as wrong.
Et tu Brutus? I must say Brutus that your naivete is breathtaking. As indicated by a few people above, you seem to see the world through a lens of wishful thinking and ignore the realities that are staring us in the face.
First, getting your “facts” from the WPost or USAToday is a dubious endeavor as those publications and most of the rest of the MSM have become little more than Moveon.org offshoots.
Secondly, I’ve become quite tired of people defending such odious regimes as the DPRK by suggesting they have the right to act in their own self-interests. A leader/govt that treats its citizens in such a vile way (if you lived there, you would be BEGGING for someone to intervene) does not deserve even the smallest right to act in its “self-interest.” If you walk by a house and see in the window a man beating his 10 year old daughter, do you shrug your shoulders and say “that’s his right” or that he’s acting in his self-interest? If you have an ounce of decency you go in there and stop the beating or at least call the police. In essence, you are defending the right of a Kim Jong Il to beat (usually far far worse) his subjects.
I am quite frightened by your Chamberlain like thinking. I fear that you and those who think like you will hold too much sway over the political thinking in this country and the West at large and the resulting appeasement and inaction will lead to a horrific attack that dwarfs 9/11. Only then will we work up the gumption to defang the hideous regimes that need defanging.
As Dr. Hanson has said before, our choices are between awful and god-awful when it comes to preventing terrible consequences. I’m afraid that if your thinking prevails, something worse than god-awful awaits us.
syn wrote: Appeasement is the outdated model of conflict resolution; apathy and pacificism [sic] is what creates greater destruction. wreck and ruin … Brutus you are defending the right for a dictator to starve his people in a society …
While it’s true that I called overt militarism and domination outdated models, by no means does that mean I’m for appeasement, pacifism, or isolationism. Syn jumps to that conclusion without my advocating those things.
John in Cincy wrote: I see your comment as mostly an emotional reaction. You do not properly argue against what was said, just the tone of it. You don’t seem to say anything more than, “Let’s sit quietly and hope everything works out.”
I pointed out that conjecture in Hanson’s post and the comments as to China’s response was wrong even before the post went up. If that’s not a direct, fact-based, unemotional refutation, I don’t know what is. John also jumps to the conclusion that since I state my disapproval of an aggressive militaristic response I therefore advocate sitting on our hands. I didn’t say “do nothing” and I don’t believe that’s a proper response.
John Moore wrote: People like Brutus cause me to fear for our future. They imagine that mankind has “moved on” and that “conflict resolution” can solve problems, while militarism is an unnecessary relic ….
If you reread what I wrote, it frankly actually acknowledges that we live under threat of destruction and annihilation, especially from contemplation of nuclear brinkmanship. I don’t believe we have moved on; I said plainly that it will have to wait. But I do hope for a future where the survival of civilization is not imperiled by our own barbaric thinking. We will never get there if all we can think about is more and greater destruction than history (the 20th century in particular) has already provided.
Ritchie Emmons wrote: First, getting your ‘facts’ from the WPost or USAToday is a dubious endeavor as those publications and most of the rest of the MSM have become little more than Moveon.org offshoots. Secondly, I’ve become quite tired of people defending such odious regimes as the DPRK by suggesting they have the right to act in their own self-interests. A leader/govt that treats its citizens in such a vile way (if you lived there, you would be BEGGING for someone to intervene) does not deserve even the smallest right to act in its “self-interest.”
I agree that the MSM is highly questionable, but it isn’t yet so preposterous or irresponsible that it would report China’s public response incorrectly. The Right cries about the liberal media while the Left cries about the media being a tool of the Bush Administration. Both of those things can’t be true, obviously; one’s perspective comes into play. Further, to state that N. Korea flatly forfeits its self-interest for not adhering to our standards is imperialist. Sure, the U.S., U.N., and others should exercise their interests in curbing human rights abuses. However, for another political body to intervene and remove in totality N. Korea’s self-interest and autonomy is excessively aggressive and improper. Of course, that’s what the U.S. has done in its other “regime changes,” but I consider it illegitimate, and much of the world agrees with me.
BTW, thanks, guys, for not calling me names outright. I’ll settle for the minor recriminations “people like Brutus” and “you and those who think like you.” So we have disagreements. We should all be able to tolerate them.