I’m apparently full of questions this morning. For example, can anyone explain to me why Eli Lake, who calls in this Bloomberg View piece for a shift in policy from trying to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons that can strike the United States to one of deterrence, believes that we can deter North Korea? Consider the history of the last 70 years between North Korea and the United States. What evidence is there that North Korea can be deterred? Is it wishful thinking? Delusion? Does he know something that I don’t?
My own view is that so long as we are not willing to inflict punishment on China for its facilitation of North Korea’s nuclear weapons development program we cannot either prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons capable of striking the United States or deter it from using them if they’re so inclined. The only thing we can do is prepare ourselves to take actions much more serious than deterring North Korea.
One more observation on deterrence: if the United States’s use of nuclear weapons is unthinkable, there is no deterrence. For deterrence to work other countries must believe that we can and will use nuclear weapons if provoked. And for that to happen we must think so as well.
The important question, as always, is why does North Korea want nuclear weapons? I think the best answer is for deterrence for reasons I’ve laid out a few times before. There aren’t any other purposes that make much sense given the situation, especially since the utility of nuclear weapons is narrow.
As for China, we should do what we did with Cuba in the early 1960’s and announce publicly that the United States would consider any attack from North Korea against the US or an ally as an attack by China and the US would respond accordingly. China needs to be forced to sleep in the bed it made.
It’s not a secret. They’ve been pretty open about it for 60+ years. They want a Korean Peninsula unified under the Kim regime. They think that nuclear weapons are their best course for achieving and securing that objective. IMO it illustrates their recognition that South Korea has military superiority with conventional weapons.
It really is the question. Is North Korea going for deterrence or for blackmail?
IMO they’re looking for leverage, cash, and deterrence, in that order. They don’t believe they’ll be attacked. Why should they?
Deterrence is sort of “I won’t throw nuclear weapons (or poison gas or cholera) at you because you have the same weapons and will be sure to retaliate.”
We need a term for “We’re opponents with nuclear weapons in our arsenals, but routine diplomacy is all I intend today.” Most of us after all, even the Army generals among us, do not spend hours each day contemplating blowing up London or Paris or Jerusalem or New Delhi despite the presence of nuclear weapons in those countries. Maybe “peace”?
Dave,
The problem is that nuclear weapons won’t allow the North to reunite the peninsula. Their ability to bully the South with them is also limited as long as the US maintains its security guarantees.
I also think it’s pretty clear that North Korean strategy changed substantially over the last 60+ years even if the rhetoric hasn’t. They have not been poised or able to make a play for the south for at least 20 years. The fall of the USSR and the beginning of US interventions aimed at toppling hostile regimes coincides with the North’s formal transition from a “juche” to “songun” ideology. Concurrently, we saw changes in their conventional military doctrine and training away from offense toward internal security and defense from attack. This was a major reason the US pulled troops off the DMZ and lessened our forces their generally.
“They don’t believe they’ll be attacked. Why should they?”
On the contrary, they do believe they could be attacked and have stated such both publicly and privately – especially since the overthrow of Libya. One of their statements after the the Libyan war:
North Korean thinking had already begun to shift after the Balkans and Iraq – Libya just sealed the deal for them. They believe nuclear weapons are essential to protecting of their regime from western intervention and I don’t think there is anything that will convince them otherwise.
To most Americans, war is unthinkable, even as we actively use it abroad with contractors or proxies. I believe war is inevitable, especially if we invite it by showing weakness. Generations pass, alliances change, but a study of human history shows clearly that only the strong survive. Our oceans and the great lead we gained from WWII have kept us safe, but 9/11 showed a hostile world that we can be hit, and maybe destroyed.
We must have courage, and be prepared for what will come, because it always has, and always will.
If I was Kim Jong Un, I would watch the Japanese. Unlike Trump, if they decide to do something, it will be done before the news reports comes out…. And their incentives vs South Korea or China or the US are totally different.