The escalating situation on the Korean peninsula, if not the most significant story of the day, is certainly one of the most significant stories:
(CNN) — The Obama administration calculates it’s likely North Korea may test fire mobile ballistic missiles at any time, based on the most recent intelligence showing Pyongyang probably has completed launch preparations, a U.S. official said Tuesday.
The administration believes a test launch could happen without North Korea issuing a standard notice to commercial aviation and maritime shipping warning them to stay away from the missile’s path, according to the official, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the information.
He cautioned most of the information comes from satellite imagery, so it’s impossible to reach a definitive conclusion because the United States has no means to gather information on the ground.
Here’s the part that took me up short:
Also Tuesday, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific called repeated North Korean violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions forbidding the “building and testing” of long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons “a clear and direct threat to U.S. national security and regional peace and stability.”
Is that really the case? Or does the general mean “direct” in the sense of “indirect”, as some people say “literally” when they mean “figuratively”?
I think that the North Koreans’ statements and actions comprise a direct threat to the troops we have stationed in South Korea. There is a simple remedy to that threat: remove them. I think that the North Koreans’ words are, obviously, a direct threat. Threatening us with nuclear annihilation meets just about anybody’s definition of “direct threat”. I don’t know that anybody takes that threat seriously, however. Saying something is one thing. Having the ability to carry it out is something else entirely again.
I think that the North Koreans’ statements and actions comprise a direct threat to our allies in the area. But those are not a direct threat to us. They’re indirect ones.
If the United States is bound to South Korea by a mutual defense alliance, then isn’t an attack on South Korea a direct threat?
I personally cannot tell from the treaty how strong our commitment is; its appears to be written in diplomese, which I doth not speaketh:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kor001.asp
My understanding is that neither our treaties with Japan nor our treaties with South Korea are of the “an attack against one…” variety.
Here’s the official U. S. understanding (from your link):
The North has not at this time acted in such a way as to cause Article III to be invoked. Consequently, indirect threat. That’s my point. I think the general is going beyond U. S. policy.
I don’t know that anybody takes that threat seriously, however.
Yeah, easy for you to say, you don’t live in Austin!
I would not put too much faith in a treaty.
It means what I say it means at the time that I say it, and I will make changes as I deem necessary. Ain’t no stinkin’ paper gonna tell me what I can do.
Yes it’s a direct threat. With each test North Korea grows its long-range missile capabilities. Current operational missiles can strike all of South Korea and Japan. Missiles in testing or on the cusp of operational capability will range Guam, Hawaii, Alaska and missiles still in development will range the NW part of the United States. North Korea showed a map prominently on national TV with a notional US “target list” that inlcuded Hawaii, San Diego, Barksdale, LA (Ice, Austin was some reporter’s mistake) and Washington DC. The later three are well beyond North Korea’s current capabilities. There is also the fact that, for example, Japan is taking the threat seriously enough that it’s deploying ships capable of engaging ballistic missiles to positions where they could engage missiles coming out of North Korea. Taken together, all this seems to me to constitute a direct threat even though I don’t think the North Koreas will do anything more than test a missile.
More later on deterrence, US forces in the ROK and the treaty with South Korea.
Ice, Austin was some reporter’s mistake
Well, that’s disappointing. That target seemed so incredibly random as to make the whole thing just a little more absurd than it already is. Seriously, a country that can’t feed its own people and can’t even keep the lights on is threatening the last remaining super power with nuclear tipped ICBMs? This is beyond “The Mouse That Roared” in terms of silliness.
PD,
Here’s an old CRS report that sort of translates the wording of the treaty and the US “understanding.”
As far as the treaty itself, mutual defense is not unconditional. After all, war-making authority in the US is defined in the Constitution and the Congressional authority in that area cannot be trumped by a treaty. But the intent is that the US will come to the aid of South Korea should it be attacked.
For the South Koreans, their concern is credibility – in other words, they are concerned about whether the US will actually come to their aid. This was pretty straightforward when there were thousands of US troops stationed on the DMZ – any North Korean attack would kill those troops and South Korea could be confident of US aid. The US showed its resolve by putting the blood of its son’s and daughter’s in harms way.
Fast forward to today and US forces have withdrawn from the DMZ, diminished in number; there are no longer tactical nuclear weapons stationed in South Korea, and wartime command-and-control is in the process of being transferred to the ROK military. As the US gets less and less “skin in the game” South Koreans naturally begin to question the credibility of US defense commitments. Should, as Dave suggest, all US forces be withdrawn, then these concerns will only grow. Additionally, the South Koreans are very worried about North Korean missiles ranging the US. They fear that if North Korea could credibly threaten the US with a nuclear strike then the US commitment to the defense of South Korea would be materially weakened. And they’d probably be right.
Added into all this is the question of South Korea developing its own nuclear weapons. This is something that’s talked about in the ROK and has been advocated before by right-wing ROK politicians. The lure of a domestic nuclear capability will only grow if the credibility of the US nuclear and conventional deterrent declines for any of the above reasons. I think I’ve said before that troops stationed in the ROK and Japan is an important part of US nonproliferation efforts. The US doesn’t want an arms race and so it seeks to remain engaged and reassure our allies as much as possible that we will be good on our word should treaty obligations be invoked while at the same time reducing our commitment. It’s a difficult balancing act.
I’m not suggesting that, merely pointing out that, if the only security threat posed by the North is to our troops stationed in the South, there’s more than one way to resolve the problem.
I do believe that we should be rethinking our troops deployments not just in South Korea but just about everywhere. South Korea is not the poor, undeveloped, nearly supine country it was sixty years ago. Does it really promote our security for all of our allies to disarm (even relatively) so that we can bear their burdens? I think this is a more pointed question in Europe (where I think our intervention in the Balkans was a mistake) than in Asia but it’s worth thinking about in Asia, too.
Should, as Dave suggest, all US forces be withdrawn, then these concerns will only grow.
As for the North’s missile testing, I seem to be in a very small minority. I think we should be using them as an opportunity. For one thing the more missiles the North expends in tests the happier I’ll be. North Korea is not the United States, China, or Russia. Its resources are much more limited.
For another I think we should use North Korean missile tests as opportunities to test our own anti-missile defenses. They shoot the missiles; we knock ’em down. Win-win.
I agre with Andy, this is a direct threat. If South Korea is attacked by someone else, we are obligated to respond and aid. Any troops in S. Korea will be in range of an attack. I do agree that we should get our troops out of S. Korea. If they are attacked, we can respond by sending carriers and troops as needed. Do they keep troops stationed in the US in case we are attacked?
Steve
@Andy- We have no troops in Israel. Is there any doubt of our commitment to them?
Steve
Thanks Andy, I found the portion Dave excerpted to be quite ambiguous. It is structured as a limitation on U.S. obligations under the body of the treaty, but the exception to the limitation (“in case of an external armed attack”) suggests a broader obligation to aid South Korea than the language in the body expresses.
After reading the CRS Report, I think one has to be very careful about how Congress differs from the POTUS on the basic understanding of the nature of the Constitutional and War Powers Resolution limitations on making war.
I have no policy views, other than the U.S. should be identifying the seriousness of the situation with the hope of convincing China to take care of things.
Shorter me:
I find the Congressional limitations on the understanding of the treaty, not very limiting. I find the Congressional Research Staff’s assurances of independent Constitutional limitations not very assuring.
Good night.
I agree and, for the record, I’m not opposed to troop withdrawals from the Koreas. I’m simply pointing out those withdrawals will come with strategic tradeoffs.
Steve,
What would be the point? The US is not threatened by a land invasion and the only credible threat is posed by nuclear weapons. South Korea did, however, contribute a couple thousand troops to Iraq and a handful to Afghanistan.
I guess it depends. Ask Israeli’s and you will get many different answers. They developed their own nuclear weapons, so I suppose one could argue they don’t have much faith in US promises of extended deterrence. So far we’ve yet to come to Israel’s aid in any of its conflicts except to restock weapons and we don’t have a formal alliance, only an affair of the heart which is, in some ways, stronger than an alliance. Of course Israel is far more powerful than any of its neighbors and doesn’t really need help. The same cannot be said for Korea or Japan.
PD,
My take-a-way from that is that the US has an “out” if it wants to exercise it. A President that doesn’t want to get heavily involved could delay (The Falklands war would be a good example). A President that wants to help Korea can get the ball rolling with ready forces, but will depend on Congress for the funding necessary to prosecute a major war. Korea would not be a Libya.
@Andy
… depend on Congress for the funding necessary to prosecute a major war. …
Presidential authority has been expanding since President Reagan, and each one increases the rate of expansion. President Obama expansion was the wet dream of the Reagan administration.
The evil Dick Cheney and his equally evil daughter have no problem with the socialist Obama grabbing more authority. I doubt they are excited about his ability to carry out his socialist takeover of the US. It is almost as if they think one day there may be a President Cheney (Liz), and she would need as much authority to carry out her evil plans to takeover the world.
Words on paper only constrain the weak and timid.
Words on paper only constrain the weak and timid.
They constrain the honorable as well, if sworn to. Admittedly, no one values honor any more.
As the US sheds nuclear weapons, the rest of the world will acquire nuclear weapons. If the Pax Americana is a myth, there should be no effect from the US disengaging militarily from the world, but I doubt it.
I would pull out of Europe and most of the Pacific. Guam can remain a re-supply point. If South Korea and Japan get nuclear weapons, good for them. Even better, the US should sell the excess stock.
A nuclear is predicted to bring a nuclear winter. This should solve the Global Warming crisis.