What to do with North Korea
By Howard Levine
January 1, 2003
The decision by the North Korean government, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) to dispense with UN inspections of its nuclear facilities and apparently attempt to acquire more material for nuclear weapons is a direct affront to the world community and a genuine risk to the safety of pro-Western nations.
First, the DPRK violated an agreement with the United States (US) in which the DPRK was to stop its nuclear weapons program in exchange for substantial amount of fuel oil and food from the US. The DPRK ignored its obligations and accepted the aid from the US. This, of course, is a good reason not to make further agreements with the DPRK as a way of preventing them from having nuclear weapons. The DPRK does not honor its agreements unless they are enforced by the armed forces of its enemies. Any negotiations not based on actual use of force will not be effective.
Second, with its recent missile tests, the DPRK has shown that it is able to hit targets in South Korea, Japan, and, soon, parts of the United States with nuclear weapons. Of course, any area of the world is vulnerable to nuclear attack if the DPRK provides its weapons to terrorists, sends commandos equipped with nuclear weapons from a submarine, or simply ships some bombs in a freighter. The DPRK has demonstrated an ability to infiltrate commandos onto foreign soil before – especially in South Korea and Japan. It is clear that DPRK nuclear weapons are a threat to all Western countries including the US. Since the US has military forces facing DPRK forces across the Demilitarized Zone in Korea, the US may be at greater risk than most other Western nations except Japan and South Korea.
Third, President Bush has (rightly) declared the DPRK to be part of the Axis of Evil. Given this high level policy statement, the reputation of the US is at stake. To ignore this DPRK action would be an admission by the US that its policies against international terrorists and their state sponsors will not be effectively implemented. For example, if, in 1941, the US had decided to only fight Japan and just use tough talk and ineffective negotiations against the Germans and Italians, Japan would probably have been defeated, but Europe (including the USSR), North Africa, and the Middle East would probably have been under Nazi control. The US would probably have had to fight an even bigger war against the Nazis when they started directly attacking the US than the very substantial effort required during WWII. During WWII, it was not in the US interest to fight only one part of an evil axis and let the other parts strengthen themselves and become more difficult adversaries later. At this time in history, the same is true. Action against Iraq appears imminent and is long over-due. This does not mean that action should not be taken against other parts of the Axis of Evil – Iran and the DPRK. In fact, the lessons of history teach us that effective action should be taken as swiftly as possible.
The only realistic options open to the US for dealing with a developing nuclear threat from the DPRK are to try some form of containment policy or engage in military operations to neutralize the nuclear threat. Containment depends upon our ability to persuade other nations to participate in containment and economic isolation of the DPRK. More importantly, it depends on the leadership of the DPRK being rational enough to avoid using nuclear weapons. Given the aggressiveness of the DPRK and that it is a dictatorship, assuming rationality is not safe or realistic. The DPRK is a rogue nation.
Military operations raise the threat of a major war on the Korean peninsula. If such a war broke out, casualties would probably be very high; hundreds of thousands or even millions would probably be killed. However, the US and South Korea would ultimately be able to push the DPRK forces back across the Demilitarized Zone and maybe even farther if no other countries intervened. The cost in both human suffering and infrastructure would be tremendous on both sides. Therefore, major military operations are not what one would expect from a rational DPRK.
Targeted US military attacks against DPRK nuclear sites including any sites used to create fissile materials, assemble nuclear weapons, or develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons will probably be the most effective solution to the problem of a DPRK nuclear threat. Although there are substantial risks with this course of action, they are not as great as may be commonly supposed. If the nuclear weapons capabilities of the DPRK are eliminated, then a serious nuclear threat to the safety and peace of the world will have been eliminated. If the DPRK is rational, it will not launch a major attack against South Korea or any other country because it will suffer devastation even if it is not completely destroyed or even if it even makes some territorial gains against South Korea. If the DPRK is not rational, then it might launch an attack against South Korea which would be horrible, but would probably result in a US/South Korean victory. However, an irrational DPRK with nuclear weapons would probably use its nuclear weapons at some point in order to achieve a political objective. In this case, there would be horrible casualties and there would also be a war fought against a DPRK with a much larger nuclear arsenal than it currently has. Essentially, a targeted attack designed to destroy DPRK nuclear weapon capabilities may trigger a major war immediately. If such a war broke out, it would be horrendous, but not nearly as horrible as a war that would be likely to occur in the near future. If war did not break out, then the world will be a bit safer at a relatively low price.
Therefore, there is no real net disadvantage to a targeted attack against DPRK nuclear weapons facilities, but there is the potential benefit of denying nuclear weapons to a rogue state. If necessary, the US could fight two wars simultaneously though the military would be stretched to its limits while engaged in both conflicts. The time to strike is sooner rather than later. Time is not on our side!
By Howard Levine
January 1, 2003
The decision by the North Korean government, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) to dispense with UN inspections of its nuclear facilities and apparently attempt to acquire more material for nuclear weapons is a direct affront to the world community and a genuine risk to the safety of pro-Western nations.
First, the DPRK violated an agreement with the United States (US) in which the DPRK was to stop its nuclear weapons program in exchange for substantial amount of fuel oil and food from the US. The DPRK ignored its obligations and accepted the aid from the US. This, of course, is a good reason not to make further agreements with the DPRK as a way of preventing them from having nuclear weapons. The DPRK does not honor its agreements unless they are enforced by the armed forces of its enemies. Any negotiations not based on actual use of force will not be effective.
Second, with its recent missile tests, the DPRK has shown that it is able to hit targets in South Korea, Japan, and, soon, parts of the United States with nuclear weapons. Of course, any area of the world is vulnerable to nuclear attack if the DPRK provides its weapons to terrorists, sends commandos equipped with nuclear weapons from a submarine, or simply ships some bombs in a freighter. The DPRK has demonstrated an ability to infiltrate commandos onto foreign soil before – especially in South Korea and Japan. It is clear that DPRK nuclear weapons are a threat to all Western countries including the US. Since the US has military forces facing DPRK forces across the Demilitarized Zone in Korea, the US may be at greater risk than most other Western nations except Japan and South Korea.
Third, President Bush has (rightly) declared the DPRK to be part of the Axis of Evil. Given this high level policy statement, the reputation of the US is at stake. To ignore this DPRK action would be an admission by the US that its policies against international terrorists and their state sponsors will not be effectively implemented. For example, if, in 1941, the US had decided to only fight Japan and just use tough talk and ineffective negotiations against the Germans and Italians, Japan would probably have been defeated, but Europe (including the USSR), North Africa, and the Middle East would probably have been under Nazi control. The US would probably have had to fight an even bigger war against the Nazis when they started directly attacking the US than the very substantial effort required during WWII. During WWII, it was not in the US interest to fight only one part of an evil axis and let the other parts strengthen themselves and become more difficult adversaries later. At this time in history, the same is true. Action against Iraq appears imminent and is long over-due. This does not mean that action should not be taken against other parts of the Axis of Evil – Iran and the DPRK. In fact, the lessons of history teach us that effective action should be taken as swiftly as possible.
The only realistic options open to the US for dealing with a developing nuclear threat from the DPRK are to try some form of containment policy or engage in military operations to neutralize the nuclear threat. Containment depends upon our ability to persuade other nations to participate in containment and economic isolation of the DPRK. More importantly, it depends on the leadership of the DPRK being rational enough to avoid using nuclear weapons. Given the aggressiveness of the DPRK and that it is a dictatorship, assuming rationality is not safe or realistic. The DPRK is a rogue nation.
Military operations raise the threat of a major war on the Korean peninsula. If such a war broke out, casualties would probably be very high; hundreds of thousands or even millions would probably be killed. However, the US and South Korea would ultimately be able to push the DPRK forces back across the Demilitarized Zone and maybe even farther if no other countries intervened. The cost in both human suffering and infrastructure would be tremendous on both sides. Therefore, major military operations are not what one would expect from a rational DPRK.
Targeted US military attacks against DPRK nuclear sites including any sites used to create fissile materials, assemble nuclear weapons, or develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons will probably be the most effective solution to the problem of a DPRK nuclear threat. Although there are substantial risks with this course of action, they are not as great as may be commonly supposed. If the nuclear weapons capabilities of the DPRK are eliminated, then a serious nuclear threat to the safety and peace of the world will have been eliminated. If the DPRK is rational, it will not launch a major attack against South Korea or any other country because it will suffer devastation even if it is not completely destroyed or even if it even makes some territorial gains against South Korea. If the DPRK is not rational, then it might launch an attack against South Korea which would be horrible, but would probably result in a US/South Korean victory. However, an irrational DPRK with nuclear weapons would probably use its nuclear weapons at some point in order to achieve a political objective. In this case, there would be horrible casualties and there would also be a war fought against a DPRK with a much larger nuclear arsenal than it currently has. Essentially, a targeted attack designed to destroy DPRK nuclear weapon capabilities may trigger a major war immediately. If such a war broke out, it would be horrendous, but not nearly as horrible as a war that would be likely to occur in the near future. If war did not break out, then the world will be a bit safer at a relatively low price.
Therefore, there is no real net disadvantage to a targeted attack against DPRK nuclear weapons facilities, but there is the potential benefit of denying nuclear weapons to a rogue state. If necessary, the US could fight two wars simultaneously though the military would be stretched to its limits while engaged in both conflicts. The time to strike is sooner rather than later. Time is not on our side!
Comments