North Korea has conducted another nuclear test. The NK regime says the bomb was an H-bomb. There is no way to verify that claim, but we do know that the explosion was much larger than previous NK test bombs. That fits with this being an H-bomb. The NKs also say that they have perfected putting the H-bomb onto an ICBM that can reach the USA.
Now comes the tough question: what should we do about this? There are basically four choices. The first choice is to just accept the North Korea is now a full scale nuclear power with the capability to strike the USA. The second is to try to continue with the course followed for the last 20 years; that means failed diplomatic efforts and some sanctions that have not worked. The third is to ratchet up the sanctions to a total onslaught against the NKs. The fourth is a pre-emptive military strike against the North and its nuclear weapons. Obviously, there are various gradations and combinations of these four that can be used.
Each of the choices is bad. 1) Living with a nuclear state run by a crazy guy is not something likely to lead to a peaceful future. We will always be subject to nuclear blackmail. 2) There is no reason, also, for us to assume that continuing on the course that has failed so badly over the last 20 years will suddenly lead to a different result. 3) Taking the North Korean economy down through sanctions like an embargo might cause Kim Jung Un to decide that his only chance for survival would be an attack launched by the NKs. The push for peace and security could cause war. 4) A pre-emptive attack means war. That could mean hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead.
So pretend for a moment that you are president; what do you choose? If the USA cannot stop the NK program, we have a situation in which the likelihood of future nuclear attack goes way up. We lived for decades with the threat of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. That attack would have been much more devastating than what the NK's could do, but the Soviets could be deterred by the mutually assured destruction that was in place. Will Kim be deterred? Who knows? On the other hand, if there is war in the Korean peninsula, then the people of Seoul and other South Korean localities will be targets of the NK's thousands of artillery pieces. To be fair, most of those guns cannot reach Seoul and the population centers. Still, were we to launch an attack and the NKs respond with nukes delivered by planes, we could see Seoul as well as cities in Japan vaporized. It would be a calamity of the sort not seen in seventy years. So what do you choose?
Gordon Chang is someone who has claimed to be an expert on China for two decades. He predicted shortly after 2000, that the Chinese economy would soon collapse; he was wrong. He did not change his view; a decade later he was still predicting the imminent collapse of China. In recent years, he's changed his focus from China to North Korea. I tell you all this, because he has a terrible track record. Nevertheless, Chang is proposing that the USA establish a world wide embargo against trade with the NK's. What that really means is that we have to get China to close its border with North Korea. China currently accounts for over 90% of trade with the North Koreans. Chang proposes that we threaten China with cutting off the ability of its banks to trade dollars unless China agrees to and enforces the embargo. It's an idea that might work, or it could cause a war to start with a pre-emptive attack by the NK's rather than by our side. That shift would mean many more casualties. Even with that risk, however, it is probably worth the risk to try this course for six months. Kim Jung Un must know that any war would end with his death and the destruction of the North Korean state. We have to rely on at least that much sanity keeping him from starting a war.
Now comes the tough question: what should we do about this? There are basically four choices. The first choice is to just accept the North Korea is now a full scale nuclear power with the capability to strike the USA. The second is to try to continue with the course followed for the last 20 years; that means failed diplomatic efforts and some sanctions that have not worked. The third is to ratchet up the sanctions to a total onslaught against the NKs. The fourth is a pre-emptive military strike against the North and its nuclear weapons. Obviously, there are various gradations and combinations of these four that can be used.
Each of the choices is bad. 1) Living with a nuclear state run by a crazy guy is not something likely to lead to a peaceful future. We will always be subject to nuclear blackmail. 2) There is no reason, also, for us to assume that continuing on the course that has failed so badly over the last 20 years will suddenly lead to a different result. 3) Taking the North Korean economy down through sanctions like an embargo might cause Kim Jung Un to decide that his only chance for survival would be an attack launched by the NKs. The push for peace and security could cause war. 4) A pre-emptive attack means war. That could mean hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead.
So pretend for a moment that you are president; what do you choose? If the USA cannot stop the NK program, we have a situation in which the likelihood of future nuclear attack goes way up. We lived for decades with the threat of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. That attack would have been much more devastating than what the NK's could do, but the Soviets could be deterred by the mutually assured destruction that was in place. Will Kim be deterred? Who knows? On the other hand, if there is war in the Korean peninsula, then the people of Seoul and other South Korean localities will be targets of the NK's thousands of artillery pieces. To be fair, most of those guns cannot reach Seoul and the population centers. Still, were we to launch an attack and the NKs respond with nukes delivered by planes, we could see Seoul as well as cities in Japan vaporized. It would be a calamity of the sort not seen in seventy years. So what do you choose?
Gordon Chang is someone who has claimed to be an expert on China for two decades. He predicted shortly after 2000, that the Chinese economy would soon collapse; he was wrong. He did not change his view; a decade later he was still predicting the imminent collapse of China. In recent years, he's changed his focus from China to North Korea. I tell you all this, because he has a terrible track record. Nevertheless, Chang is proposing that the USA establish a world wide embargo against trade with the NK's. What that really means is that we have to get China to close its border with North Korea. China currently accounts for over 90% of trade with the North Koreans. Chang proposes that we threaten China with cutting off the ability of its banks to trade dollars unless China agrees to and enforces the embargo. It's an idea that might work, or it could cause a war to start with a pre-emptive attack by the NK's rather than by our side. That shift would mean many more casualties. Even with that risk, however, it is probably worth the risk to try this course for six months. Kim Jung Un must know that any war would end with his death and the destruction of the North Korean state. We have to rely on at least that much sanity keeping him from starting a war.
No comments:
Post a Comment