Until Houston's agony and the threat of Irma drove Korea out of the headlines, the press is full of reports about a nuclear confrontation there. For those of us who lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis this whole thing is wildly overblown; however, the question remains of how to approach NK's nuclear program. How big/good/dangerous IS NK's program? What options do we have?
Being able to explode a nuclear device is light years from having a nuclear weapon. There must be a missile capable of delivering the weapon. The weapon must be small enough to fit on a missile. The missile must be accurate enough to hit a target.
NK has missiles, unquestionably. They are now solid-fueled. Liquid fuel is corrosive, and such rockets must be fueled just prior to launch. Solid fuel rockets can be stored pre-fueled, reducing their launch time. NK also clearly has nuclear devices. They have produced progressively larger devices as measured seismically. It is unclear whether they have miniaturized a warhead, or if they have serious guidance systems. The first is more likely than the second, but both are possible.
NK's largest device to date is 30 kilotons (the devices used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20 kilotons each). As a comparison, both the US and Russia have tactical nuclear weapons of up to 1 megaton, and nuclear artillery shells of 50 kilotons. No one wants use of nuclear weapons; however, that said, these devices are enough to destroy a city but not cause long term nuclear damage to either people or environment beyond those immediately affected.
What response choices do we have? What constraints are there?
To date we have responded with diplomacy and mild threats. There was a deal in 2005 that had fallen apart by 2009. Various blusterings by various presidents have accomplished nothing. It is interesting in this regard that both Obama and Clinton threatened NK with destruction if they used a nuclear weapon against US territory, and no one got upset about it. Trump threatens, and everybody goes crazy thinking he is unstable enough to carry it out. Regardless, diplomacy has been a failure. NK has developed and continues to develop its nuclear program.
We can wait for NK to launch a weapon against SK or the US. This has the advantage of being fully justified in our response but having suffered terrible damage and casualties. Also, once US soil is attacked and a city destroyed (about what NK's weapons are capable of) there will certainly be a war of large size and import. Given China's importance in the region, they would certainly be involved in any resultant war. Waiting for an attack is not a strategy.
We can deter. We can make clear by words and positioning of force that if NK launches a missile there will be a terrible reply. This is the essence of what Trump has done this week- use deterrent rather than diplomatic language. Such an approach presumes the opponent fears the response.
We can pre-emptively strike. If we do this without strong provocation China will be very angry. We cannot afford this for various reasons noted below. If there is an imminent launch by NK, we are able to destroy the missile and launching facility. We could also attack technological development sites. We could of course launch a much broader attack on NK generally, but it is difficult to justify such a response without a threat of the strongest sort.
Given the failure of diplomacy and the unacceptability of allowing NK a first strike, pre-emption or deterrence are the only choices. There are many constraining factors to consider in making these choices.
There are two major US allies and trading partners in easy range- SK and Japan. Seoul is only 35 miles from the Korean demilitarized zone. A NK strike or response to a pre-emptive strike puts two allied nations at immediate risk.
NK has a great deal of money tied up in its nuclear program, and even more prestige. The whole world knows NK is starving to death, reliant on China for food and coal. NK is a pariah and, like many a shunned child, gets attention from misbehavior. NK might have nothing to lose if its single most pride-filled public program is damaged or destroyed. The world has tried to negotiate with NK on the presumption there is something NK wants in return for stopping its weapons program. We may be wrong. The weapons program may be itself the goal, a 'presence' on the world stage. Taking it away may provoke its use. This illogical possibility constrains response.
China is at risk from any conventional or nuclear fight with NK. There is a centuries-old history of Chinese intervention in and domination of Korea. China has some reputation tied up in NK's 'success'. A larger problem is the economic relationship between China and the US. China holds a large amount of US debt, and also has a healthy trade surplus with the US. Angering China leaves the US open to far more upheaval and damage than if one city were to be obliterated by a nuclear weapon. We can recover from the loss of San Francisco; the city has been flattened once in the last 100 years and it and we are doing fine. We would have far greater problems if there were a trade embargo from China, or China declined to buy our debt.
The biggest constraint, however, is us. We do not appear to have the will for deterrence or a fight. Without that will, war is more likely, and loss of world presence inevitable. Si vis pacem, para bellum- if you want peace, prepare for war. The wisdom of this phrase has been lost on America for the last 40 years. By publicly expressing our reluctance to fight, even our abhorrence of fighting, we make a fight all the more likely.
Diplomacy works well only from a position of strength. Hitler was prepared to back down in the 1935 remilitarization of the Rhineland if France had had the will to send military force. They didn't. Chamberlain in 1938 is notorious. So is the 'non-aggression pact' between Stalin and Hitler, the various 'treaties' between the US and Native Americans and Israel and various Arab nations. The stronger eat the weaker every time. We must be strong, and show we are willing to use that strength, if we want peace.
Considering all these limitations, deterrence is a great place to start. Trump is entirely right to threaten overwhelming force if NK preps a missile against us or our allies. The ongoing, mistaken belief in failed diplomacy is a dead end. Trump's aggressive wording is not the raving of an unbalanced mind but the necessary rhetoric for deterrence. And it has worked- NK backed down from threatening Guam, and they almost certainly do not have the guidance systems necessary to hit the US mainland. If deterrence fails, a strike against NK's facilities is a reasonable and necessary option.
Ted
Being able to explode a nuclear device is light years from having a nuclear weapon. There must be a missile capable of delivering the weapon. The weapon must be small enough to fit on a missile. The missile must be accurate enough to hit a target.
NK has missiles, unquestionably. They are now solid-fueled. Liquid fuel is corrosive, and such rockets must be fueled just prior to launch. Solid fuel rockets can be stored pre-fueled, reducing their launch time. NK also clearly has nuclear devices. They have produced progressively larger devices as measured seismically. It is unclear whether they have miniaturized a warhead, or if they have serious guidance systems. The first is more likely than the second, but both are possible.
NK's largest device to date is 30 kilotons (the devices used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20 kilotons each). As a comparison, both the US and Russia have tactical nuclear weapons of up to 1 megaton, and nuclear artillery shells of 50 kilotons. No one wants use of nuclear weapons; however, that said, these devices are enough to destroy a city but not cause long term nuclear damage to either people or environment beyond those immediately affected.
What response choices do we have? What constraints are there?
To date we have responded with diplomacy and mild threats. There was a deal in 2005 that had fallen apart by 2009. Various blusterings by various presidents have accomplished nothing. It is interesting in this regard that both Obama and Clinton threatened NK with destruction if they used a nuclear weapon against US territory, and no one got upset about it. Trump threatens, and everybody goes crazy thinking he is unstable enough to carry it out. Regardless, diplomacy has been a failure. NK has developed and continues to develop its nuclear program.
We can wait for NK to launch a weapon against SK or the US. This has the advantage of being fully justified in our response but having suffered terrible damage and casualties. Also, once US soil is attacked and a city destroyed (about what NK's weapons are capable of) there will certainly be a war of large size and import. Given China's importance in the region, they would certainly be involved in any resultant war. Waiting for an attack is not a strategy.
We can deter. We can make clear by words and positioning of force that if NK launches a missile there will be a terrible reply. This is the essence of what Trump has done this week- use deterrent rather than diplomatic language. Such an approach presumes the opponent fears the response.
We can pre-emptively strike. If we do this without strong provocation China will be very angry. We cannot afford this for various reasons noted below. If there is an imminent launch by NK, we are able to destroy the missile and launching facility. We could also attack technological development sites. We could of course launch a much broader attack on NK generally, but it is difficult to justify such a response without a threat of the strongest sort.
Given the failure of diplomacy and the unacceptability of allowing NK a first strike, pre-emption or deterrence are the only choices. There are many constraining factors to consider in making these choices.
There are two major US allies and trading partners in easy range- SK and Japan. Seoul is only 35 miles from the Korean demilitarized zone. A NK strike or response to a pre-emptive strike puts two allied nations at immediate risk.
NK has a great deal of money tied up in its nuclear program, and even more prestige. The whole world knows NK is starving to death, reliant on China for food and coal. NK is a pariah and, like many a shunned child, gets attention from misbehavior. NK might have nothing to lose if its single most pride-filled public program is damaged or destroyed. The world has tried to negotiate with NK on the presumption there is something NK wants in return for stopping its weapons program. We may be wrong. The weapons program may be itself the goal, a 'presence' on the world stage. Taking it away may provoke its use. This illogical possibility constrains response.
China is at risk from any conventional or nuclear fight with NK. There is a centuries-old history of Chinese intervention in and domination of Korea. China has some reputation tied up in NK's 'success'. A larger problem is the economic relationship between China and the US. China holds a large amount of US debt, and also has a healthy trade surplus with the US. Angering China leaves the US open to far more upheaval and damage than if one city were to be obliterated by a nuclear weapon. We can recover from the loss of San Francisco; the city has been flattened once in the last 100 years and it and we are doing fine. We would have far greater problems if there were a trade embargo from China, or China declined to buy our debt.
The biggest constraint, however, is us. We do not appear to have the will for deterrence or a fight. Without that will, war is more likely, and loss of world presence inevitable. Si vis pacem, para bellum- if you want peace, prepare for war. The wisdom of this phrase has been lost on America for the last 40 years. By publicly expressing our reluctance to fight, even our abhorrence of fighting, we make a fight all the more likely.
Diplomacy works well only from a position of strength. Hitler was prepared to back down in the 1935 remilitarization of the Rhineland if France had had the will to send military force. They didn't. Chamberlain in 1938 is notorious. So is the 'non-aggression pact' between Stalin and Hitler, the various 'treaties' between the US and Native Americans and Israel and various Arab nations. The stronger eat the weaker every time. We must be strong, and show we are willing to use that strength, if we want peace.
Considering all these limitations, deterrence is a great place to start. Trump is entirely right to threaten overwhelming force if NK preps a missile against us or our allies. The ongoing, mistaken belief in failed diplomacy is a dead end. Trump's aggressive wording is not the raving of an unbalanced mind but the necessary rhetoric for deterrence. And it has worked- NK backed down from threatening Guam, and they almost certainly do not have the guidance systems necessary to hit the US mainland. If deterrence fails, a strike against NK's facilities is a reasonable and necessary option.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment