A Line in the Sand

While the news remains filled with talk of terrorism in London, Sharm al-Sheikh or in Iraq, the more pressing situation in North Korea continues to occupy the back burner of public consciousness. As with Iraq, the North Korean situation has been very poorly outlined to the general public. They know Kim Jong Il is a nutty nuke-wielding, shorter-than-average guy with a really bad haircut. Most people know we have soldiers stationed in South Korea. But what exactly is going on over there? While I usually leave Asian topics to Curzon and Younghusband whose extensive knowledge and on the ground experience in the region far outweighs mine, I thought it interesting to pose a few basic questions/statementions that still remain unanswered and debated with my answers and room for readers’ as well.

1. Clinton is at fault because North Korea broke the 1994 agreement.

Wrong. While neither Democrat or Republican, I take a dim view of those on the right who tend to immediately and anachronistically blame him for problems occuring during the present administration. Though the North Koreans indeed renegged on their agreement, it should firstly not come as a surprise nor as unprecendented. The Soviets broke almost every agreement we had with them but it was still better to have some sort of framework than nothing. Some order is better than total chaos. Estimates put North Korea’s nuclear arsenal at around 10 now. Had there been no restrictions at all, it would almost certainly be much higher now.

2. What or where is the line in the sand which cannot be crossed?

If developing nuclear weapons didn’t lead to war, then what will? A clear line in the sand must be drawn which will trigger an attack. Should it be nuclear testing? Nuclear material or technology sold to third parties? Continued development? Should it be a time limit?

3. Our deterrent

A line in the sand is the most important deterrent, but what else? We need to make clear that for every nuke used by North Korea against us or our allies that we’ll use 100 (which should be fairly clear anyway). Should we also threaten to go nuclear in the event of chemical or biological attacks or proliferation? Additionally, should we lend our nuclear missles to allies in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea as we did to Europeans during the cold war? This would prevent nuclear proliferation among our allies but still give them a nucler capability, albeit under our control and would go a long way to ease their minds.

4. Can a war with North Korea be won?

Yes. While messy, North Korea nevertheless has no chance against the United States. Their best bet is to ensure the war is too costly to be undertaken as the outcome has been and is still clear. Yet, even with an all out war, America would still clearly come out on top. The problem herein lies in the basic human inability to accurately weigh long term effects versus short term ones. While a war with North Korea would mean terrible death and destruction for America, South Korea, North Korea and possibly neighbors such as Japan, the long term threat of North Korea with dozens more warheads and nuclear, chemical and biological weapon technology or weapons themselves being sold would do much more damage.

5. What comes after?

A state like North Korea with its stockpiles of WMD is not only a present danger to the entire world, but its collapse infinitely moreso. North Korea in ruins would be a smugglers paradise and a terrorists Toys R Us. North Korea may use the weapons it possesses but terrorists would definitely use them. Thus, in the wake of the recent attacks in London, Europe should hopefully be more responsive to the fact that they wouldbe just as much in danger as would be should North Korea collapse with or without war. Thus, they direly need to be brought on board.

America has thusfar resisted bilateral talks with the North Koreans saying we don’t want to reward bad behavior but Kim already has nukes, what more bad behavior will be rewarding. The facts on the ground are the same and the sooner we fully explore all diplomatic routes, the sooner we’ll have the legitimacy to use force if necssary while enjoying international backing.

Conclusion

As we’ve seen, though Iraq was clearly an international threat, it was not a pressing one. Iran, while definitely an up and coming threat, still has time whereas North Korea is a problem today. They do have all three forms of WMD guaranteed and the question for the present administration is not about good and bad solutions, it’s about the best of the worst. It’s already too late.