Support NeoGAF

[Dreams-Visions]

Thirty minutes. That's about how long it would take a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) launched from North Korea to reach Los Angeles. With the powers in Pyongyang working doggedly toward making this possible—building an ICBM and shrinking a nuke to fit on it—analysts now predict that Kim Jong Un will have the capability before Donald Trump completes one four-year term.

About which the president has tweeted, simply, ”It won't happen!"

Though given to reckless oaths, Trump is not in this case saying anything that departs significantly from the past half century of futile American policy toward North Korea. Preventing the Kim dynasty from having a nuclear device was an American priority long before Pyongyang exploded its first nuke, in 2006, during the administration of George W. Bush. The Kim regime detonated four more while Barack Obama was in the White House. In the more than four decades since Richard Nixon held office, the U.S. has tried to control North Korea by issuing threats, conducting military exercises, ratcheting up diplomatic sanctions, leaning on China, and most recently, it seems likely, committing cybersabotage.

For his part, Trump has also tweeted that North Korea is ”looking for trouble" and that he intends to ”solve the problem." His administration has leaked plans for a ”decapitation strike" that would target Kim, which seems like the very last thing a country ought to announce in advance.

None of which, we should all pray, will amount to much. Ignorant of the long history of the problem, Trump at least brings fresh eyes to it. But he is going to collide with the same harsh truth that has stymied all his recent predecessors: There are no good options for dealing with North Korea. Meanwhile, he is enthusiastically if unwittingly playing the role assigned to him by the comic-book-style foundation myth of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

How should the United States proceed?

What to do about North Korea has been an intractable problem for decades. Although shooting stopped in 1953, Pyongyang insists that the Korean War never ended. It maintains as an official policy goal the reunification of the Korean peninsula under the Kim dynasty.

As tensions flared in recent months, fanned by bluster from both Washington and Pyongyang, I talked with a number of national-security experts and military officers who have wrestled with the problem for years, and who have held responsibility to plan and prepare for real conflict. Among those I spoke with were former officials from the White House, the National Security Council, and the Pentagon; military officers who have commanded forces in the region; and academic experts.

From these conversations, I learned that the U.S. has four broad strategic options for dealing with North Korea and its burgeoning nuclear program.

1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang's arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea's standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.
2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea's capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.
3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.
4. Acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim's developing the weapons he wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.

Let's consider each option. All of them are bad.

A huge amount more here, going into great detail about each possible option:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

It's long, so an audio reading available on Soundcloud here: https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/the-worst-problem-on-earth-the-atlantic-mark-bowden

For those truly interested in the threat of North Korea and what options the West has in dealing with them (and some perspective on very real pros and cons), this is very much worth your time. As most pieces by The Atlantic are.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

#possiblenukearea

 

[BocoDragon]

I think we're on the route to number 4 (acceptance). There simply won't be a big enough crisis moment to justify risky pre-emptive action, and one day we'll wake up and they'll be nuclear launch capable.

 

[Xando]

1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang’s arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea’s standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.
2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea’s capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.

The idea that any small attack on a country that has been fed an american attack is imminient and will result in total war would work without major escalation on the korean border is nonsense

3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.

This is the same nonsense thinking that got us into the iraq war. These people have been indoctrinated for 60 years and will not just open itself up to the world

 

[makingmusic476]

The idea that any small attack on a country that has been fed an american attack is imminient and will result in total war would work without major escalation on the korean border is nonsense



This is the same nonsense thinking that got us into the iraq war. These people have been indoctrinated for 60 years and will not just open itself up to the world

You should really read the rest of the article.

 

[Log4Girlz]

We'll just accept it. Once they have the capability we should leave the peninsula.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The idea that any small attack on a country that has been fed an american attack is imminient and will result in total war would work without major escalation on the korean border is nonsense



This is the same nonsense thinking that got us into the iraq war. These people have been indoctrinated for 60 years and will not just open itself up to the world

The article agrees with you. I encourage you to read or listen to it for even more on why, including some tangential issues you probably didn't consider.

This is a really well done article, made approachable by non-academics. It's really good, fam.

 

[Xando]

You should really read the rest of the article.

The idea that these 3 options are even on the table(as the author suggests) is troublesome enough

 

[clemenx]

At this point there's nothing that can be done. Such regimes had to be thrown out right at the start. North Korea as it is right now is something that flat out should not have been allowed to exist.

 

[Zophar]

I hate to say it but acceptance seems like the "best" worst path. North Korea blusters but it's been very consistent in actual diplomatic channels: it just wants to be left alone, and nuclear deterrence is their way of stopping interference.

The Kims can't keep up their stranglehold on the country forever. The regime will collapse but it will happen organically and from within.

 

[B-Dubs]

I hate to say it but acceptance seems like the "best" worst path. North Korea blusters but it's been very consistent in actual diplomatic channels: it just wants to be left alone, and nuclear deterrence is their way of stopping interference.

The Kims can't keep up their stranglehold on the country forever. The regime will collapse but it will happen organically and from within.

The issue is that's why we don't want to let them have nukes. Say the country destabilizes and the regime falls apart, what's to stop a rogue general looking to make an early retirement from selling off nuclear material?

 

[Zophar]

The issue is that's why we don't want to let them have nukes. Say the country destabilizes and the regime falls apart, what's to stop a rogue general looking to make an early retirement from selling off nuclear material?

I didn't say it was a good option - and neither does The Atlantic. That's a shitty scary risk but given the alternatives it's the least shitty, least risky option.

 

[B-Dubs]

I didn't say it was a good option - and neither does The Atlantic. That's a shitty scary risk but given the alternatives it's the least shitty, least risky option.

I know. The article is absolutely right: there are only bad options here. Even a best case scenario--the Kims decide they want to step down and reunify the country with South Korea (which will never happen)--would be a shitshow of almost unprecedented proportions.

No matter what anyone decides to do it's all going to shit in some way.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Such regimes had to be thrown out right at the start. North Korea as it is right now is something that flat out should not have been allowed to exist.

I think everyone would agree.

 

[The Greek Freak]

I know. The article is absolutely right: there are only bad options here. Even a best case scenario--the Kims decide they want to step down and reunify the country with South Korea (which will never happen)--would be a shitshow of almost unprecedented proportions.

No matter what anyone decides to do it's all going to shit in some way.

Yup, reunification would be an enormous economic burden on SK on a greater scale than basically anything I can think of besides a country being ruined by war.

 

[andythinkpad]

If you give up Taiwan, China will help you roll over NK. Simple.

Spoiler

Not simple, because most U.S. president won't do it.

 

[aeolist]

With the powers in Pyongyang working doggedly toward making this possible—building an ICBM and shrinking a nuke to fit on it—analysts now predict that Kim Jong Un will have the capability before Donald Trump completes one four-year term.

i would like to point out that a lot of the "analysts" giving scary NK quotes to newspapers over the last few months have been lobbyists that work for companies making weapons they want to sell to the US and SK governments

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think we're on the route to number 4 (acceptance). There simply won't be a big enough crisis moment to justify risky pre-emptive action, and one day we'll wake up and they'll be nuclear launch capable.

just like the russians and chinese have

 

[Prophet Steve]

The idea that these 3 options are even on the table(as the author suggests) is troublesome enough

I'm not sure if you really grasp the point of the article.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

i would like to point out that a lot of the "analysts" giving scary NK quotes to newspapers over the last few months have been lobbyists that work for companies making weapons they want to sell to the US and SK governments

no, most of them are researchers who work for universities/think tanks or are journalists.

you can follow their work here http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/

one of the best even relies on patreon, not arms companies.

also most of the analysts are quoted by name in the article

 

[cpp_is_king]

Acceptance may be the least bad for the short to medium term, but I'm not convinced it's the least bad for the long term.

 

[Xando]

I'm not sure if you really grasp the point of the article.

He makes the same point as i. Any military action would be foolish.

Yet he suggests some officials he talked to think option 1-3 are the way to go forward which is troublesome to say the least.

 

[clemenx]

I think everyone would agree.

Yeah, my point is that the world needs to rethink its international instances. UN and everything alike are worthless against these outliers of craziness. Diplomacy and sovereignty get used by the regimes against human lives when they're instances of civilization that exist to protect people.

My country is kinda suffering this 1st hand. 2 days ago the OAS failed to sanction Venezuela due to 2 mere votes and since then the regime has killed 4 people protesting. We're going to be (if not, already are) a failed state in the middle of the western hemisphere under everyone's noses.

 

[Maztorre]

The issue is that's why we don't want to let them have nukes. Say the country destabilizes and the regime falls apart, what's to stop a rogue general looking to make an early retirement from selling off nuclear material?

I don't see a feasible path to destabilisation though. The Kim family have kept the military leadership happy for generations, and in any case, if a "rogue general" wanted wealth, China and South Korea would eagerly step up with bribes.

The biggest risk around North Korea is dipshit leaders seeking to build a legacy for themselves by trying to "solve" NK within their terms as leader. The actions of the DPRK leadership are brutally rational, they are pursuing a deterrent to prevent regime change in the style of Iraq/Libya. This is basically inevitable at this point, so the long-term humanitarian goal becomes essentially bribing future leadership with aid in exchange for minor concessions again and again over many years. The US will simply have to learn to live with being within ICBM range of NK, the same way the residents of SK, Japan and China have until now.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Yeah, my point is that the world needs to rethink its international instances. UN and everything alike are worthless against these outliers of craziness. Diplomacy and sovereignty get used by the regimes against human lives when they're instances of civilization that exist to protect people.

My country is kinda suffering this 1st hand. 2 days ago the OAS failed to sanction Venezuela due to 2 mere votes and since then the regime has killed 4 people protesting. We're going to be (if not, already are) a failed state in the middle of the western hemisphere under everyone's noses.

Feels bad. I suppose it's hard with stakes being so high on all sides. So many ramifications for action (or inaction). Especially against this sort of unique crazy. Irrational crazy.

 

[bitbydeath]

The idea that these 3 options are even on the table(as the author suggests) is troublesome enough

All options are on the table.

 

[ElFly]

any kind of preemptive strike cannot be fast and through enough that NK doesn't completely fuck up South Korea, and maybe big parts of Japan, nuclear weapons or not

maybe Trump won't care tho

 

[TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared]

If the US attacks NK, won't the chinese intervene like they did in 1950 to protect their national interest?

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

South Korea better step up

 

[Atilac]

If the US attacks NK, won't the chinese intervene like they did in 1950 to protect their national interest?

Different China, won't go to the mattresses

 

[jstevenson]

any kind of preemptive strike cannot be fast and through enough that NK doesn't completely fuck up South Korea, and maybe big parts of Japan, nuclear weapons or not

maybe Trump won't care tho

yeah the amount of mortars pointed at Seoul will devastate that city unless the preemptive strike is just absolutely overwhelming, and even then, it still won't save Seoul

 

[4Tran]

All options are on the table.

Options 1-3 will lead to full out war, so they're not realistic options to begin with. It's technically:

Option 1. War
Option 2. War
Option 3. War
Option 4. Acceptance

North Korea is going to have to assume that any attack as an existential threat so they're going to have to make it as costly as possible for their attackers. If North Korea had a better military and more strategic depth they would be open to a larger range of reactions, but they don't have that.

The other problem is that people in the US think that a limited military strike will stay that way.

If the US attacks NK, won't the chinese intervene like they did in 1950 to protect their national interest?

China's strategic situation is nothing like what it was in 1950.

 

[bitbydeath]

If the US attacks NK, won't the chinese intervene like they did in 1950 to protect their national interest?

That's what could turn things from a war into a world war.

Options 1-3 will lead to full out war, so they're not realistic options to begin with. It's technically:

Option 1. War
Option 2. War
Option 3. War
Option 4. Acceptance.

Option 4 is wait to see if/when NK strikes.

There are no good options.

 

[4Tran]

Option 4 is wait to see if/when NK strikes.

There are no good options.

No good options is the whole point of the article. However, not War is considered to be better than War for the time being so it's still the best of a bad bunch. Moreover, North Korea still doesn't have any strategic depth or much in the way of military options, so they'll know that any nuclear attack is also tantamount to suicide. And if North Korea was interested in suicide, they could have attacked South Korea any time in the last 60 years.

 

[Lo-Volt]

The Atlantic also had some international relations brains discuss options about North Korea in 2005, though it was also in the context of lessons learned in Iraq. It was porter downbeat about what was possible and justified even then. It's good supplementary reading though.

“That's why our policy must clearly state that for every nuke they use, we will use a hundred,” McInerney said.

The other members of the Principals Committee seemed taken aback by this statement.

And that was within the first half of the exercise. The truth is, not only because of our inability to stop Pyongyang, but because of our inability to stop proliferation generally and bolster the alliances we have, nuclear acceptance could be one of the big themes of this century. Countries like Japan and South Korea have the wealth and technical ability to develop a nuclear deterrent, but not the political norms that would make the choice acceptable. But if Donald Trump runs his mouth more, will that begin to change?

 

[MagnaderAlpha]

I think some Right wingers, including Trump, wouldn't mind getting into war. I can see them dreaming of conquering North Korean, ousting the Communist rule, and instead of giving it back to South Korea in hopes of a united Korea, they'd claim it as Far East America (FEA), then send all the minorities of the USA over there to make America White again.

Trump (and any other dumbass racist our country shat out): "It's okay, the Mexicans and Blacks and Chinese people will like it over there. There's already minorities living there, it would be like 'Minority Heaven' to them! Sure, we'll tax you twice as bad, but, whattaya gonna do?"

 

[BocoDragon]

just like the russians and chinese have

Yeah it's ultimately not the end of the world. But it does mean NK is here to stay, and they'll have some leverage in world politics.

Who knows, it might mellow them out, knowing they're no longer a cornered animal...

 

[Coriolanus]

I think some Right wingers, including Trump, wouldn't mind getting into war. I can see them dreaming of conquering North Korean, ousting the Communist rule, and instead of giving it back to South Korea in hopes of a united Korea, they'd claim it as Far East America (FEA), then send all the minorities of the USA over there to make America White again.

Trump (and any other dumbass racist our country shat out): "It's okay, the Mexicans and Blacks and Chinese people will like it over there. There's already minorities living there, it would be like 'Minority Heaven' to them! Sure, we'll tax you twice as bad, but, whattaya gonna do?"

some? sure. The majority of right-wingers (or at least those that can find the country on a goddamn map) seem to want the exact opposite tho.

I was quite surprised by that.

China's strategic situation is nothing like what it was in 1950.

Indeed it isn't. SK is a very important trade partner for China, and it does even more trade with its chinese neighbours than it does with the US. As such, it is fair to assume that neither of those countries would be even remotely interested in allowing US military action to disturb the status quo. Especially since NK has been a rational actor for more than five decades and the current Kim, who has been in charge for five years, has shown himself to be far more rational and predictable than the orange shitstain.

 

[7he Talon]

I wonder if Trump will read this article and get ideas.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I wonder if Trump will read this article and get ideas.

Hopefully he gets some much-needed perspective.

 

[Timeaisis]

Well only one of them is "not war", so the answer seems obvious to me.

 

[Abounder]

The birther is leaving the military to their own device, but I just don't see any side risking millions of casualties to sarin gas attacks alone.

The real threat is nuclear terrorism since NK already deals with enemies of the west across the globe, if they're not accepted economically they'll have to make nuke tech their cash crop.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The real threat is nuclear terrorism

I though that the article expounding on the effort that would be required to secure all those bio/chem/nuke materials scattered around NK in the event of collapse and how it would be a nightmare for us (and a huge opportunity for terrorists) was very insightful.

 

[Opto]

I wonder if Trump will read this article and get ideas.

Article didn't mention his name enough, not enough pictures, and it says Kim is better than him at something

 

[Xyrmellon]

I feel like NK is genuinely frightened of Trumps unpredictability. They have been ready to carry out another nuclear test for a few months and haven't; mainly because the U.S. administration has eluded this could be the trigger for a preemptive strike. Should the U.S. strike? As stated in the article, all scenarios are bad. North Korea has been such a bad actor on the international stage I almost feel it would be irresponsible for the U.S., China and Russia to allow them to develop icbm's. So to answer my question--probably?

 

[4Tran]

Indeed it isn't. SK is a very important trade partner for China, and it does even more trade with its chinese neighbours than it does with the US. As such, it is fair to assume that neither of those countries would be even remotely interested in allowing US military action to disturb the status quo. Especially since NK has been a rational actor for more than five decades and the current Kim, who has been in charge for five years, has shown himself to be far more rational and predictable than the orange shitstain.

Yeah, I'd classify North Korea as a rational actor as well. A lot of people seem to like classifying it as a bunch of crazies that will just launch a nuke for whatever reason, but that doesn't line up with what North Korea has done historically.

I wonder if Trump will read this article and get ideas.

Hah! You think that Trump reads! He can barely pay attention to intelligence and military briefs because he doesn't give a damn. Just look at what NATO has to do to get him to stay awake.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I feel like NK is genuinely frightened of Trumps unpredictability.

I don't think they are. They know his type. All bluster on the outside, all bitch on the inside. He might talk a little reckless, but he's not suicidal and he's not going to jeopardize the lives of millions. Further, they know that the US is run by multiple branches of government, most of which are full of stable, non-suicidal men and women. But they can clearly use Trump's rhetoric to further instill their doctrine.

 

[WaterAstro]

Even if North Korea had an ICBM, missile defenses would have shot it down.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Even if North Korea had an ICBM, missile defenses would have shot it down.

it's a 50/50 whether it would shoot it down or not.