The Hwansong-15 missile which is capable of reaching all parts of the US

Politics

Comprender la amenaza norcoreana

Dec 6, 2017 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

BEIJING – En una prueba realizada hace unos días, Corea del Norte lanzó un misil balístico Hwasong-15 que voló durante 53 minutos y alcanzó una altitud de 4475 kilómetros. Con una trayectoria más horizontal, el régimen de Kim Jong-un podría atacar la costa este de los Estados Unidos. Si bien todavía no exhibió un misil reentrante capaz de sobrevivir a la fricción atmosférica, Corea del Norte anunció que ya se convirtió en una plena potencia nuclear con capacidad de ataque.

Como otros presidentes de los Estados Unidos antes que él, Donald Trump declaró que esta situación es intolerable. ¿Y ahora?

Antes de estudiar las alternativas, es importante librarnos de varios mitos que impiden un análisis claro. En primer lugar, Kim será un dictador despiadado, pero no es ni loco ni suicida. Hasta ahora superó a Estados Unidos en este juego de alto riesgo, pero sabe que un intercambio nuclear sería el fin del régimen que está tratando de preservar.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 14 Comments on this article

Mark Dallas Mar 16, 2018

Unlike many commentaries, Nye's is a thoughtful and nuanced piece with good policy advice. However, both Nye's piece and the commentaries below dance around or disagree over perhaps THE critical issue: What is Kim's goal? Is it security only? Is it splitting US-Korean alliance? Gain parity with South Korea, not through economic power, but nuclear power? I would argue that his goal is the reunification of Korean peninsula, which goes beyond any of the suggestions in Nye's piece. If so, then our strategic choices should change based on which goal is the "true" one. The Kim family has broken nearly all international agreements concerning its nuclear weapons since collapse of Soviet Union, even though the prospects for security have been offered (like freezing their programs for normalization of relations with US/Japan in 6 Party Talks). Granted, usually we traded economic spoils for ending their nuclear programs,but I think the message was "we give you security for ending your programs" and the Kim's have rejected that offer. This implies their goals are wider than security. If it is reunification of the peninsula, then Nye's policy suggestions ("freeze for freeze" and various other tits-for-tats) are too timid as the North will continue to break them.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Dec 11, 2017

Joseph S. Nye has a sound advice for dealing with North Korea, saying if concerted efforts with China and the international community fail to contain the nuclear threat, "the US should not panic. If it could deter a much stronger Soviet Union from taking an isolated West Berlin for three decades, it can deter North Korea."
In order to avoid an escalation of the crisis, that could inadvertently lead to a war, Trump and his entourage need to know hard facts about the Kim regime and customise their strategy. Despite recent launch that proved Pyongyang's long-range missile capability, it is still unclear whether it has mastered the skill of miniaturising a nuclear warhead to mount onto a ICBM and have a "re-entry vehicle capable of surviving atmospheric friction" in order to hit a target.
No doubt it is a matter of time for Kim Jong-un to achieve the strike capability, the more tests he conducts. That he already demands the recognition of North Korea as a nuclear state shows its point of no return. If Trump thinks he could decimate Pyongyang's nuclear capabilities by launching a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, he must be aware of an annihilation of Seoul in a "conventional retaliation," given the "thousands of artillery tubes hidden in tunnels near the border."
The author says Trump has to note that Kim may be a "vicious dictator, but he is not crazy or suicidal." He may have "outplayed the US in this high-stakes game, but he understands that a nuclear exchange with the US means the end of the regime he is trying to preserve." This is where diplomacy should be given a chance. Both China and South Korea endorse a political solution, as a war would be devastating for the region.
China sees the Korean Peninsula as its backyard. Even though Kim's nuclear ambition is a destabilising factor, Beijing needs North Korea as a buffer state and is reluctant to toppel the Kim regime. It fears a reunification of the two Koreas under Washington's aegis with American troops on its borders. It has proposed “a freeze for a freeze” in an effort to rein in the North’s nuclear ambitions.
Even if the US would "halt the annual military exercises that it conducts with South Korea" while the North would freeze "all nuclear and missile tests (easily verifiable)," it would not "reverse the North’s nuclear status" and could still pose a threat to Seoul. The author says, if Kim merely wants security to survive, that's fine. One could sign a "peace treaty, relax sanctions, and let economic growth change the regime over time, as in China." But there is a risk that he forges a reunification with the South on his terms.
But even if the US "would halt the annual military exercises that it conducts with South Korea...and reserve the right to resume exercises if North Korea violated its test ban, or exported nuclear materials," that might not be enough to bring the North to the negotiating table. Another propossal is the Cold War “GRIT,” or gradual reduction of international tension: "The US assures China of its limited goals and agrees to coordinate its actions with the Chinese."
Now it's up to China to use "its economic pressure and diplomacy to freeze the immediate threat posed by North Korean tests." Beijing and the US could cooperate and seek to figure out how to address Kim's demand for nuclear recognition, while offering incentives like the easing of sanctions and other forms of aid.
But the problem lies with Trump, and the whole world knows what he is like by now. The other problem is that he has crippled the State Department (DOS) by slashing its budget. As the cuts have been concentrated at the very top ranks, it led to rapid loss of many senior and seasoned diplomats. Critics warn that DOS - the government's diplomatic arm - is on the verge of collapse because of chronic underfunding.
It is in such a dilapidated state that it poses a threat to national security. This has already a serious, immediate, and tangible effect on the capacity of the US to shape world events, like being at the negotiating table to determine the fate of Syria, and to resolve the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula etc. In fact there are many ambassadorial posts yet to be filled across the globe. Critics fear that it will take decades for US diplomacy to regain its significance.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M Henri Day Dec 10, 2017

The key to understanding the situation on the Korean peninsula is that it is not the DPRK which is threatening the USA, but the USA which is threatening the DPRK, in order to prolong - and when necessary exacerbate - tensions which provides a fig leaf to justify the placement of US military forces in, e g, South Korea, more than six decades after the signing of the Armistice Agreement of 27 July 1953, and Japan, more than seven decades after that country's surrender in WW II - all of which has more to do with surrounding China that with any «threat» from the DPRK. When and if Professor Nye becomes able to grasp this simple and self-evident fact (compare the nuclear arsenals of the two countries and their possession of the means of delivery), he may be able to contribute ideas to its resolution. Until such time, his suggestions will remain merely manoeuvres on the part of the US to maintain a dominance in East Asia which is in the process of disappearing....

Henri
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stefan Mochnacki Dec 7, 2017

Kim's ultimate goal has to be the reunification of Korea. He no doubt wants to follow Taejo Wang Kon as the second great unifier of Korea, and nuclear arms give him an invulnerability which will allow him to force South Korea into submission. He must be betting that the US will be too frightened to prevent such a takeover, which could be more peaceful than one might assume.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Dec 7, 2017

I always feel enlightened every time I read Prof. Nye's writings or hear his youtube lectures, but with all due respect I am embarrassed with this.

I do not think that when two nuclear powers are confronted with each other, nuclear deterrence will always work out and so war will be avoided and peace will be kept. I read a little bit of deterrence theories. How the enviornment or situation would be assessed by the two powers will depend all on concrete particulars; it cannot solved in a logical and mathematical way; the enviornment or situation is not external but it is internal within each player. The politics between the United States and a nuclear North would be different from the one that the United States and the Soviet Union were entangled in. Russians had a different cultural mentality toward the West including America. West Berlin was not anything that Moscow could not afford to go without. Missiles in Cuba could be dispensed with and withdrawing them was not a painful loss.

North Korea has been doing a lot of things like the shooting down of a US reconnaissance plane in 1969, the bomb exploded in Rangoon in 1989 that aimed at the life of South Korean President Chun Doo-hwan and the blowing up of a South Korean airliner in 1987. Each time the United States and South Korea did nothing because they were deterred, and the North does not seem to be deterred and instead has been developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles single-mindedly.

Thought it may sound hard to believe, Korean culture is more Confucian than Chinse and strongly imbued with the world view of being at the center; Kim does not think that his regime is a small one but a big one that should play and behave like a superpower just like the South that wants to do. (South Korean President Moon, like many his predecessors, is trying to act far beyond his realistical power limits.) Kim's is not a status quo country such as the one that, once afforeded a nuclear status, would live contented and happily ever after.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Dec 6, 2017

NK has nukes so it has parity, thats why it wants nukes.
The US is no more has threat than before, fair enough.
Trump and reality are in conjunction? Really. Doubt it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
P. Kamath Dec 6, 2017

Known well for his non-military analysis of glabal issues, Joseph Nye offers no new solutions to Korean nuclear problems. Kim is neither crazy nor suicidal, but knows well that he has the trump card of possessing thousands of artillery pieces pointing at S. Korean capital.

So rest of the world can only wring its hands in frustration, nothing else.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Walker Dec 6, 2017

I'm confused by Nye's claim that Pyongyang isn't a status quo power and, in fact, had to reread the paragraph a couple times. The primary role of the Kim regime's illicit and nuclear missile programs is the same as its forward-deployed artillery force and massed chemical weapons munitions--namely, maintaining the Kim regime by threat of retaliation. That's pretty darn status quo.
- Tom Lang Dec 6, 2017
  
  I would think Nye means that "status quo" is in reference to the rest of the governments of the developed world. NK is an outlier in the relationship to other governments in that it maintains dominance through explicit threats to the people, and quasi-religious zealotism. This is if we all take the stance that "standard Western nations" have truly elected governments etc. etc. It is a rabbit hole if you want to argue the alternative. If we agree on the basis of governments being run as other Western or even most Eastern countries in 2017, it is an outlier in its methods of hegemony. I agree Nye could have been a little more explicit in defining the term, but I don't think it is too far out to field.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Tom Lang Dec 6, 2017
  
  I would think Nye means that "status quo" is in reference to the rest of the governments of the developed world. NK is an outlier in the relationship to other governments in that it maintains dominance through explicit threats to the people, and quasi-religious zealotism. This is if we all take the stance that "standard Western nations" have truly elected governments etc. etc. It is a rabbit hole if you want to argue the alternative. If we agree on the basis of governments being run as other Western or even most Eastern countries in 2017, it is an outlier in its methods of hegemony. I agree Nye could have been a little more explicit in defining the term, but I don't think it is too far out to field.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Dec 6, 2017

True enough, but the regional response to North Korea's missiles and nuclear weapons is likely to be first missile defenses, and then first strike nuclear capabilities in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Vietnam. That's what makes this more China's problem than the United States'. It's also what makes US forbearance so attractive. We don't have nuclear armed states on our borders. But China may end up with nothing but nuclear armed states on all its borders, if it does not deal with North Korea.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chandrashekar Tamirisa Dec 6, 2017

Joe Nye is barking up the wrong tree in his article. At issue is not deterrence of North Korea. It is the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and global denuclearization. North Korea, to give up nuclear weapons, needs to feel secure that its sovereignty is not encroached upon by a possible invasion by the south and the US. The solution is, therefore, for the US to leave the Korean peninsula, end military exercises with South Korea and diplomatically push for a peace treaty between the north and the south to end the armistice in exchange for the denuclearization of North Korea. Only then should all sanctions be lifted against the north.
- Richard S. Stone Dec 11, 2017
  
  CHANDRASHEKAR TAMIRISA
  
  I think your proposal puts the end of the problem first, rather than talking about steps to end the problem. The new-ish problem now is...what, exactly? That we have an irritating nuclear armed dictator next to S. Korea? But that has been the case for years, and that's the point, for now, as is noted repeatedly. Yes, we would all love to end the problem (whoever "we" are), but its mainly beyond our control, and it has been beyond our control for some time.
  
  So what is new (or new-ish) about the "problem?" It looks like what is new the speed and method of bombing the USA and other regional powers. As bad as that is, the expected result of that bombing by NK would be the utter annihilation of NK and it's leadership. So how does that translate into victory for Kim and NK? Obviously it is not a victory in any meaningful way and is probably much closer to a complete loss for NK. At that point it (and Kim) will never dominate the South, etc.
  
  As much as I think Trump is a fool, he sometimes does things (In the nature of a broken clock being right twice a day...) that sort of get to the nub of the problem: In this case he has repeatedly insulted the NK dictator...with no adverse results. Kim cannot launch his nuclear weapons as a response to insults and expect to live through it. It's about the same problem that Russia had with nuclear weapons and "threatening" the US. It's all kind of pointless, if the result is such a disaster. In this crude way Trump has shown that Kim is not getting any respect from the US and deserves none. Of course, we could also ask, in terms of Trump's words, if they are in any way helpful under the circumstances? Maybe they are, in terms of showing that Kim does have some level of restraint...
  
  In any event, Kim wants people to take him seriously, and people do, in terms of thinking he is a serious jerk. And a dangerous one, particularly to his country's people. But even so, no one thinks Kim is self-destructive or utterly mad. Instead, quite to the contrary, almost everyone appears to think Kim's behavior is, considering his goals, clever and entirely rational. And not crazy.
  
  What Kim is forcing is the development of better anti-missile defences, and better strategies in that regard, not better relationships with the surrounding countries. And my personal view of this, as a US Citizen, is that it's about time for that kind of improvement in missile defence by the US. If the Israelis can do as well as they have done in terms of missile defence, the US can do much more and much better than it has done so far in that regard.
  
  My personal choice for resolving the problem is to have the US declare itself at peace with NK, end the war-like status as to NK, and end all sanctions, with no conditions. Sanctions might work if Kim cared about the suffering of the NK people, but he doesn't. Sanctions might work if Russia and China cooperated with the USA, but they won't. The sanctions actually seem to drive (and apparently even justify) some of this undesired behavior by NK and Kim. Would the end of sanctions increase the chance of an NK attack on the USA? Hardly at all.
  
  My personal choice of solution does not involve talking to Kim or negotiating anything with him, or ending the defence of South Korea. It does involve making sure that the USA and nearby powers protect their citizens with improved anti-missile defences, and remain ready to quickly and entirely destroy NK in the event of any attack. I would do nothing to intervene in the internal policies of NK or change the government there. And it might seem unkind, even cruel, to the citizens of NK to take such a posture, but if the citizens of NK cannot depose Kim, and/or concede on a daily basis to him ruling them and the country, and continue to join his Army, etc, then those citizens have abdicated their role as citizens and can only accept their fate.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/RyPxEnCes

Comprender la amenaza norcoreana

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Trump’s Missing North Korea Strategy

Log in/Register

Comprender la amenaza norcoreana

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification