ANALYSIS: North Korea as a Nuclear Power

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

I came across this rather interesting article while perusing the raw news wires at work the other night. Per my occasional custom, it's posted below for your reading pleasure. Check it out and contribute to this thread as you see fit afterwards.

By Michael Dorgan
Knight Ridder Newspapers

BEIJING — The prospect that North Korea soon may acquire an arsenal of nuclear weapons is scaring security experts around the globe.

‘‘This is a scenario nobody wants to think about,’’ said Paik Jin-hyun, a North Korea expert at Seoul National University in South Korea. ‘‘It would have far-reaching effects on regional stability.’’

Without exploding a single bomb, North Korea could destroy the delicate balance of power in Northeast Asia — where the interests of the United States, China, Japan and Russia collide — by triggering an arms race that would leave the region bristling with nuclear warheads, said Zhu Feng, a North Korea expert at Peking University in China’s capital.

‘‘The security architecture of the region would collapse overnight,’’ he warned, if a nuclear North Korea became an accepted fact.

That hasn’t yet happened, but since North Korea withdrew late last year from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and reactivated its nuclear facilities, it has moved closer each month to becoming a full-blown nuclear power.

The Bush administration insists that won’t happen. President Bush says he seeks a diplomatic solution to the mounting crisis but that all options are on the table, a clear reference to possible military action.

Experts aren’t optimistic about a new round of talks expected to take place in Beijing in coming weeks, noting that neither side seems willing to compromise. And military options are limited, because crucial targets are well hidden in tunnels under North Korea’s mountains and because strikes could provoke a massive retaliation against South Korea.

Nuclear North Korea

Gloomily, security experts throughout Northeast Asia and in Washington have begun to seriously consider the consequences of North Korea, which is believed to have one or two nuclear bombs already, formally joining the club of nuclear-armed nations. Their conclusions are bleak.

Beyond the region, a nuclear North Korea would provide nuclear wanna-bes or terrorists with inspiration — and possibly actual materials in exchange for cash — to make the whole planet a more dangerous place, according to Anthony Cordesman, a security strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based research center.

‘‘Every time a country formally proliferates, the example spreads around the world,’’ he said.

The epicenter of impact, however, would be Northeast Asia. Precisely how the balance of power might unravel is difficult to predict because so many nations and variables would be involved.

Japan’s options

One fear is that Japan would ‘‘quietly re-examine its nuclear option,’’ said Cordesman, which probably would provoke China into beefing up its nuclear arsenal.

Japan, which brutally occupied the Korean peninsula from 1910 until the end of World War II, is deeply resented by the regime of Kim Jong Il, the second-generation dictator of North Korea, whose father rose to power as a guerrilla fighter against the Japanese.

Japan also hosts U.S. military bases, which would make it a target in any conflict between North Korea and the United States.

South Korea’s options

South Korea, which by some accounts nearly completed development of a nuclear bomb in the 1970s, also would come under pressure to go nuclear, according to Paik.

North Korea and South Korea, separated by the world’s most heavily fortified border, technically remain at war, even though the 50th anniversary of the armistice that ended fighting in the Korean War will be celebrated Sunday. South Korea never signed the agreement.

So far, South Korea’s government has played down the nuclear threat that has grown since North Korea admitted last October that it had a uranium-enrichment program to develop bombs, in violation of a 1994 agreement with the United States.

South Korean officials generally were dismissive of North Korea’s announcement earlier this month that it had completed reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods, which experts say would provide enough plutonium for five or six bombs. They also shrugged off a recent New York Times report that said North Korea might have a second nuclear-reprocessing plant at a secret location.

South Korea’s government still hopes that its so-called sunshine policy of reconciliation with its surly neighbor will pay off eventually with a decision in Pyongyang to halt the nuclear program.

But Paik said his country’s government would have to shift its policy if efforts to shut down North Korea’s weapons programs failed and it became a bona fide nuclear power.

‘‘North Korea having nuclear weapons would change the military balance between North and South Korea and would force South Korea to respond,’’ he said.

Taiwan’s options

Taiwan also would come under pressure to go nuclear, according to Andrew Yang, the secretary general of the Chinese Council of Advanced Policy Studies, a security research center in Taipei.

Yang noted that Taiwan had a secret program to develop nuclear weapons from the mid-1970s until 1988, when it was terminated under strong pressure from the United States. Pressure already is quietly mounting for tiny Taiwan to go nuclear because it can’t afford its conventional arms race with an ever-richer and more powerful China much longer, Yang said.

China regards independently governed Taiwan as a renegade province and has threatened to take the island by force if it indefinitely delays negotiations toward reunification. Any attempt by Taiwan to develop nuclear weapons could provoke an attack from China as well as a showdown between China and the United States, which might intervene to defend Taiwan from a forceful takeover.

Ripples hit United States, China, and Russia

The United States and China, both of which already have nuclear arsenals, also would feel pressured to respond to a nuclear North Korea.

The United States probably would accelerate its development of a robust missile-defense system, which could provoke a further nuclear buildup not only by China but also by Russia.

‘‘Strategic effects are never predictable,’’ Cordesman said. ‘‘This would not play out over days or months but would shape the strategic character of Asia for years.’’

The situation in North Korea has already altered one of my views. I have gone from being against a U.S.-based missile defense system to supporting such a "shield."

My only problem with it right now is that I think the technology is unreliable, as it's still in its infancy, and, therefore, a "shield" should only be one part of an overall defense strategy. We need to also focus on strengthening our borders, do a better job of securing airports, harbors and examining shipments coming into the United States. Yep. It's going to cost money. I guess that's life, huh?

Also, while I was aware of the ramifications involving South Korea and Japan, I was surprised to see that even Taiwan would be affected by a nuclear North Korea. Everyone knows that Taiwan is a potential flashpoint between China and the United States, and I hate to even imagine what might happen if Taiwan resumed its nuclear weapons program in response to North Korea.

As to who's responsible for this situation, I think it's mostly with North Korea. They violated the 1994 Framework Agreement. They've shunned most of the help that the outside world has offered them to offset the ravages of the drought and poor economic conditions. And what help they have accepted seems to go mostly to the elite and military.

I'd be happy to drop the whole matter if North Korea goes back to the 1994 Framework Agreement, lets in more inspectors, and accepts the help the rest of the planet has offered. But it seems they want more now than what they had then. That's blackmail, pure and simple, and caving in to them now means we — as in the planet, not just the United States — will get reamed up our arses again in a few years, when North Korea deems it to be in its best interest.

With that in mind, I frankly don't know what to do. I fear that war is inevitable, and this won't be like anything in Afghanistan or Iraq. This would be a bloody nightmare, one that would likely devastate the Koreas and Japan and maybe even bloody the Pacific seaboard of the continental United States.

Gatekeeper

[Drake Tungsten]

If North Korea does formally go nuclear and an arms race does break out in East Asia, the best thing America can do is get the hell out of Dodge. We don't want to be involved when World War III breaks out.

[Evil Knevil]

Well the US will win --but at what cost?

N.Korea is insane. Since the country is so unpredicatable, diplomacy is an unreliable option. Yet war would be a disasterous option.

Containment is probably the only strategy. Keep balancing the juggling balls of Korea, Japan and China until the Dear Leader dies.....

[Japher]

Yup, when the goin' get tough, the tough should get goin'...home, that is.

He who fights and runs away
lives to runaway another day

[Drake Tungsten]

I wouldn't advise war against North Korea in almost any conceivable circumstance. Let them get nukes; the big losers in that deal are China, Japan, South Korea and any other powers doomed to involvement in East Asia because of geography. America isn't an Asian power. We can pack up and go back across the wide Pacific before things get out of hand. I suggest we do that.

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Well the US will win --but at what cost?

N.Korea is insane. Since the country is so unpredicatable, diplomacy is an unreliable option. Yet war would be a disasterous option.

Containment is probably the only strategy. Keep balancing the juggling balls of Korea, Japan and China until the Dear Leader dies.....

The problem with this strategy is that it's already failed several times. I'd imagine very few people thought that North Korea could survive without Kim Il Sung, or that the Islamic Republic could survive without Ayatollah Khomeni. When the agreement was signed in 1994, it was assumed that the U.S. would never have to pay up because North Korea couldn't survive another 10 years. I don't think we can just hope that North Korea collapses tomorrow morning.

[Gatekeeper]

The problem with containment is that NK has already said if we do anything remotely like that, they'll consider it an act of war and take appropriate measures. I doubt that includes attacking the United States directly, but the bets are off when it comes to their brethren across the DMZ.

Gatekeeper

[Evil Knevil]

Containment worked with the USSR and Iraq ....

[Eli]

How good is NKs conventional military? What do they have?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Containment worked with the USSR and Iraq ....

We had people supporting us in those enterprises. Most of the DPRK's neighbors (the ROK in particular) seem intent on appeasing the DPRK instead of containing it.

[Evil Knevil]

True, but I'd think you could get the UN and Europe on board for this....

Appeasement requires active concessions.

[Japher]

You can't contain a psycho nut job like Kim... We just kill him and be done with it.

[MrFun]

ANALYSIS: North Korea as a Nation of Starving People

[Drake Tungsten]

ANALYSIS: North Korea as a Nation of Starving People

I honestly don't get the point of this comment.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I honestly don't get the point of this comment.

The DPRK is a self-sanctioning country and that takes some of the fun out of sanctioning them again.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

ANALYSIS: North Korea as a Nation of Starving People

I honestly don't get the point of this comment.

I thought I recalled past news of North Koreans suffering from repeated famines.
Surely they're not doing much better?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
True, but I'd think you could get the UN and Europe on board for this....

1) What could the UN do that it isn't already doing?

2) How would Europe be able to help when the RoK and China are the two countries have the closest relationship with the DPRK?

[Drake Tungsten]

I thought I recalled past news of North Koreans suffering from repeated famines.

Surely they're not doing much better?

True, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Eli
How good is NKs conventional military? What do they have?

4th largest army in the world, tens of thousands of artillery pieces aimed right at downtown Seoul: Their army is better rained and mroe disciplined than the Iraqis: they don;t have much armor or aipower, but the terrain of Korea does not make that a great disadvantage. IN a war against the US and SK North Korea looses, but such a war, even non-nuclear, would kill hundreads of thousands.

One reason I think the S Koreans are not that eager to confront NK harshly is that if N Korea colla[pese, you get one KOrea, but NK is a dump, and the South would for decades have to bear costs of hundreads of billions to bring it up to S korean living standards. They know that whatevere happens, they swallow the whole bill of making N Korea a modern place, not the US, China, or Japan. Plus the Koreans are probalby more distrustufull of their erzats allies in Japan than they are about "brothers" in the North, or the Chinese.

As for Taiwain..I still don;t see how a nuclear NK might matter to them: If everyone in the area starts going nuclear, perhaps, but I can not see how the Chinese might take that, and for a while they might be very tempted at a first strike to destroy all Taiwanese nuclear facilities and possible locations for any weapons, and that they can do.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I thought I recalled past news of North Koreans suffering from repeated famines.

Surely they're not doing much better?

True, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Can someone tell him what spam is?

I was just bored, so I thought I would add another thread title within the thread.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Eli
How good is NKs conventional military? What do they have?

I read the CIA extimates that they put 70% of GDP in to the military. Most of their stuff is older Soviet Designs but old artillery will still do a bang up job if given a chance.

[Odin]

Scary sh!t!!!

[PLATO]

War with DPRK is inevitable IMO. They rarely compromise, always demand more, and seldom keep their word. They already sell heavy duty missles to anyone with cash. Why do want to believe that they will do any different with nukes? They, like ROK, want an eventual reunification...with thei vision being a head of state named Kim. Every year they come closer to being ready to try again. With nukes they may feel the urge. We simply cannot allow them to wreck havoc on ROK and Japan. Does anybody have any idea how much of our economy is based on these two places? This is a classic example of the appeasement process when you are dealing with a regime that has no desire for the compromise. Start prepositioning stuff in the Pacific now 'cause it won't be that long.

[mrmitchell]

Pakistan and India have nukes too....the best thing we can do is let them know about his old Cold War-era tactic called "MAD".

(It might not be as effective on them though when they find out theirs are brand new and ours are old sh1t)

[PLATO]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Pakistan and India have nukes too....the best thing we can do is let them know about his old Cold War-era tactic called "MAD".

(It might not be as effective on them though when they find out theirs are brand new and ours are old sh1t)

I don't believe that MAD will work with Kim. He tends to react on the side of confrontation when opposed with force, not on the side of survival.

[Cruddy]

I would place a little more faith in the common sense of the leaders of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan not to develop nukes.;

For the simple reason - they are under the US umbrella anyway. Any aggressor launches a nuclear attack against those territories will themselves be destroyed.

In short - an NK could be considered a threat only if led by a suicidal nut. Kim Il Jong has many traits - self destruction is not one of them.

As for NK distributing nuclear weapons to others - any ship in international waters with nuclear materials on board is subject to IAE inspection. They wouldn't get far.

They might declare war over it - and if they do that, again they die.

Only way out of this mess for Kim Il Jong is to build his nukes, keep the border with SK, and gradually fade away. Any other course will lead to the destruction of NK.

And they know it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I read the CIA extimates that they put 70% of GDP in to the military. Most of their stuff is older Soviet Designs but old artillery will still do a bang up job if given a chance.

25%

[Odin]

I say we do a preemptive strike to distroy the artillery aimed at Seoul and then go knock the SH!T out of monkey-face Kim BEFORE they get nukes. I think preemptive strikes are not morally right but it is better than mushroom clouds over Tokyo, Taipei, and Anchorage.

Cruddy, Kim has no common sense, he is a psycho, not an evil genius like his dad.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Odin
I say we do a preemptive strike to distroy the artillery aimed at Seoul and then go knock the SH!T out of monkey-face Kim BEFORE they get nukes. I think preemptive strikes are not morally right but it is better than mushroom clouds over Tokyo, Taipei, and Anchorage.

Cruddy, Kim has no common sense, he is a psycho, not an evil genius like his dad.

I have enough doubts about the ability of the US military to blast the artillery before it levels Seoul that this is probably not an attractive option to residents of SK.

[KrazyHorse]

And it's very close to being too late for this. NK's first priority seems to be that of developing both true ICBMs and nukes.

Which puts Seattle and LA on the front lines.

Anyhow, the Chinese wouldn't react too well to that.