What should the West do? - Mark Almond, Daily Mail, August 29th
As evidenced by another missile launch that traveled over Japan (seriously - a missile flies over your country...) as well as the thermonuclear explosion last week, North Korea continues to flaunt the US and the increasingly strict UN sanctions. The cartoon above reflects the fact the leaders of North Korea have used their military strength and provocations to maintain their relevance and negotiate for terms that guarantee their survival. However, the current level of brinkmanship does seem to be teetering on the edge of actual conflict as South Korea, Japan and the US increase their level of readiness. In fact, President Trump's threats to North Korea underscore the propaganda used by the north that characterizes the US as wolves intent on the destruction of the "defensive DRPK." The defensive argument does relate to the idea of nuclear deterrence, which states that nuclear armed states cannot attack one another because of the massive destruction that would result. Given all the factors, Mark Almond is able to detail 7 options in the article, though none of the options seem viable or desirable. There are obviously catastrophic consequences if there is any direct conflict and Trump's idea that China would simply pressure the North Koreans does not seem to be working. Moreover, Russia continues its limited public support of sanctions while surreptitiously maintaining relations with the Kim regime. Surprisingly, the days of Jim Jong Il's madness coupled with his unique love of basketball and Hennessy seem dreamy compared to the nightmare scenarios that a Trump-Un escalation might bring.
1. Which of the options in the article provide the best strategy to deal with King Jong Un? Explain.
2. Do you think nuclear deterrence theory is accurate and how does that affect King Jong Un's strategy?
3. Which countries are truly threatened by Jim Jong Un & how does it relate to US involvement in the immediate region near the Korean peninsula?
1. Personally, I think that assassination is the best option. South Korea is already in the process of training an squad to do it. If it were successful, the North Korean government would have to find a new leader and chances are, there would be a power struggle. The US or a coalition of other countries could do what they've done all over the world: insert a anti-communist government into North Korea or try to unite the two countries under the South Korean government.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think nuclear deterrence is a good idea. Though for the time it may be working, the back and forth of Trump and Kim threatening each other with "fire and fury" isn't great for the common citizen. It is good fro Kim because it allows him to keep the rest of the world at bay since he can threaten to shoot a nuke at anyone whenever he wants.
3. The USA, Japan, and South Korea are the top three countries most concerned with North Korean nukes. Since they are all American allies, the US is heavily involved in the region, with an entire naval fleet ready to go in the South China Sea
I say we pressure China into stoping trade with North Korea. We can do this by threatening to stop giving citizenship to their wealthy business owners and by reducing trade with them... but in reality we owe China billions of dollars and we need them as business partners just as much as they need us so we can't do anything about China trading with North Korea. However, what we can do is to make sure China would not get involved in relations between the United States and North Korea. Say we bomb North Korea, we need to be absolutely certain that China would be neutral.
ReplyDelete1.
ReplyDeleteThe implementation of Sanctions appear to be a viable option as the U.S. could find ways to further them to the extent of an ultimatum. Possible ultimatums could include a message that will oblige North Korea to pursue a state to disarmament, with threatened consequences of being attacked by the US.
2.
The theory of nuclear deterrence is accurate is not accurate with regard to King Jong Un's strategy as Kim JU is trying to be recognized more than anything; he has not made any direct threats to the US, however, his missile launch over Japan speaks for itself. Nuclear deterrence is not safe in this situation as it puts many countries in an apprehensive state.
3.
Countries that are primarily threatened include South Korea, Japan, the US, and possibly China. This is all owed to allies between US and Japan/South K, and the range of weaponry that North Korea are not producing.
While some of the options in the article have potential, it is difficult to pinpoint which would be most effective based on recent events. A mixture of diplomacy and pressure on China would be the least messy. By treating North Korea with respect rather than as a child would demonstrate recognition of them as a nation and a government. As for putting pressure on China, China would be under threat from Kim Jong Un's ruthless regime for limiting their cash flow. North Korea is a ticking time-bomb threatening China's desire for a neutral Korean peninsula. Through a multitude of agreements and compromises, the regime can be dealt with peacefully avoiding the possibility of nuclear war.
ReplyDeleteSara Viskanta
The countries most threatened by North Korea and South Korea, Japan, and Guam. This relates to US involvement because South Korea and Japan are US allies and Guam is an American territory. Guam especially would be a likely target because it is within the range of North Korean missiles and contains a military based with nuclear bombers that are a direct threat to North Korea. I do think the nuclear deterrence theory is accurate and because of it Kim Jong Un will have to be very confident if he ever attacks. Knowing the US can fire back, he will probably want to strike first and strike hard so that the US will not be able to fight back at full strength.
ReplyDeleteI believe that pressuring China to enforce tougher economic sanctions on North Korea would be the best option. While the U.S. could deploy soldiers for a full invasion or attack North Korea with nuclear air strikes, more aggressive tactics would risk a bulk of the America's manpower and endanger millions of North Koreans. The first step in taking down North Korea is severing ties with their biggest economic ally: China. The relationship between North Korea and China has already become wary and if the U.S. negotiates with China to ensure that Kim Jong-un's regime can finally be stripped of their powers than the world can successfully avoid a nuclear war.
ReplyDelete1. Although any politician would be reluctant to negotiate with someone who is essentially holding a gun to their head, the only way out of this crisis without causing mass casualties would be giving North Korea a seat at the nuclear table. U.S. diplomats now have the option of reflecting on the history of North Korean relations and should recognize that even though the most decorated North Korean generals are the ones who are truly ruling the country, Kim Jong Un has a say in the matter as well. Treating him as an equal satisfies North Korean desires for the time being and is much more effective than more stringent economic sanctions, which would have virtually no effect on national leaders due to apathy for their people and the potential for China to prop them up in the process.
ReplyDelete2. Kim Jong Un is taking a textbook approach to the nuclear deterrence theory. He has already established North Korea's growing nuclear capabilities with propaganda, and is now flaunting their nuclear arsenal in close proximity to Japan. Kim Jong Un's strategy is to make the nuclear threat more and more real without actually attacking anyone. Given the U.S.'s modernized military and history with nuclear deterrence, the theory is not all that accurate today since it would require a stand off between the countries, an unlikely possibility with the U.S.'s more cautious approach to nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Un will undoubtedly stretch his strategy out for as long as possible, potentially testing ICBM's closer to U.S. territories, but he also must know that North Korea is outgunned. Thus, he will eventually have to resort to a different strategy once he reaches the limits of nuclear deterrence.
3.Countries threatened by Kim Jong Un include South Korea, Japan, China, and the U.S. China, in particular, has appeased North Korean leaders due to their close proximity to each other. This is why sanctions have been mostly ineffective. The rivalry between China and the U.S. also cause China capitalize on North Korea's isolated economy, a strategy that could complicate U.S. presense in the Korean region.
All the options in the article have consequences, but I think the option that will result in the least consequences for the US while avoiding nuclear war is diplomacy. While some may warn against being diplomatic with North Korea, I think that it is currently the safest way to prevent nuclear war since North Korea will know that we are taking them seriously and it is unlikely to provoke them any more than they have been so far. It would also likely have minimal impact on our relations with China. However, if North Korea is unwilling to cooperate with the US at all, then I think that the next viable option would be to impose sanctions.
ReplyDeleteEach action has an equal opposite reaction. Thus, the United States must weigh their options heavily before committing to a plan of action. Ultimately, the countries under direct threat are Japan, and South Korea. U.S. military bases like Guam are also subject to danger due to sheer proximity and because the U.S. has a range of bases in South Korea, Japan and on the Pacific island of Guam from which to strike. North Korea could also act out in retaliation against China.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGiven the consensus that Kim Jong Un is likely increasing his nuclear presence in an attempt to discourage any action from the United States, I believe that the best response would be a diplomatic one. If president Trump stops using provocative language and instead aims to deescalate tension, Kim Jong Un will likely stop threatening. However, he will likely not stop his nuclear program. As a result, through diplomatic efforts, an agreement between both nations could force North Korea to disarm. Moreover, this route would likely be the safest option as it would ensure strong communication, something that is very important if the U.S. wants to prevent a Cuban Missile Crisis like event.
ReplyDelete1. I say the best strategy in dealing with North Korea is for China to oversee North Korea's exports to make sure no weapons are being exported. Specifically, an economic sanction should be imposed for military issues.
ReplyDelete2. The nuclear deterrence theory is accurate but it is not a good idea because it will put countries at risk for unnecessary casualties of innocent people and eventually lead to another world war.
3. The countries that border and/or are near the Korean Peninsula include South Korea, Japan, and China. Those countries, along with the US are threatened by North Korea. The US became involved in the region due to its alliances with South Korea, Japan, and China.
Although there is no ideal solution for dealing with North Korea, I believe the best option for avoiding a nuclear war would be diplomacy. Treating North Korea as an equal will give Kim Jong Un the recognition and respect that he so badly wants. We should also avoid pressuring China into economic sanctions because North Korea could potentially act in retaliation against China, causing China to blame the US for putting the target on them. This would harm US relations with China as well as the US economy. In an optimal situation, the US would successfully show that a nuclear war will be detrimental to everyone and convince North Korea to disarm. However, if appeasement fails, and North Korea does indeed send a missile to South Korea, Japan, or any US military base, this would give the US an excuse to directly fire back and end the nuclear crisis once and for all, as it did with WWII.
ReplyDeleteClare Lei
It's difficult to decide which option would be best under the circumstances, but the cheapest and easiest way would be assassination. Therefore innocent citizens would not be involved and no nuclear weapons would be used. Or have China cut off all trade with North Korea causing them to have no materials and cause them to back down. North Korea is threatening South Korea, Japan, China, and the US. The US is heavily involved due to China being a crucial trading partner and all being allies with the US.
ReplyDelete-Ariana B
The threat of North Korea has the strongest infliction on Japan and South Korea being geographically the closest location. Even though the US is at threat, the likelihood of an attack is much smaller compared to Japan or South Korea, which North Korea flew a missile over very recently. The US relations to these countries forces America to become more involved, but the relations are the minor cause of our involvement. The main reason for our involvement is the people of America are in fear and feel hostile towards this seemingly crazy country. If North Korea were to pose a threat on any country, the United States would respond in a similar way with heavy involvement because the people of America feel at threat and it is in the United States foreign policy to act with implications of being a "world police." Despite our connections to Japan and South Korea, these connections have very little impact on US involvement in the issue with North Korean nuclear development.
ReplyDeleteThe key countries that are immediately threatened by North Korean nuclear strength are obviously South Korea and Japan, as well as China, Taiwan, and potentially the Philippines. This greatly threatens US influence in the area as pro-western governments exist in both South Korea and Japan. Furthermore the United States has a large military presence in Japan which is seriously threatened by North Korean military power. Also US investments and involvements in the South China Sea are potentially threatened by North Korean nuclear power. While the United States may not seem directly affected by the strength of North Korean missiles, the threat of the message the Kim Jong Un can make by nuking our interests in the area is prevalent.
ReplyDelete-Eli Haas
The countries under direct threat are South Korea and Japan by North Korea's nuclear strength. The best strategy to deal with Kim Jong Un is for diplomacy in order to avoid a nuclear war. Trump needs to cool it with the "fire and fury" threats because it tempts Kim Jong Un to a point of no return, therefore treating North Korea as an equal is the best way to prevent the destruction. On the other hand, US relation with China as an economic source is at harm if we pressure china for economic sanctions because North Korea could act out on them and in the end tying back to the US and losing our economic ties. Thus, communicating with North Korea the irreversible outcomes of a nuclear war and negotiate to disarm is the safest way to avoid harm to the people of both US and North Korea and neighboring countries under threat.
ReplyDelete1) The best option for dealing with North Korea is a combination of stricter sanctions and pressuring China in order to economically squeeze the country. North Korea cannot fund a war without money and the instability may cause the country to temporarily self destruct. However, to achieve this, the US would need to provide large incentives and/or aid to the China.
ReplyDelete2) Nuclear deterrence creates too much of a risk to be a viable option. Just like in WWII, the use of nuclear weapons poses unforeseen consequences for decades after use, greatly escalates tensions, and is morally wrong.
3)While North Korea poses a threat to much of the world, the countries most directly threatened are South Korea, Japan, China, and the US. US involvement in the area is primarily due to alliances, a need to protect pro-Western governments, and a rivalry with China. Additionally, as a world superpower(and arguably a policing force), Americans often take it upon themselves to weigh in on international affairs.
While a combination of options will likely be necessary to resolve the current crisis, the best option would seem to depend on the goal. If the goal is to strip North Korea of it's nukes, assassination is the only viable path. Kim Jong-un is not going to voluntarily give up the only currency he has to be taken seriously - nukes. Without them, he's a third world nobody. With assassination, there is a chance North Korea can be disarmed. However, assassination has substantial risks, not the least of which could be an all out conventional war. If the goal is to minimize casualties on both sides, but perhaps let North Korea keep a small civilian nuclear power program, sanctions seem the best path. With sanctions, though slow to work, the outcome is more likely peaceful than many of the other options on the table. Sanctions were very effective against Iran, once they were stringently enforced. In the case of North Korea, China must be brought on board for sanctions to be effective. With the current magnitude of the Chinese - US trade, one would think some deal could be struck to bring China on board with stringent sanctions.
ReplyDelete-Juliet Adelman
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNorth Korea has proven itself to be stubborn in ways of negotiation. I don't think Kim Jong Un will give in or find any type of peace in this awful nuclear standoff. This means that The U.S. will have to find to pop North Korea. The countries most effected by North Korea are China, Japan and South Korea. What can be done is created a dam in the flow of resources to North Korea. With limited resources, it will force North Korea into a self Sustaining country while we can decide a strategy such as assassination or some other non-diplomatic proposal. Kim Jong Un is not using nuclear deterrence correctly. The way it is supposed to end is diplomatically and non of the weapons are ever used. But right now there is no road to diplomacy as he appears to the rest of the world as a psychopath with too many big toys.
ReplyDelete1.although it is difficult to choose one method to be the best to solve this conflict, pressuring China would be the best because NK's military is dependent on the Economical help from China, and China is already leaning away from helping North Korea.
ReplyDelete2. The Nuclear Deterrence theory is not a sound or moral option to deterring Nuclear war. It endangers too many people, and only increases tensions.
3. The countries at the highest risk are South Korea, China, Japan, and the US. most because of their proximity to North Korea.
The best strategy to deal with the threat is to fully exert the power of resistance due to the failed negotiations with North Korea. Especially, with China's help, the threat would be diffused based on the economic reliance. The nuclear deterrence theory arises many conflicts because of the determining factor it has with China and US relationships. Moreover, countries such as South Korean, Japan, China and US are more vulnerable due to the proximity of North Korea
ReplyDeleteThe countries that are directly threatened by North Korea would be countries nearby and larger countries such as the US. As seen through the Cold War, large countries with nuclear weapons will not attack each other because they are too large and one attack will not obliterate the entire country, but instead prompt a counterattack, thus no one fires. However, smaller countries can easily be eradicated from a larger country's nuclear weapons. Therefore, when a smaller country tries to gain nuclear weapons it is not because they want security, since they can be wiped out in one attack anyway. It is more likely that they want attention or want to cause trouble for larger countries in order to gain something.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, because the US has immediate involvement in the region, North Korea's nuclear weapons have successfully gained the attention of the US. The US is currently trying to find ways to deter the power of North Korea, and negotiation is on the table as an option. Because of that, North Korea has the potential to get something out of being a threat, which is likely the reason they built the weapons in the first place: to gain something from the larger countries.
- Stella Yang
Diplomacy would be the best option in terms of dealing with Kim Jong Un and the conflicts between the US and North Korea. Any air strikes or act of violence would lead to nuclear war. North Korea has missiles ready and mobile to counter anything that we throw at them. Diplomacy would be the best option because it has the least chance of starting any type of war. The nuclear deterrence theory is inaccurate, as it would only put more lives in danger. Other countries at risk by Kim Jong Un are South Korea, China, Japan and the US due to their locations (besides the US). This would potentially increase US involvement around the Korean Peninsula.
ReplyDelete-Savaun Brown
1. Clearly, Kim Jong Un is not willing to cooperate with any of our nuclear deterrence plans or peace attempts so ,at this point, I believe we have to put Un out of power. To me the only way to go about doing so is assasination, and with this, we could implement our own forces to help the country recuperate and get on a right track.
ReplyDelete2. I think that it is accurate, however I do not believe it will work. Un may agree to it in theory, but if push came to shove, Un would not hesitate in the slightest to break his word.
3. Many of the countries within a close proximity of North Korea are in danger. North Korea has been testing nuclear weapons and have not even considered the issue they bring about flying their missiles above other countries' air space. Because America has been involved on the Korean peninsula, an area very close to North Korea, any attack around that area would result in the US having to retaliate due to the effects said attack would have on American people.
The countries that are directly threatened by North Korea would be countries nearby and larger countries such as the US. As seen through the Cold War, large countries with nuclear weapons will not attack each other because they are too large and one attack will not obliterate the entire country, but instead prompt a counterattack, thus no one fires. However, smaller countries can easily be eradicated from a larger country's nuclear weapons. Therefore, when a smaller country tries to gain nuclear weapons it is not because they want security, since they can be wiped out in one attack anyway. It is more likely that they want attention or want to cause trouble for larger countries in order to gain something.
ReplyDelete