The South Koreans would be fools to not develop nuclear weapons.
This is not about whether the U.S. would like to help the South Korea resist aggression from their neighbors to the north. It is not about whether the U.S. is generally a trustworthy partner. If the U.S. had a credible threat of the North nuking Seattle or Los Angeles in retaliation for intervening in a second Korean War, no American president--of either party--would take the political risk of presiding over such a disaster.
And, of course, once SK nuclearizes, Japan and other regional powers will have no choice but to respond in kind with China, SK, and NK all possessing their own.
Handwringing about nuclear proliferation has no place in this debate. If the U.S. fails to denuclearize NK (which looks pretty close to an absolute certainty at this point), other regional players will fail to develop their own only if they are irrational. And countries which behave that irrationally do not survive. Most leaders are competent enough to understand this.
Welcome to the world we now live in.
1
A nuclear exchange is unthinkable. People do not seem to realize that there is no such thing as a limited nuclear war.
Nuclear winter, radiation, irreparable damage to the ecology, rising cancer rates-- these are just a few of the legacies of a nuclear strike.
We've been lucky so far in terms of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island, and that has probably made us think that a nuclear war is somehow acceptable. We need to be reminded in complete and graphic detail the unspeakable horror that a nuclear war (even a so-called limited one will unleash).
The media has failed in reminding us of this. (I'm looking at you, NY Times.)
As for North Korea, Kim Jong Un is concerned about meeting the same fate as Gaddafi of Libya. I can't say as I blame him. Instead of threatening and isolating and feeding those fears, perhaps opening some dialogue might ease some of those fears and make life better for his poor oppressed people.
Which is not to say I don't consider him a monster and a fearful abuser of human rights but we in the west have no problem cuddling up to human rights abusers on a regular basis. Look at our best buds, the Saudis, for example.
1
This is ridiculous. You do not "ease the fears" of a rabid dog attacking you relentlessly.
2
The North Korean situation is every President's fault except Trump's. He is the only person crazy enough to try to solve it.
2
Of the four nations under discussion (US, Japan, SK, NK), the only moral president seems to be Moon Jae-in. No wonder, as he was a human rights lawyer prior to his political career.
We all know by now that Trump and Kim Jongun are completely immoral and immature characters who should never be allowed to lead any nation.
Abe is perhaps the least known character in the world - but he is just as immoral as Trump, who stands side by side on just about every moral issue.
Hibakusha - or the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs - criticized Abe for declining to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. They grilled him, "Which country do you represent? Our country is the only country in the world who fell victim to nuclear attacks."
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) - which promoted the treaty - won the Nobel Peace Prize this year. Abe has yet to congratulate this feat.
And, he has already signed numerous laws to weaken human rights, re-interpreted the Constitution to undermine the pacifist spirit, and now eager to destroy the Pacifist Constitution.
We all must stand up to stop these immoral men to protect our peace and freedom.
1
Well, aren't we a blasé and comfortable lot. A potential nuclear showdown is the fourth headline on the NYT homepage. I guess I should count my blessings. It might not be there at all if things were stirring in sexual-harassment world.
2
The rocket man definitely is a smarter man than the dotard. His way of explaining that these countries - S.Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Australia are absolute idiots to play by the rules and NPT when the godfather is throwing them to the winds. These countries can and will go nuclear but the rocket man is already loaded to fire.
1
from all the bombast that I have heard, the US is the aggressor, we sit behind a nuclear arsenal and tell others what to do... it hasn't worked with russia, france, china... so why should this these pathetet souls listen to each other.... we are doing the same thing in Iran, and, if were the head of state there, i too would be building a bomb
What are South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia to do with North Korea fully loaded and ready to fire? What is the alternative, other than going nuclear while the US is leaving the allies to fend for themselves? Are they supposed to be sitting ducks for North Korea because of an old NPT based on US support? I don't think so. These countries will be justified in going nuclear. The US will be squarely blamed for the nuclear proliferation, thanks to a bellicose, dotard we have as our C-in-C. These countries can go nuclear but the rocket-man is way ahead of the curve. God bless the people of S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia!
1
In allowing Trump to speak so irresponsibly and ignorantly about nuclear weapons during his campaign, and then allowing him to continue his irresponsible nuclear-related rants and nonsense as president, the United States has become an erratic, untrustworthy pariah state. Getting rid of Trump is a sine qua non for political sanity, and not only on matters involving North Korea.
2
Mr Kim is not stupid by any means. He knows that the American government will not risk losing any American city to save Seoul. His stratagy may meet success as a nuclear power. It is a mistake for the Seoul government to place so much of their defense into American hands. If in fact North Korea proves they are able to launch an ICBM successfully, it will become a real game changer. The entire Pacific region is contemplating how to meet the challenge of North Korea.
2
Who was the village jester now bringing us to the precipace of a nuclear confrontation, that started all of this in response to the usual absurd threats by the other village jester?
Maybe the second village jester will only target certain hotels around the world of the first village jester.
Negotiation is the only way out of this. Unfortunately, are there any experienced negotiators left in the State Department to do this?
I thought we had gotten rid of Jack D. Ripper, Dr. Strangelove, and the boys quite some time ago. Apparently not.
Did they add more to the list of stuff in the duty bags. More gum?
1
I am surprised at how little talk there is about how quickly the North Korean's program moved along; defying earlier projections by the intelligence groups in South Korea, Japan and the USA.
So how did they accelerate their program and blow by our estimates? Russia is the best bet, imo. One bomb going off in any major US city would fill every empty hospital bed in the USA and would crash our economy for years. Who could want that to happen? Maybe no sane leader in the world, but in the big chess game, why not introduce a new nuclear player to divert attention from your own moves in Europe. Then if it does happen, you have deniability and can always say the USA brought it on themselves. If it doesn't happen, that is okay too. Just cost a little time of a few consulting weapon scientists who weren't doing much anyway.
Yeah, methinks that the Koreans had a little help to move this program along.
2
I am more afraid of what our commander-in-chief might do than what Kim might do. Seriously. We have never had a president with zero governing and military experience, such vast and unapologetic ignorance of world history and culture, and such a grandiose view of his own intelligence. Congress needs to protect us from Trump, not Kim.
2
I have proposed this option in past. US must get China to carry out a regime change. I think that this is possible for the Chinese, but of course they are reluctant to get rid of their buffer against US military. But what if we made a deal with the Chinese: For regime change AND unification of Korea, we would pull out 95% of our military from the entire peninsula. The Chinese would then have a stable country and a great trading partner and there would be no need for nuclear proliferation or nuclear war or famine or humanitarian catastrophe at their doorstep, all of which will happen at the current course. The US would keep a small force far south just to ensure that the Chinese don't take over the whole Korean peninsula.
Japan and the rest of the world would be much happier and China would look like a responsible country.
2
All this means China has as much to loose as anyone else (with South Korea and Japan becoming nuclear powers) if they donot stop North Korea to develop its nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear non-proliferation has already failed. Four states not designated by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) have nuclear weapons, and the number will only grow over time. As the US nuclear arsenal ages and the US military advantage over near-peer adversaries continues to narrow, it is natural that its allies begin to consider developing their own nuclear arsenals. If the NPT ever made sense, it made sense when the world's existing nuclear-armed powers were stable, few, and trusted by the non-nuclear-armed powers. Today the NPT is a dead letter.
There is no option when it comes to war. The mere suggestion is stupid because it will end badly for everyone. The incompetent in the white house and his generals should stand down and find a way forward without all of the saber rattling. I got caught up in one war because of dumb and now after all of these years I'm watching and hearing bluster without clear thinking on how to defuse the situation.
1
South Korea and Japan are well advised to be concerned that the US would likely not choose their protection over the real possibility that Seattle, LA, or San Francisco might be nuked.
Over the years the has shown itself to be weak, selfish, shortsighted and unwilling to to whatever it takes to prevail. We have no reputation for sticking to our word.
They need to take steps to protect themselves
North Korea and its crazy leader Kim Jung-un will use their nuclear weapons to blackmail their surrounding neighbors and the United States. Stop them now, or pay the price later when they put the squeeze on us, while simultaneously providing their weapons to terrorists for export.
3
"US Rouses Neighbors to Reconsider Nuclear Weapons" works just as well as a headline. The US also making noises about rescinding the Iran deal seems to point to the US being the chief instigator of nuclear proliferation. The cynical part of me, (not much else left in these Trump days), wants to know how much money is to be made by US weapons manufacturers in such a climate.
1
North Korea is building its nuclear weapons because the US has repeatedly stated it would carry out a first use strike against them if it deemed it necessary. So blaming the North Koreans for wanting to defend themselves is ridiculous when all we have to do is enter into binding agreement not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and let North Korea be covered by China as Japan and South Korea are covered by the US. Then if the US is serious we will work with the rest of the world to abolish all nuclear weapons. But I doubt we are really all that serious becuase there is lots of money in the weapons business and the deep state connections of the military industrial complex has no intention of getting out of the weapons business.
I believe North Korea is a major threat to the United States, South Korea and Japan. We will have to take military action soon before North Korea develops an ICBM that can accurately hit and destroy an American city. We also have to arm the South Koreans with tactical nuclear weapons in case of an attack by the North. If deterrence will not work, then unfortunately military action will ultimately be required to remove the threat.
For the third generation in a row, North Korean leadership has been acting in a highly irresponsible and immature manner. Should the world respond in the same way? Being the mightiest nation in the world in terms of military and money power, the U.S. should act in a manner befitting its stature. If nuclear arms race spreads across Asia, sooner or later, terrorists will take possession of such weapons and threaten the world.
Japan should not bite the bait. Being a victim themselves, it should never ever think of nukes.
The best way to defuse the present crisis is through talks. Only a lonely and desperate mind would act in such manner. Kim Jong should be taken into confidence and the U.N. should start talking. The U.S., Russia and China should take major role in initiating negotiation. Japan on the other hand should not wait for anyone and send a high level diplomatic team to North Korea and impress upon them the ills of nukes and how the people will suffer in case of nuclear war.
1
Decapitation. Let the North Koreans know through back channels that unless they reach an agreement to give up their nuclear ambitions, Kim Jong Um and the coterie around him will be eliminated. In exchange for this agreement they receive a pledge that we will respect their autonomy and leave the the psychosis of North Korea to self isolation. In the face of this offer there is a real probability that the regime will self decapitate, when one of Kim's officers chooses to live and does the job for us. Of course there is risk, but not as much risk as continuing to sit on our hands while the region inexorably moves towards broader nuclear proliferation and war. This was the do-nothing policy of Obama and Bush, which brought us to where we are today.
2
There is not as much to this as you might think. It has been reported, not officially by Noko, of course, that The Kim suffers from the gout. This would would explain his grossly oversized clothing. Gout means you are not physically healthy, and is strongly linked with heart and kidney problems. The Kim could drop dead at a moments notice.
Should S. Korea and Japan decide to proceed with proactive defensive measures, it would stabilize the region. Nobody wants nor endorses proliferation but China's use of N. Korea as a proxy for its own benighted anti-Western aims should not be tolerated.
China has proliferated against us. It has helped Pakistan and North Korea get nuclear weapons, and it has allowed North Korea to share its nuclear technology with Iran by allowing Iranian weapon experts to participate in North Korea's nuclear tests.
If China does not force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons in a way that can be verified, we would be fools if we did not encourage South Korea, Japan, and Australia to develop nuclear missiles that can hit China.
If South Korea and Japan become nuclear powers, the world will have Trump and his supporters to thank for their Faustian choice of electing him.
1
Weapons, big, small and in every possible shape, has always been an inbred part of human nature, and leading the international and domestic arms race has been for many years, the United States of America. Every time we turn around we have more guns ready to take on any foe, imagined or real, but we expect others to behave differently than we do. The concept of mutually assured destruction has kept us all alive since the inception of nuclear weapons, but eventually someone as unhinged as the Las Vegas shooter will decide annihilation is a price they’re eager to pay. Reactionary voters have consciously chosen a leader that proudly demonstrates the very temperament required to start this ultimate chain reaction. It doesn’t take a genius to connect these dots.
1
All this anti-Trump vitriol is surprising and disappointing. (I surely hope that most of this is being posted by Russian trolls.)
The North Korean problem, and nuclear proliferation in general, preceded Trump and will continue well past his term.
I am curious what anti-Trump commenters would do if they were president? Realistic solutions, not idle whining.
1
John
Whining is what the anti trump crowd does best. Certainly, clear thinking isn't their strong suit.
Ralphie:
Solutions? Or just complaints?
Ralphie:
I mis-read your comment and responded incorrectly. My bad.
I don't think that anti-Trump folks can't think clearly, I just think that they are so blinded by hate that they choose not to do so. That's unfortunate, because thoughtful/balanced/nuanced discussion is needed for difficult discussions such as this.
1
There's only one (1) reason that South Korea would develop their own nuclear weapons: if they did not trust the United States to aide in their defense.
1
Sadly, for those afraid of a nuclear armageddon, I doubt there is little relief in sight. Nuclear proliferation will likely continue despite our best efforts to halt it.
I recommend a book by the journalist William Langewiesche: "The Atomic Bazaar" for further insight into what our atomic future may look like.
I think we are at a time more dangerous than the Cold War. Back in the 50's 60's people were nervous about nuclear war. I'm old enough to remember the drill of having us school children hide under out desks. Today with North Korea flexing it's nuclear ability it's only a matter of time other Nations develop this technolgy, The genie is out of the bottle. Will we destrroy mankind as we know it?
The debate for developing nuclear "defensive" arms in Japan would last, if it does take place openly, longer than Kim's life time - assuming he is not a Doctor Who and has a standard Korean longevity. Yet, the outcome of any such debate would be negative. Abe might come close enough to legitimise the existing Self Defence Army with a minimalist constitutional change (I doubt it personally). Beyond that, developing nukes would be a much higher step to take.
The most important point is missing from this otherwise informative article: the U.S. military under Trump has no authorization from Congress to conduct war against a nuclear NK. It would violate the Constitution to initiate a new war without a Congressional Declaration; unless, like Lyndon Johnson, Trump concocts an "attack" on us that requires immediate self-defense. This is a life-and-death scenario because both sides -- NK's and ours -- are bellicose and led by unstable leaders with macho obsessions. Another reason to worry is Trump's presidential and secretive fights against terrorists who have spread to Africa and the Far East, areas not covered by Congress' 16 yr.-old authorization to go after al-Qaeda and the Afghani (and Pakistani) Taliban who protected them.
An earlier reader commented that "This is a story that would’ve been unthinkable with our past Presidents in office. Our Allies could always count on a stable President of the United States, a leader and partner that could be trusted with international diplomacy." Ronald Reagan once joked that he ordered the destruction of the Soviet Union. Joking aside, I consider that statement as reckless as any ever made by President Trump. Maybe the reader has forgotten about Reagan's remark, is too young to appreciate it, or simply had not been had not been born.
1
The blatant and immoral failure of the Nuclear Weapons states to live up to the decades old Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement has brought us to the brink of a world bristling with nuclear weapons. After the Cuban missile crisis, JFK wondered if humanity would be able to survive in a future world with twenty or more nuclear armed nations. Unless we soon come to our senses, we are going to find out.
Trump's rhetoric and unintelligible attacks on North Korea are pushing other countries to attain Nuclear Weapons. Does this make the world safer? Would we feel better if Japan had nuclear weapons? Would it have worked out well in WWII? This completely insane attempt at bullying a country to get rid of Nuclear Weapons should be grounds for the discussion of impeachment.
1
If the criteria for allowing nations to build their own nuclear weapons is going to be facing an existential threat from a nuclear armed hostile country in close proximity, than why can't Iran develop it's own nuclear weapons against nuclear armed Israel?
2
Please, please, won't someone please cancel Trump's upcoming trip to Asia? We cannot afford to let him speak for this country in a part of the world that is one intemperate rant away from nuclear war. Every time he opens his mouth he will make a terrifying situation even worse. The Doomsday Clock is ticking, it's almost midnight, and my nerves are shot. Please keep him as far away from Asia as possible.
1
From a popular comment:
"The only thing the US should do militarily is to re-iterate, if needed, that N. Korea will cease to exist as the country that they know if they ever use a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies. That is sufficient to stop any rational country."
That certainly worked out well in Syria, with Pres. Obama's red line.
We should use a two pronged approach.
1. Lift all sanctions against NK and try to maximize trade with them. Seduce them economically.
2. Encourage Japan and S. Korea to build strong nuclear arsenals to deter NK.
Both actions will give NK pause. It will also devalue NK as a puppet state that China uses to divert our forces from elsewhere in the Asian region.
However, no one knows. History has been and will be too chaotic to predict. Every expert prediction is worth spit. Is the USSR still in business? Ask the experts from the 70's.
2
Nuclear attacks will destroy us all, if not immediately, certainly eventually.
This reminds me of the Tom Lehrer song "Who's Next?" which I remember listening to over 40 years ago. The knee-jerk reaction depicted in the song still rings true today. Nuclear weapons have not prevented bloodshed but simply moved those involved in warfare to proxies of larger powers. What nuclear weapons have done however is to ensure states' existence for those that possess them. Therefore, this seems like the most rational motivation for North Korea and Iran and should not be a cause for more proliferation.
"...Egypt's gonna get one, too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb!"
In the past when North Korea rattled their sabres we sent them money and they shut up for a few years. They are very poor. They trade with almost no one. There is starvation. They eat dog.
Let's just pay them some money and work out some kind of dismantling program with inspections in exchange for our cash.
Wars cost money and lives. It's better to pay them money than go to war.
1
This is June 1914 all over again ... and we know how that turned out.
If the United States government ever condone a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia. 1. It will by violating nuclear proliferation treaty; 2. P. R. China will gladly join and win the race with her vast resources and capabilities; 3. Never expect cooperation, ever again. The United States will forever stink in history for its criminal act.
Why would anyone quote Henry Kissinger?? A proven liar and manipulator that served as a lackey for the treasonous Tricky Dick Nixon.
1
This is the tragedy of donald trump and his completely incompetent advisers. He has reversed long-standing US goal of global cooperation to prevent nuclear proliferation. From his inane and dangerous interactions with Kim, and his determination to undermine the treat with Iran, he shows just how incompetent and unfit he is to serve as leader of the free world. But I'm sure that even nuclear conflict will not dissuade his ignorant supporters.
1
How brave we are, supposedly willing to engage in a Nuke war where others have their country's destroyed and others pay the price for our stupidity. Take a new and real poll and you will find the vast majority around the world see the US as the biggest threat in the world today.
1
Everybody knows a first-strike by the US would result in the absolute minimum loss of American & South Korean lives. So does Kim Jong-Un. He's not going to sit back and watch patiently while USA deploys all of its war toys in ROK. Japan struck Pearl Harbor after we embargo'd steel, oil, and rubber. We have now embargo'd oil, imposed sanctions, etc. on North Korea. Any American who thinks Un's going to sit back and wait, like Saddam Hussein did, until the Americans are locked and loaded is a fool. One Sunday morning you'll wake up, our grid will have been shut down by hackers, perhaps the Internet too and it may be Tuesday afternoon before you find out USA lost Oakland or Long Beach (H-bomb in a shipping container) and war has begun. Americans sat around with their thumbs up their butts before Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and now North Korea, thinking everything was fine; our enemy wouldn't dare! Stock up on food and water and gas, Americans, here it comes.
S Korea and Japan should now arm themselves with a nuke arsenal. The US should place a nuke arsenal in S Korea also. Let’s see how the north and China feel about that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Now you have leverage to negotiate otherwise no dice N Korea. You die Kim if you mis step.
3
It's insane to even think about attacking North Korea with nukes. Negotiations are the only solution. It's the big five, rather big three, USA, Russia and China have to put their head s together and find a way pout to use leverage. China has influence on North Korea, if USA is playing in her backyard, South China Sea, it's not what the Chinese want. People of North Korea are just people, world need to liberate them from a Moron dictator. USA needs to put its house in order first, Mr. Trump's tone and intelligence is questionable to deal with any serious issues in the world. People like Mr. Kissinger are proven wrong, these Hawkes have not served the best interest of USA in the past, and they would not serve it now or in future.
To make South Korea and Japan safe, one needs to look at the hardships of North Koreans. Why did they resort to weaponization? Maybe, because, they were insecure for decades, it's the selling point for their dictators to make nuclear weapons even if they have to stave their own people to death. It's late but still not too late, USA should show leadership, and learn from it's mistakes to work towards social and economic justice in the have not countries. Meddling in someone's backyard will not only cause great pains to people of USA but to the whole world. Negotiations & negotiations is the only solution, China is a big player, the world should realize, Putin's Russia is a big player, use it to open door for North Koreans, they need bread & peace.
1
And it's nuclear annihilation, by a nose; now by a full length leading environmental catastrophe to the "finish" line- with a madman at the helm.
6
I"ll bet The Con Don and Rex told the South Koreans, Singapore and Japan that WE would finance their nuclear capabilities after he threatened them with not protecting them from North Korea. Got to make money for those democracy-world-destroying weapons dealers and their welfare queen military operatives.
Sound like mafia tactics? They are.
8
This is a story that would’ve been unthinkable with our past Presidents in office. Our Allies could always count on a stable President of the United States, a leader and partner that could be trusted with international diplomacy.
The world changed November 8th. The lack of coherent leadership coupled with the unhinged behavior and reckless rhetoric displayed by Trump has our Allies around the globe wondering if the U.S. has their backs.
Or if Trump might do something really stupid and turn parts of Asia into a glass parking lot.
10
Trump's idea to increase the US nuclear arsenal tenfold should be rejected. - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/29/hail-to-the-chief-cyclis...
6
Unless Trump starts a nuclear war, nuclear proliferation will be his most consequential legacy. It's not just the Japanese and the South Koreans. Once unthinkable, similar discussions are now common in German policy circles.
One idea in Europe is to build up a joint Franco-German nuclear deterrent, which was first proposed in the wake of the German reunification. Back in the day, the idea was killed by the US, which publicly reaffirmed its commitment to retaliate against any nuclear attack on its European allies.
Now that NATO is "obsolete" and the US - in collusion with one of two major parties - run by a fickle and unreliable moron, such guarantees are now taken with more than the usual grain of salt.
Even in the "good old days" most policy makers did not believe that the US would risk nuclear annihilation to retaliate for a nuclear strike against Berlin or Madrid. But they were banking on the fact that neither they nor the Soviets could know for sure. Under Trump, none believes that the US would stand up against an unclearly armed nation.
Rich and technologically advanced (and soon to be former?) US allies like Japan, South Korea, and Germany have the funds, fissile material, and know-how to become major nuclear powers if they have to. And they almost certainly will.
5
There is absolutely no way the US should allow the proliferation of nuclear arms for smaller and frequently less stable countries. To prevent the threat of NK, the US will have to once again assume the mantel of morality in the world and insure the defense of its allies so that they don’t arm. The bigger picture is that we are supposed to be all moving to nuclear disarmament not proliferation. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was a step towards achieving this goal unfortunately NK pulled out. So, lets not forget the bigger picture.
NK has to be contained and the sole responsibility should not just fall on the shoulder of the US. What would happen to Europe and Asia, if Kim Jong Un dares to hit one city of the US? there is no way, the American people would not strike back.
History is to be repeated again and Kim Jong Un is emerging as a 21st century Hitler. Major countries sat back and Hitler invaded Poland, and there was a war. The same stakes are looming in front of us now. The 25 million North Koreans are starved of any civil rights and the country is growing militaristically just like pre World War II Germany. Only the stakes are higher because we are talking nuclear.
This is a call to world powers, and especially to China to contain NK. We all need to find ways to bring him to the table and to remember that if the next war is fought with nuclear weapons, the one after will be fought with sticks and stones.
North Korea will not shoot nukes at the US first. All Kim's talk is just that, talk. Trump would be the one to nuke them first as what he would see as a pre-emptive measure. Combine that kind of neocon nonsense with Trump's blatant insanity, and that spells the end of civilization as we know it.
When will America wake up and throw this maniac out of office? You made a mistake, people. Now is the time to rectify it.
DUMP TRUMP.
14
Where is it written that only he US gets to decide who can have nuclear weapons and who cannot? Given the deranged leader who now resides in the White House, I believe every country would be advised to have their own arsenal, lest the daft twerp decide to retaliate against some perceived slight.
7
Every major power (for the moment, the U.S. and Russia and China) has betrayed some of its allies.
North Korea and all the other small nations would have to be crazy to rely on the good will of any major power without the ability to threaten the use of nuclear or biologically based retaliation.
Note: All the corpses of victims of nuclear warfare would glow equally brightly and all the corpses of victims of biological warfare would smell equally badly -- be they the corpses of Communists or of Capitalists or of Socialists or of Fascists or of Nationalists or of Democrats or of Republicans or of the poor or of the wealthy.
4
And THIS ladies and gentlemen is exactly why we do not need a blowhard in the top seat of the land. He has threatened North Korea into a race to defend themselves, as well as taking stupid actions such as firing test missiles over Japanese territory. We all saw this coming. Now everyone is racing to have their bombs. We need a man of peace. Actually, we need a diplomat who can actually talk sense not only to the world, but to our own MIC who is every bit as guilty in their money-centered motivation to keep this nuclear race moving. What does it take before we get rid of Trump?! God knows we need common sense in the Whitehouse at this time like never before.
5
I have a book of photos, "Hiroshima: Ground Zero 1945." Not pretty, and that was just a little A-bomb.
4
My father had a dusty hardback copy of "The Effects of Atomic Weapons" on his bookshelf. As a kid, reading it and looking at the pictures I was both amazed and horrified. I've since come to love the bomb. MAD produced 50 years of world peace. It will shorten the Second Korean war from years to days, or hours. Let 'em fly. Let's get this over with. After a massive demonstration of our nuclear firepower we can tell China to take their new island in the Pacific and stick it where the sun don't shine, and to get their eyes off Taiwan. By God America didn't start this conflict, but we certainly have what it takes to end it. Afterwards all sorts of countries may decide that total elimination of nuclear weapons is a good idea.
The world has already seen how a U.S. President as unintelligent and ignorant as Donald J. Trump has the power to undo promises made by more intelligent and more knowledgeable predecessor presidents than The bumbling tweeting Trump.(Paris climate accord, NAFTA, Iran nuclear Treaty, etc. etc.) Why shouldn't South Korea and Japan arm themselves with nuclear weapons? After all The South should fear the DPRK's goal to re-unite the Korean peninsula under the control of the Kim regime. Who cares about what will happen to the environment after a few nuclear bombs? And what about all the people who didn't ask for this but are getting it anyway from the adolescents in charge of their governments?
3
Yes attack NK, Iraq was a success I'm sure this will be also.This is all about the empire,the empire must be defended at all costs.Look at all the Neoconservative postings here,if anyone thinks this is about freedom and democracy you are deluded this is about a smaller country that won't knuckle under to the empire.
6
has anyone considered just offering to purchase north korea? im sure if the sum were right kim would go for it. he and his military friends . . . we should just buy them out.
5
It is highly unlikely that N Korea will strike the US first because they know they will be annihilated, probably even if it is Guam rather than the US proper. Although it is an open question as to whether such a response would accrue to a nuclear action against S Korea, it is highly likely or the US would become a paper tiger. That the US should engage in a first strike for the simple infraction of developing a bomb capable of reaching the US is ludicrous. Mattis and company should watch their rhetoric.
5
Unfortunately the options are getting limited. The USa and its Plies need to do everything possible to avoid a military (read nuclear) conflict. Unfortunately our wonderful POTUS says negotiatingnis a waste of time. If this loser was POTUS during the Cuban Missile Crises we wouldn't have had this problem. Why? Because he would have gotten us all killed.
We need level headed diplomacy from all available and interested parties, including North Korea.
The bottom line is we cannot allow north Korea to have loving range nuclear weapons. Period. The nuclear option should be the very last option. If all other avenues are exhausted and the North Koreans are adamant about producing a ICBM that can reach the US mainland they they absolutely refuse to negotiate, be it sanctions, etc, then I'm afraid we have no other choice but to do what we must do to keep our country safe. Yes, millions of people will die, but the blood those people will be on the hands of the North Koreans and not us as long as we adamently try to avoid going down that road.
1
Those herein reassured by the prospect of North Korea being destroyed should they dare to attack the US should consider the destructive effect of an EMP attack on the US and ask themselves if the trade is worth it.
The North Korean threat needs to be destroyed sooner rather than later and protestations that the appalling Donald Trump is president does not obviate that military necessity.
1
Of course, Japan and S. Korea should have the bomb. It's sad but China and Russia have encouraged N. Korea to build its bomb and now there`s not much choice left.
3
@Amy
Cite a source if you ca find one for charge on Russia and China; neither is interested in see Kim with nukes, although it is possible Russians may have help illegality as technicians. Pakistan, an American ally supplied the fuel.
“driven by the North's rapidly advancing capabilities and concern the United States might hesitate to defend its allies.” ---- Yeah, because with trump, you never know. Well, really, we do. Trump and his admin are running a white nationalist campaign of isolationism. All of his bravado about “fire & fury” and his one-off use of a 14,000-pound bomb and cruise missiles intended to destroy nothing are just that – bravado. Trump’s white supremacist base thinks America can be safe and prosperous on its own, without engaging with the rest of the world. It can’t. But trump doesn’t care about the truth. As long as his base thinks otherwise and unwittingly supports his hidden agenda to enrich himself and his economic class with wealth transfers from the pockets of ordinary Americans to the pockets of the rich via the tax system (as it’s always been done), trump will do nothing to materially come to the aid of America’s allies, however threatened by enemies they may be and trusting of and loyal to America they may have been. North Korea understands the simplistic mindset of American white nationalism (not hard to do because there is precedent for it), and so they will continue to call trump’s bluff, while perfecting their nuclear weapons accuracy and reach capabilities, secure in the knowledge that trump is essentially a coward.
2
With Trump's move to sack American commitment to the Iran nuclear deal, he in effect showed the world that American "commitment" is now whimsical and only lasts 4 to 8 years at best depending on who is POTUS. Trump's total disregard for history and our State Department has led to these purely transactional and of the moment bad decisions.
McCain was correct in pointing out that the world today is in part shaped by American commitment to and continued support of such agreements as NATO, SALT, etc. These are long standing pacts and treaties created with vision and values. If as Trump is suggesting every such international alliance and structured agreement can be thrown away or renegotiated every 4 years, the world would be correct to just look elsewhere for stability and true commitment.
So why would South Korea, Japan or North Korea come to the table to talk with Trump? Why would they want to sign an agreement which would require considerable costs and industry on their part if America is just going to change its mind? Why believe Trump if he says America will come to your defense if NK does something?
Bottom line: Why believe anything Trump says? He is a liar. He is purely transactional, he speaks for himself not his State Department. America's word is no longer of value.
The majority of people in North Korea probably don't want nuclear war. (although the lives they now lead are probably not much better than what they would be if they survived nuclear war). And most of the people in the rest of the world don't want to live with fall-out from nuclear war anywhere. So there should be a groundswell from everyone throughout the world. Put Donald J. Trump and all his supporters and Kim Jung Un and all his supporters in a big nuclear reactor and let them fight to their deaths. Then let the rest of us say Good Bye to Nuclear Weapons and all the rest of the evils of the 20th Century and start the task of making the planet habitable for future generations of all species.
Fantasy of course; But Trump and Kim are awake nightmares
1
Once again, in an article about nuclear weapons the Times shows photos of nuclear energy plants - as if they’re pre-requisite.
They’re not. And by irresponsibly linking the two, the Times helps to close the door on our only realistic chance to fight climate change, the much greater threat to leaving a livable planet for our descendants.
6
I wrote this last night in almost automatic fashion after stumbling upon Robert Frost's poem, FIRE AND ICE. If Frost was alive today he would be shocked and saddened by what is going on today and how he no doubt was thinking of natural ends of the world after eons passed, not in the 21st century. Maybe i am wrong.
The world in flame
Sun's rays blocked
The world domain
A sheet of ice
Frost indeed is right
The world locked in hate.
S. Korea and Japan have some of the worlds best physicists and engineers, and a supply of enriched fuel. They probably have plans, and have had for some time, to build a nuclear weapon, almost instantly, and there's not much we or anyone else can do about it.
Interesting that you guys chose the hyper partisan, lying, violent war criminal Henry Kissinger, who would be jailed if there were true justice in America, to state the obvious. He's probably salivating at the prospect of secretly bombing children and civilians, as he had us do in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, but that's not going to happen in N. Korea, much to his chagrin, and the chagrin of people like him. The war footing that foolish public servants like Henry Kissinger put us on in the 1960's, is exactly why we're in the mess we are in today in southeast Asia. Really, Times, do you have to quote Kissinger as if he's some knowledgable expert? What next, Newt Gingrich on family values and Steve Bannon on race relations?
2
The threat, if any , is the USAl.
5
NIne months into his presidency and Trump has the world in a nuclear arms race because of his unique abilitiy to make everything he touches worse. Isn't that just great?
But as long as Republicans get their tax cuts, no worries! Even if there are a couple of dozen million fewer American to pay taxes.
7
Nuclear proliferation among nation states isn’t the worst thing that can happen.
Nuclear weapons are essentially defensive weapons. No countries will use them if they risk annihilation themselves. The spread of such weapons will likely shift the balance of power from large countries to smaller ones, but could actually lead to less conventional military conflict.
No, the worst scenario is the spread of nuclear weapons to non-state actors. Such groups are more likely to use nuclear weapons for two reasons. First, they are likely to be more ideologically driven and less concerned about their own mortality. Second, they know that it will be difficult for nation states to retaliate, since members of such groups are dispersed within populations.
Unfortunately, just as nuclear proliferation among nation states is inevitable, so is the eventual proliferation among non-state actors. In fact, they may be interconnected if nation states choose to use non-state actors to further their goals, but maintain official deniability.
A darker, more chaotic future is coming.
2
Britain and France developed their own nuclear deterrence with our approval to avoid the scenario where the USSR blackmailed us into giving them Europe by threatening "will you risk losing NYC to save Europe?". Supporting a nuclear S Korea and Japan prevents N Korea or China from a similar " will you risk Los Angeles to save Seoul?". It is hard to see how 2 strong allies and pro western democracies joining the nuclear club greatly increases the risks of nuclear war. Of course disarming N Korea would be a far better solution but today that looks unlikely without a major war.
2
If nuclear non-proliferation simply means that rouge nations develop nuclear weapons and responsible. mature societies forgo them, what is the point in non-proliferation? Both South Korea and Japan are under great threat from the regime in Pyongyang. It would be irresponsible to tell them that they shouldn't develop an arsenal to help protect themselves.
1
Many comments are trying to blame one administration or another for North Korea and it's nuclear program. I am not sure there is an understanding that NK is a sovereign nation. We cannot dictate to NK or China or any other country how to defend or build their military or even how one country can influence another.
America would never allow any other nation to dictate our policies especially on defense, why should we proclaim we can dictate their policy's.
This is a global problem that may not have an answer but one can only hope somehow there is a way forward without a tragic end.
1
The genesis of the North Korean problem was the Chinese intervention into the Korean War, and their decades of support to the North Korean regime. In recent decades, the Chinese have come to see North Korea
as a useful tool to preoccupy and bleed U.S. military resources, however, they are now in position of having played that game too far.
Both Japan and South Korea have the nuclear expertise and existing missile technology to develop a credible nuclear deterrence in short order. That would leave China’s surrounded by nuclear powers, as well as diminish its military power vis-a-vis it’s northeastern neighbors.
That is hardly an outcome that China can find desirable, but one that it may have to accept.
1
North Korea is very likely the wedge that will open the way to a much broader Asian nuclear arms race.
Nothing to date has reigned in Kim Jung un in his steamroller quest for full blow intercontinental nuclear missile capability that can threaten the continental US — powerful leverage for checkmating robust American military intervention on the Korean peninsula.
The North Korean threat to South Korea and secondarily to Japan is immediate and substantial given the already present NK offensive nuclear capabilities. Failure to respond with credible countervailing nuclear capability would be politically and practically unconscionable.
Nothing in this piece speaks to the position of China regarding the burgeoning likelihood of Asian nuclear arms proliferation — something the Chinese must view a a highly negative development.
It seems that both China and the US have been caught dangerously flatfooted regarding the huge strategic negatives arising from the unfettered NK development of an offensive nuclear weapons arsenal which now includes ICBMs and hydrogen bombs.
Other than bellicose threats the US seems utterly stymied by the bold and resolute actions of Kim Jung un.
If we had a wise president and cabinet, he or she would be doing everything possible to reduce nuclear weapons, rather than egging on the North Koreans, who respond with yet more tests and more resolve to build nuclear weapons.
The illogic of building weapons that can destroy much, most or even all of mankind is mind boggling. Where are the voices of reason?
3
Few few people seem to be talking about a reasonable, possible alternative: organizing with all area nations, including China, to shoot down ANY North Korean missile that rises from its lands. It's an outlaw nation and should be treated as one. This is like taking guns away from convicted criminals.
1
Or maybe President Trump "...spoke openly of letting Japan and South Korea build nuclear arms..." because he knows that threat has a high likelihood of motivating China to really put effective pressure on NK (as first articulated by Charles Krauthammer).
1
North Korea's nuclear program is only half of the story. If Japan and South Korea believed unconditionally that the US would defend them - even against China in a nuclear exchange, we wouldn't be reading this article.
From a self interest perspective, countries like Japan and South Korea would be fools to believe that the US will be the world police or a counterweight to China in Asia much longer. Therefore they need to be able to defend themselves. They don't need an arsenal big enough to end the world, just big enough to make it too costly for others in the region to attack them.
1
Time to get serious about peace negotiations for a final settlement of the Korean issue. If that goes nowhere after a year, then let china reap the seeds it has sown. Japan and South Korea with nukes and more Star Wars based technology should help China to see more clearly. China has great ambitions for Asia. But North Korea is its Achilles heal. Whose afraid of some nukes. Who you gonna call?
A number of commenters have blamed President Obama and remarked that he should have stopped North Korea.
Well, if you are going to point a finger at Obama, then you should point a finger at all the presidents going back to the time of the North Korean War. So that would include George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson until we reach Dwight Eisenhower.
Why, all the armchair warriors ask, did none of those past presidents end the stalemate between North and South Korea?
The answer is simple. Because China and Russia have North Korea's back.
North Korea did not have nuclear weapons during all of those years, but its allies did. (China exploded its first nuclear bomb in 1964; Russia exploded its first nuclear bomb in 1949).
There is no easy solution. That is why we lost nearly 37,000 Americans on Korean soil. Anyone who thinks that we can waltz in, drop bunker busting bombs on North Korean military sites, and waltz out again needs to head to their local library and do some heavy reading about the Korean War.
I sure hope the Pentagon folk have done that reading. It's rather clear that President Trump has not...
10
Obama was a soft president.
1
Under Obama’s watch, Osama Bin Laden was captured and killed; drone assassination operations dramatically escalated (372 strikes in Pakistan alone); and by the end of Obama’s second term, the United States had spent 866 billion dollars on war-related initiatives (more than was spent by GW Bush) and was fighting wars in 8 countries while special operations forces were deployed in operations in 82 countries. How is that “soft”?
1
Note where this bad idea started, I got Trump.
3
How does that Obama foreign policy of the past eight years look to ya now?
Would the crisis with North Korea have been somewhat easier to handle 30 years ago? 20? 8? 4?
Dems always blamed Obama inheritance of the economic mess left by George Bush.
What goes around comes around.
Will they now have the integrity to blame the North Korean iris on
3
While it is true that the Obama probably had the last chance to head off these developments, previous Presidents always appeased and kicked the can down the road.
I think it would be just as helpful to headline this' Threat of Unpopular Trump 'Accidentally' starting Third World War Looms, as he Rachets Up Tension.'
8
"The discussion in Japan has been more subdued than in South Korea, no surprise after 70 years of public education about the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
Really? This is opinion, not fact. Accordingly it has no place in a news article.
2
It is not an opinion. It is confirmed by pubic opinion polls, which were cited in the article.
2
How sad people work so hard to kill each other. Life really is a very short time. I'd rather not go burned & blinded to death. The "lucky" will be those who die fast.
9
I wonder what China thinks since NK borders on it.
2
Let's remember that China is using North Korea as a proxy to threaten the United States. China has NK right were it wants them, Foolish to think China would help cool the situation.
1
This planet is messed up. Humans are so disappointing.
13
Nuclear proliferation is the worst thing to happen short of a nuclear war. With an habitual liar as POTUS however who has already turned his back on America's word with regard to the Paris Climate Accord and the agreement we had with Iran over their nuclear program, you can't blame the South Koreans and Japanese if they don't trust U.S. to protect them as per our treaties with them.
Japan's militant history however sends a shudder up the spine if they're even thinking of militarizing with nuclear weapons. Everything however has gotten out of hand regarding North Korea, especially with a murderous sociopath running that country and an ignorant sociopath in our White House who prefers to bait NK rather than try and reduce tensions. Like the summer of 1914, history appears on track to repeat itself, sending us headlong into a world war but one with a much greater blast from the past.
2
I do think that the "nuclear threat" remains a major deterrent to WW3. Without it we really would be destroying each other...again.
Military action against North Korea must be authorised by Congress; the President may only react in exigent circumstances. The current hysteria over North Korea’s ICBMs is misplaced; the nuclear danger we face from North Korea is years old.
Anyone with nuclear bombs - big, primitive bombs that cannot be delivered by missiles - can simultaneously destroy the White House, Congress, the Pentagon and lower Manhattan. Even Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck) couldn’t prevent the smuggled nuke in Tom Clancy’s “The Sum of All Fears” (2002).
We’ve been in great danger, as nuclear weapons proliferate, for a while now, and Trump’s psycho macho acting out just incentivizes this deadly scenario. It’s really important that we deal with reality - sanely.
2
We are doomed. Trump adds to the mess.
6
For decades China has cultivated North Korea both as a buffer and weapon against the west.
The danger of a developing nuclear arsenal is forcing China to re-conceptualize its relationship with the North.
The Chinese political establishment has no easy options. It could invade and rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons [virtually impossible], come to accept as many as six southeast Asian countries with their own arsenals [likely; or cajole, beg, or threaten these non-nuclear countries [unlikely].
Acting on any of these choices will lead to China's realization that global power has its own poisonous misfortunes.
2
When I was a kid in the 1950s at school, the authorities taught us to get under our desks in the event of a nuclear bombing. Kiddies, it's time to hide under your desks again, from the real boogie man.
And yes, let's take advice from Kissenger who advised LBJ on the Viet Nam war. THAT went well.
4
yes, "Duck and Cover," now to be a major motion picture.
Kissinger was Nixon's exit strategy, sphere of infleunce, boy. Not LBJ's defend South Vietnam boy.
Oh well. Just saying stuff about the US adventure in Vietnam is fun.
Someone should draw President Trump a picture of Trump Tower as a smoldering pile of ash and explain, "That's why we don't want nuclear proliferation."
7
The only sane alternative to nuclear proliferation is contained in the United Nations Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. This Ban makes nuclear weapons illegal, as other bans on weapons systems such as chemical weapons or land mines have done.
1
This is absurd. Has the world forgotten how nuclear war works?
4
We are all witness to why this is happening: our current president's reckless behavior.
Anyone who sits silently by and lets this happen will have blood on their hands, and it might just be their own blood and the blood of their loved ones.
If this isn't enough to impeach Trump, we're doomed.
7
China can thank itself for setting all these wheels in motion and it looks increasingly doubtful they have the stomach to put the genie back in the bottle.
5
This is very much China's problem, and it's time for China to deal with it.
1
To accomodate North Korea as necluar power without making any change in statusquo will be detrimental to world peace. More rogue states will emerge in future as many dictators will be convinced that NPT is a paper tiger. Presently US is the only country who bears the responsibility to make NPT enforceable - other main powers like China or Russia are not interested to dedicate their power for NPT if it means weakening their strategic interest. World has become complex puzzle because of technology and allowing China in WTO. We can not put the genie in the bottle. Japan and South Korea should follow the path of India and US should accept them without any sanction.
We have three aircraft carriers in the Korea peninsula now doing military exercise. Our forces are within striking distance to N. Korea. If I were N. Korea leader, I would be scared to death and wanted to speed up nuclear experiment for self defense. Why do we want to pose such a military threat to N. Korea while the situation is so tense already? We know our military exercise will not stop N. Korea nuclear tests. Why do we still want to do that? Wouldn't that increase the risk of misfire or whatever? If we were in N. Korea situation, would we quit nuclear experiment or on the contrary speed it up?
6
You might want to work on your cause effect.
A tip: things that happen LATER typically do not cause things that happen EARLIER.
1
@In deed
For 'earlier' in Korean War, the N. Koreans lost approximately 20% of their population to American bombing in the Korean Conflict as it was called exceeding the death toll in Japan including the two Atomic bombings.
t was the world’s introduction to Napalm; one million 900 thousand reported killed. The Kim dynasty has kept that event alive and easy to see how Trump’s boasting about what will follow hardens rather than frights that populations support for the Nuke development.
Another reason to fear a North Korean conflict is that one supposes this: Trump is contriving a set-to with Kim so that he may seize extraordinary powers (suspending habeas corpus and other constitutional rights) in order to wield permanent imperial powers. As it is, the GOP is busily doing everything they can to reduce the Ameircan booboisie to serfdom, from tax reform to this war scare.
2
Financial support was threatened by Trump. Actual support in wars became questionable because of Obama. Nuclear programs take years to develop and will be in anticipation of having an Obama, Bernie, or Hillary at the helm in the future. It is not because of Trump that Saudi Arabia threatened to begin its own nuclear program during Obama's Iran appeasement negotiations. And, of course, Saudi Arabia never, prior to Obama, felt the need to defend itself from widely-acknowledged nuclear Israel, despite it being the "origin of all evil" in the middle east by the NYT and its liberal readers.
2
If what we commoners read in todays US media, or believe what Cable news outlets preach, Trump will be replaced either by impeachment, or all the deplorable's coming to their senses in 2020. To our enemies and major adversaries, China and Russia, this would mean a return to Obama's model of zero confrontation. No new red lines in sand, just treaties with our adversaries. Our adversaries both China and Russia know their models will go un-detrred. Because the Democrats are in such disarray after their Clinton disaster, adversaries have to wait to see who they will be dealing with. Imagine this entire Trump administration wiped out and sent packing having accomplished nothing.
Oust Trump, re-brand to the Democratic Peoples of the Untied States then institute a one party system to show China and the D.P.R.K. that we mean no harm.
1
Make no mistake, NK has Nukes because China wanted it so, as a divisive playing card. They just held their hand too long. They now want to call, but those at the table are raising. Timing is everthing is a big stakes game.
Unfortunately starve the Korean God (Kim Jong-un) may be the only non war card left to create a Regime change. I cry at the thought of how the Gods sheep must suffer.
You want to help. When you see "made in china", sit it back down on the shelf. Buy the shirt from Vietnam or other place. Do this for 6 months. That just might make China tighten its flow of good across its boarder.
1
Having nukes in SK and Japan is not "defense", it's "retaliation" in case NK starts a nuclear war. There is no proven "defense" against ICBMs and other missiles (the watchword is "proven"), so it's a deflection to use this word, in the same way that most nations call their military a "defense force" or have a "ministry of defense" (Germany included!).
Once the capability is there it can be used in offensive matters too ("...fight them there so we don't have to fight them here..." comes to mind). And nuclear-tipped rockets can _only_ be used offensively. A counter-strike with a nuke does not prevent your country from destruction. That has already happened. And it will not protect you against further strikes since (especially with NK) nobody knows where the nukes are and how to take them out. So it's just plain and simple revenge, tit-for-tat thinking.
The only way this works is with MAD (mutually assured destruction). Do we, the world, really want a local MAD scenario with hot-heads like Kim Jong Un and Shinzo Abe hovering their fingers over the red buttons? And would such a local nuclear war stay local?
Anyway: the fallout alone of - let's say - 50 simultaneous nukes would take years off the lives of everybody on the planet. That's why above-ground testing was banned in the 70's. We got enough plutonium in our environment, we don't need any more. If Japan wants to do something useful they should clean up Fukushima, but they can't even get that done! Ban all nuclear!
2
Fukushima and other accidents which have occurred elsewhere which were caused by non military use of radioactive material should give humanity some perspective on the dangers of this technology even without war. As you know, in spite of the lack of serious press coverage, the after effects of these accidents are ongoing. In spite of 70 years or so of nuclear science, there are no workable solutions to stopping the release of radiation into the environment, or cleaning it up, or even storing the hazmat safely.
Nuclear war -- just the news I want to see when I open the paper -- please let sanity prevail.
1
And with the President heading over to Asia, this all sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Everyone has called on China to be the center of negotiations.. Why not ask Saudi Arabia? Think about it- they have the oil which NK desperately needs as well as money, industrial and educational institutions. Also Saudi Arabia never really liked the United States to begin with- so they wouldn't be seen as a puppet of the U.S.... I think there is a potential diplomatic channel here that needs to be reviewed.
3
While i am concerned about proliferation as well.To use a Regan phrase ,Trust but verify.Any verification of the current US Government action tells an intelligent person not to trust the U SA under Trump.He changes his position as often as the weather changes.Those around him,plus Congress and the Senate focus on getting re elected /retaining their position in WH with little interest in the country and less interest in allies.(with a few notable exceptions like Mr Flake,
1
A nuclear-armed Asia is inevitable if the conflict on the Korean Peninsula continues to be 'tit for tat' between Washington and Pyongyang.
Donald Trump has opened the Pandora box with his comments on nuclear weapons. The US administration and North Korea are destabilizing Northeast Asia and, consequently, the world with a new nuclear arms race.
Who knows? perhaps this is a component of the so-called "Pivot to Asia" strategy conceptualized during the Obama administration.
3
It is as true to Uzi is destabilizing Asia as it is to say the US is.
Third party actors making their own decisions in response to Kim destabilizing are the destabilizers.
If Trump levels North Korea then Asian stability INCREASES.
1
When it comes to nuclear weapons, counterintuitive thought applies. The best way to endanger the world is to rid it of all nukes. That would allow any country with the technology to rearm and threaten the rest of the world. And how many weapons a country has does not matter if another, competing country has a similar arsenal. That creates a balance of terror.
In East Asia the arsenals of China and North Korea are balanced against ours. If North Korea fires a weapon, our allies have traditionally trusted us to respond. But now, North Korea can threaten us and Japan and South Korea are unsure we will risk an attack by Kim to defend them. So Kim has successfully altered the balance of terror, leaving our allies understandably insecure.
Another lesson from the Cold War is that you can never put the genie back in the bottle. Once North Korea can attack the U.S., it will always have that know-how. So we can't solve this problem by taking steps backward. We must find a new way to restore balance.
As in most matters, Trump has made a lot of noise without improving the situation. But his real failure, in my opinion, has little do with his war of words with Kim. After all, Kim has been following his strategy from day one. The real problem Trump has created relates to his America First policy. That enhances fear among our allies that we will not come to their aid. And that's where Trump has gone wrong.
5
Thank you for putting in perspective the dilemma facing the United States and the civilized world more broadly.
There are many reason for the US to forcefully intervene if necessary to prevent North Korea from weaponizing its long range missiles (and it looks inevitable, as the North Koreans have made crystal clear they have no intention of abandoning their nuclear weapons program), and the proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the most important.
To those here who think the US and civilized world should allow North Korea to develop nuclear tipped ICBMs -- you do not understand the North Korean mindset. They do not think like us and will use their weapons to destabilize the Korean peninsula and beyond.
My local community college decided this year to arm its security guards. Students and administrators say they will feel "safer." So logically every nation should have its own nuclear weapons so each will feel safer. Does anyone else see a flaw in this thinking? Pro-gun people in the US point out that gun deaths have decreased as the number of guns increases but that is because crime generally has decreased. Mutual Assured Destruction works best when there are only two massively armed nations. The problem here is the unwillingness to push diplomacy as far as it can go. To talk crazy and to disparage diplomacy, and to decimate the State Department cannot be good.
1
There is only one non-military option that has any chance of persuading N.Korea to give up it's nuclear weapons. And at this point, with 25 bombs and close to hydrogen capability, it's only a chance, not a probability. That would be to have China radically cut it's support and trade with N. Korea. No need to repeat here how difficult it has been to get China to do this. Re-read this article with this in mind.
Japan's leader is asking China if it really wants the #3 economy and #2 technology, with it's close alliance with the world's #1 power, to field a modern military so close to its borders? Disputes over the S.China sea, Taiwan, Senkaku islands would be seen in a different light. And by what % would China's defense budget have to be increased? How about control of the generals? And that hair-trigger situation in Korea would still exist.
China has to decide quickly. Japan is in a dangerous situation, and no Japanese leader could ever permit another nuclear attack. The vote to change the constitution could come at any time. And once that step is taken it will be almost impossible to go back.
Honolulu, Seattle, San Francisco: feeling nervous? Try Tokyo.
2
This seems the logical outcome my only question is what is taking them so long to build weapons ? If North Korea won't stand down and threatens Japan and Japan starts to build weapons and surely the Chinese wouldn't want
A nuclear armed Japan facing them then why haven't they done more to push North Korea more on limiting nuclear weapons. This is what surprises me.
It's painful to see the liberal mindset at work. If only we didn't rile up the NK leader and left things as they were, this wouldn't be happening (except they were happening before the current tough response). We should "demand" nonproliferation for the world (as if North Korea would ever participate). It's all Trump's fault (except the all the politicians before him failed at preventing NK's proliferation).
If anything, Trump is forcing NK's neighbors to deal with the problem. He is accelerating a situation that was inevitable. NK has always had plans to use its nuclear weapons to negotiate or, more likely, hold nations hostage and make outrageous demands on the world.
The problem is not Trump or the US. It is the man controlling NK's nuclear weapons. Focusing on Trump and/or burying our heads in the sand is a luxury Americans have. Not so the rest of the world.
4
Inevitable nuclear proliferation (never mind climatic change) presents me, a mature individual who has led a full life, with an intellectual conundrum: would I prefer that the world ends one minute before I die or one minute after? No avid theater goer walks out before the final curtain no matter how crude and clumsy the actors, no matter how predictable the plot-line. For any citizen, nuclear annihilation is like buying tickets to a popular play. You want to see what you've paid for.
1
Top Kek! Five or so nations ready to arm up and point the weapons at North Korea and China then at each other. I hope I am far enough away to have time to feel that play out rather than be blinded by the light. I was worried some time ago about India and Pakistan. So far no fireworks there.
Russia, the US, and China have and will have such conventional arms as to threaten the security of any nation that they so choose to threaten and are proven invaders of sovereign nations. There is no possible conventional defense to the overwhelming military power of these invader nations. The only possible defense is through nuclear deterrence. Within a few decades dozens of countries will be technically and financially capable of building a nuclear deterrent to attack and invasion within a few years or less time frame. Because the invader nations will never be trusted, some leaders will choose to prepare a nuclear deterrent; dozens will follow. The world will see dozens of countries prepare a nuclear deterrent as their only defense to the more powerful invader nations. NK is alone in taking this position now but is merely the future of the world.
2
People who rant and rave about the Kims of the world like to ignore the history of the last 100 years or so which clearly shows which nations are the most warlike, and which have been involved in bloodshed in places thousands of miles from their borders.
Renewed threats to North Korea at this juncture by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis are disingenuous. South Korea has realized by now that it has become a victim of our President’s desperate attempt to survive politically.
Indeed, his desperate effort to survive also concerns other countries and it should also concern Congress. This should even concern Jim Mattis. Though Donald Trump is his boss, the good of the country comes first. Even Richard Nixon had accepted that, but it is not clear that Trump will. As such, we should remain vigilant and somehow get ready beforehand. There is not a whole lot any of us can do when nuclear bombs are going off.
The question is what is the superior position to take whether it is a conflict between individuals, or sovereign states? Is it more superior, as a superpower, to see the "enemy" as human enough to talk to so that the world might be spared destruction- and most of all- spared a tragic digression from humanity's slow ascension from its still primitive inclination to mega-kill as the default tool for resolution? Or, is the position that we, as God's self proclaimed military vicar of world order, can unilaterally arbitrate ( or by the questionable rubric of the U.N) the self determination of sovereign states to "yield to our power" which is antithetical to the spirit of democracy as a cooperative template of Nature- the undoubted foundation of ALL power in the Universe?
I wonder if we could unleash the collective force of the world's nuclear arsenal, what sound would it make on Betelgeuse coming from this "pixel"? Who are we fooling? Why are we little "mayflies" bent on making the brevity of life so meaningless and death so attractive?
This is insanity! There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war. As soon as the first bombs wipe out major cities in North and South Korea, China, Russia, and the US will inevitably be drawn into the Cold War scenarios of Mutually Assured Destruction. Each nation will be forced to launch preemptively before its first strike capability is wiped out by the other's preemptive strike.
1
I watched the North Koreans invade South Korea in 1950 when I was in high school. At this point, diplomacy is useless.
If deterrence was going to work, it would have done so by now. After all, we could have destroyed North Korea any time in the last 50 years, so to add one or two more aircraft carriers for the sake of ‘deterrence’ is useless.
All those trains have left the station — except the one where we take them out now before they take us out. Hate to say it, guys, but that’s the only choice we have left.
3
Other nations having nuclear weapons will not in any way deter Kim from using his. If his are not destroyed he will use them. After all, we have many nuclear weapons and he is still planning on hitting us.
China won't help and sanctions won't work. North Korea is a nuclear power with ICBMs to deliver them. It is foolhardy to think they will given them up. There is no logic or precedent for that. An attack on North Korea will certainly lead to millions of dead. The time to have used military force against them, if there really ever was a time, is long gone. Everyone knows this. If other Asian nations violate the non-proliferation treaty, which they may or may not, depending on ow North Korea behaves, well it's a natural progression: first there was us, then Russia then China and France and England, India and Pakistan and surely Israel.Some day, hopefully decades or centuries away, someone will employ one. There's a precedent for that and Robert Oppenheimer's prophecy that "Man has become death" or something similar will be vindicated.
3
What the world actually needs is a good outbreak of influenza.
2
Well, its a generation removed from the cold war. I had dreams in my teens and early adulthood about nuclear explosions. I remember the apathy of knowing the US and the Soviets would wipe one or the other out one day. There were television re-runs of Dr. Strangelove, The Day After and, of course, photos of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the wounded. There was the Atomic Cafe and then Reagan, who frightened anyone sane enough to remember his Evil Empire nonsense. Now those nightmares are back. It was nice to have a respite. I hope this cools down. At 56, I would like to live the rest of my years without everyday being one minute to midnight. The men and women in charge of our country right now are fools, liars and psychopaths. Its a storm I wish we didn't have to ride out.
I can see where the US allies in the region are wary of the US commitment to their defence. Just look at the Kurds of Iraq, thrown, no, pushed under the wheels of a bus.
I think there is a clear correlation between the progress of Mueller's investigation and a nuclear catastrophe in Asia.
And to be sure, Trump will blame him!
The MIC must be rubbing its hands at the prospect of proliferation. It’s already in the works, the US has been endorsing Japan’s rearmament for years, including the revision of its pacifist constitution.
Japan and South Korea are surely more technologically advanced than North Korea. Given that nation's enemy status and its close proximity, it seems strange that they have allowed North Korea to have more military power than them.
Maybe it is time to arm up.
Kim wants nuclear weapons to keep us from overthrowing him.
We should accept Kim and let him keep his weapons.
Meanwhile, we should reduce the 14,000 nuclear weapons possessed by Russia and the US. These weapons are the real threat.
2
Having South Korea and Japan acquire nuclear arms can't be what the Chinese have in mind as the price for supporting a buffer state. At this point, only the Chinese government has the waning power to end this peaceably by terminating its support of DPRK.
1
The ham handed foreign relations policy of the Trump Administration has placed the world in this precarious position.
1
The idea of nuclear proliferation and deterrence REQUIRES a counterparty who is a rational actor. Can anyone say that Kim Jong Un is such, or for that matter, Donald Trump?
The article says that there are 24 nuclear reactors in South Korea, like the one pictured. I would assume that most are within the range of North Korea’s massive conventional artillery pieces. That means that Kim can dirty bomb the Southern half of the Korean peninsula with conventional weapons.
Japan, with history of both being atomic bombed and in having a massive nuclear disaster has even less of a rational reason to pursue nuclear weapons.
In fact, this entire article is premised on what happens when (not if) North Korea goes for a first strike.
Riddle me this, Mr. Sanger, et. al. What happens if WE strike first?
1
I'd be a lot more optimistic about a diplomatic solution to this lunacy if we had a rational president to deal with North Korea and be a beacon for other nations. But Trump the schoolyard bully is totally miscast in that role. It is an outrage that he has the capacity to trigger Armageddon.
1
The scary fact here is not how many countries have Nuclear weapons and how many others are are going to build it. The danger lies on who holds it? A dictator or failed nation or a terrorist? Believe it or not civilization one day is going to end with Nuclear weapon if it did not with astronomical catastrophe.
It is not Trump's USA, Putin's Russia or or Kim jong un's North Korea laid out this fear, it was already engraved in future history when first bomb exploded in New Mexico.
Now Nuclear bomb has become important deterrent for North Korea and Pakistan for its protection.
We the people of this world are responsible for giving them this weapon, not only that we are teasing them and provoking them by economic sanction and other means. What are we trying to achieve?
We have seen many suicide cases of gun men in America , terrorists in middle east, politically motivated activists after committing a huge massacre, what happens one day if some dictator or political leader with Nuke went insane?
Stockpile.
The insanity is in thinking of this material as a stock. These are swimming pools full of highly radioactive material that is unprofitable to dispose of. If the pumps that cool them are stopped, as could happen in war, this material, which is metal, will set itself on fire (right, burning metal)) and spue plutonium, radium, strontium, cesium and iodine smoke, tiny particles, colloids, into the air and then into the land and water. A thousand Chernobyls. The North doesn't even need nuclear weapons to cause a nuclear disaster. Anywhere the wind blows or the water carries this material will be uninhabitable forever. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not.
It's not only South Korea that has "stockpiles" of nuclear waste waiting to be spread over the face of the Earth. The Kims make themselves obvious monsters by flaunting their nuclear threat but the people, people who claim the right to call themselves good people, who profit from stashing "stockpiles" of nuclear waste all over the world, are as bad or worse. It's insane and evil.
1
Some comments say "We should accept N. Korea as a nuclear state".
But all the readers of NY times should understand that the purpose of NK is not survival. As NK always says clearly, the purpose is to unify the peninsula by absorbing S. Korea.
Today's SK president Moon Jae-in is a ultra-left. He is extremely anti-US as well as anti-Japan. Remember that the Ex-President Park Geun-hye, who was more moderate, visited Beijing to attend the military parade 2 years ago. SK is not a faithful ally.
It is long since SK began thinking about nuclear weapons. East Asia will be mixture of dangers, unless US shows its presence. A severe crisis for the world of liberty, democracy, and richness.
2
A clear, sober, and effective strategy for dealing with the North Korean nuclear threat was articulated recently by retired general David Petraeus. --(Ph.D., Princeton, International Relations.) He explained to the host of ABC's, 'The Week', that the PRC (Beijing), was key to requiring the North Koreans to undertake negotiations. But first, Dr. Petraeus hinted, the PRC must realize that failure to turn around the leadership in Pyongyang, on this question, will mean greater strategic risk to Beijing, than the current status quo. To help the PRC get religion, Sanger & colleagues posit a rearmed Japan with nuclear capabilities. (President Abe has already broached the idea of changing Japan's constitution to actualize this possibility. if necessary.) The introduction of tactical nukes into So. Korea will also alarm the PRC, if it occurs. When Dr. Petraeus was asked about the 'dissonance' between POTUS, and our Secratary of State, on the use of diplomacy, he suggested that it was a way to help the PRC understand that the U.S. means business, this time around. I share the Patraeus view that the rebalancing of forces in the region will prompt the PRC to change its posture, & exert effective pressure on Pyongyang to pursue a negotiated settlement, of the nuclear question.
4
If we make it unavoidably clear to North Korea today that if they do not stop their nuclear program immediately, we will destroy it, it will be gone. They do not yet have any nuclear capability to strike back.
If, on the other hand, we do not act unless they do - the weakness policy of the left - then all bets are off, and millions of innocents will die.
There are no other options.
1
Most of those in the so called international community took their cues from the the western powers and looked the other way when both Israel and apartheid South Africa with the help of their friends in the west, of course, acquired nuclear weapons with which to threaten their neighbors and to maintain the regional status quo on their terms. Now, we are led to believe that when North Korea does it, and uses the same justifications for doing so that both Israel and South Africa used that, somehow, unlike in these other cases, both non proliferation and the survival of the human race are threatened. Give me a break. If the continued presence of massive nuclear arsenals in places such as the US, Russia, China, Israel, and the EU are acceptable, and don't encourage nuclear proliferation, or increase the possibility of nuclear conflict, neither should the actions of a North Korea or of several North Koreas. The issue isn't really non proliferation, its about the inability to control and to contain technology once it's been created, and about the inevitable failure of the preferential proliferation policies which have been imposed by the great powers since 1945 to ensure that they and they alone will always have a monopoly on the ability to engage in nuclear blackmail.
Einstein regretted having shared his knowledge of nuclear atoms with the U.S. government. It's all coming back to bite us .
Trump needs to be brought into a screening room and watch an educational film about nuclear bombs and the dangers of radioactive fallout . Maybe we all do .
Trump is an absolutely terrible president. He's not even a populist , but just a rich guy who resides without merit in the White House and is afforded deference that he does not qualify for or deserve .
Last time I checked, North Korea is still waiting for the US and western allies to sign a non-aggression pact; an agreement that WE will not preemptively strike NK. This is not unreasonable since the US has done so in the past with various states (BOTH performing preemptive strikes and signing non-aggression pacts).
The argument that NK abuses its citizenry and thus must be opposed rings hollow as the US already does business with some rather oppressive regimes.
NK may appear crazy but the idea that they are foolhardy enough to start a nuclear conflict with a country that could literally turn it into a molten crater is beyond ridiculous.
However history views the meaning and valor of the Korean conflict, it doesn't change the fact that US forces completely leveled 1/5 of the Korean Peninsula. The NK are afraid of us; they want security.
Somehow our media outlets keep perpetuating this narrative that NK is an imminent threat to worldwide safety while our own citizens are freely gunning each other down by the bus load. Is NK real threat?
2
If non-proliferation is a goal, worth destroying NK totally in order to enforce it, then why don't we just tell our allies (SK and Japan) not to do it, or they too risk total annihilation (and personal insults from Trump)?
Or maybe the new rule is to allow only pre-approved countries to proliferate?
The nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula is no longer a classic example of "security dilemma" in which the actors seek nuclear power for security or merely pursue nuclear power for its own sake. Japan and South Korea contemplate going nuclear because they really feel an existential threat from Pyongyang.
The crisis in the region is exacerbated by the Cold War mentality, that is being manifested by the US alliance with Japan and South Korea and a rising China, that is reluctant to change the status quo and determined to keep the North Korean regime afloat as a buffer zone against US influence in South Korea.
China and North Korea also say the US military presence in the region contributes to increased tensions. Pyongyang claims, in the absence of safety and security, a reliable nuclear deterrent is its effective means of safeguarding its survival.
No doubt a multifacted approach is needed to resolve the nuclear crisis there. The countries - Japan, China and South Korea - involved should work out their historical grievances and cooperate. The North and the South could - to begin with - sign a peace deal to end the Korean war, which ended 64 years with only an armistice. A Sino-American effort to overcome their geopolitical differences and help win Pyongyang's trust wouldn't be a bad idea.
2
Mutually Assured Destruction
Even without nukes, paleobiological studies that look at complex food webs on the"guild" level (a "guild" are all the animals that occupy the same niche in every way, such as all the species of grass in your lawn). The number of guilds times the number of interactions between all these guilds is a quantum representing the degree of biodiversity. Many biologists who think we are at peak biodiversity need to start operating as if the earth is older than 4004 and look at these data. These show the 95% loss of biodiversity over a period of 250,000 years at the end of the Paleozoic. Then only 25% at the end of the Mesozoic. Now - if we don't do anything effective 95% by December 31, 2099. And we will have accomplished that in 50,000 years instead. This one is much worse..
Add Nukes to that and it will be more like 99%. Its insane to consider building 4000 bombs when the soot from about 30-40 will provoke a catastrophic nuclear winter.
The extinction rates come from a session on Wednesday on biodiversity through deep time at the Geological Society of America annual meeting in Seattle. Anyone who thinks that this and Global Warming is NOT Human-derived is an idiot.
1
There is no North nor South Korea. There is only one ethnic sectarian historical Korea that is divided by a socioeconomic political educational civil war that used to be a Japanese colony. Who are the alliies?
Behind that one Korea are the winners of the Second World War in Asia. China which lost 30 million dead to the Japanese Empire. And the former Soviet Union aka Russia which lost 27.5 million to Nazi Germsny. On the other side is America which invented nuclear weapons and dropped tw9 atomic bombs on Japanese citites. Then there is Japan an aging shrinking nation of 127 million with more enriched weapons grade nuclear material than any nation without nukes.
The last time American troops and their allies invaded the Korean peninsula and headed toward the Yalu River border between China and North Korea, Mao Zedong was unable to restrain a million Chinese volunteers from rushing forth to eject them. About 2.5 million died in a war that ended a big power stalemate.
Mr. Kim wants to stay in power. Mr. Xi does not want American troops on his Yalu River border. Mr. Putin wants influence with and respect from America. Mr. Abe is fighting demographic decline.Mr. Trump is a moron and dotard surrounded by Empty Barrel Kelly, Mad Dog Mattis and Stonewall McMaster. Plus Regina Tillerson and Chirping Halley. What could go wrong,
1
Calling leaders childish names brings Trump to mind. Trump and his critics have much in common. Pity the poor Americans who have to listen to all their squabbling and petty remarks.
Trump is alarming, foolish, reckless. It is he who should be stopped.
Nuclear weapons in North Korea might be self-defense.
Whereas Trump stood before the UN & threatened North Korea with genocide -- god-awful threat!
2
Donald the Destroyer. He destabilizes or ruins everything he touches.
1
The capability of North Korean weapons to strike the continental United States puts us in an old type of dilemma: will we really put the homeland at nuclear risk to come to the aid of an ally? Thankfully, it's a question the Soviets never quite asked, but North Korea might.
The Soviets did push the envelope several times, but never to the point of attacking a NATO ally. Our deterrence was their deterrence. Everyone was deterred, because the USSR was sufficiently powerful for America to care. Do South Korea and Japan require the same category of treaty defense as NATO?
No matter what Congress thinks about it's own warmaking powers, that'd be a decision for the president of the day, to be taken in realtime, as events unfold. No sane president would nuke North Korea for invading South Korea, simply because North Korea has played the right combination of chess moves to be able to force that play now. The plain choice then would be to give up South Korea, rather than endanger the lives of millions of Americans. South Korea just isn't that important, and domino theory be damned: North Korea just isn't that powerful.
That's what a *sane* president would do.
God only knows what Donald Trump will do.
Wrong.... South Korea has no material to build nuclear bombs--neither plutonium nor highly enriched uranium. It is thus incorrect to say that South Korea is able to develop its own nuclear bombs within six months. There is a big difference in terms of perceptions; between what South Korea can do and what South Korea should do. Indeed, North Korea's nuclear issue has become a catechism with no answers. Resolving the troubles will take several years to come. Or it could not be resolved at all. A so-called soft regime change could be one of the options that the US may consider.
And you're an authority?
The US could easily provide all of this to them.
As long as North Korea builds nuclear capability and avoids either initiating or being drawn into a military conflict it forces the US to consider a "first strike" as the means of attempting to destroy North Korea's ability to use nuclear weapons. However, if the US does so it will trigger the Mutual Defense pact between North Korea and China and the obvious and disastrous regional if not worldwide consequences.
This is what worries South Korea, as worried the French and British when they pursued their own nuclear weapons based on the mistrust of US "commitments". This concern about trusting America's word has been rekindled by Trump's cavalier abandonment of inconvenient agreements and further aggravated by his bellicosity which serves his tactical needs while upending the delicately maintained strategic nuclear policy we've had in Asia.
On his forthcoming Asia trip Trump will try to get China's help in bailing him out now that his advisors have pointed out the box he's gotten himself into which they might in return for concessions but will not agree to somehow get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons and abandon its program because they can't. How we dealt with Libya's abandonment of their nuclear program is all the reason needed by North Korea or China to show the impossibility of that approach. And if that's not enough, Trump's move to isolationism is the capper.
2
One option would be to sign a non-aggression pact with North Korea ending thier nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, the US under George the 2nd. already rejected that offer.
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2003-08-07-23-powell/390421.htm
Looks like nuclear war is our only option, but what terms would the US be willing to accept, other than war?
However insane it seems to those of us who are rational, at some point, either by accident or design, nuclear weapons are almost certainly going to be used against military or civilian targets. As we all know, it is purely by luck that this has not happened already.
What would happen then? Let us imagine a scenario in which North Korea attacked the South, Japan, or US territory itself. China would immediately issue a statement deploring the attack but warning that it would not countenance the escalation of a military conflict on the peninsula. The US and its allies respond nonetheless, to which China, possibly supported by Russia, reacts. (Kim Jong-un himself, of course, would by this time already be long gone: possibly to Beijing.) Russia, however, has its own geopolitical interests; and with America's attention elsewhere, the Baltics and Eastern Europe would become targets: Europe, it will be remembered, is singularly unprepared for any large-scale military conflict.
With a nightmare scenario of this nature unfolding, the Islamic world could well see this as a golden opportunity to launch an all-out offensive against Israel. But Israel also has nuclear weapons, which it would unquestionably use. At that point, nobody will be taking their kids to Disney World.
Avoiding this, or a hundred other equally apocalyptic scenarios, requires mature political leadership, wise negotiation, and a willingness to compromise. Does the Trump Administration evidence those qualities?
2
No nation can survive alone and we trust and depend on each other to some extent. We have to be fair and discreet to judge how trustworthy each country is. And I think we are unduly harsh on North Korea.
North Korea's survival has been threatened ever since the armistice of Korean war. It is unfortunate the sovereignty is usurped by the Kim family but this is hardly unique. We should first put N.K. in a situation where they can convince themselves as a sovereign country, i.e., let them have a peace treaty and diplomatic relations; give them a chance to gain some respect from major countries. And then start to talk on denuclearization, which would be everyone's gain. I suppose South Korea and Japan are wise enough to know it is much safe and better to live without nuclear bombs.
1
What stands out to me in this article is the question raised by allies, can we risk or expect the United Staes to go to war, and defend us against North Korea, if the next target is Los Angeles. I can't imagine that scenario and as a American I question that decision. Maybe a nuclear armed South Korea is an option. And if that leads to war, the Unites States can end it, but what next when China decides to end it. I am afraid we have the wrong leader in the White House to make the correct decisions to solve this world crises with a tweet.
Since Israel's inception we have taken heat from many nations for our consistent , knee-jerk support involving its disputes with other countries inn the region . We have tacitly accepted Israel's development of a nuclear arsenal since the early 1970's and the likelihood that another war with any of its Russian - backed neighbors could involve the use of nuclear weapons which could , in turn , lead to a cataclysmic World War 3 between ourselves and Russia .
BUT , fortunately the Nuclear Weapons Genie has been kept in the bottle in Libya and Iran by employing diplomacy , and in the case of Iraq , by the bombing of its reactor facility by Israel .
Now it is evident that North Korea poses the highest likelihood of starting the world's first reciprocal use of nuclear weapons . Can China force NK to denuclearize ? No , not unless it intentionally causes the collapse of Kim's regime by embargoing trade , which could possibly result in the reunification of the Korean Peninsula under Seoul's governance . Would China use its nuclear capability to defend Kim's regime against a retaliatory nuclear attack launched by the U.S. , Japan or South Korea in response to a first strike by North Korea ? No .
Eventually China will have to realize that its " close as gums and teeth " relationship with NK is untenable in a world where it craves the respect of other nations as a responsible super power . It will have to swallow the same bitter pill as we did with North Vietnam .
1
Proliferation is a major problem not only to Asia but to the U.S. as well. Who is to say that a nuclear armed Japan or South Korea may not one day pose a threat to the U.S. It was not so long ago that we were at war with Japan. It pains me to say this, but the threat posed by North Korea is so grave that every option must remain on the table.
President Trump declared during his campaign that he would solve the N. Korea problem that previous administrations going back decades had failed to solve. Some problems are better not solved, particularly if the solution is driven by a leader's political calculations and the election cycle.
Mr. Trump sees only one solution to the N. Korea problem. This is a recipe for disaster. Affirming Trump's statement that Secretary of State's Tillerson's attempts at initiating negotiations with N. Korea are a waste of time and "the problem" must be solved during Trump's term in office we can expect some form of hostilities to be initiated within months, directly or indirectly.
Wars are easy to start, hard to contain and much harder to end.
The solution to the "N. Korea problem" on Trump's schedule could lead to fulfillment of his threat to "annihilate N. Korea", if the conflict could be limited to Korea. If there were historians in the future to record it, how would they refer to it? The "Butcher of Korea"?
NK will have nuclear tipped ICBMs, if it doesn't already. Denuclearization won't be on the table as long as KJU is firmly in power. China might support a nuclear freeze, but probably not a roll back. It's in their interest to have both NK stability and deterrence against US aggression (thanks to Bush Jr's 'axis of evil' talk, and the Iraq war).
The geopolitical and nuclear proliferation risks inherent in a NK with nuclear ICBMs are well laid out in the article. Even with a strong commitment to our allies, NK will be tempted to act aggressively towards SK while effectively holding millions of Americans hostage. They might also expand their cyber activities against us and our allies, without much fear of military repercussions.
Nuclear proliferation, even by our allies, has the potential to be extremely dangerous and destabilizing. The most effective deterrent is to have American military forces and lives clearly on the line in SK and Japan (the proverbial trip line). Further, we need to have a robust military deterrent in theater, and to have a very clear and unambiguous doctrine dictating a full throated response to acts of aggression. Negotiations can then proceed from that basis. For the foreseeable future, neither NK nor China can be trusted on a demilitarized Korean peninsula.
There is one final but equally important contribution to stability in East Asia. We should remove Donald Trump from office as soon as possible, before he gets millions of people killed.
1
I remember reading that the earth has a habit of cleaning itself out and starting over every once in a while. This has been proven through the study of past happenings. Perhaps we are on the verge of another cleaning. Only this time it will be caused by one species instead of nature.
1
If North Korea becoming a nuke power means the proliferation throughout Asia, we should assume just that. There is no way North Korea will give up the nukes, now that Trump is threatening to wipe them off clean. No negotiation is possible either. Not after what happened to Iraq, Libya and now Trump reneging on the Iranian deal.
South Korea and Japan going nuclear won't be the end of the world: there is no reason to think that China, Japan and Korea will be less judicious than any Western countries. It will just mean the end of American hegemony in Asia, and we'll have Trump to thank for that.
2
Nonproliferation is one of those good ideas that works until it doesn't. Nobody can make a principled argument that nonproliferation has actually worked to prevent countries from developing nuclear bombs.
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was adopted was adopted in 1970. India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and Israel have built nuclear weapons since. In addition, the United States has stored nuclear weapons in some NATO countries and given those countries (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium and Turkey) limited access to those weapons. South Africa reportedly has dismantled its nuclear weapons and signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but apparently has retained the nuclear material and could rebuild its bombs.
The question now is which country be the next country to go nuclear. Will it be South Korea or Japan, as this article suggests, or will it be Saudi Arabia or Iran. the sad truth for nonproliferation is that it really doesn't matter.
10
A brief correction: France has its own nuclear arsenal since the 60's and does not rely on the United States to get access to nuclear weapons.
The aim of non-proliferation is never to STOP - it rather aims to SLOW proliferation. Without it, I’m afraid dozens of countries today will have nuclear arms - including rather belligerent rivals like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Think about it, is that a safer world to you?
We don't know where the world would be now if it wasn't for nonproliferation efforts. True, more countries have weapons, but the US and Russia have fewer and, most importantly, there has not been a nuclear war.
It would be catastrophic if the US or its allies, Japan and South Korea, are thinking of the nuclear deterrence against North Korea's nuclear belligerence. Also, if the rogue regime of North Korea is mainly responsible for bringing the situation to this brink, the US President,Trump, is equally responsible for precipitating the crisis. It's through multilateral dialogue and diplomacy only that the crisis could be defused and not through the nuclear one-upmanship which could only result into the nuclear nightmare and destruction.
9
'The US president Trump, is responsible for precipitating the crisis.'
No. Obama's rank incapability of dealing with this problem is the source of the situation that we now find ourselves in. Trump is doing his best and his legacy, if he succeeds in ousting Kim, will be indestructible.
3
For over 60 years, including during the Obama administration, NK was contained. The issue we have now was caused by DT's ignorance, belligerent,and junior high lunchroom diplomacy. History didn't start with the Obama administration.
2
Readers have to be very wary of articles such as this, because they represent both a form of public shadow boxing between diplomats and a hashing out of policies that are not among the most decisive. The most decisive options, such as war, military coup, assassination and sabotage, are kept secret.
This article presupposes that the Chinese will allow their peasly economic vassal to provoke a regional arms race that will both challenge their goals of hegemony and throw all their rosy scenarios into greater uncertainty.
In fact, the only view that makes sense is that this is essentially a weird Asian facesaving gambit: facilitate the arming of South Korea and Japan, so that NPK would disarm "as among equals" who do the same.
I like diplomacy, and I understand the media influence campaigns that go with diplomacy, but the US press has gotten it badly wrong in the past regarding any number of grave financial, economic, political and national security issues (e.g., "Snowden, the patriot"). With due respect to Mr. Kissinger's vinegary view of life, nuclear proliferation is such a terrible prospect that it is likely intended to put Xi's attention firmly on the unilateral options at his disposal to stop the situation from deteriorating out of control.
15
Counterpoint:
I have often wondered who, if anyone at the White House, or in Congress, sits down and creates the daily "best of comments" from sites like WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, FOX, etc. There is not only critique of our leaders' shadowboxed jabs and parries, there is humor, as well as enormous wisdom. War, military coup, assassination and sabotage are all fair game for commenters.
Leaders should pay close attention to the comments on articles like these because IMHO they represent the viewpoints of some of their nations most intelligent and articulate citizens. (aside from a few trolls) Folks with lifetimes of experience dealing with diplomacy, with peace, AND with war often speak up. To ignore the better comments is to ignore the constituency and to deliberately not access the world's largest knowledge base.
The workload of dealing with comments (and trolls, and flaming) must be enormous, and make editors at the NYT cringe but I personally believe the comments that rise to the top often offer the true voice of Democracy in this present darkness.
I expressed nostalgia a while ago for the good old days of immanent thermonuclear annihilation - the nation seemed more pulled together then. Maybe rich people will be less unwilling to pay taxes now that it's coming back, and the federal government may find it necessary to stop being so dippy.
1
Let's get this straight... N Korea will NOT launch a first strike. It would be pointless. Kim is not suicidal, quite the opposite. He wishes to hold power. He feels he can do so by having the ability to strike BACK, not to deliver a first strike. We just need to maintain the status quo. I don't care if they develop weapons as sophisticated as ours, they will not strike first because it would be suicide. Think of it as lopsided MAD, meaning one side would be utterly destroyed (N. Korea) and the other would experience horrible losses. Why would they ever bother?
11
Look at the provocative acts NK has committed without possessing a useable nuclear capability... assassination attempt against the SK cabinet, capture of the Pueblo, downing of a US surveillance plane, sinking a SK naval vessels, ax killing to US soldiers in the DMZ, etc. What should one expect once they have a credible nuclear deterrent which makes such provocative acts even less dangerous to the NK regime?
Max,
You are making the grievous mistake of projecting what is rational and reasonable toyou as the frame of reference for someone whose worldview shares nothing with yours. I don’t know what NKorea is going to do, but I’m pretty sure it’s not what I would do.
I doubt it would be lopsided MAD, considering estimates to wipe out N Korea would be 400 to 500 nukes, and then you have just brought China and Russia into a nuclear war and that is when it will be balanced out and the USA would seriously be destroyed along with all of us wherever we are.
It's as if people didn't bother reading the article. The NKoreans have been able to maintain deterrence for DECADES with artillery and chem/bio weapons. Trump tweeting didn't suddenly change the calculus. If NK is worried about Trump acting irrationally, they could stop tests for 3 yrs and lay low until he is out of office.
This race to nuclear ICBMs is internally driven. Kim needs nuclear ICBMs so he can blackmail the world into dropping sanctions, paying tributes, and looking the other way when NK hacks banks and invades Yeonpyong island. Give us billions in aid or we will be forced to cry poverty and sell nuclear ICBM kits to Iran, Saudi, Pakistan, Syria and Venezuela.
16
All of this seems fishy.
Since Kim already has nukes, he has everything he needs to get back South Korea if he really wanted to. He doesn't need to create a missile-delivery system. I'm wondering if he's getting paid to create his missiles in order to justify funding the ABM industry in the US and elsewhere.
Simple 5-step plan for N Korea to take over S Korea is it really wants to:
1) Assemble small nuclear bomb capable of destroying a US city. Said bomb should have 2 triggers - one 'active' and one 'passive' (i.e. the bomb gets 'angry' after a small period of time and goes off unless an encrypted code from N Korea calms it down).
2) Disassemble said bomb and ship it piecemeal to the US. Probably not hard to do given that tons of narcotics and millions of immigrants get in.
3) Reassemble said bomb in an American city.
4) Give Trump a call - tell him you have 2 nukes in US. Give him the location of the one you slipped-in so he thinks your serious.
5) Watch the legislative wonders in Washington sell-out S. Korea so fast it makes you head spin - just walk on in and take S. Korea.
1
Ed: And the US would respond by telling N. Korea that their country would cease to exist if they do. If you were a leader and wanted to remain a leader, with all the privileges that come with that in such a country as N. Korea, what would you do unless you were suicidal? Kim does not operate in a vacuum either. A lot of leaders would have to be suicidal.
There is only one way this could work. One bomb close enough to destroy Trump Tower. The other near Mar a Lago. Otherwise Trump says go ahead, set 'em off.
What would be the better way for Japan to get rid of their nuclear waste!? And Trump is even encouraging them to break the Treaty! True, both countries are technologically advanced, rich, and have tons of fissile fuel, they can quickly build stockpiles bigger than China's. I am sure Xi would love that. And nukes are old tech. They are in use over 70 years. Pretty much anyone can build them today, even Myanmar. And if NPT gets treated with disrespect, everybody will.
1
No one will win a nuclear war. Do you want to die for Trump?
The fallout material can travel for hundreds of miles along natural wind patterns. Exposure to any type of fallout, be it debris, dust, ash, radioactive rain, or anything those materials contaminate, is extremely deadly.
29
Oh, more good news.
17
If I were South Korean, I'd probably go nuclear. As an American, I don't think we should be concerned. South Korea is no threat to anyone. Our last and current Presidents are sufficient to make any country doubt America's willingness to defend it.
Japan is more of a problem. If I were Chinese, or lived in Hawaii, I'd be very worried. Its democracy is shallow, it has never accepted responsibility for its crimes, and its history of aggression is real.
6
Tell North Korea they can keep their nuclear arsenal, under two conditions:
1. Absolutely no testing above or around populated areas. No exceptions.
2. They must open their borders, allowing free movement to and from South Korea.
They can keep all the propaganda posters they want, and continue to insist on absolute American destruction. We'll see how long it lasts when they can walk across the border and access the internet, watch soap operas, and eat whatever they want.
1
We were in this exact same position during the height of the Cold War. Go back and read all the news articles fretting that the power mad Soviets were about to annihilate the United States with their nukes.
What's needed is a very fine dance of military strategy and diplomacy. The US can remain committed to protecting South Korea without the current saber rattling language. Part of what drives Kim is his fear of us, not just his ambition to eventually reunite the two Koreas.
A smart president would do all the military training and preparing and practicing WITHOUT showing off in front of North Korea. The idea that parading your readiness for war deters war is absolutely stupid. What deters war is the carrot of diplomacy (including trade, economic aid, etc.) and the hidden big stick of warfare if the carrot fails.
There are people in North Korea who would like to see the Kim dynasty gone. Given time, those people may come to power. We are in the position to play the waiting game because we have such a powerful arsenal of nuclear and tactical weapons that we can obliterate North Korea if forced to do so. With luck, we won't be forced to do so, time will pass, the North Korean regime will collapse from within, and the threat will diminish.
Sure, playing the game that way takes a lot of courage. Anyone know where we can find some leaders who are clever and brave?
10
'Foot Spurs' is your man!
This post shows us all exactly what they mean when they say that a little information is dangerous.
"The closer the North gets to showing it can strike the United States, the more nervous South Koreans become about being abandoned."
It's entirely understandable why. Our current Commander in Chief is proud of being seen as transactional, rather than committed. He also prides himself on keeping allies guessing, something they've never had to do since the end of WWII.
In just 10 months he's withdrawn from major trade and climate deals, and threatened to undo a major nuclear deal set by his predecessor. He's shown the world that under his administration, America's word isn't binding and its allegiances can turn on a dime.
So can you blame South Korea, Japan, and other countries if they feel cut adrift by Mr. Trump? Adding to the uncertainty is the sharp cutback in State Department personnel with whom to dialogue.
America has gone missing--It's just a gang of generals and an unconventional leader with zero foreign policy experience, a hot temper, and an amazing nonchalance about the signals he sends.
56
I don't blame South Korea or Japan for feeling nervous and very concerned ... what you gloss over is this serious problem didn't just develop over the past 10 months. Any honest discussion should include four Presidents kicking the can down the road.
5
Well said! Here in Canada we watch as he works to destroy a most effective trade agreement between two close and long time allies. NAFTA. The man cannot be trusted!
24
@Jerry: I disagree. You're talking about "containing" NK, versus our allies knowing the US will keep its word. Two different issues. Since taking office, Mr. Trump has done more damage to our nation's integrity than any of the previous four.
27
The way I see it...
Imagine you keep hearing of some very big and powerful bully with a reputation of being incredibly violent to others and has a long history of destruction has been telling everyone that he is going to destroy you and your entire family.
Then you see him every day walking up and down the street outside your house with a baseball bat.
Then imagine you are at home with your family and loved ones and you have a gun in the house.... Would you feel a bit better?
9
You see it wrong. International affairs are infinitely more complicated than the example you give.
We need to worry about how our own insane president will behave in the next few weeks after we realize that the uSA hasn't been this close to a nukular confrontation [as the estimable W43 would say, with his inability to pronounce that very presidential word] since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Trump is too irrational to be president and we are all finding out after his election has been a fact for a year what a complete debacle his presidency is. Why would this situation of nuclear brinksmanship be any different?
22
It's not. It's time to get those first grade kids ducking under their desks again.
4
“Trump is too irrational to be president....”
But he is the President.
Perhaps it is time to have a talk with The Children. A ten-year old called for his father the other night after a nightmare when he heard an explosion and thought North Korea was the cause. What did you tell him, I asked, and his parent had explained to him that nuclear warfare was a possibility but the launching of missiles would not reach our shores.
Ducking under desks is not going to help escape the perils of these 'weapons of mass destruction' which took us blindly to Iraq. A forecast, or a foreboding? China will put its foot down on North Korea if it gets out of hand, and more likely we will be facing a global economic war with this Superpower, at some point in the future, as we continue on our path to retreating and and becoming another insular Superpower.
Europe is starting to fragment and divide. Our Allies no longer trust America with this Presidency. Violence continues to escalate in our Country, and it is futile to lament that none of this would be happening if former President Obama were still in office.
1
If North Korea's nuclear advancement towards nuclear weapons cannot be stopped with the urgency of now by the current nuclear powers, what are Japan and South Koirea's options? It is okay to proclaim Korean peninsula remain a nuclear weapons free zone but to allow one Korea to proliferate is grossly unfair to the other Korea. Would allowing Japan and South Korea to build their nuclear arms serve as a deterrent or will it make no difference to Kim's erratic behavior. Should Trump act now or do what presidents before him did kick the can down to the next president?Will anything change in the Korean peninsula if he does one or the other? Trump's visit to that region is quite timely and hopefully the combined wisdom of all the leaders will result in a path of non proliferation of nuclear weapons.
4
What combined wisdom?? You're out of touch with reality.
14
It will be "checkmate". The North has more experienced hardened trops than the South - irrespective of numbers and U.S. reinfrcements. The fact remains that Seoul is 35 miles (56 km) south of the NK border.
The Germans Blitzkreig (WW2) was a noted battle strategy used to take Poand (1939) and in 1940, Netherlands, Belgium and France. The plan focused attack forces on narrow goals and highlighted speed and surprise: German troops, tanks and air cover rapidly descended on key objectives.
The North Koreans could be half-way to Seoul before the U.S. would be able to retaliate from a nuclear attack. Wiping out North Korea would harm most of the civilan population as the NK ground forces and armored units would take Seoul and nuclear plants hostage - all within short distance and time south of the NK border into SK's heartland. It is idealistic to think that U.S. technology and, especially, decision-making by generals will be able to stop a lightening attack by the North on the South's key power infrastructure and civilian populations.
The only way to resolve this issue and avoid nuclear proligeration is to Not React to events; open constructive diplomatic channels; offer to provide shipments of food aide and preliinary discussion on ways and means to finally end the (1953) Korean War with a peace agreement that includes aide and lifting of sanctions.
If there is a better way to cease hostilities and avoid a nuclear attack on the USA, it should be on the table for discussion.
10
I can check, but I'm pretty sure that ignoring the Sudetenland has been tried before.
5
Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia and other German-speaking ethnic Austria were not 'invaded' by Germany, per se. The occupants were pro-Hitler and Germany, and of mostly of German descent - except for the Czechs, living in former German lands before WW1. The Czechoslovakian government rejected Germany's claim to its Sudenland region but had no military means other than to surrender to German occupation, eventually, of Czechoslovakia. These operations didn't require 'battles' and did not trigger WW2. It was Hitler's 'blitzkreig' into Poland (Aug-1939) that caused Britain and France to start WW2.
Certainly North Korea and the rest of Asia, if not the world at this point, have the right to nuclear-arm themselves. The pertinent questions however, are how and when does humanity nuclear-disarm itself?!
2
Nuclear disarmament will happen after the next nuclear war. Then we will be reminded thru experience the horror of it all.
3
I'm amazed "no massive protest ag. Nuclear War" & the lack of knowledge about total destruction that will occur. This includes hell on earth from fall out & poisonous radiation affecting essential resources. The answer isn't more nuclear weapons & more countries obtaining them. Today's nuclear weapons are so much more-deadly & destructive, that they make "the atomic bomb" look like nothing. ALL should be protesting-STOP NUCLEAR WAR!!!
Sorry to tell you. There won't be a next time. Have you any idea how pale in comparison to today's nuclear weapons are to what the U.S. (the only co. to drop 2 atomic bombs) are?
1
South Korea should negotiate with the Russians on the use of their Kura Test Range (I'm sure the Russians would do anything for the right amount of money) and then the Chinese and the Russians would learn that the South Koreans were serious about defending themselves from North Korea and that maybe the Russians and the Chinese need to consider un-arming North Korea.
3
Absolutely brilliant! I am so glad that I didn’t follow my instinct to quit reading these otherwise banal comments. Seriously, you present the kind of unconventional, innovative, “Why not?” thinking the world is desperate for.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world stepped back from the terror of nuclear Armageddon. With two emotionally unbalanced figures heading two governments trading threats and insults carrying unfathomable consequences, we seem to be sprinting wilfully back toward the brink.
It is looking more and more that the few remaining White House adults were only masquerading as adults or have left the Oval Office entirely. As for congressional Republicans, the three or four adults left are bailing out of their leadership roles or staying mute.
So, arm-up everybody and get ready for a mushroom party! Let's rediscover the joy of human-manufactured madness, all the while re-learning the utility of the tried and true "duck and cover" survival strategy.
4
Plan s long vacation in Australia or New Zealsnd.
1
Actually, if ground zero is going to be in east asia, Australia and New Zealand will be in the path of fallout.
Bundle up, and try Greenland, Iceland or Finland...
1
Not Australia. Mad Kim is mad with Australia. This is an extract from a report on August 22: "North Korea warned Australia it would be committing a “suicidal act” by backing up US and South Korean military forces in the case of an attack." Good luck!
I am struck by all anti West chatter contained here. How can so many of you ignore the fact that N. Korea has been ruled by one lunatic family for well over 50 years ? The aggressor on the Korean peninsula - by any reasonable measure – has been Kim Jong-Un and his father over the past decades. Trump is not incorrect in stating its inevitable our country and the West will be subject to blackmail if we allow the Kim's aggression to continue go unchecked. An honest discussion should include four Presidents kicked the can down the road.
I don’t pretend to have the answers relative to solving this very real – many decades old - problem. On the one hand it’s nonproductive, arguably foolish, to go down the path of proliferation. With that said, it’s easy to argue it’s no given for Japan and South Korea to think the United States is going to defend them. On the flip side accepting this rogue state of North Korea as a nuclear state can only lead to potential blackmail and bad outcomes. With the threats of war very real China must play a game changing role.
5
Liberals would rather rage at a nice safe target like Trump than face the harsh reality of a nuclear armed North Korea led by a madman, which is what Trump inherited upon taking office.
Kim Jong-un is not and will not likely be in the foreseeable future a negotiating partner. Calling for non-proliferation with someone like him is akin to burying one's head in the sand, which many would prefer Trump do. President Obama was much better at ignoring problems and/or making speeches about them, describing in great detail what everyone *should* be doing. It turns out that North Korea wasn't listening, an all too often scenario under Obama.
1
So, we nuke NK, and then what? There are 28 million people in greater Seoul, a mere 30 miles from the DMZ.
But are you two familiar with OUR Constitution? It refers to treaties signed by a President and ratified with the advice and consent of the Senste as “the supreme law of the land.”
As the article states, the United Nations Charter, just such a treaty, forbids first use nuclear attack. As an act of self defense it is allowed. So shall we continue to shred our Constitution?
And the article also mentions that South Korea has 24 nuclear reactors. I would surmise that most, if not all, are within range of the massive collection of conventional artillery pieces the North has arrayed along the DMZ. What if their response to an attack is to shell all of the South’s reactors?
And do you think that China would take a sanguine view of nuclear war right on its border? Really?
Who knew leading the free world was so complicated?
1
My private hope is that US and China will good cop/bad cop N. K.
1: Trump rattle sabers and threatens to invade.
2: China declares and emergency and rushes troops to defend the DMZ.
3: China's generals call an emergency meeting with N.K. leaders to coordinate their response to the US aggression.
4: At the meeting, Chinese commandos arrest all the N.K. loons and declare the start of an international aid effort to feed the people and educate them about how to get along with the rest of the world.
We took out (our old puppet) Saddam Hussein when he was getting a bit too crazy. Now it's time for the Chinese to clean up the mess in their back yard.
1
Taking out Saddam was the worst foreign policy mistake in US history. The Middle East would now be at peace if we didn't invade Iraq. And the domestic terrorist threat in Europe and here would be nil.
24
It's not a good analogy. And such a complicated scenario is not needed for China to solve the problem. All they need to do is invite Kim Jung Un to Beijing for talks. And then he "disappears." NK is not prepared to fight the Chinese; their military is concentrated in the South. The other NK leaders are not prepared for this scenario. China could take over and set up a puppet state, then start moving Han Chinese in like they did in Tibet.
1
Tullymd,
What are you proposing? We can go shopping this Halloween and stockpile our kitchen cupboard with staples, give the National Economy a boost and prepare for The Day After, which reminds this reader that the New York Times published on the front page this week last a feature on what survival items would be needed in case of a nuclear apocalypse.
'We are living in Exciting Times' to quote a Chinese saying. This is known as cold comfort.
No one wants nuclear or military proliferation. But no American soldiers should be sent to be killed or wounded defending nations like Japan and Germany who don’t have to send their own sponsor daughters to defend their soil.
America can no longer be the world’s policeman. NATO is 300 million people (USA) protecting 500 million people (Europe) from 150 million people (Russia) and footing the bill for it.
North Korea is a Pacific problem. Let them solve it, and pay for the solution.
3
You greatly overestimate the role of the US in protecting Europe. Britain and France are nuclear powers in their own right, with strong conventional militaries.
Could the American Empire have found its sink hole?
Kim wants to not have found his nation’s so nukes up to level the playing field. U.S. reaction WWIII.
‘Collateral Damage’ will finally be understood.
Critical reason is the only alternative to violence so far discovered. —Karl Popper
A very reasonable assessment.
I think this whole debate is kind of dumb. Who cares if S Korea or Japan decide they need nuclear weapons. What does that mean? That they could retaliate a few minutes faster then we could? If N Korea ever attacked we, the U.S. would send it back to the stone age, and fast. So what's the difference who fires back, us or our allies?
There was an op ed yesterday about N Korea's chemical weapons arsenal. In many ways this is more dangerous than nukes. We can't see chemicals from satellites the way we can nuclear weapons. Chemicals could do as much damage as nukes in an initial strike. And the effects would stay around for quite some time.
And then there's the North's conventional fire power at the border, Tanks, artillery and regular missiles. They have enough to cause 50,000 deaths right off the bat.
War with North Korea to me is out of the question, insane. There really is only one answer. Open up trade and cultural exchange. Start doing business. Stop threatening the North all the time with provocative war games and joint military operations. Either that or just ignore them and let them have what ever arms they feel they need. They have and will get them anyway.
Orange, NJ
87
It only takes one to start a war. North Korea has announced its intention of being that one. Insane, but that adjective doesn't change reality.
4
Because the South Koreans and Japanese (and, more importantly, the North Koreans) may not believe that the US will defend South Korea and Japan.
5
Katz*** I have only heard N Korea respond to our threats ... and I don't know where you and other commenters get this notion we would not defend South Korea and Japan. We have over 40,000 troops in South Korea for that very notion. Also 54,000 troops in Japan. And we constantly have war games with both countries. We have navel groups including air craft carriers and lord knows how many nuclear warhead equipped subs patrolling those waters all the time also for that purpose. Japan & South Korea are allies and more importantly strong members of the world economic community. We would defend them as we would our own homeland. Your comment is not based on facts.
Orange, NJ
5
Who is worse, North Korea or the United States? I'm referring to the citizens of those countries. North Korea had no say in who their "beloved" supreme leader should be. They have no rights at all. The United States, on the other hand, had plenty to say, although only have of those eligible to exercise that right chose to do so. Conclusion: the United States is the greater evil in this world because it has almost half its population loyally behind a demagogue a clear and present danger to the world. I guess that's American Exceptionalism in a nutshell.
DD
Manhattan
21
This is terrifying.
4
...and exactly the conclusion leaders around the world have come to, although they aren't saying it aloud.
1
Can't we all act like sane adults? That would be a good place to start.
1
The genie is already out of the bottle. It will depend upon who now feels "nuclear" threatened will now seriously start to consider getting them With Trump leading the parade and at the pulpit bounding the nuclear bible with fear mongering praise for the bomb. Glorifying the need for swift action before North Korea shoots one over and hits one of our coastal cities. Or, more to the point , perhaps before Robert Mueller presents him with a Grand Jury indictment.
4
What is needed is a worldwide campaign to rid the world of nuclear weapons. There is no other formula for a stable agreement. Of course, it is naive to think that nuclear weapons countries will give up their arsenals. But is it less naive than thinking that we can find our way through a world with increasing numbers of nuclear-armed states without world disaster?
1
Its very naive to think all the bad actors out there will ever give up nuclear weapons. They read about Liberia.
1
This is a direct result of these nations no longer trusting that America will do the right thing at the right time. Trump's vaunted unpredictability at work.
He threatens the world with climate change and now he's threatening the world with nuclear war. He is the number one security concern in the world right now. He is tearing up the US-made liberal world order without even understanding what it is.
As an Australian citizen I hope my government does develop nuclear weapons. The idea that my safety depends in any way on Trump's competency or suitability as commander in chief is terrifying. Last I heard, he hadn't even appointed an ambassador to my country yet.
10
Agree. The US is in free fall and no longer can be trusted. Our days are numbered. But given that we are the greatest threat to world peace, it's for the good that we dance off the world stage. We lose all wars, so no biggie if we disappear.
1
The only "looming threat" I see is the one that exists in the minds of everyone in the world who still thinks there is a good reason to have nuclear weapons. Folks who believe these weapons serve some sort of strategic purpose are the biggest threat to my survival.
5
Real diplomacy begins with the understanding that Kim Jong Un's threats speak to an internal audience. He's not communicating with Trump. He's shoring up his own power at home. Trump is foolishly and negligently doing the same thing every time he opens his mouth. Trump is no better than Kim Jong Un. Trump was supposed to be the great negotiator. Send in Dennis Rodman.
4
I don't think that that's the entire story. N.K. has repeatedly attacked S.K. through bombing of the islands, and shooting down an U.S. aircraft.
2
Just like the Cuban missile crisis.
If the USA puts nuclear missiles in Japan and South Korea, China will force North Korea to stop developing nuclear missiles in exchange for the USA removing our nukes from Japan and South Korea.
Problem solved!
5
It doesn't work like that... China has much less influence over the DPRK than you think and they also recognize a country's right to defend itself, especially against an old mutual enemy AKA the USA and Japan.
1
North Korea does 85% of its trade with China which includes importing oil and exporting coal. China has been slowly squeezing North Korea's trade. You can be certain that North Korea serves as a military buffer for China. China does not want nukes on its doorstep.
1
Amazing how it's about its all about to happen when the treasonous Russign-Trump collusion is about to hit the fan. They literally will throw the world into chaos and a death spiral....it's a coup of massive proportion. The world, in the sense of civil society for decades if not far longer, is about to split apart.
Incredibly tragic, amoral, and full of tremendous delusional non-thinking. The lack of consciousness will doom humanity!
2
Which is to be welcomed.
I have a Japanese American friend he was born in California and his family moved back to Japan before WWII. His family was in the area nearby Hiroshima when we dropped the first atomic bomb in that area. He and his family were wounded but survived. Later on he served in the U.S. Army in Korea and told me a lot horror stories about the devastation of atomic bombs. He and I both hope there will never be another nuclear bomb detonated in any corner of the world in the future. I wonder how many survivors still around today in Japan? It was the greatest tragedy of mankind. Kim Jong Un, please stop your nuclear test and start talking with Trump as soon as possible.
3
This is sadly, merely a story from the media rooms at the Pentagon. NK is obviously a rogue-style nation, but neutralizing it politically is very simple. This is an unfortunate psy-op from the DOD. Kim is the perfect patsy; Trump, the perfect delivery boy. Buyer beware.
5
This is flat out insane.
Nuclear weapons should be banned altogether.
We should - we must - figure out a way to live together.
I cannot believe the degree to which the world have deteriorated in a few short months.
Speaking for myself, I like this world. I love the animals, the plants, their intricate relationships. I love my friends and family. I love my work. I am not crazy about doing housework and paying bills but I am not going to nuke my apartment because of it.
Have we lost our minds?
21
Send EX-President Carter to N. Korea & if he is unable to advance diplomatic solution to the Nuclear weapons ambition to a reasonable level, war might take place. It will be an ugly end to Earth's civilization of human being for a long time to come. It did not end in 2012, but could happen NOW.
1
Life , Liberty, and the pursuit of a Nuclear Arsenal.
3
We’ve gota get out of the box everybody seems to be in. If Kim Jong-Un’s main goal is maintaining the existence of No. Korea and his own rule, then let’s start there: Gather No. Korea, So. Korea, the U.S., Japan & Russia for an actual end of the Korean war peace treaty conference. The goal will be the guaranteeing the continued existence of No. Korea by all participants, with the particular backing of China & Russia (i.e. you mess with No. Korea, you mess with China and Russia). In exchange, No. Korea gives up its nuclear weapons and agrees to have a conventional force equal to that of So. Korea (monitored by the U.N.). As these conditions are being met, the U.S. withdraws from the Korean peninsula. In my view that’s win, win, win, win, win, win.
5
But that offer is already on the table, end the war games in S Korea, end the sanctions and NK will stop its nuclear and missile programs... It is the 'freeze for freeze' offer tabled by China, N Korea and Russia and trump has rejected it out of hand... he wants war and he wants US bases in the north of the peninsula so that Russia is encircled with no buffer zone and they are camped on China's border... THAT is the ultimate goal and China and Russia both know it.
The DPRK are certainly already under China and Russia's protective umbrella, you are just not allowed to know it by your leaders in the same way you are not allowed to know that your anti-missile defence system is only 15% effective on a good day, why..... because it will terrify the public if they knew exactly how vulnerable and in perilous danger they actually are at this moment in time.
Trump clearly has no idea how to negotiate with people in this part of the world, I live in the region in question, I have lived here for 8 years, I know how the people think here, and it is nothing like the people of the west think... There is a very strong culture of personal pride and any loss of face is taken very seriously, you just don't do it, it is likely to make a person go completely berzerk.... You NEVER insult or criticize someone in public here without a serious backlash.
I would be VERY worried about what comes out of trump's mouth next week when he visits the area..... VERY WORRIED INDEED!
1
President Obama handled this situation with North Korea most deftly, sans fear nor threat - and so would have our popularly elected Hillary who understood things better than anyone as our greatest Secretary of State.
What Trump has done now is set in motion the demise every good thing this nation has ever accomplished.
21
That the problem has gotten to this point is not Trump's fault but all those, like Obama, who "handled it deftly" before him. They allowed North Korea to continue without a strong response.
1
Is it China's goal to see Japan and South Korea with nuclear weapons?
If China thinks North Koreans fleeing into China is going to be a problem after a NK regime collapseN, then they must be nuts if they think everyone in the region having nukes is going to make China safer.
Maybe the Uyghurs need nukes to join the party.
1
Feed and house everyone on earth as if they were all worth the same as living breathing fellow humans, and we would bo on the road toward a more peaceful world. Treat everyone like you want to be treated and suddenly that guy from 2000 years ago, smiles a bit more, at maybe we have finally learned something. BioWebScape is my Project to do just that. We should tell Mr Kim, welcome to the party, let us make a peace treaty, and stop talking about bombing you. Then actually hold up the bargin and not go messing with the leadership of other nations, unlike what we have been doing all these years going.
2
9/11 set the stage for the Axis of Evil speech which started the regime change train. Now N. Korea has thrown the world into turmoil with their increasing nuclear weapons technology and their relentless belligerence. This in turn has led to a stampede to repudiate the nuclear non proliferation treaty. The international Iran nuclear deal that ended Iran's nuclear bomb program could be the last of its kind. One cannot understate the danger the world faces. Trump's unpredictable behavior and repudiation of the international Iran deal has certainly not helped the situation.
1
We're on 'uncharted waters' at this point because of the person in control of our nuclear button!
6
It is to be hoped that nuclear proliferation in southeast Asia and elsewhere would lead to a world government or authority that would ban the manufacture, testing, and deployment of nuclear weapons. It would be responsible only for the enforcement of security among nations, not security within nations. Responsibility for that would continue to rest with each nation.
Such a movement toward world government began after the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. However, it ended after the Cold War began in 1947.
If such a world authority or government could be successfully installed, it might be given further responsibilities for transnational problems, such as climate change.
19
How's the UN working out for us?
1
Good luck with that idealism.
Both Russia and China rely on nuclear weapons for prestige.
Could we call it the United Nations?
Main responsibility of a great leader is to protect its people and country, bring peace and prosperity. We were the leader in world peace for a long time but in recent past we've demonstrated that we cannot be trusted. We forced countries like North Korea and Iran to build up their WMD to protect themselves from us, not from Russia or China. We've added our name to the list of rogue states to their eyes and mind. It's like the wild west, everyone carries a gun for deterrent. North Korea will not attack us, Trump will attack us by forcing North Korea to defend themselves. Dialogue not guns.
9
Can anyone get behind a preemptive strike while there's still time, even if Trump is president? My sense is that the opposition to the idea is grounded in the unalterable political opposition to the president. Decades of sanctions have not worked; we are now at the brink of being held hostage by North Korea.
1
PL: Don't let your fears fog your mind. North Korea is never going to attack the United States (even though we are bullying them), the only mad-man is Trump.
2
To PL from ny:
This might be a case of what's good for the goose.... American governance and military force has been holding many countries "hostage" for many decades....
American exceptionalism knows no bounds it seems.
Here is a quote from Dan Coats, President Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence:
An Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons capability would be strategically untenable,” Coats said, because it would possess a “deterrent” against U.S. attack. And to prevent Iran from acquiring the ability to deter us, he explained, we might have to attack them.
There you have the crux of the matter: America cannot allow "lesser" countries to acquire defensive nuclear capabilities because it would then hamper America's ability to impose it's will on these countries.
Sound about right to you?
2
Yes, it's not as though North Korea weren't a serious problem before Trump took office. In fact, it was the most difficult problem handed to him by Obama.
1
The irony is that the large U.S. military and civilian presence in S. Korea and Japan would prevent it from taking any preventative action against N. Korea that would result in a nuclear retaliation.
But if N Korea were to strike first, that same military and civilian presence would all but require a massive U.S. retaliation.
Therefore, we will have stalemate.
1
The US showed it was possible to use plutonium from commercial reactor spent fuel to build a nuclear weapon that works, but given a choice any nation would rather use plutonium produced in plutonium "production" reactors instead. Commercial spent fuel plutonium contains a higher proportion of the "higher" plutonium isotopes that emit more neutrons and heat and give weapons produced from it a few disadvantages including more uncertainty in explosive yield and design complications to deal with the higher heat output of the plutonium.
Most of this is just rank speculation. Perhaps the Times had some spare column inches and decided to use them this way. It reads like a variation of the NRA argument that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have good guys with guns"; just substitute nuclear weapons for guns. The problem is that it just increases the chances for a shoot out. only with world wide consequences.
The sooner the US realizes that NK is not going to abandon their nuclear weapons and we proceed from that reality, the better off we, the region and the earth, will be.
13
To prevent nuclear conflict, either all nations has access to nuclear weapon or no nation has access to it.
7
The election of Trump will ultimately result in the rapid decline of the spread of Democracy as the world undoubtedly has witnessed its troubling result here in America, once the leader of the free world, now a haven of despotism and aggression. Trump's rise gave rise to the leader of North Korea who took to heart the attacks on him during Trump's campaign. If war occurs as now seems likely, it will be Trump's war and the end of the hope for universal freedom and democracy.
2
An analogy of Japan and WWII to the current North Korean situation is not accurate. N. Korea's nuclear weapons program dates back to the early 80’s. After conducting internal atomic development (and getting external covert assistance from Pakistan), N. Korea removed themselves from the treaty on nuclear non-proliferation in 2003. The IAEA reported its noncompliance to the UN Security Council thereafter. On Oct. 9, 2006, North Korea announced it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test. Additional nuclear bomb testing followed – and only then – did that nation come came under meaningful sanctions via the UN Security council. On Jan. 6, 2016 N. Korea claimed was their first hydrogen bomb test, which took things to a new and more dangerous level. Finally ... this year North Korea launched two separate ICBMs, one of which flew over Japan. It’s been concluded by all interested parties the 2nd test had sufficient range to reach the continental United States.
I don’t pretend to have the answers relative to solving this very real ,many decades old, problem. On the one hand it’s nonproductive, arguably foolish, to go down the path of proliferation. With that said, it’s easy to argue it’s no given for Japan and South Korea to think the United States is going to defend them. On the flip side accepting this rogue state of North Korea as a nuclear state can only lead to potential blackmail and bad outcomes. With the threats of war very real China must play a game changing role.
4
O Mr. Kissinger. Last I heard you were advocating along with Schultz Perry and Nunn for the abolition of nuclear weapons, planet-wide. You could have gotten on board with the U.N. treaty signed by 122 countries prohibiting nuclear weapons. Proliferation, including the nuclear arming of Japan, is the sheerest folly. The world would be safer if the U.S. responded to North Korea not with counter threats, but with a unilateral standing down—we could afford, as William Perry has suggested, to completely eliminate our ballistic missiles without a loss of security. Then Kim Jung Un would have more, not less, incentive to stand down his own missiles. With the potentiality of nuclear winter, the planet has arrived at an impasse: no way out except gradual, negotiated, reciprocal abolition.
Despite ever- stronger UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea and even stronger unilateral pressure from the United States , China has continued to throw an economic lifeline to the dynastic dictatorship of Kim Jong Un . However , there is a faction within the upper echelons of power in the PRC that realizes that its policy of keeping North Korea as a land " buffer " at all costs is now strategically outmoded and increasingly detrimental to China's international standing . The specter of China's longtime arch enemy , Japan , going nuclear to defend itself from a North Korean ballistic missile attack could create a tipping point for this group to prevail within the Politburo . A newly nuclear- armed Japan could threaten China's unchallenged , expansionist takeover of international waters and disputed islands in the East and South China Seas .
Given that Xi Jinping detests Kim Jong Un and will not even allow him to set foot inside China , deciding to cut him loose by severely restricting or embargoing trade with North Korea is not as far- fetched a notion as it once was .
By continuing his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs Kim could well be sowing the seeds of his regime's destruction in an unintended way he never imagined .
I sleep soundly at night knowing our American political system has resulted in competent, sane and sober-minded people occupying the offices of the Presidency and Vice-Presidency.
2
Nuclear weapons basically kept the peace during the Cold War, maybe other Pacific Countries should also go nuclear.
2
NK is a sovereign nation and they alone should make decisions on their needs.
2
I couldn't agree more. Who are we to judge another country for its actions?
During the Kosovo War, as Milosevic opened up and ran Europe's first concentration camps since 1945, President Clinton publicly advanced a very novel and progressive concept. Clinton said that Milosevic's government had become so murderous, so completely criminal that it was no longer sovereign. Clinton was not saying that Serbia wasn't an independent nation or that the Serbian people didn't have a right to their own independent nation -- just that Milosevic''s government had no more claim to sovereignty.
North Korea is a monstrous cancer. It tortures and slaughters its own innocent people on a scale no sane reasonable person, utterly regardless of their political beliefs, would ever even bother trying to justify. I hope that someday the North Korean people somehow gain control over their own destiny. Whether they decide to reunify someday or keep their own independent free democratic northern state, that will be their decision to make, someday, hopefully.
But right now? Your comment is disgusting. Can you make a technical argument that you're correct? Of course you can. But to sit there and blithely type that comment, as if we were talking about the U.K. and Brexit......no. Even if you're so bloodless as to think that the Kim Dynasty possesses the same sovereignty with the same immunities and privileges as a democracy, well, then maybe it's time we stop worshipping the golden calf that's sovereignty. Maybe sometimes some things matter more.
1
That is just plain silly. Why would you knowingly enable a potentially unstable country to obtain nuclear weapons that is going to lead to nuclear proliferation throughout Asia?
If you are truly an isolationist, I guess that is a defensible position, but if you aren't, it doesn't make much sense.
1
Jong un will not accept advice and guidance from the PRC, DPRK's closest "ally". Even the PRC's President has been dissed by Jong in. By DPRK launching a missile ahead of Belt and Road forum. The PRC has indicated that fallout on China proper is a redline. That eventuality will become closer if South Korea deploys nuclear weapons and neighbors follow suit. The PRC must decide whether the belt and road around the planet will inadvertently turn into a ring of nuclear armed countries around it's periphery.
1
How about this alternative:
1) Through the UN, or a new kind of global congress, humanity bans war as a means of solving conflicts.
2) There is an formal acknowledgment that we all inhabit one planet, not just separate nations. We formalize globalization, maintaining nation states, culturally & geographically defined, autonomous, and guided by whatever dysfunctional governing system they choose. However, they are all members of a united global body. The League of Nations and the United Nations were good starts; practice for a more refined global congress.
3) All nations of the world commit to eliminating all nuclear weapons, and disarm. Commit the military industrial complex to creating 100% clean, renewable energy and expedited global transportation systems.
4) The only military force that remains is engaged in enforcing the peace.
5) When diplomacy finally breaks down, when most nations fall into war, the two sides field a team. Take some section of planet that has been constantly ravaged by war. I suggest Afghanistan. Turn it into an arena, where two fielded teams engage in an ultimate physical contest. I have no idea what it would be. Perhaps two massive armies running at each other with only their fists. A huge bar brawl, televised to the world. Satisfy our ridiculous blood lust this way.
6) The winner of this massive contest receives the same spoils of war, & the ultimate resolution of whatever silly argument we humans have concocted.
There you go. Done. Next!
9
Thanks Trump. N. Korea has always been a threat, but not this bad.
7
So, the fact that they have steadily advanced their nuclear capabilities including ICBM development over the last 2 decades and still consider themselves at war with S. Korea and the US hasn't bene a threat?
Appeasement and denial is not a policy.
1
Let's just lay it on the line, shall we? WHAT do the countries aligned against North Korea expect Kim to do, exactly, apart from threaten nuclear war and, should he feel the chance for lifting sanctions had unequivocally faded, might go out with a "bang", so to speak? Not one serious forum is currently discussing among the various parties ways to lower the tensions, or if there is I haven't heard about it. All I hear are UNTHINKABLE options like "tactical nuclear weapons", having enough raw material for 6000 - yes, SIX THOUSAND - bombs, as if a half dozen wouldn't already be overkill. At the very moment in history where "great men" are required, there isn't one in sight. Well yes, they are hard to come by but who would have EVER imagined that our land would be the one governed by the MOST vile and ignorant world leader ever to manage the affairs of a "so-called" great nation?
15
North Korea is a useful foil for China and, to some extent, Russia. During the cold war, a nuclear attack by a client state wold result in retaliation against their sponsor. Now we are told this is just between us and North Korea. Why? Would we have allowed ourselves to be destroyed by missiles launched from Cuba without going after the Soviet Union? MAD only works if we are clear about the consequences of arming a client state with nuclear weapons.
34
What nuclear client states were you thinking of during the cold war? Cuba was never a nuclear state. In any case, I think actual nuclear policy may be different from declaratory nuclear policy and one would never know for certain what would happen in advance of the particular case.
1
Why doS. Korea and Japan need to build bombs? We can sell them to them, with Trump getting a commission. Isn't that the plan? Monetize everything, including nukes?
1
The fact that these scenarios are even being contemplated by supposedly sane people is absurd. I'm beginning to think that Freud was right about humans having a death wish.
8
Can't we all just get along? My hippie professors taught me that if we love one another, everyone will live happily ever after. All these nuances are causing me a lot of cognitive dissonance. Please stop it.
5
sing along, "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony" and break out your 70's Coca-Cola bell bottoms.
2
There is a lot that goes on globally to which the public of the U.S., Russia, China...in fact all countries are not privy to. However, one thing is certain; it has always been, is now and will always be based on money, which drives power.
The continuing rhetoric of country leaders...the latest being Mattis only serves to scare American citizens, with similar occurrences happening in other countries. This is increasingly irresponsible and horribly dangerous. If this inadvertently leads to the detonation of a nuclear device, the entire planet will suffer; from millions of deaths, to a tremendous poisoning of planet earth, which could take decades or centuries to repair, if at all.
How dare these leaders act in such a selfish, egocentric, ignorant and small way?
How dare these leaders put at risk our world, the human species, all other living species, tens of thousands of years of human knowledge and a planet Earth which took billions of years to evolve to it's current state?!
7
How dare you not know what joy are talking about when the issue is thermonuclear annihilation?
It is what Americans do. Love themselves.
This terrifying scenario is a result of the United States, under G. W. Bush, walking away from the table in 2003, after six years of talks with North Korea.
Had NK not felt continually threatened by US military posturing just outside its borders, it might have agreed to suspend its nuclear weapons program.
But G. W. Bush refused to entertain suspending military exercises, and insisted that NK give up its nuclear program as a prerequisite to continuing talks.
Demanding prerequisites that are the eventual goal of the talks in the first place, is an example of mushroom stupidity in diplomacy.
The people who are in charge of the life and death of the entire planet are those least qualified to have that power.
17
Jerry, not everything has to be about Dems vs. Repubs. Both sides have plenty of guilt to share. Clinton and Carter cut a deal w NK. NK cheated so GWB slowed aid and NK was the one that withdrew from the agreement. And even if they didn't, they were going to continue cheating, anyway.
Don't gloss over the fact that Obama had 8 yrs to re-start talks w NK but was rebuffed, so instead pursued 'strategic patience,' which is a euphemism for 'kick the can.' As Lindsey Graham put it, we have kicked the can down the road for decades and now we have no more road to kick it. What does finger pointing at one political party's mistakes while ignoring the other party's contributions achieve? As a nation, we need to start solving problems through a bi-partisan approach. Let's start w NK.
Not a single comment in the NYT comments ever mention holding Kim Jong Un responsible.
Not a single person saying Kim Jong Un is a brutal dictator who is the first leader to kills his own family in DPRK.
Not a single person saying Kim Jong Un is responsible for his constant rhetoric of war and destruction. Which let's be honest, if a reader thinks is less inflammatory than Trump, then maybe you should trade a US passport for a North Korean one, because you might think life under Kim Jong Un is better than life under the Trump administration.
Maybe if liberal readers felt life in North Korea, they'd understand who they're up against isn't a joke. He's tough, he's brutal, he's not afraid, he's violent and has little to lose.
Even if you don't like Trump, to think Trump is a bigger threat than Kim Jong Un is lunacy. Even the Chinese would think you're a lunatic. The world condemns North Korea, not Trump. And Trump is not all powerful either. (Technically, he's weakened the presidency, a good thing in my opinion).
Honestly, it'd be great if we can resolve the North Korea problem but that's more likely to happen by internal collapse than armed conflict. Part of the ratched up pressure by Trump is to likely try and force senior North Korean officials to revolt and pull Kim back, to force positive change in North Korean society.
12
I will be the "single person" you are looking for.
As you suggest, this is not about Trump, or Obama, or George Bush or Bill Clinton. It's just that so many NYT readers have an axe to grind that they would sooner look for someone to blame than deal with the fire threatening the lives of their family members.
1
Trump has the authority to strike first with a nuclear weapon. That makes him very powerful. It also makes this situation very unstable and dangerous because of Trump's juvenile rhetoric and schoolyard taunting. That part is coming from Trump. The U.S. is a rouge nation under Trump. More dangerous than N. Korea.
3
Yeah, thanks for the good scare. Problem is, he was a bad boy before, too. But this year he has an easily riled thin skinned president who falls for his bluster. That’s the part that makes the combo of him and Trump the short-term hot problem. Do you actually think Trump is a bigger force with NK senior staff than the arms-length murderer who lets them live each day?
Who elected Dr. Strangelove? Oh that's right, it was the deplorable Right. God won't forgive those who may have facilitated Armageddon. How's all that hate working for you?
15
Don't kid yourselves...SK and Japan are well along in their own clandestine Nuke programs..
1
some worry? WHO?
China supplies North Korea. So we need to be talking with China. These weapons will never go away, but limiting their numbers and power, coupled to vigilant diplomacy, will always be the answer. Otherwise we simply will continually devolve in having to lumber around carrying bigger and bigger sticks. Have fun with that. And what will the AI overlords who take over the planet from us within the next century or so be thinking of their parents? Let's teach them well by setting a good example.
3
An exchange of nuclear bombs even if one or two will change everyone's life on this planet.
I an feeling a growing sense of dread like never before, even the sixties I was not this alarmed.
I always felt it was inevitable just not so soon.
124
Not so soon? I always thought "why hasn't it happened yet?' Plenty of close calls, but given the fragility of the human-factor (forgetabout the command-and-control mechanisms), most of the people who built the first one, and then designed the alert/delivery systems, put the probability, especially as the arsenals proliferated, at 1. We've been wrong for 70 years, but even a stopped clock... https://thebulletin.org/timeline
The Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't as terrifying as today's nuclear threats because we had ADULT LEADERS, not name-calling-bullying children manning the fort, so to speak.
1
That premise -- the foundation of Neville Shute's "On the Beach" cataclysmic forecast -- has been thoroughly discredited. Even used in the hundreds, possibly even a few thousands, a nuclear weapon exchange would not come close to triggering Earth's doomsday.
Use your bomb shelter to take refuge from a direct category 5 tornado. Or aging your homemade canned foods.
Just prior to WWII, America cut off supplies of oil to Japan who had no resource of their own, precipitating the war. Cold people have a way of being angry. The same is happening to North Korea now. When you negotiate with a turned back and threats of retaliation, that is what you get. Our diplomatic strategy is obviously formulated either by the Pentagon, or the C.I.A. whose only grand purpose is war. The military is in the business of war, not peace, irregardless of their claims. Then along comes a troubled man who attended a military school in his formative years intent on satisfying his urges toward domination of all he can.
History repeats because people repeat their knowledge of history.
2
Patrick, you misinterpret history. Japan had plenty of oil for its domestic needs, but the oil consumption of its fleet, needed to sustain and expand their empire, required oil from Borneo and other locations far from their homeland. The Japanese pursued their aggressive military moves in the leadup to WWII out of delusions of superiority and a belief that they had a right to Asian hegemony. Oil sanctions did not precipitate the war, they were a step in the dance that had already been ordained. What may be true, however, is that racist anti-Japanese sentiment on the part of Britain and the US dating from the 20s and decades before that might have nudged history in an avoidable direction of military conflict
1
I'm sorry but your knowledge of history has been twisted a bit by either your ideology or conspiracy theories.
Japan had no issues with obtaining enough oil for their domestic needs.
Operating their expansionist military (ask Korea or China about that) was what the embargoes were aimed at.
1
With a true statesman as president, this scenario very likely would not be happening. Instead we have a Bombast in Chief who loves to provoke and insult, he being so dense he does not comprehend that threatening North Korea with utter destruction not only creates fear and apprehension, but it perceived by them as an insult to their nation and their leader.
There is no question that Kim, like Trump, is maniacal and a loose cannon, but Trump's actions have fomented this reaction. He is unfit to be president, and I would dread seeing him even on my local city council.
19
We had a "true statesman" as president for 8 years and his inaction led to the current crisis. Trump did not foment this; Obama's inaction enabled it.
4
ummm, we are at this point because who allowed NK to progress to this level over the past several plus years? o what's his name?
1
You do realize this "happened" while Obama was president? Comparisons of Trump to Kim make his critics appear like North Koreans.
4
In man's less than thoughtful considerations of the future and human nature, they forget what happens when a nation is isolated from the world society. Efforts to prevent war through sanctions and isolation cause them.
57
Nonsense. North Korea is isolated because of its vile leadership.
Living in the sheltered world of Long Island it must come as quite a shock that evil dictators slaughter the populations wholesale. This regime has kidnapped and murdered opponents ---- inside and outside of North Korea. The current leader of North Korea has murdered everyone in his family who might challenge him in an effort to prevent the military, who are the real power, from finding a suitable replacement.
As for sanctions, they are ineffective because the Chinese and Russians seem to want madman in Korea to threaten the west and the far east. Besides, Kim Jung-Un wants a nuclear weapon. Any deal is a free-be to the regime.
Five administrations have failed with sanctions. Like trickle-down economics, why repeat what doesn't work.
Unfortunately, we are left with the military option. Do we do it smart and end the affair quickly and decisively? Or, do we let him attack, do some real damage and give the Russians and Chinese no other choice but to protect North Korea by bombing us as a reflex?
Absolutely. Generations of sanctions backed North Korea into a corner and now they are ready to come out fighting.
Many human beings still can't get beyond the primitive reasoning that killing each other is the way to resolving problems. Of course nationalism helps promote this primitive thought process when the leader of a country is only capable of legitimizing it. It takes brains and constructive thought to move beyond it. There is still way too much poverty and lack of education in the world in the 21st century. The U.S. should be setting an example of higher thought but it isn't and that's why America is no longer the greatest country in the world. If you believe it ever was.
1
One of the most "lucid" articles I have seen during all this debate about North Korea. Keep in mind though, it is not what the US doesn't know that will destroy Asia, but what it will not admit that it doesn't want to know. The North has had these weapons since 1992 or 1994. It is only now, that they are testing their delivery system that the US has gotten nervous.
3
Dwight Rider - who says the US is nervous? Just because the media needs to sell ads and creates informational mayhem where none exists does not mean "the US" is meaningfully "nervous." Nowhere in any of this is the idea "destroy Asia" the least bit pertinent.
3
so under who's watch was this nuclear program basically completed? Obama's.
2
Our last 3 Presidents (at least) deserve blame for the current situation.
Appeasing China and not facing the situation has led us to this day.
1
Strange situation. On the one hand, would representative democracy be introduced, brainwashed North Korean citizens no doubt voted for divine Kim as president, and the dynasty thrived for a few generations as democratic leaders of an exploding economy. On the other, anybody in the regime only mentioning this solution will probably be instantly executed, by the regime. So everybody in the regime prefers nukes to defend own status quo. At the same time, it is questionable whether China likes the idea of a reunified Korea as part of their geostrategic policy. Anything should be done though, to prevent South Korea and Japan from becoming nuclear powers. The smaller the number of nuclear players on the planet, the easier will it be to make sure in the long run that nukes will never again be used for more than hypothetical employment.
Dean - no logic in any of that! It's guesswork (about NK voting) and fear mongering (nukes don't cause nuke wars).
3
using that logic, we can eliminate obesity by banning spoons.
3
Fortunately, Nazi-Germany did not succeed in prroducing a nuclear bomb. It would certainly have changed history completely. North Korea is far less dangerous for the free world. In the very long run however, nukes don't cause nuclear wars as much as nuclear plants don't cause nuclear meltdown, so it is important to keep the number of nuclear powers as small as possible. At present, there would be no threat from a nuclear South Korea. As history tells, in the long run, political systems and ideologies may always change fundamentally within comparatively short time.
So if by accident or on purpose Noth Korea lobs a nuke at us or an ally and maybe we shoot it down or it hits and causes destruction and there are no more being fired. What should we and our allies do? Kill millions and millions of people in retaliation? Take out their missile and nuclear sites with our nukes? Do it with conventional weapons? Invade North Korea? Get China and Russia to help us stop any further aggression and see if it can be handled without anymore deaths? The US is already responsible for millions of deaths in the Mideast and Southeast Asia over the last 50 or 60 years so their history shows that they would not hesitate to take out a couple more million or more with a nuke for revenge. And would the people back this revenge? Probably because 75% of the American public and some allies went along with the immoral Iraq invasion just 14 years ago. We need this discussion starting with a resolve that the US will not do a preemptive strike on N. Korea. It should be off the table period. I do not here this strongly declared by our leaders or asked of them assertively by the press. We need to discuss this.
2
Not long ago Mr. Stephen Hawking predicted that humankind has about 100 years left. I thought he was crazy.
Now I think he has a point. And that makes me really sad and disappointed.
21
Well, it isn’t as if we can say we were never warned.
When I was 10 years old and started watching Star Trek’s first season, in 1966, I came to regret I might not live to see such future wonders—which I had absolutely no doubt were in store. Now, 51 years after Star Trek’s first season commenced, I consider myself fortunate to have lived a relatively fun, secure, productive, loved, prosperous, and trouble-free life in these United States. I hope I am wrong, but I am not confident of humankind’s future. I love technology, but do not think it will save us from ourselves; rather, it concentrates populations, gives us a false sense of superiority and safety, while at the same time hastening our alienation from one another and exponentially magnifying our powers to disrupt life support systems and inflict mass death. Not all will probably perish.
But even if much of mankind isn’t extinguished by political self-immolation in the near term, environmental destruction will either force us to cooperate or result in the well armed preserving themselves.
It is beyond foolish to encourage or implement any policies that contribute to proliferation. The more countries that go down that path, the more chances of miscalculation, accidents, or intentional use. We should accept N. Korea as a nuclear state since that is the path they have chosen, and we should make every effort to engage them economically and socially so that they become a part of the world community, can improve the well-being of their people, and see that threats of war are sheer folly.
The only thing the US should do militarily is to re-iterate, if needed, that N. Korea will cease to exist as the country that they know if they ever use a nuclear weapon against the US or its allies. That is sufficient to stop any rational country. We cannot plan for irrationality unless we choose to take out any country that we decide is a high risk, a policy that would certainly backfire and have dire consequences throughout the world.
For Henry Kissinger to be giving advice to anyone about war is despicable. The man should be tried for war crimes in my opinion for his role in Vietnam and the Cambodia bombings. In fact, all of the leaders involved in the Vietnam War should have paid a heavy price for trying to justify it and for prosecuting it. It gained us nothing and destroyed a country and its people. Instead, Americans paid and continue to pay to this day even as our more recent leaders showed that they learned nothing and started other needless wars.
327
David, Implicit in your comment would seem to be the premise that countries possessing nuclear weapons today are less likely to go nuclear, whether by accident or on purpose, than other countries.
Perhaps it's not "beyond foolish," according to you, to say that countries, whose governments have not started wars in, say, the last 200 years, are less risky candidates for membership in the nuclear group than countries whose governments have.
War, whether engaged in intentionally (Vietnam, Iraq) and/or as a result of "miscalculation" (Vietnam, Iraq) would seem to be a hallmark of the country whose government is headquartered in Washington, D.C. But, of course, it hasn't yet used nuclear weapons. (Oh, wait a minute!--I forgot.)
for pity's sake. read.
JAPAN
and
SOUTH KOREA
want nuclear weapons.
Will get them because they cannot trust people like you.
But you go talk to them and they will tell you what a model you ar for what they hate about American imperialist know it alls. You. Not Trump. You.
6
This is the sound of one hand clapping.
This is exactly the 'arm before they do' that so many -- over half a century --
have hoped and prayed would not start. Once that mentality takes hold, the number of possible nuclear wars (some by accident) that can happen rises more than exponentially. Worst, it's almost impossible to know after a detonation who the nation was that exploded a bomb. The evidence disappears in the fireball. So a 'troublemaker' can 'trick' two nations into an exchange in hopes of 'picking up the pieces' afterward. It's very likely (certain?) that hopes of a nuke-free world are as dim as they've ever been since 1945. The only hope is that after a (maybe) small nuclear war, the rest of the world will wake up to the horrors and do something. (That's unlikely, but one can hope....).
3
Awaken, GOP and look at the chaos you have brought upon the world by way of your unwavering support of Trump-Pence. Whatever near term monetary gain you will extract, will eventually find no place to enjoy it. T.S. Elliot's 'The Hollow Men' addresses all who follow the regime.
Contrary to Sen Flake's admonishment about explaining to one's children (taken from German philosopher Thomas Metzinger), Tom Lehrer's circa 1959 song 'So long mom, I'm off to drop the bomb" may make the issue mute.
1
The United States should give nuclear technology to S. Korea and Japan. The Chinese won't like it, but they refuse to keep their nasty pet mad dog in check. Time to let the dogs out. Japan and S Korea need to have a strong deterrent.
7
Not necessary..I am sure both nations have had clandestine nuclear weapons programs for years. All it takes is money and both have it.
1
Russia and China both have made it clear that there is a path out of this. Understandably, neither China or Russia likes the US at their doorstep. The US needs to leave Korea and North Korea will then give up its nukes. The US can leave the other Chinese border in Afghanistan as well and save even more money and headache. Seems like a win for the US taxpayer and a win for both Koreas. Is our leadership that out of touch with reality? Or are out leaders just a bunch of shills for the military industrial complex.
3
Made clear?
Every word in this comment is fiction.
Kim is not coordinating with Xi.
China is not coordinating with Russia.
And Japan is not going anywhere.
6
Got it. Abandon our allies and all will be well.
2
The U.S. is smarter and knows Kim's plan. He wants to be nuclear-armed state ("equilibrium" as he calls it). He has no intention of firing at the U.S or its allies (he's not that stupid). He now has a "bargaining chip" to negotiate the standing down of all parties on the Korean Peninsula -- including the removal of U.S. forces from the area with the "guarantee" that North Korea will cease further nuclear arming and ICBM development.
If the U.S. obliges (which I hope they don't), in a short while Kim will follow his father's footsteps and invade South Korea (with gleeful China standing by and doing nothing, maybe) -- reunifying Korea as a Communist Country (totally aligned with China) and removing North Korea's poverty and the threat of masses of North Koreans seeking refuge in China.
The obvious solution is for the U.S. to do nothing now (it's too late for a preemptive strike). Play the waiting game while helping South Korea gain strong defenses against an invasion (and keeping the U.S. support there). Time is on the U.S. side. Wait. The sanctions against North Korea, their abject poverty, and their being ignored will pay off with the demise of a dictator.
1
What is not well known is that China has helped both Pakistan and NK develop their nuclear and missile technology.
When Japan and SK go nuclear, China will become keenly focused on arms control, realizing the threat is not just directed at NK. Then we will see real progress on arms control.
2
Of course they should have nukes.
China is helping North Korea get nukes to increase its influence. The logical counter is to neutralize that by arming South Korea and Japan. And ideally also Taiwan.
6
I'm originally from South Korea who still has family in S. Korea. Yes, it is true that there are few people who want to have their own nuclear weapon in S. Korea and Japan. However, this article is definitely biased toward to the viewpoint of the people who want nuclear weapons. A lot of public in the two nations think that proliferation of such weapon will destruct the human society. Also, how on earth these two countries would develop nuclear weapons with facing possible international sanctions and criticism?
I think this article tries to focus on the treat and "possibility" of nuclear weapon proliferation. Development of nuclear weapons in S. Korea and Japan is what N. Korea wants so that they can justify their power.
3
Please give all evidence that Kim is waiting for "justification" Oh right. He is not That is just dishonest propaganda.
It would seem like NK is developing their nuclear capabilities regardless of South Korean and Japanese capabilities?
1
We can be sure that South Korea, Japan and other countries are fully aware the central theme of the White House is “America First.” However, because Trump has chosen to be coy rather than show decisive leadership, and since he earlier raised doubts about the NATO alliance, they are left to wonder how this relates to them concerning the acquisition of nuclear weapons. If it’s going to be every country for itself, the answer seems evident.
Part of their calculation, though, is probably questions in the minds of many Americans: How certain is Trump’s continued presidency? Will his administration end in scandal, and be replaced by leadership with greater awareness of America’s use of its arsenal to deter nuclear proliferation? Can they count on any promises he makes, or will they shift with the swiftness of a tweet?
I came to this article after reading the obituary for Robert Blakeley, who designed the fallout shelter sign during the Cold War. I lived through those times. I went to the school assemblies that showed the spreading impact of a nuclear blast on New York (I would have died). The possibility was palpable. Now, in a new Ground Zero, I feel that palpability growing again.
The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the greater the chance they will be used. Trump should thwart that by assuring our allies, with no uncertainty, that our strength is their strength, that implicit in America First is a mutual trust in our bond. This is part of being great.
2
North Korea has had a nuclear program for a couple of decades as known. Trump hurled gasoline on the fire during his campaign and Presidency. Elections have consequences beyond the spectator sport that political campaigns are and perhaps now, people will think more about electing someone instead of simply enjoying the frenzy of the campaign.
1
NK did not start developing ICBMs capable of hitting the US once Trump becomes President or said something stupid. This has bene ongoing development over the last three administrations (at least).
Blaming Trump for NK's capabilities is naive at best.
1
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Albert Einstein, in an interview with Alfred Werner, Liberal Judaism 16 (April-May 1949
This is what happens when a minority of people elect someone as unintelligent as President Trump, a man who seemingly doesn't read (has he ever read "Hiroshima"?), a man with no governing experience or interest in history, a man who seems to have tentative grasp of reality, even though he seems to be starring in his own reality show.
20
Um, wrong V. You meant to say: This is what happens when no one elects someone as unintelligent and monstrous and juvenile as Kim Jong-in.
You're excused for the mistake this time, but not if you persist.
6
I don’t care for Trump, but the situation involving N.Korea, S. Korea and Japan isn’t his doing. N. Korea has been working on nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles for decades—from at least Clinton, through Bush and Obama, and now Trump. Not to mention they have also been building enough hardened artillery emplacements, an army, and an indoctrinated population sufficient to kill at least hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of S. Koreans without nuclear-tipped missiles.
If the Japanese or S. Korean governments asked me, an American, whether they should obtain their own nuclear deterrent, independent of the U.S., I would tell them that they should. They are under threat, and we Americans have a clear conflict of interest in making these decisions for S. Korea and Japan, on the one hand, and ourselves, as Americans, on the other hand.
4
Kim was marching in place until he saw that the new sherriff in town was a thin skinned know nothing who will ramp up short sighted bravado as much as he will. This is now a poker game to both of them. Trump deals only in abstractions. He has no idea the consequences of trying to out-testosterone a college kid.
It is painfully obvious that N. Korea will not give up it's nuclear ambitions.
5
It's only superficially obvious, and that's because it's not in their interest to do so.
2
It is not in north Korea's interest to be obliterated. The ICBMs work skyrockets that risk.
How skyrocketing this risk and that of Japanese and Aouth Korean nukes is not known to know human.
NYT-
SK-Now people often complain that South Korea cannot depend on the United States, its protector of seven decades.
Japan- We're kind of in uncharted waters as far as this goes.
All our allies share the same sentiment. The United States used to be the one constant, the reliable big brother. NOT ANYMORE.
Treaties- no problem he can bail out at any time
Agreements- no problem he can bail out at any time
Accords-no problem he can bail out at any time
Organizations- no problem he can bail out at any time
Deals- no problem he can bail out at any time
Note to the our allies:
There are 1,102 days until November 3, 2020. We feel your pain.
95
Hopefully shortened by removal from office before that.
They get to blame us when there is a famine due to the sanctions and they now have something worth trading for food which will be handed out in a way that keeps their power. At least they have a few markets now. Maybe one day they will be ready to lift the last of the cold war curtains.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/world/asia/north-korea-drought-food-s...
1
The international game of chicken around nuclear arms must end. China, Russia and the US are the major players. China and Russia are just as responsible for this state of affairs as anyone. Would China like to face the possibility that the US would facilitate Taiwan's nuclear capabilities? That could be a scenario they would face if they don't come to their senses and stop pretending they have no influence over the DPRK. All the games and scenarios that play with putting nuclear arms in more hands will only lead to one devastating outcome. Every move has a countermove, and if one move point in the direction of nuclear proliferation, it will only ensure countermoves in the same direction.
12
Flawed thinking...... If the US threatened to arm Taiwan, then China would send its massive military straight into the place and secure it from happening, and is the US prepared to go to war with China and ultimately Russia?.... Considering the US is just as vulnerable to MAD as any tiny country they push around.... I think not.
All of those Asian allies and proxies are already shielded by scores of nuclear weapons deployed on US bases and warships all over that region. The only reason that they don't have domestic capabilities is so that the US can maintain its monopoly on the control of western nuclear assets. On the flip side, as US allies and proxies they are also targeted by China and Russia. None of that would change if places such as Japan or Taiwan armed up. They probably would manage to produce a few more Fukushimas in the process.
So now Henry Kissinger is giving his opinion? The same guy that messed up in Vietnam, enabled Nixon, and pulled some dirty tricks to win an election. So Henry, I suggest that you go stand in the DMZ for a while with Trump. I did hear last week that a Trump was not going to the border -too chicken.
41
I heard that his heels spurs were acting up again.
1
Chicken or wise? Unstable Kim launches a tactical nuke at Trump at the border? What happens then? NK ceases to exist as much more than a silicon glazed landscape, its people. cinders. You wish this just to get rid of Trump?.
1
"Will Congress Ever Limit the Forever-Expanding 9/11 War?" (An accompanying headline). Of course not! It's far too profitable. As it is, was, and into the foreseeable future, will be the Korean brough-ha-ha. Unfortunately this boogeyman is real. And Donald and his buddies aren't.
5
Why are we in Niger? Why are we in Afghanistan? Why are we threatening North Korea? Does anyone have simple sane answers to these questions?
How did we turn over the reins of this beloved country to leaders such as we have?
Where will this end?
46
We were and will be in Niger, Afghanistan, and etc. when Democrats are in charge as well. Or are you too blind to see that?
3
Niger produces about 8% of the worlds uranium and some of it is used to stoke the power plants in France, the former colonial power. Niger is dirt poor and has no real power grid or infrastructure of its own and French companies control a good portion of the mines while French special forces supplement the security. That's why the west is in Niger.
When the rubber meets the road, Trump's word is worthless. He will not defend S. Korea or Japan (or any of our other allies, for that matter) due to his isolationist, self-serving view of the world. He has backed us into a corner with his big, uncontrolled, narcissistic mouth and we will suffer for it. The US will become a pariah to the rest of the civilized world and Nationalist movements will fragment society, giving extremist movements like ISIL and a radical Islamic Jihad the support it wants. To a degree, this is why Bush accomplished in his war with Iraq - destabilization and flowering of global anti-American sentiment, which we are still actively fighting.
How ignorant can one man be? He should be banned from ANY governance immediately, gagged and muzzled, while we still have a country left. We made these deals, and we are bound to stick by them - although that is the worst of all possible alternatives due to Trump.
13
As there is no reason we should be sticking our necks or wallets out to defend either S. Korea or Japan, sure let them arm themselves with nukes, excellent.
The value of this is two fold: deterrence, and negotiation. You can't negotiate away NK's nukes if you have none to give up yourself, and of course when armed, both SK and Japan would outclass NK in a year, making it clear to NK that the game they are very good at playing alone does not not work for them when others join in on their level. In a little SE Asian cold war, the same thing would be inevitable as happened with the USSR: NK could not maintain the cost of an equivalent arsenal and would have to give up that approach altogether.
The US is a non sequitur here, because we cannot and will not give up our nukes. However once we are not the defender of Japan/SK, then there would be no reason for NK to "threaten" us. I use scare quotes because they really don't threaten us, that's a tabloid invention of the the media, but people buy the farce so I address it.
6
There's a terrifying to imagine warning by Albert Einstein that seems appropriate and relevant about now regarding another nuclear race/nuclear war: "I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones."
59
"there is a daily argument raging in both South Korea and Japan — sometimes in public, more often in private — about the nuclear option, driven by worry that the United States might hesitate to defend the countries if doing so might provoke a missile launched from the North at Los Angeles or Washington"
This is your doing Trump- aided and abetted by the Republicon Criominal Cartel.
Impeach NOW!
9
Funny, the only country that ever used the atomic bomb on civilians is the moralistic, holier-than-thou USA.
20
Yes, and it destroyed Imperial Japan's genocidal designs on the rest of Asia and transformed the Japanese from an intractable enemy into a peaceful ally. Thank God Harry Truman used it to end WWII.
4
Thank trump and his GI Joe generals!
2
- Let them stand down.
all those with WMD,
let them stand down.
--Who said that?
-Me
--Who are you?
.........
I'm sorry to say but if I were South Korea and Japan, I wouldn't trust the US to defend my country. Unfortunately, sometimes going nuclear is necessary. Trump has made it clear to a lot of people that the U.S. cannot be counted on. These countries are naive to think the U.S. will defend them.
3
1) Technology proliferates. It just does. It gives those who have it a temporary advantage ... until others have it, too, until everybody has it.
2) The nation-state is a temporary political phenomenon and international organizing principle. For eras it was empires. In much of Europe, it was cities (i.e., city-states). Then nation-states took over, as the organizing principle. (What next? Catalonia may offer a clue.)
Let's imagine that the US bombs N Korea to keep it from having WMD. Let's imagine that the decision to do so is ours and ours alone.
What then?
Will the spread of WMD will be curtailed, thereby?
Who's to say that bombing N Korea won't actually have the effect of making these United States less safe?
What then?
1
This is why Stephen Hawking believes humanity must leave the planet to survive.We have the capacity for self destruction ,and it seems we move closer to that at an alarmingly rapid rate.
2
I remind you that Mars has a Carbon Dioxide Atmosphere and Venus has a 400 degree shrouded atmosphere. It gives me pause for thought.
If NK has delivery systems than can reach U.S., U.S. allies in East Asia would go for their own nuclear weapons --- only if they doubt US willingness to defend them. The solution is either to let them do so, effectively making all 'alliances' superfluous or to form an "Asian equivalent of NATO", incorporating all the existing bilateral Asian alliances, including Australia, Vietnam and India. Probably Indonesia would join it too.
1
A long standing Cold War fear of our NATO allies was that the US would not put NYC or DC on the line to save Germany or France.
That was offset by the same thinking about the other side, that the Soviets would not really put Moscow or Leningrad on the line to take Germany or France.
It was further offset by the independent deterrents of France and Britain.
Now South Korea and Japan do not have either of those offsets. Kim might well use nukes if he's going down anyway. There is no independent deterrent, only total reliance on America.
Japan and South Korea hedged against that by building up deniable stockpiles of plutonium. They did not have to handle things that way, although it was an attractive option just to minimize the shortest term cost of electricity from nuclear power plants. It was an open secret, often mentioned, that they had that option in their back pocket.
Now, as North Korea tests and threatens, is the back pocket potential enough? Does it really assure a defense if the US backs away at the last moment, like the British and French weapons did? No.
The "solution" so far has been to deny or ignore the problem. As Kim brings this to a boil, that really is not going to be good enough.
However, it is also rather too late to start now to make nukes for Japan or South Korea. Events have overtaken that option.
Can the US in some other way provide the assurances that NATO always doubted? Trump's crazy talk is intended for that, but does that really reassure?
3
Your point about Kim using nukes if he feels he Is going down anyway is the most frightening possibility.....because it is true!
And, guess who could lead him to believe that?
Our bully in chief of course! All it will take is one false move.
Let's regain our sanity!
1
Let's just make peace with NK. Cancel the sanctions and help them build a modern economy. It won't be any worse than Saudi Arabia or China and its what they want. There is no point in depriving them of this now that they have proven themselves.
152
we can make peace, but we should never help them. Until trump and his regime are all gone, no nation should help the US either.
1
What a sad commentary, Jack T, yet how true!
I agree. The real question is how to contain proliferation in response.
1
After its success at creating chaos in the Middle East even if the US does not hesitate, how can any rational person expect a positive outcome if the US does anything to protect anyone anywhere?
9
A view from beyond the villages of Oregon (a lovely State by itself) finds the following: Post WW2, the USA has established a global order. With very few exceptions, all nations are engaged in trade resulting in lifting 100s of millions from abject poverty. A peaceful globe is in the USA best interest and to perpetuate this, the USA must honour agreements from past administrations and hold sacred commitments to other nations. The alternative to this we are seeing since Trump-Pence came to power;when will the USA's voters awaken to the fact that their lives and happiness are tied to the well being of (former) allies? In terms of classical physics: USA has now created a vacuum and the universe abhors a vacuum. Which Country fills the vacuum will determine the fate of the world and this includes beautiful Oregon.
October 28, 2017
Let's see if we do the math - all Asia attacked states and the America's states and Pacific interest the equation must equal a 100 to one ration - Sad to say for every NK Nuke bomb the response is thus. Or to say a death kill to whatever North Korea is and unfortunate to the adjacent China borders areas - but this statesmanship is the great lesson for the millennium that in the use of nuclear attacks the punishment must be / will be a fury of shock and awe the world has ever seen - all documented for the annals of human inhumanity to its self demonstratively and historically - Yes a quantum leap for mankind and its limitations to resolve conflict that should outgrown savagery of the jungle but - the rest is for the anthropologist, theologians, and physiotherapists to give remedy assuming collective recovery is possible - that is the question - how collective minds has allowed the darkness and hellish debacle ever and maybe forever you would think!
2
“In Seoul and Tokyo, many have already concluded that North Korea will keep its nuclear arsenal, because the cost of stopping it will be too great...”
Happily, the only country that matters — the US — has not concluded that the cost of attacking N. Korea will be too great.
All countries matter. We are all humans.
4
Excellent way to end global warming...not sure human civilization will survive either way.
6
We created it. We unleashed it. We did not need to. Our top brass agreed. Certainly not on cities. We could have shown Japan the power in their open country area. And our old psychotic Kissinger from our carpet-bombing days of Vietnam crawls out of his cave to incite global nuclear proliferation. The Masters of War are fiendishly chortling in their bourbons and Havanas.
The only sane answer to our global annihilation, screaming at us like a heat seeking missile, is zero nuclear weapons and zero nuclear power.
30
In recent decades, evidence has surfaced that Japan exploded an atomic device on a remote Korean island in the final days of the war. A device is not the same as a bomb that can be easily transported and used against enemies. Given time, however, matters could have taken a different turn.
1
You assume that the reason Japan surrendered in WW2 was due to our dropping atomic weapons. That might be what you were taught in American propaganda , but even afar two nuclear bombings Japan's military leaders had zero intention to surrender. It was only when Russia (Japan's traditional arch enemy) entered the war that Japan immediately surrendered. The leaders of Japan were much more fearful of Russian occupation than American nuclear bombs. The Japanese leaders witnessed what Russian payback to Germany was.and knew they were next in line. You think (as did a some disillusioned scientist) a "demonstration" would have done anything, but put them more on the defensive?
If so, then you know nothing about Japan's war mentality in the mind 20th Century.
2
Japan and South Korea have been freeloading off the U.S. with their limited military budgets. They must now pickup the slack.
1
true, and they need to be able to inflict devastating revenge upon china when as it's expansionist claims grow. I just hope the last nation left is a decent one with no kim's and no trump's left.
1
They really do not have limited military budgets.
Japan's limited military commitment to a narrow version of self defense is well funded for just that. We imposed that limit on them, and for good reasons. Their military is kept absolutely up to date, top notch, and in size it matches most nations not superpowers. Their limited percentage of GDP is off a very high base GDP. They help fund some of our biggest projects, like the F-35.
Korea too keeps a very modern military, producing much of its own stuff like tanks and ships. It is much larger than Japan's, for a nation half the population. As a percentage of GDP they spend very near the US, and twice Germany or France, near twice Britain. They are far over what we ask NATO to do, but don't get.
Neither nation is freeloading.
2
FACT CHECK ON AISLE SIX PLEASE -
"Japan once pledged never to stockpile more nuclear fuel than it can burn off. But it has never completed the necessary recycling and has 10 tons of plutonium stored domestically and another 37 million tons overseas."
37 milion x 2000 = 74 billion pounds if Im reading my spreadsheet right. That sounds like an awful lot of plutonium. It actually sounds like an awful lot of anything . . . assume there's a correction here to be made & many thanks
5
Japan, like Germany, never really gave up its military traditions (or ambitions) after WW2. At the moment we are holding the snakes by the tails and are afraid to let them go....for good reason. They will come closer to treachery than a snake to its shadow. Please spare me the nonsense of economic ties will stop anything. Russia was sending railcars full of iron and grain to German the same day Germany attached..
1
There will be no hesitation. Unless North Korea dismantles its nukes, the US will have no choice but to assume that a conventional North Korean attack will ultimately lead to a scenario where the North attacks or would threaten to attack an American city. The US would have no choice but to respond to a conventional attack with a first strike. It would have no choice but to totally annihilate North Korea.
The US can make it explicit to North Korea, to China, to Russia, and to the world that any nuclear attack on our allies will be interpreted as an attack against the United States and one that will be met with massive retaliation. North Korea wouldn't dare attack after getting such a message. Kim is not a stupid man, he likes being king, and he won't give that up to launch a suicidal attack against the South. Here is an opportunity for Trump to demonstrate real leadership.
We must also make it know to Russia and China that if North Korea does not disarm itself we will proceed together with the South Koreans and the Japanese to develop a ballistic missile defense system. Such a system could one day render their arsenals useless.
We have voluntarily restrained missile defense in deference to the Russians. They must be made to understand that we will no longer show such restraint unless they can persuade their Chinese and North Korean allies to give up this game. Once again, this is an opportunity for Trump to show real leadership.
2
Demonstrate leadership? Really? A leader would not have got into a screaming match with North Korea in the first place.
As for the US having an anti-ballistic missile defense, if Israel has built an effective one (as was demonstrated at the time of the Gaza conflict) why can't we have one?
1
Totally silly for S Korea and Japan to build nukes. Japan in earthquake zone, it is very easy for N Korea to hit some seismic fault and trigger a chain reaction with another Fukushima incident.
S Korea so near it make no sense for N Korea to trigger a Chernobyl downwind on her own territory, so N Korea not going to nuke S Korea.
Instead N Korea could send millions of of people to S Korea to create a humanitarian crisis, even using them as human shield inside S Korea to deter S Korea attack on North.
S Korea and Japan are excuses US use as argument N Korea is a threat. True, N Korea is a threat, but more of a nuclear blackmail type.
US commingle her own security with that of her allies. S Korea knows that and hinted to US to discourage attack on N Korea as S Korea don't see the North going to attack her preemptively. The real issue here is between N Korea and US alone.
N Korea see US allies as accessories and will only attack them if their bases are used to attack her. No sense for N Korea to make preemptive attack on Japan or S Korea. N Korea won't prioritize an attack on her own brethen in the South.
The more US sanction N Korea, the more N Korea build missiles and use them as bargaining chips to extract concessions from US but she will never give up all of them. Kim will probably wait out Trump and hope another POTUS make realistic demands on him as he see his nukes as guarantee against existential threat on her.
The nuclear deterrence ambitions of North Korea are a godsend to Trump to feed his narcissistic fantasies of American savior, to the US Armed Forces to affirm their culture of American supremacy, and to a myriad of US companies to profit from juicy government contracts. While in North Korea nukes are an issue of self-defense and survival, in the US nuclear weapons are a business to few and an ego-trip to many. Trump will go down in history as the first sexual predator to become elected President, and as the first President to use nuclear weapons in peacetime.
5
If EVER we needed a Congress to take Country OVER Party (AND TRUMP) it is NOW! WARNINGS (to Dept of DEFENSE) must be issued, that Twitter Fingers is NOT to be trusted with our nuclear weapons!!
18
Another round of applause for all those who voted in our ringmaster of the insane circus. Thanks a whole lot.
Hope you have an answer lined up for when your children and your children's children ask you why.
42
NEWS FLASH!
The last election was not about who was liked the most, but rather who was hated the least.
I voted for neither.
1
If a human is in a fist fight ,but is armed with a gun .....he will use the gun if all is lost . Nukes are made to use , and will be used by a losing nation .
2
You mean we may have to fight these people?
Whoa! What a surprise!
From the moment Donald Trump and his wife descended on that escalator it was downhill from there. Not just for us but for the entire world.
126
The NK Regime wants an actual nuke like an aging, potbellied Man wants a Corvette. It makes his " ego " firm(er). That's all. They DO have " like, really Smart" people. They would be obliterated within moments, and they KNOW it. Talk is Cheap, but dead is Permanent.
2
i have no problem with nk being gone, it's just that sk, perhaps japan, and the intelligent and secular parts of the US will be hurt as well.
1
Thanks, DT, for making the world unstable again.
2
Where have all the sane folks gone?
8
chased indoors by pick up trucks
the United States is ruled by abashed liars, con men, and their toadies (yes, you john kelly). There is no reason whatsoever that, if I were in another nation with an agreement of mutual defense with this country, that I would expect this government to keep any pledge. I don't trust them at all and I do think that all of the US "allies" should break ties with this country until trump is removed from office. North Korea is a cancer, but the trump republic is at the minimum a bad case of dysentery. Both need to be neutraliized.
13
Um, just so you all know, no one wins that war.
10
October 28 2017
I would encourage our dear readers to listen to the link for music of Mozart Requiem in console to this dire reporting.
Mozart Requiem in D minor K 626 Philippe Herreweghe
3
So it ends.
5
They should be more concerned now than every before. Mr. Trump is the worst combination of ignorance, hubris and liar when it comes to important policy. You can not trust him.
13
"This brutal calculus over how to respond to North Korea is taking place in a region where several nations have the material, the technology, the expertise and the money to produce nuclear weapons."
The math is simple. The longer the wait to stop NK nuclear arms capability by any means necessary, the higher the cost in every respect.
1
If Mr. Trump wishes to preserve American credibility then he must order nuclear weapons deployment to South Korea and if possible, to Japan. The latter may be difficult. It would be easier to station a ballistic missile or cruise missile nuclear submarine within striking distance and making it know to the North Koreans that that option is on the table.
North Korea is testing American resolve. The North Koreans believe that the Americans will not risk an attack on American city if nuclear weapons are stationed in South Korea.
The difficulty of remaining neutral and non-threatening to North Korea is complicated by the North's on going threats to incinerate American bases and cities, even on the mainland United States.
So far Mr. Trump has not countered any North Korean threat with real American action such as strengthening U.S. forces abroad or deploying advanced or nuclear weaponry. There has been posturing by flying U.S. bombers and joint exercises with South Korea. That does not raise the ante. Placement of American nuclear weapons would raise the stakes and the risk to all sides.
Still its hard to believe that N. Korea would use its nuclear arsenal if the U.S. intervened with only conventional forces. That would still be national suicide for the North.
So, if we want to prevent nuclear proliferation there is only one choice; The U.S. must place nuclear weapons in South Korea. They can always be withdrawn and it would keep our allies from building their own.
2
The Age of Proliferation has begun in earnest.
The U.S. defense umbrella is illusory, since no president will ever risk sacrificing a U.S. city to protect Seoul or Tokyo. As such, Kissinger is correct in saying that once North Korea has nuclear weapon and missile capabilities, all other major Asian powers will need to have nuclear weapons of their own.
Ultimately, every state facing a larger conventional threat will acquire nuclear weapons as the most cost-effective and certain way to ensure regime stability.
As proliferation accelerates, the global order will fall apart as the U.S. loses the ability to control countries with financial or military power.
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate defensive weapon that will usher in a golden age of small states, mostly with authoritarian governments.
5
Since Obama Presidency, both the South Koreans and the Japanese started worrying about the trust-worthiness of the U.S. in spite of the current mutual security treaties between the U.S. and each country when our government divides between the President and the congress. Though hawkish Trump is welcomed in Japan and conversely is cautioned in South Korea, the trust-worthiness of the U.S. is the continued issue because the two countries know the arguments among the Americans that why we have to defend these countries if something happens between North Korea or China and South Korea /Japan respectively. The South Koreans are worrying about the possible provocation by President Trump and the Japanese try to believe that they would be miraculously saved from the nuclear attack by North Korea. On the surface, the Japanese looks unrealistic but in depth they are prepared to change the current constitution by offering two-thirds majority to prime minister Abe who plays the best-buddy to President Trump. Threat from North Korea is once a lifetime opportunity for prime minister Abe to change current constitution.
With the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons, atomic scientists have ensured that there is an inevitable end-game for the human race. The question at this point is not if, but when that will be.
It is ironic that some of the best minds in history were able to build nuclear weapons but that there isn’t anyone around smart enough to figure out how to get rid of them and prevent the ability to build them again in the future.
Big money in nuclear weapons and even bigger money in nuclear proliferation. If there was money to be made in peace, then we would have peace.
2
South Korea and Japan (as well as the Western European countries) most certainly do need their own in-place arsenals of nuclear weapons and credible means of delivery, plus state-of-the-art conventional forces. This is 2017 not 1947, and it is high time that they provided their own military defense, cutting free from dependence on the US. Better for them and better for us. By allowing and sponsoring North Korea in its own military build-up, the Russians and Chinese have made that clear. There now is no other rational alternative.
5
We're winning so much that, previously pacifist, countries are thinking of going nuclear. When Obama was President he corralled 17 different countries to put pressure on Iran and they stopped their nuclear program. Now, with Trump in charge, he may violate the terms of that agreement, freeing them up to restart down that dangerous road. His bellicose manner and off the cuff remarks only make life on the planet more and more dangerous, to the point where N.Korea can't possibly stop now and the surrounding countries have to act accordingly. The whole point of nuclear technology to make the destruction so overwhelming only a madman would think of employing them. Fast forward to modern times and we have a President who publicly asks "What's the sense of having them if we're not going to use them?" That sort of rhetoric can, only, bring about proliferation, never peace.
3
There really is very little chance of not triggering what is speedily becoming our atomic house of cards.There may be some postponement by taking out rouge states like North Korea but ultimately it is simply a matter of time. We've done it to ourselves.
If South Korea and Japan think the United States is going to defend them, they are fools.
46
That's exactly why they want their very own Nuclear Arsenals.
1
" Beyond South Korea and Japan, there is already talk in Australia, Myanmar, Taiwan and Vietnam about whether it makes sense to remain nuclear-free if others arm themselves ..."
Are you kidding me??!
Please tell me who in Australia, Myanmar,Taiwan and Vietnam are talking whether it makes sense to remain nuclear free if...?
I seriously doubt any of the above countries are talking about developing Nuclear weapons if others arm themselves with Nuclear Weapons...citations please!
25
Only puppet-master China has the leverage to force a halt to this North Korean nuclear arms program. They are apt to apply that leverage only if they realize that the consequences of not doing so will mean rapid nuclear arms proliferation along a chain of countries from Japan to Australia.
Negotiating from a position of military weakness never works. Someone named Neville Chamberlain once tried that.
2
Michael Chritins novel "On the Beach' may come true in Austrailia
1
For decades the Japanese have demonstrated against US installations in Japan, the Okinawa demonstrations and the recent moving of a US military base all continuously protested by Japan.
The wimpish South Korean government recently sent another 7 million dollars in aid to North Korea.
There is no continuity of leadership in these countries indicating that they really want US friendship, they want US protection but they are too cheap to cover the costs. Trump did not intensify the insecurities, their own short sighted politicians did by not supporting the USA wholeheartedly.
Japan has hidden behind its cloak of neutrality so long it's tiring. South Korea just keeps sending gifts North.
7
Of COURSE our asian allies will consider building nuclear weapons if North Korea does, starting with South Korea and Japan -- they'd be utterly idiot not to. And Japan and South Korea have large nuclear industries -- they can do so very quickly.
This is one of the many factors that makes the Chinese "strategy" of tacitly encouraging the North Koreans to do this laughable, if not tragic. (Dare I even call something this stupid a "strategy?" In the age of Trump ... yes!)
China will not be advantaged to have N. Korea, S. Korea and Japan all armed with nuclear weapons and in an arms race. They will like it even less when Taiwan, Australia, and perhaps even Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines go down this path.
The Chinese are usually portrayed as patient and far-seeing in strategy, but in this case the desire to cause mischief for the USA and the west overrode any real thinking.
As the article says -- the USA used pressure to stop South Korea and Taiwan from developing nuclear weapons.
North Korea is the puppet of China to a far greater extent than any of our allies in Asia are -- without constant subsidy by China the rabid dictatorship in Pyongyang could not survive.
America, the world, and particularly all of the citizens of China need to understand: North Korea is China's responsibility. And if North Korea uses Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons -- China should bear some of the retaliation, too.
6
hopefully taiwan will be able to exact brutal revenge against bejing when the chinese do begin to force a takeover. better to take them with you. hong kong puts its own head in the noose and now the intelligent members of the society are catching on. that said, trump's nation deserves no respect or cooperation from any decent nation or people.
1
What kind of sick minds are governing this world? Terrorism, discrimination, greed, lies and now the possibility of a nuclear war. I am part of the current generation and frankly I feel bad when I have to explain to my children the mess we are leaving to their generation.
140
Well, the "greatest generation" gave us Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The more things change the more they stay the same. Not to say it's a good thing.
Nuclear proliferation and destruction will be the death of Earth and civilization as we know it.
57
Yes but won’t the roaches be happy.
1
It’s called the “Drake Equation”. Once life on a planed evolves to the point of self consciousness and civilization, then how long until it destroys itself?
"the Allies" better stop and think. Nuclear War involves the world, not just a couple of countries. There would be many more victims than survivors. and the entire world would probably die slowly thru radiation sickness. War is different than it was in 1950..........
166
Why does it have to involve the world? The US should just surgically remove all of his capability and let him launch the first nuke - IF he can get it (or them) off we try to shoot them all down. Yes, he might get one or two through but the response from US would be overwhelming - might be the best thing for N. Korea in the long run.
It's just bizarre this even needs saying, Pogo.
You would think this was 1955 and everyone is being scared into thinking that atomic weapons will be falling from the sky at the drop of a hat.
No country will ever use a nuclear device on another country, period. North Korea is a tiny country with no money, no real assets aside from some raw minerals it desperately sells to China, never enough food to feed its people without importing and so on.
It's all just a bunch of saber rattling by the Kim regine, hoping it will cause countries like the USA to drop sanctions because --GASP!--they could bomb us! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
It's nothing to be concerned about, ever.
Sorry, Mike. But the flaw in your argument is people. There are few sane leaders in the world, just look at the U.S. and the belligerent statements Mr. Trump makes. There is the real possibility that there will be a nuclear incident created just because it can be. Afterwords, you can say that the leader who initiated it was crazy as an explanation. But, you know now that many of the leaders are crazy.
65
"No country will ever use a nuclear device on another country, period."
Have you heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
16
Valid point, many potential or unintentional mistakes can lead to full blown conflict. The chances are not nearly remote as zero, which is my benchmark for weapons of mass destruction. N.Korea must be disarmed. Period.
2
China's tolerance of the North Korean regime will eventually lead to it being surrounded by nuclear-armed neighbors. I hope Kim Jong-Un was worth it.
20
North Korea would not even exist if the US and Russia had withdrawn their forces after WWII and allowed Koreans to settle their political disagreements and install a government of their own choosing. History has consequences and the big boys such as the US playing divide and mis-rule games all over the planet are responsible for far more of its ills than all of the petty local thugs combined.
Many of the people I know and work with in the government and military in Hawaii are quick to point out that the NK regime is well aware that they would cease to exist within hours of any nuclear offensive missile provocation against the US or our Asian allies. I take cold comfort in this. Because besides protecting the Kim regime (something that the existing conventional standoff has done very nicely for 60 years in spite of NK provocations considered acts of war), NK fully intends to use the weapons to blackmail and extort and one can't discount the possibility they could sell them to terrorist groups. Re-uniting the Korean peninsula under NK rule is written into their constitution. This article explains clearly the potential for the secondary consequences in this area if the Kim's capabilities continue to expand unchecked. Not to mention the enormous investments in missile defense technology the US will have to pay for to deter the threat, including for my home island. At some point, probably very soon, NK must be stopped even it requires military action to kill this growing threat.
4
There are over a quarter of a million American citizens living in Seoul and other parts of South Korea, just miles from the DMZ. Won't the administration have to evacuate all non combat American citizens before they go to war, conventional or nuclear, with North Korea? To be responsible for the deaths or injuries to such a large American population will be irresponsible and totally unconscionable.
14
Perhaps if these quarter of a million Americans are sensible people, they will already be making plans to evacuate themselves!
2
Want an option? Here's an option: North Korea has the bomb. North Korea is going to keep the bomb. And we are going to have to live with a world in which North Korea has the bomb -- maybe even a couple of them.
103
Yes, but how does that work as a better distraction to Trump's woes? He doesn't care about the planet--he is on mars.
The U.S. will defend those countries, absolutely, but probably (hopefully) not with nukes. There really is no good practical reason for either SK or Japan to add nucear weapons to their bag of weaponry when they have the U.S. to handle that side of things.
1
It is well past time for "Operation Decapitation," the South Korean plan to completely remove the Kim family and team from power.
And that includes dismantling their nuclear goodies.
Now that Robert Mueller is beginning his long slog of indicting the Trump international crime family, team and appointees, we have to be supremely careful of separating Trump from the nuclear "football."
Bad timing all around which I hope does not turn into the perfect storm of catastrophe.
3
The North Koreans have, or are on the verge of having, an ICBM that could reach Alaska and perhaps even California. The exchange of insults between Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, two insecure and possibly unstable leaders, could lead to a tragic miscalculation. Suppose Trump, once again, threatens North Korea with “fire and fury” and Kim, who has no respect for Trump’s threats and bluster, calls his bluff and fires a missile armed with a tactical (“small”) nuclear device at Guam with the intent of flying near, but far enough away not to cause any damage. Unfortunately, North Korean guidance systems are notoriously unreliable and the warhead lends near enough to Guam to cause significant loss of life and property damage. What would Trump do?
2
Blame Obama or Trumps generals
1
The response of the current regime will be based on gaining a short term political advantage. I am not sure they defend Ca if it was attacked, much less Japan or S. Korea. Their goal is provoke N Korea into an attack so that a state of emergency can be declared, elections suspended with rule by decree by the emperor.
2
" (Japan has) 10 tons of plutonium stored domestically and another 37 million tons overseas."
I'm sorry but I don't believe there exists that amount of plutonium in the entire solar system. Someone is confused or is foisting one of the biggest lies I've heard in a long time.
76
You misread the article. Japan has 37 tons stored overseas not 37 million tons.
1
The article says Japan has 10 tons of plutonium stored domestically and 37 tons overseas--not 37 million tons.
The National Resources Defense Council report from 1999 cited Japan as having 21 tons and that there were 260 tons in the entire world. http://www.ccnr.org/plute_inventory_99.html
The Chinese passed nuclear technology to Pakistan who in turn passed it on to North Korea.No one dares to point this out.Pakistan and North Korea are of little importance to the outside world and would be paid little attention if they did not have nuclear weapons.They will continue to spread this problem unless steps are taken.However China and Russia are unlikely to allow it.If the US wasn't stuck with bad leadership and navel gazing this could be managed well.It sadly isn't.
13
Or we could just stop sanctions against them and let them join the world like everyone else. Their behavior is in response to our action to exclude them. Then we could all be friends and economic partners rather than enemies on the verge of nuclear war. Much better proposition. Invest the money in economic growth than ways to kill your fellow man and you will be quite surprised at the results.
37
Been there done that, didn’t work.
1
Rubbish. We made every effort to reach an agreement with North Korea and did. Food aid and lots of other things. And they responded by ignoring the agreement behind our backs.
2
The nonchalance with which I read this brings me a certain relief. No longer is NK an hypothetical imagined threat but a given reality, hence the process can officially commence in definitively dealing with it and what that means it will bring to all of us. The tortuous exercise of building and maintaining nuclear weapons under the self indulgent pretense of never using them while savoring the smug satisfaction of having them to dangle over others as a veiled threat is now past. Now it’s time to pay the piper for our sadistic pleasures and as a result have to taste the bitter fruit of what we’ve planted for ourselves.
2
Unless the North Korea problem goes away very soon, I am pretty confident that South Korea will develop nuclear weapons. I would be very surprised if they weren't in the design phase right now.
1
Our allies must just love the man who thinks it is perfectly ok to call Kim Jong-in "Rocket Man".
If the Congress of the US cannot pressure Donald J. Trump to behave, maybe our allies can. But you know, they have more important things to do than baby-sit Donald Trump over in the US. Like protect their own countries because of Trump.
55
RE: Allies Weigh Nuclear Options as North Korea Threat Looms
Misleading headline. The US does not have any allies. We have a lot of dependents. The US has been supporting Europe for a century - WWI, WWII, Marshall Plan, cold war and it continues today. And we also support Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, etc...
Hoping Trump will end the US taxpayer rip off is one of the reasons I voted for him. Time for the Europeans to start paying their own way - even it it means giving up state provided healthcare, 6 weeks vacations, and retirement at 60. Other "allies" need to start paying their way, too.
End the US taxpayer gravy train.
5
@Reader in Wash, DC
That mentality poisons the common good in the U.S. and now you think it should go global. Sad.
1
This is madness. The only way to stop this madness is for all the countries possessing nuclear weapons to begin negotiation to get rid of all of them. And it should start with the US to begin what was left off after Reagan and Gorbachev. Yes, given the global politics and mistrust, it's almost impossible to talk about reducing stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The US calls itself the leader of the free world, the only indispensable nation and so it should behave like one before it's too late.
1
Oh yes, Kissinger nows what he's talking about. There's no way Japan and South Korea will sit there, counting on us to protect them, with Kim being the sole possessor of a nuclear weapon. Nuclear proliferation, here we come. That is, if we don't nuke North Korea first, which of "all options on the table" seems to be the only one little Trumpy truly wants.
3
This is what happens when the US elects an ignoramus to the presidency. We now have the potential for two nuclear armed Koreas and a nuclear Japan. The doomsday clock will be 10 seconds from midnight at that point.
Here's what Trump does not understand: if DPRK hits LA with a nuke, it will be a calamity on the scale of World War II. Once that happens, the only feasible response is a retaliatory nuclear strike, probably on a large scale. Kim Jong Un will know the country is about to be obliterated and will travel into a mine somewhere while ordering the rest of their small nuclear arsenal be launched. In order to prevent any further strikes, the US must hit every possible target. Nuclear detonations on that scale are very bad for people. The Korean peninsula will be a mess, even if the south avoids a strike. Japan and Chinese territory will be at risk.
But it does not end there. If the US suspects Iran might have nuclear weapons at that point, even if it's unlikely that they actually do, the American people will, somewhat rightly, demand that Iran prove its lack of weapons or face military consequences.
1
Maybe I'm being naieve but I believe that this growing fearful reaction regarding North Korea is overblown. Kim Jong Un knows that he and his country would be annihilated if he attacked any country in any way shape or form. He loves power and his dynasty and it's benefits too much to commit suicide, which is what any offensive action on his part would lead to. .
If Mr. Trump were sufficiently mature and informed and not a name-calling dangerous undisciplined bully this situation most likely wouldn't be escalating and causing the world to become an even more threatening place.
One thing for sure, North Korea won't give up its pursuit of deliverable nuclear weapons. Like all other countries, including our own, he believes to survive he needs to be able to defend himself. As Putin said, Kim would have North Koreans eat grass if sanctions came to that rather than give up his nuclear weapons program. So anyone demanding that is beating head against wall. And war to force it is not a rational option.
I believe that once armed and more or less an equal on the world stage regarding defense, Kim will probably be willing to discuss mutual containment.
17
Despite my advancing decrepitude, I am more than somewhat sure I recall some very snotty comments from the Right, last summer, when it was noted that Donald Trump's bellowing about dumping NATO and SEATO, pulling our troops out of Korea and Japan, and letting everybody build their own nukes might just get us into trouble someday.
Welcome to someday.
2
Not to be overly blunt here but there is really only one reason why anyone is considering nuclear armament. The Asian-Pacific community doubts the U.S. commitment to allied nuclear deterrence. That's the elephant in the room; pun intended. President Trump, along with his Republican backers, has already diminished U.S. international standing to the point of global nuclear proliferation. Slow clap. We really need the Asian-Pacific community rearming a technologically advanced military after millennia of strife and long remembered animosity. Great job folks. I feel much safer now.
69
South Korea and Japan have long debated the merits and drawbacks of going nuclear if others in the region do. Decades of N. Korean appeasement and the resulting N. Korean ability to strike the US mainland does indeed significantly change the calculus for how much the US can (and will be willing to) protect against a N.Korean attack.
This has very little to do with Trump - we are seeing the result of failed past Administration policies and a very poor gamble on the part of China.
2
The North Koreans have developed nuclear weapons as a deterrent to nuclear-armed America forcing regime change with military means. Based on the article, the rest, or almost the rest of Asia may use this as an excuse to go nuclear.
The final result may be that all Asian nations have nuclear weapons. Except for North Korea, of course. Surely, it have been more logical if one administration after another hadn't rejected out-of-hand the idea of negotiating a deal in which we would have ditched our plans for regime change and the North Koreans reciprocated by shutting down their nuclear program. But logic and American foreign policy seem to be mutually exclusive.
2
Pure propaganda no grown up believes.
North Korea is ONLY at risk because it's nuke AND it's ICBM program.
1
The only voice of sanity in the debate on whether other neighboring countries should follow North Korea in developing nuclear weapons is President Moon Jae-in of South Korea. Clearly, a nuclear arms race in Southeast Asia is in no one's interests, but it may be a bargaining chip in negotiations with the North Koreans... if President Xi of China can get talks started and President Trump will stop tweeting and give diplomacy a chance. Obviously, two big "ifs," but the alternative is a destabilizing nuclear arms race. So far, President Trump has proven more adept at deal breaking than deal making. Here's a chance to show a skeptical world his "art of the deal" skills by creating a nuclear free zone in the region accompanied by a treaty of non-interference in North Korea that includes lifting all sanctions.
1
Unfortunately our policies over the last few decades/administrations only served to appease the North Koreans (and Chinese) and now we are faced with a nuclear-armed North Korean state able to threaten the continental US with a nuclear weapon.
Japan and S. Korea having a small deterrent capability is the undeniable reality the region will be faced with in the future.
1
There is still distance between where things stand today and warfare with North Korea, but Trump is squandering possibilities.
Rex Tillerson referenced several back channels, for which Trump publicly rebuked him for 'wasting time.' Nikki Haley addressed the UN with a plea to utilize every diplomatic option, then Trump used the mocking nickname of 'Rocket Man' at the UN, while also dismissing the value of the multinational nuclear accord keeping Iran in check. Upping the ante with words like unprecedented "fire and fury" only makes resolutions more elusive. And Trump fluctuates sharply on what role, if any, China can have here.
Increased nuclear weaponry should be a last resort. Yet Trump is determined to burn the bridges we still have.
3
Like so many issues, we kick the can down the road until it becomes a crisis.
Global warming flooding coastal cities, the same.
Trillion dollar debt threatening the currency, the same.
Inner city dysfunction threatening the social order of cities, the same.
Education system not keeping up with the pace of change, the same.
Democracy itself needing to be fixed, the same.
So much easier to not fix these things and leave them to the next generation.
5
Other countries don't trust us anymore. How said we've let our country become an undependable ally in the world. Our reputation and honor have been severely damaged. We can look at our majority Republican House and Senate as responsible.
2
Reading this article, one pines for the Cold War. In a sense, the current "go nuclear" fad could have been stopped by the US and the USSR during the Cold War. Instead both countries were more intent on staring each other down than on preventing nuclear proliferation. Today, humanity is paying the price for their failure to rein in nuclear weapons technology.
2
The escalation has caused these countries to consider going nuclear to protect themselves. What is needed now is quiet diplomacy with China to defuse the situation and come up with a strategic plan to minimize the threats and nuclear capabilities of the rogue nation. Clearly, the public name calling has not helped, and the effects have been disturbing. Let the hard, long work of negotiations begin before proliferation occurs.
The furies are out of the box. But mutual assured destruction hasn't been all that bad as a concept favoring peace. The way out is international standardization of all nukes and strategic systems - hey, let's have a US/Russian,Chinese/French/etc fly-off to see what works best and then everybody has to use that design in assigned numbers - so that any notions of technological advantage, or overwhelming force are taken off the table. Then only permit short range or plane delivered designs, so that nukes do what they do best - ensure that nobody tries to invade and take away anybody's national sovereignty. Digital arming codes could then be supplied daily, weekly, monthly, or whatever, by an international source, based on good, peaceable behavior on the world stage.
1
Why would North Korea launch a nuclear attack on any other nation unless they thought their very survival were in immediate jeopardy? A handy suggestion to Trump administration: stop threatening nuclear war.
Trump sadistically relishes the possibility of nuclear war. Kim may be a madman, but so is Trump. We can remove Trump a lot easier than Kim, and with several million lives saved in the bargain, then we deal with Kim later - if at all.
After being technically at war with North Korea for more than 50 years wouldn't this be a good time to open peace negotiations? First, we allow recognition of North Korea as a legitimate nation, only later do we address our concerns of nuclear power in relation as a negotiating chip for vastly expanded trade deals that could save their economy.
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
― Abraham Lincoln
3
If South Korea Vietnam Japan Even Formosa/Taiwan it will put tremendous pressure to mend its ways.Wean away from Pakistan and will put pressure on China to conclude to define border with India may be reduction of troops and Nuclear weapons.
And this is how it all starts. Whether it's North Korea, South Korea, the U.S. or Japan -- it's just the first in a chain of reactions involving a nuclear domino effect.
It makes no difference who starts it, when the end is always the same.
There will be no winners here.
97
This is a dynamic that is being described too narrowly. North Korea isn’t the only failed or near-failed state in the world that may spark regional nuclear races.
It really began with Pakistan and its gibbering paranoia about India. From there, we see its nuclear client, North Korea, getting set to strut, Iran only awaiting its own perfection of delivery vehicles to do the same, apparently satisfied to be patient for a few more years so long as its money was unfrozen and it could trade oil transparently on world markets. When that happens, expect the entire Middle East to be an armed nuclear camp in response. Who is to say that Pakistan won’t be forced to arm the Taliban? Venezuela is a basket-case, but what happens if it finally abandons its debt and the cyclical oil industry sees oil double in cost per bbl? Surely, North Korea would sell the technology to anyone who could pay. What happens then? Central and South America bristling with tactical nuclear weapons supplied by the U.S., Pakistan, North Korea and, who knows? Russia, Ukraine, even China?
The problem is failed states seeking means of blackmailing the world to feed them and perpetuate the power of brutal regimes, all to avoid the prospect of a mushroom cloud. If the prospect of only one launch from North Korea at the West could incite such fear, where might the appeasement stop? Anywhere? The world has many failed and fragile states, and buccaneers are becoming fashionable by our tolerance of them.
19
Time to dust-off Reagan’s Star Wars. The only real protection a billionaire has walking on the street from a ragged child paid $50 to put a bullet into the back of his head is the willingness to walk about in a titanium helmet. But if they did, nobody would bother bribing children to kill them. If there’s great cost associated with developing a nuclear capacity that can’t actually threaten anyone, we may scotch the spread of these terrible weapons.
It’s either that or we cave, and agree to simply feed failed states forever and perpetuate their brutal regimes in power.
If Trump hasn’t already secretly ordered a big-time renewal of ABM research, then he DESERVES to be impeached.
Do you really mean that Japan has 37 million tons of PU stored abroad?
8
It's a mistake. At the end of 2016, Japan had 9.8 MT of Pu stored domestically and 37.1 MT stored abroad, which is probably where that number came from, erroneously multiplied by a million:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countr...
2
Danarlington. One bomb from here or there is enough to destroy life on our plant, either instantly or soon after so who cares what you are saying. It is meaningless.
2
I'm surprised that hasn't been corrected yet. Japan's total plutonium stockpile is 45-48 tons according to multiple sources (Wikipedia, Japan Times, etc.) with about 10 tons in Japan and the remaining 35-38 stored abroad. One imagines such a huge error would have been caught and corrected in the first draft of this story.
1
One thing is certain. If we go to war with N. Korea, with him as Commander-in-Chief, we'll lose.
184
This is the first time in decades that it feels like real progress is being made to solve the North Korea problem once and for all. No more acquiescing to Kim's demands, no more backing down from their threats. Say what you want about Trump, but he and his staff are doing a commendable job with North Korea.
2
If North Korea and the USA go to war and if either use a nuclear weapon, the entire world will lose. First, literally, not figuratively, the entire world will lose. In the first hour of a nuclear war, literally, NOT figuratively, MILLIONS of people will die. In the first year following the start of a nuclear war, literally, NOT figuratively, TENS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE.
If a nuclear war begins, though initially most of the casualties will be in South East Asia, eventually it will work its way to North America and it is likely that at least one American city will be literally wiped off the map. If anyone doubts these predictions, they should look at the photos and history of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they should keep in mind that the hydrogen bombs of today are 1000X (no exaggeration) more powerful than the nuclear bombs the USA used to end WWII.
6
trebordet. Once the air is nuclear there will be no winners or losers in a war with No. Korea since those who don't die instantly will die painfully later. And that realization covers the globe. So you are stupid to talk of winners. What we should talk of is ridding ourselves of Trump and his crazies now while there is a chance to prevent catastrophe.
14
This is all crazy and so delusional. There is no such thing as a small nuclear attack.
229
Having nuclear weapons is delusional but there is no going back.There will always be a rogue state that will want to have it and technology cannot be bottled up in an interconnected world.
2
We are truly in "crazy time"!
We managed a cold war with Russia for decades.
The danger here is that we have 2 bullies in charge.
In my opinion, it is too late to stop NK from becoming a nuclear power and the sooner we admit that to ourselves, the sooner we can get on with dealing with them in other manners......I think that their main goal is to be considered as equals in the "we can destroy you" field. Then we can talk. Even with the leaders we both have, neither side wants world destruction which is where we are going if we continue as we are doing.
Let's face reality! Let's show leadership!
3
There are smaller scale nuclear weapons designed to wipe out enemy troop concentrations, as well as larger scale nuclear weapons designed to demolish entire cities. I remember use of the former being mentioned in Army maneuver radio communications, way back in the mid-1950s, when I was a US Army radio operator on NATO maneuvers in West Germany.
3