Excellent article in Atlantic magazine on North Korea. It’s based on interviews with US national-security experts and military officers specialized in the problem of NK, and looked at the four broad strategic options the US has for dealing with NK's nuclear program...
1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang’s arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea’s standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all.
2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea’s capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.
3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.
4. Acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim’s developing the weapons he wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.
It concludes with - "In short, North Korea is a problem with no solution … except time.
True, time works in favor of Kim getting what he wants. Every test, successful or not, brings him closer to building his prized weapons. When he has nuclear ICBMs, North Korea will have a more potent and lethal strike capability against the United States and its allies, but no chance of destroying America, or winning a war, and therefore no better chance of avoiding the inevitable consequence of launching a nuke: national suicide. Kim may end up trapped in the circular logic of his strategy. He seeks to avoid destruction by building a weapon that, if used, assures his destruction...
But acceptance, while the right choice, is yet another bad one. With such missiles, Kim might feel emboldened to move on South Korea. Would the U.S. sacrifice Los Angeles to save Seoul? The same calculation drove the U.K. and France to develop their own nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Trump has already suggested that South Korea and Japan might want to consider building nuclear programs. In this way, acceptance could lead to more nuclear-armed states and ever greater chances that one will use the weapons.
With his arsenal, Kim may well become an even more destabilizing force in the region. There is a good chance that he would try to negotiate from strength with Seoul and Washington, forging some kind of confederation with the South that leads to the removal of U.S. forces from the peninsula. If talks were to resume, Trump had better enter them with his eyes open, because Kim, who sees himself as the divinely inspired heir to leadership of all the Korean people, is not likely to be satisfied with only his half of the peninsula...
Although in late April Trump called Kim “a madman with nuclear weapons,” perhaps the most reassuring thing about pursuing the acceptance option is that Kim appears to be neither suicidal nor crazy...As tyrants go, he’s shown appalling natural ability. For a man who occupies a position both powerful and perilous, his moves have been nothing if not deliberate and even cruelly rational.
And as the latest head of a family that has ruled for three generations, one whose primary purpose has been to survive, as a young man with a lifetime of wealth and power before him, how likely is he to wake up one morning and set fire to his world?"
So I wonder if Japan and/or South Korea were to start a nuclear weapons program, what role the NNSA Labs play and would they potentially have a relationship similar to the one with the UK.
This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Comments not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email firstname.lastname@example.org
- Blog features??
- The for-profit disaster
- Letter from Council Chair David Izraelevitz to NNS...
- Los Alamos County Unhappy With Draft LANL M&O Cont...
- Alleged Tesa Access Issues At Lawrence Livermore N...
- LLNL's Mark Martinez to lead Nevada Site Contracto...
- First known name for Nevada.
- LANS ratings decline across the board under UC lea...
- NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR...
- No possible UC future at LANL?
- LANL performance stats
- Los Alamos Field Office future.
- Whistle blower found dead
- Former LANL whistleblower murdered in Arizona
- North Korea activity - not good!!
- Story on SNL/LANS
- Draft RFP for LANL
- Wall Street top mogul to run Energy Office of Scie...
- Los Alamos disciplines employees
- LANL makes changes
- Nationwide impact on science collaboration caused ...
- LANL employees bidding
- Protest withdrawal
- Lazy culture
- Same old story.
- Employees lashing out
- Toxic Legacy
- Split the blog
- Is the China tokamak work as credible as it seems?...
- UC Fees
- LANS breaking up for the rebid
- Potential LLNL impact on LANL recompete?
- Rename Sandia?
- Spin off pit production?
- Safety, security and private management
- LANL O&M Contract Pre-Solicitation
- North Korea: Analysis
- ▼ July (38)
- ► 2016 (295)
- ► 2015 (330)
- ► 2014 (309)
- ► 2013 (431)
- ► 2012 (258)
- ► 2011 (162)
- ► 2010 (157)
- ► 2009 (231)
- ► 2008 (374)