The nuclear standoff with North Korea seems like it’s reaching a boiling point.
President Trump has drawn a red line that the North will not acquire a missile capable
of striking the U.S. mainland.
But the North is not listening.
They’ve been increasing their missile tests as they try to develop a rocket that can hit
an American city.
Let’s take a look at the options the U.S. has for dealing with North Korea.
North Korea is the only country that has tested a nuclear weapon in the 21st century.
In fact, it’s done it five times.
After Kim Jong Un became Supreme Leader in 2011, the North began ramping up the frequency
of its missile tests.
In response to the growing threat, President Obama ordered the US military to use cyber
and electronic strikes to sabotage the North’s test launches, just like it had done to Iran’s
rogue nuclear facilities a few years before.
The move worked, according to a recent investigative report by the New York Times:
“Soon a large number of the North’s military rockets began to explode, veer off course,
disintegrate in midair and plunge into the sea.”
One medium range missile failed on 88 percent of its test launches, far higher than the
13 percent failure rate of the Soviet-era weapon on which it was based.
These security breaches enraged Kim, who ordered the execution of five senior officials by
a firing squad of anti-aircraft guns.
But despite the setbacks, the North says it’s almost ready to test its first missile capable
of reaching the United States.
Even if this is just big talk, one thing is clear: our military does not currently have
the ability to stop the North’s nuclear weapons program.
After it successfully launched a satellite in 2016, it now may be able to strike targets
up to 4,000 miles away.
That not only puts South Korea and Japan well in range, but also India, parts of Northern
Australia, US bases in the Pacific, and even Anchorage.
But to hit the American mainland they’ll need to bust out the big boys.
US intelligence estimates the North has six KN-08’s and is developing an upgraded version
called the KN-14.
Neither has been tested yet, but both could theoretically hit us here in the states.
To defend against this type of intercontinental ballistic missile threat, we have a multi-layered,
partially land-based missile defense system protecting the US mainland and our allies,
but those systems have never been tested in live combat, have had high failure rates when
tested so far, and would likely fail against a barrage of more than a handful of missiles.
President Obama was so concerned by the situation, he warned President Trump that this was the
most urgent problem confronting the United States.
So what exactly are Trump’s options?
Option #1 has just been taken: deploy the THAAD missile defense system to South Korea.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense gives the pacific alliance another layer of protection
against ballistic missiles alongside their existing patriot systems and Aegis equipped
naval destroyers.
By placing THAAD so close to the North, the US, Korea, and Japan have instantly enhanced
their ability to track and respond to missile launches.
But China is protesting the move, saying “it’s common knowledge that the monitoring and early
warning radius of THAAD reaches far beyond the Korean Peninsula and compromises China’s
strategic security.”
They argue THAAD’s deployment could set off an arms race in the region.
But this seems hypocritical considering how much China — as the North’s lone ally
and largest trading partner — has already enabled its erratic behavior.
Not to mention China’s rapid militarization of the South China sea.
Option # 2 is for Trump to double down on Obama’s effort to sabotage North Korea’s
missile tests.
But this strategy could have unintended consequences if it emboldens Russia and China to try and
disrupt US launch systems.
Option #3 is to put more diplomatic pressure on the North through China.
This interview from last year offers some insight into how Trump views this approach.
[O’Donnell] North Korea’s nuclear threat is the top threat to the United States.
What would you do to deal with that reclusive country?
Trump: I would get China to make that guy disappear in one form or another very quickly.
And let me tell you— [O’Donnell] How would you make him disappear?
Assassinate him?
[Trump] Well, I’ve heard of worse things frankly.
This guy’s a bad dude.
But we have a lot of power over China, don’t underestimate it.
Option #4 is bold, to put nuclear weapons back in South Korea in hopes that the doctrine
of Mutually Assured Destruction would serve as a check against the North.
This would probably just provoke the North’s weapons pursuit, while suddenly ending the
decades-old US policy favoring nuclear disarmament with significant consequences around the world.
Lastly, option #5 is the most risky and aggressive: preemptively striking the North.
President Obama considered this option, but ultimately concluded that accurately targeting
the North’s constantly moving leadership and weapons would be nearly impossible.
The risks of a miss were way too high.
Any attack that didn’t immediately defeat the regime would be guaranteed to start a
war, with horrific consequences for millions of people on the entire peninsula—especially
for the South if China rushed to the North’s defense.
And even if the regime was defeated, you’d then own the fates of the 25 million North
Koreans, many of whom would pour over the borders into China and the South.
We’ll know sooner rather than later which steps the US government takes in this high
stakes showdown.
But I want to know which options you think President Trump should pursue?
And which you think he will pursue?
Two very different questions.
I loved interacting with your comments on our two-parter about the countries with the
most and least wealth at top 1%.
Viktor agreed his country has problems; we had suggestions to use the GINI coefficient
to rank countries on equality; and we started a bunch of conversations about the evils of
uneven wealth distribution.
Until next time, for TDC, I’m Bryce Plank.