How to deal with a nuclear North Korea?

Great Debates
1

Yes, there have been a number of threads here recently regarding North Korea, its threats, and its posturing. Some of them have even touched on the question of how the US and the rest of the world should deal with a nuclear-armed North Korea. Still, in none of those threads was that the main focus. I would like to do that now in this thread.

As a very brief background, North Korea claims it will be restarting its nuclear reactors (and may have done so already). Objective sources state that NK already has enough plutonium for around six nuclear weapons and, once its reactors are back online, will be able to produce enough plutonium and/or enriched uranium to produce one or two weapons annually.

Assuming the foregoing is essentially correct, North Korea could have somewhere around twenty to twenty-five “atomic bombs” within ten years.

The thought of North Korea in possession of twenty nukes is more than disturbing. In fact, given its track record for impulsive violence and military action, its total lack of respect for human rights (and by implication for human life), and the apparent instability of its leaders, I would actually call it intolerable.

So, I ask: how should the US and its allies respond to this potential development? Can the US, its allies, and the rest of the world tolerate the existence of a North Korea well supplied with nukes?

Should pre-emptive strikes be used? Seems unlikely given that NK’s nuclear program is not only dispersed, but is buried deep within a myriad of hidden cave systems.

Should Kim be bought off (i.e. reward him and his country for giving up their nuclear program and weapons)? Again, this seems very unlikely given Kim’s recent statements that having nuclear weapons is a key component of North Korea’s economic plan (and even part of its ‘constitution’) and, of course, words to the effect that such weapons are integral to the defence of NK.

Or, should we simply acquiesce to that new reality as troubling and potentially catastrophic as it might be?

2

That one.
The world has long since had to aquiesce to the thought of the United States having possession of twenty nukes, which is more than disturbing. In fact, given its track record for impulsive military action, its lack of respect for other nation’s rights (and by implication for human life other than Americans), and the apparent instability of its people, I would actually call it intolerable.

3

Do you honestly believe that the decision making process in the US regarding the use of nuclear weapons is similar to that likely to be used by the North Koreans? I sure don’t. Moreover, whose nuclear weapons are more likely to fall into the hands of “insurgents” (insurgents inside North Korea itself should the government fall or insurgents elsewhere in the world should the NK government choose to export to terrorist groups)? Do you think the likelihood is the same?

4

How did a thread about dealing with North Korea turn into an anti-US screed in the first reply?

At any rate, it seems the US, SK, China, and the UN are dealing with the situation in the manner that minimizes bloodshed. The UN sanctions are clearly affecting North Korea.

As panicky as some people are, the analysts probably have it right, it’s a matter of waiting until NK realizes all the threats and escalation aren’t going to produce any food aid or money. Then, they’ll make conciliatory overtures and eventually back down in some face saving way, at which point the topic of additional aid might be brought back up.

5

I am truly concerned that North Korea is on the verge of economic collapse ala the USSR. What I think we should do is get prepared militarily, and though I don’t know how, make this China’s problem.

6

Actually, I suspect N Koreans to be a lot stricter with than the US had, for the simple reason that they are so few of them. These are the family jewels and the North is not going to hand them over to whichever lunatic wants to buy them.
As it is the North is going to be learning that being an overt nuclear power has it’s own many problems in form of international attention and strategic outlook as Pakistan discovered post 1998. They might wish that they had stayed in the closet like Israel.

Speaking of Israel, I can’t help but think that little Kim might be about to pull of a Sadat.

7

Even if we knew right where all the components were, and could destroy them all before the Norks could react, they’ve got the equivalent of a nuclear deterrent with all of their artillery pointing at Seoul. A pre-emptive strike, even if i were successful, would probably cost the lives of millions of South Koreans.

8

I’ve seen that the figure, and while likely also unacceptable, the more acurate estimate is said to be “only” in the tens of thousands.

I qualified the word ‘unacceptable’ with ‘likely’ because I suppose the South Koreans may prefer to lose fifty thousand of its people rather than to truly risk millions of dead if the North Koreans ever did seem about to exercise its nuclear option.

9

I’m not disputing it, just genuinely curious: where did the “tens of thousands” estimate come from? I’m definitely not an expert, it just seems a bit on the low side if North Korea ever decided to see how much of a mess they could make of Seoul.

10

I’ll look for it, but in a previous NK thread, somebody posted a summary of a study showing the direct deaths due to shelling to be likely limited to the tens of thousands as SK and US forces knocked out artillery sites as they were spotted.

I thought the numbers were a little too focused, though. While deaths directly due to the shelling is a useful number, it doesn’t count the millions affected by the damage to infrastructure and the several more wounded or dead due to debris like chunks of concrete and glass and reduced access to hospitals, much less the limited capacity of hospitals.

SK isn’t risking 50000 of its own dead, but 50000 of its own dead in the first few days plus billions of dollars in damage to infrastructure and millions of people seriously affected by power/water/road outages and additional injury/death due to the effects of the attacks with lingering effects for years on end.

And of course, many SK businesses wouldn’t be operating normally for a long time. As a G20 nation, that’s a problem that spreads towards the wider world.

As I mentioned in that thread, it was a lot like listening to General Turgidson in Dr Strangelove talk about ‘acceptable’ US casualties in the tens of millions as a result of a US first strike.

11

I actually learned of it on these Boards. Please see post #56 from this thread(for the links).

12

Thanks!

13

You mean the making-peace part or the getting-assassinated-for-it part?

14

This isn’t an answer to your OP, but you left out a few things in your OP that I think are relevant.

North Korea is dirt poor and has a track record of breaking international law as a way to make money. The North Korean government has been tied to and accused of making counterfeit currency (US currency, maybe Euros too) as well as manufacturing and smuggling drugs. They also sell weapons which I assume is illegal with all the sanctions against them.

The reality is lets say government X (lets say Sudan, because the international community is putting pressure on them) offers $5 billion for a nuclear weapon or offers $2-3 billion for enough enriched uranium or plutonium to build one, since as long as you have the fissionable material the bomb itself isn’t hard. What can the international community do to stop North Korea from being like the AQ Kahn network and filling the world with nukes and putting them in the hands of the worst governments? Invade North Korea? They will have 20 more nuclear weapons. There is nothing stopping NK from keeping 10-20 nuclear weapons as a deterrent and selling the plutonium they make each year for several billion dollars. What is the international community going to do? That is the real risk IMO. Sooner or later the wrong people will get access to those nukes.

That IMO is the long term goal of the NK. Doing so will create tons of problems for the world, make NK very important on the international stage, earn tons of money for the regime, make the NK impossible to invade and overthrow and drastically increase the global diplomatic power of NK (selling a nuclear weapon will create strong alliances). That is probably exactly what the regime wants.

15

We’re a lot safer now than we were before North Korea went nuclear. Before, if they wanted to posture, there was always a risk that they’d do it with their very real, very reliable, and very dangerous conventional artillery. Now, though, whenever the Kim du jour needs to blow off some steam, he just tests another unwieldy, inefficient, undeliverable nuclear weapon that doesn’t pose any threat to anyone but the North Koreans themselves. They have nukes, but they don’t have the capability to do anything offensive with them.

16

I think you are absolutely correct about this risk and I should have included more than indirect allusion to it in my OP.

What do you propose should be done to prevent such a nightmare scenario from being realized? If China had the balls, and was willing to accept the consequent influx of refugees, I’d say that they could take out Kim, his cronies, and senior military types and replace them with their (China’s) lackeys.

I suspect my ‘China solution’ (above) is far too simplistic and honestly am hoping that more knowledgeable folks will show me why it’s not a viable, or even desirable, option (or, unlikely, but even better, that it is viable and desirable).

17

I wouldn’t find that reassuring if I lived in Seoul. I could take a chance with surviving an artillery barrage but nuclear attack? Not so much.

Besides, what if NK sells them to some undesirable types (countries, organizations, etc.)?

18

They can export the big, unwieldy, inefficient weapons in pieces to a rented apartment facing the route the Presidential motorcade takes frequently.

Anybody hear of Chinese troops massing on the NK border? That reactor (the one missing its cooling tower) is roughly 100 miles from their border.
I’m hoping to see this confirmed - this is one case where I"d love to see the PLA come visit their good friends in NK.

19

Oh, Secretary of State Kerry (first came to public view as Vietnam Vets Against the War) recently stated that “the US will never accept a nuclear North Korea”.
So much for the “deal with it”. We should have dealt with it 20 years ago when the Chinese first wanted economic development more than ideology.

20

I don’t know what the solution is, sadly. I don’t know if there even is one.

In that NYT article I posted earlier it was mentioned how NK helped Syria set up a nuclear plant in 2007. So they have already had a track record of selling the material to make nukes to regimes. They also may have been trying to sell centrifuges to Burma. This is like the Iraq WMD issue all over again, except true this time.

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/new-fears-north-korea-may-sell-nuclear-material-to-other-nations-after-new-tests/story-fndir2ev-1226601080717

http://www.nkeconwatch.com/2013/03/19/dprk-shipment-to-myanmar-halted/

The world does nothing despite NK already selling nuclear technology, so I see no reason NK won’t start selling the end product instead of just selling the materials to make the end product. Really, what could the world do? NK already has sanctions up the wazoo and they don’t care. if anything it goes in line with their Juche philosophy.

I have no idea what to do about it. Even if China does get pissed at NK, they really can’t do anything about it either. China is less interested in human rights than the west (and would likely not care as much if Seoul gets bombed to bits) but if anything NK likely wants to be independent of China too.

No idea. In a hostage crisis situation (which is what this is, NK is holding SK and Japan hostage to artillery and WMD) the method of victory (if video games and biographies are true) is to use a diversion and then kill all the hostage takers before they have a chance to mount a response. I don’t know if that is possible, NK will have time to mount a response to being attacked.