In my politically uneducated mind, I cannot figure out why USA expects [Iran, North Korea, whoever else] to denuclearize (or to stop their nuclear development programs).
Why wouldn’t the North Korean response simply be “you first”?
Is this just a case of one country which has the resources, money and power bullying other countries into doing what they want ‘or else we’ll sanction you into the ground’? Or are there justifiable reasons why the US ought to quash everyone else’s nuclear programs while maintaining their own?
As you allude to, nuclear nonproliferation is about the most hypocritical aspect of international relations that there is. Nobody argues for nuclear disarmament on the basis of it being “fair,” they argue for it because the idea of having several dozen new nations join the nuclear club makes them nervous.
A couple of things. First off, the US isn’t the only country pushing for NK to denuclearize. Nor was the US the sole country that originally pushed for nuclear non-proliferation. The US is pushing the hardest wrt North Korea, but you seem to be implying that it’s only the US which is incorrect.
As to why the nuclear powers originally pushed for non-proliferation, well, that’s obvious…nuclear weapons can destroy entire cities in one strike, and having those weapons in everyone’s hand would be very destabilizing. It wasn’t about being ‘fair’, it was about trying to prevent the things from spinning out of control and leading to the end of human civilization. Was that a worthy goal? I’d say yeah, it was.
North Korea, of course, was never a signatory to the NNPT, so they never got any of the bennies from signing it and then reneging. But it still is in the US’s best interest to try and push the NKs into giving the things up. As to the reverse, well…that would be kind of silly. Sure, NK COULD say ‘you first’, but pretty much everyone would have a stunned look on their face before laughing and probably falling out of their chair. It would be stupid if they were serious, and probably why they haven’t tried to use this tactic. From a practical perspective of course, there isn’t any way for the US or anyone else to force North Korea to give the things up either, only try and put pressure on them to voluntarily give them up.
And convince the other powers, especially those who would be directly affected due to radiation and crap falling on their citizens that it really happened the way we said, despite their own direct evidence to the contrary?
Oh, if we could get away with it then…well, it would still be a bad idea. But the thing is, in reality, we can’t, so no using the standard Albuquerque police solution (i.e. bang bang bang Freeze!).
I implied no such thing. I’ve singled out the USA because:
It is one of two countries with massive stockpiles of nukes
It has been at the forefront of several denuclearization
But I’m fully aware that the USA is just one of dozens of countries who are working together for this goal.
Sure, non-proliferation seems to be a good thing. When Australia, Spain or Finland encourage non-proliferation, I respect it. But having one of the loudest voices for non-proliferation be a hoarder of nukes, themselves … well that’s some absurd double standards. Thus, I’m curious if there’s a good justification for the double standard, or if it’s just like a bully in the schoolyard who eats all the candy while forcing other kids to give theirs up.
Why? Why would it be so ridiculous for a world leader to tell other world leaders “you want me to denuclearize? I only have a few nukes. How about we talk about the guys with thousands of nukes?”
Because in the real world countries negotiate realistically and when they have some reasonable method to do so. North Korea has zero leverage to even talk to the US about getting rid of nukes. This is why in the real world, only Russia has been able to discuss this topic and actually get (and of course vice versa) the US removing some of their nukes. Basically, there is nothing the North Koreas could use TOO get the US to take any such request seriously. And everyone knows this. So, they would, rightfully, be laughed at…same as if they went to the Chinese and asked them to give up their nukes, or asked the Brits or the French to do so. And the US was not only the first member of the exclusive club but also have an order of magnitude more capabilities than China, France or the UK…which have an order of magnitude more than North Korea does.
I’m struggling to find an analogy in my current state, but it would be like Obama going to Trump and demanding his tax returns because Obama gave up his own when he was running for president. Obama has no way to force or even have Trump take serious such a request. He’s not in the congress or senate, has no way to pressure Trump to do so, and so such a request would be laughed off. It’s not a very good analogy, because Obama is actually closer in power to Trump, even though he’s not currently president, than North Korea is to the US.
The thing is, you need to put aside any notions you have that international politics is about fairness or what’s right, it’s about power. You can decry this as not fair or whatever, but it’s the reality. North Korea doesn’t have sufficient power to do more than try and hold onto their nukes while fending off the US’s attempts in pressuring them to give the things up. Of course, it’s not right or fair that they HAVE the things…they have them because another superpower (2 actually) decided to help them get them and for no other reason.
Um…ALL the major nuclear powers pushed for the NNPT And, basically, they did so with bribes. Countries that signed would get goodies…countries that didn’t would get the cold shoulder (by and large). It IS a double standards, and always was on…hell, it’s a double standard BY DESIGN. The justification is that every country that gets the things, especially those who are potentially unstable themselves (like, oh, say North Korea…or Iran) increases the probability that something bad will happen wrt nuclear weapons. Presumably, the large powers would be less susceptible to this (woops on the USSR thingy).
It’s not about being a bully though. If the US wanted to REALLY be the school yard bully then they would directly and openly threaten countries who might be developing the things…or perhaps it would be Russia doing so. Or the UK, or France or China. Since the US made the club and was the first member, that sort of mafia type response didn’t happen. Plus, different powers have different goals and different interests. So, some countries got help with their programs while others were bribed not to pursue the things. I think this was actually a very good thing, for the most part, and most countries went along…the smart ones did, realizing that they couldn’t compete with the US or Russia in any case, and that, in the end, those weapons would almost certainly never get used, so why waste all that money and effort?
If you’re singling out North Korea it’s because that country is basically a cult with borders. No one on the outside really knows what’s going on with the leadership there, it might change overnight, and whoever is in charge tomorrow might want to throw MERVs like confetti at a parade.
As to to other countries, like Iran, see XT’s post above. Global geopolitics is under no obligation to be fair.
To some extent your last paragraph is correct. However, the US and USSR have both demonstrated a willingness to dial back their programs and dismantle chunks of their stock of warheads. Of the approximately 70,000 US nuclear weapons built since 1945 only about 6,000 are still in existence and 1/3 of those are slated for dismantling (it takes time due to limited facilities and the inherent hazards in handling weapons-grade materials). So, in fact, the US has reduced its nuclear stockpile, re purposing some of it for peaceful use in power plants (the USSR and now Russia does the same).
Of course, “reducing our pile of stuff”, even by a large amount, is not the same as saying “you can’t have stuff”. And for a small nation like North Korea the fact that the US has, in fact, used nuclear weapons in war is going to be a factor in their calculations. Kim having a nuke program, even at WWII level technologies (which is more or less where they are) is rational because it functions as an invasion-deterrent. Given how often the US has invaded other nations the past few decades North Korean fears of the same are not unfounded.
Bottom line - Kim would have to be crazy to give up his nukes. That said, if both sides were being more rational then there would be space discussing limiting or slowing down the North Korean program in exchange for lifting some of the sanctions, especially in light of extremely poor agricultural output in North Korea and the looming threat of another famine. But North Korea is not going to give up nukes entirely.
North Korea, unlike the U.S. has been testing nuclear weapons (in violation of a U.N. resolution), firing ballistic weapons toward its neighbors (i.e. over Japan) and threatening annihilation of its enemies.
They’re way past the pretense of having nukes to deter “aggression”.
The US has tested nuclear weapons extensively (now they just don’t need to any more - they would in a heartbeat if they did), has used nuclear weapons on Japan and its president has threatened NK with nuclear fire and fury directly.
Potato, pohtahtoh.
Underground testing is within modern rules if you’re going to be testing nuclear weapons - which is what they’ve been doing, testing underground.
As a pariah state what motivation do they have to play by anyone else’s rules?
North Korea is too small to do a lot of testing on its own territory and isn’t big enough to test long range missiles within its own borders. I know the Japanese are unhappy about the doing it over Japan, with good reason, but arguably that is in fact the safest way for North Korea to do long-range missile testing.
Korea has been threatening to annihilate its enemies for as long as it has been existence. Like pretty much every other country on the planet. Unlike some others, though, they’ve largely stayed in their own territory these past few decades. They don’t act like they’re interested in conquest and I think we can believe them when they say they’re mostly interested in keeping their sovereignty.
I think there may be an opportunity here to ask the North Koreans to halt their program where it currently is, and in this instance allowing them to keep the nukes they currently have might actually lessen tensions by making them feel that the US (and others) are much less likely to invade and force a regime change. That still sucks for those suffering under the current government, but reinstating a shooting war (or worse yet, starting a nuclear war) could actually be worse in regards to death and destruction. But the only way the North Koreans would play that game is if we also reduced sanctions. Even then, there is no guarantee either side would keep its word.
This is a terrible analogy and you seem to have completely missed the point of the OP.
The US wants something from NK: nuclear disarmament. Thus, NK has leverage. Saying “you first” would thus be a negotiating tactic which would test how important this was to the US.
Your analogy is way off base because it misses the fact that one party wants something from the other party and it reverses the “wanting” and “approached” parties. In your analogy, if Trump (the US) had gone to Obama (NK) seeking something and Obama had said “show me your tax returns first”, your analogy would make sense. The party with power seeks something from the party without power, who then sees leverage potential in the situation.
Well, I was drunk and I did say I was struggling to think of an analogy. That said, I think you are missing a few things. The US does want nuclear disarmament from North Korea, true enough…but, frankly, we’ve kicked this can down the road for decades now, so it’s not exactly a huge priority for us, obviously. What we really wanted was for them to stop the provocative tests…which, you know, they kind of have done, even if it’s only temporarily. NK has very little leverage, so saying ‘you first’ would be laugh worthy. I’m unsure what leverage you were thinking of, but as stated, we’ve kicked this can down the road through multiple presidencies and administrations, so kicking it down the road again and just sticking with sanctions is really no skin off our collective noses. NK on the other hand…well, tick tock. They need, badly, for those sanctions to be lifted…a lot more than we need to lift them or need them to disarm. In the end, after all, what good are the things to NK? If they use them, they will be completely and utterly destroyed. And by keeping and maintaining the things, it’s a continual drain on their finances, already strapped to the limit.
The point of my own analogy was to show how someone without leverage or anything to compel the other party to take them seriously would play out. Obama has no leverage against Trump, and nothing he can use to compel Trump to do what he wants. NK has no leverage over the US and nothing they can use to compel us to do what they badly need. Their only path is to use their one bargaining chip and try and get the most out of it they can. But for the US at this stage it’s all or nothing…either NK completely disarms or, you know, we can just kick that can down the road again and just keep up the sanction status quo. It’s kind of like Cuba has been all these years…there really hasn’t been any driving need, from the US’s perspective, to lift the embargo, so it just sort of kept on keeping on. There isn’t any compelling need for the US to lift the sanctions on North Korea unless and until they disarm. We don’t need to settle for less at this stage.
You seem to be having difficulty with transactional leverage.
As soon as someone asks you for something, you have leverage: you have something they want. If we don’t see eye-to-eye on that point, further discussion will be useless.
I was going to answer this seriously, but it’s just too ridiculous, and I figured with the ‘you are having difficulty’ bit there was no need for a more studied tone. Sure, the US does want North Korea to stop their nuclear program and disarm. But it’s like saying Trump wants a cheese burger, so therefore McDonald’s has leverage over him. During the time we have been engaging North Korea THIS time we, the US, has removed from our nuclear stockpile more weapons than they have. Literally, we have 2 orders of magnitude more nukes than they do. And they have zero leverage to try and play the ‘you first card’. It, literally, is like saying McDonald’s could leverage Trump because he wants a cheeseburger, and absolutely no one, with perhaps the exception of you and the OP would be shocked if the US completely ignored such a stupid suggestion or fell off our collective chair laughing. I mean, come on…even if whoever your dream candidate got elected president, they wouldn’t take such a thing seriously either.
Or, to put it another way, why do YOU think this brilliant idea hasn’t occurred to North Korea or the US? Generally, if you think some brilliant idea SHOULD, logically (by your own logic) work, you have to ask yourself…why hasn’t anyone tried this? Is it really that you are that brilliant and no one has asked, or that it’s not such a brilliant idea after all?
The reality is that, while Trump would love an easy win, to demonstrate to the faithful how brilliant he is and all that, if he doesn’t get it this won’t really matter that much. It’s fairly small potatoes. WRT general US foreign policy, try and recall that we were good, for several administrations, just kicking the can down the road and putting in and taking off sanctions. And we could just stick with that…in fact, my WAG is that this is what most people would prefer. In the end, unless you REALLY think North Korea is going to unilaterally use the things (and be completely destroyed), them having the things won’t really make that much of a difference. They are, actually, a huge drain on North Korea, and have basically been a huge factor in keeping them down. They have and continue to cut their own throats with the things, draining their coffers AND providing the excuse to continue sanctions that cripple their economy and make them an outcast nation, and for not actual, tangible benefit, as no one would invade them anyway, with China on their side (as well as Russia to a lesser degree).
They help Kim himself and his family survive and remain in power by keeping the country on a permanent war footing. It’s not entirely irrational behavior.
