I was horrified while researching this entry to discover that Kim Jong Un is roughly a year and nine months older than I am. I thought he was 10 years older! But he's not. I do not feel old enough to be one of the nine heads of state who wield nuclear power (Macron, Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, Jianpeng, India/Pakistan leaders, May, Jong Un). It's a lot of power in a person without a ton of life experience. (Note: I do feel like I have a better temperament than at least two of those nine. (Also note: South Africa used to have nuclear weapons! They gave them up after apartheid. Which brings up an interesting question: Why did South Africa need nukes?))
At any rate, the crisis du jour is North Korea. We didn't win the Korean War, but we didn't lose it, either. You could write that sentence in reverse order if you wish for dramatic emphasis. Since as far as I can remember, North Korea has been trying to get nuclear weapons as a deterrent to U.S. aggression. That's the argument they make, and you have to believe it's a good-faith reason. It turns out the nuclear ambitions are a little more recent — the first moves were in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, the first actual nuclear test came under George W. Bush, four more nuclear tests came under Barack Obama, and missile tests have been taking place with continued frequency and success over that time period.
We now are as certain as the public can be that North Korea has a) the capacity to reach U.S. targets using intercontinental ballistic missiles which shoot into space and then back down toward the target and b) the ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons to fit into a warhead that can fit inside those missiles. Before, say, this year, we thought that a) was still a year or two out and b) was 3-5 years out. Well, that's not the case. Some estimates are that North Korea has the capacity for 7 nukes. I've seen another estimate that puts it closer to 60. Nitpicking on the number of nuclear bombs is kind of ridiculous when only one or two, launched 40 miles south of the DMZ would hit a a city of millions and destroy the South Korean government and economy.
So let's talk about both motivations of the actors in this play and the choices facing the U.S.
Japan, as the only country in history to be hit with a nuclear weapon, has a ban against nuclear weapons in their Constitution. They do not have them and presumably do not want them, though they almost certainly have the scientific know-how for it. However, as an ally of South Korea, they also want to keep North Korea from attacking either Seoul or themselves. Tokyo is a pretty attractive target, and it's not far off, either. However, President Trump has seemed to encourage South Korea and Japan to have nuclear weapons for their own security (nuclear proliferation) and to also say he doesn't want others to get nuclear weapons (non-proliferation). But given that Trump has pushed an America First policy, I would be terrified that "acceptable losses" of Japanese people is greater than the number of "acceptable losses" of Americans. Further, several American targets are in Japan: Okinawa and Iwakuni. A North Korean attack on either base would be catastrophic to the Japanese people that live nearby and would still be a direct attack on Japan. There does not seem to be much of a public appetite for brinksmanship with North Korea, and Trump's comments are kind of putting Japan in the crosshairs.
South Korea has many of the same issues as Japan, but doubly so. Consider that North Korea supposedly has a mass of many chemical weapons. They have a number of mortar launchers and short-range missiles/etc. that could launch destruction and chemical weapons across the DMZ into Seoul, which has 10 million people within its borders and 25 million as part of its metro area. Any act of aggression by North Korea would almost certainly affect South Korea directly — they are, in some ways, the hostage held by a nuclear-armed North Korea. And yet, their military is also armed and ready. While the South Korean armed forces could likely win a war against North Korea, it would come at a high cost of civilian lives on both sides of the DMZ. South Korea's new leader has publicly called for diplomacy to resolve the crisis rather than force. There is no one who wants war less than South Korea. They will go to war if North Korea attacks them, but they really, really don't want that to happen.
China is complicated. They've long liked the idea of an affiliated mini-boss nearby that keeps the U.S. at bay. As long as the U.S. is pre-occupied by North Korea, that keeps America's eyes off China in the East. North Korea also acts as a buffer state from the U.S. troops that are in South Korea — China doesn't want U.S. bases just across their own border. However, North Korea's aggressiveness has been met with increasing trade limits by China and diplomatic statements. In what was widely considered a direct message to North Korea in a Chinese editorial, China made their view clear: If North Korea attacks first, China won't back them when the U.S./allies retaliate. HOWEVER, if the U.S. attempts some sort of regime change or try to change the politics of the Korean peninsula (read: overthrow Jong Un or try to unite Korea under South Korean rule), then they'll have to step in.
The U.S. seems to be a contradiction. While military and diplomatic leaders call for diplomacy, our head of state seems to only escalate the situation with every interview. While I think there is an American appetite for winning against a brutal/dangerous regime (like Desert Storm), I don't think there is an American appetite for a prolonged, costly war (like Iraqi Freedom). Especially one with casualties in the thousands or potentially millions for an industrialized, modern ally. Especially one in which we seemed to poke the bear until the bear attacked.
I read a good story in the Atlantic recommended by a friend, although it's already a little outdated. When written, it posited that North Korea didn't have the capacity for miniaturization or the ability to hit U.S. targets. That has since changed.
It's also important to note that nothing that has been tried over the years has worked. Democrats under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have tried and failed to stop a nuclear-armed North Korea. Republicans under George W. Bush and Donald Trump have tried and failed to stop a nuclear-armed North Korea. In theory, a nuclear-armed North Korea falls on all their shoulders — none of them bears full blame, and none of them bears no blame at all. Each has also tried different tactics. Clinton tried to negotiate. That failed. George W. Bush tried to make threats. That failed. Barack Obama tried what was called "strategic patience" (Note: North Korea before Obama would be aggressive, then come to the bargaining table and get a relief from sanctions or some other reward in exchange. Obama's strategy was not to retaliate to aggression, but also not to reward North Korea at the bargaining table for their aggression. That's what "strategic patience" meant in practice.). That failed. Donald Trump is seemingly trying to bluster North Korea into submission. That's not helped so far.
What are our options? Well, the Atlantic story came up with a few, but many foreign policy experts tend to fall into acceptance: North Korea has nuclear weapons and there's nothing we can do to prevent that.
It seems to me that our president needs a new tool. When all you have is a hammer (in this case, bluster), every problem looks like a nail. But as this interesting video details, the solutions that have historically worked are not necessarily visual. Peacekeepers, treaties and diplomacy have the most recent success. The video also made a great point that the instruments of war are obvious and clear: missiles, submarines, airplanes, boats, tanks, etc. The instruments of peace are not necessarily physical. His list of "weapons of peace" comes with the comment that if any of these had prevented a catastrophe, you'd probably never know it. "If powerful, they tend to go unnoticed." For you newspaper folks out there, consider the instruments of peace to be your copy editors — if they go unnoticed, they're doing their job. That "unnoticed" aspect tends to leave people to perceive them as unimportant or ineffective. I hope that President Trump uses these instruments of peace even though they aren't as direct or as obvious as a military solution.
What About?-ism
I had never heard about this tactic until recently, but it's amazed me with its effectiveness. I've seen it used by Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Putin makes sense — it was originally a Russian propaganda tool. The idea is that any time a criticism is leveled against a country/person, they respond with "What about your problem?", citing something specific. For example, during the early days of the Cold War, American speakers frequently decried the USSR's Soviet imperialism. The Soviets would respond with "What about your race and minority problems? You've got segregation and..." so on and so on. Or think Donald Trump, when he was criticized about the Access Hollywood tapes, responding with "What about Bill Clinton?"
It's both a deflection from the original criticism and puts the criticizer in the position of being defensive. It also says "You're no better than we are."
I'm not going to get into it too much, but please note this when you see it. It's startling how strong of a weapon this can be.
Summary Judgments
I'm sorry this went up later than I planned. I wasn't in a good mental place yesterday after some non-work/non-family news. • • • I've seen a lot of interesting videos and such lately. My favorite has been one that I can't find the video right now, but this is the script it came from. It's the worst plate appearance in baseball history. Long story summarized: A pitcher who had never batted before tried to strike out but instead walked... on four straight pitches. • • • I was sick on Monday and it rained on Wednesday, so I basically took a week off on running. Then this morning I ran a 5K in about 31 minutes, which is or is close to a personal best. I'm a month away from the 10K! • • • Lots of major events at our home in the next few weeks, so posting might not be irregular for a little bit. • • • Evie wanted to go home with one of her daycare workers this week. Miss Hillary: You don't want to go home with me. Evie: Yeah! Miss Hillary: No, there are stinky boys there. My son's been at football practice. You don't want to go where the stinky boys are. Evie: Yes, I do.
No comments:
Post a Comment