We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
TENSIONS BETWEEN NORTH Korea and the United States have reached new heights. Two hot-headed leaders, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, exchange barbs trying to out-masculinise each other.
But this could all degenerate into nuclear war. Diplomacy is the only thing that can resolve the problem. Here are four points to understand what’s going on and what should be done.
1. War would be catastrophic
Yes, North Korea is a bad regime but this doesn’t mean that bombing it is the solution. It maintains political prison camps where about 100,000 people or more are locked up. It doesn’t have any significant domestic opposition movement and is a “desert of civil society”. Indeed, the only institution that might replace Kim Jong-un is the military, but if the generals were to take over, they could be even more hostile to the outside world.
An attack on North Korea could trigger an instant response. Its military could devastate the South’s capital, Seoul, and its 25 million inhabitants. The city is located only 35 miles from the border.
And if Washington attacks first, China has made it clear it would side with North Korea, virtually guaranteeing escalation. Millions of people (North and South Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, Americans) would be at risk. So, we need to find something else.
2. The United States could do more to encourage diplomacy
We keep hearing that negotiations are impossible and that Kim Jong-un is so crazy that we can’t talk to him. However, North Korea has made explicit offers of negotiations to the United States, this year and before. North Korea said this: if the United States cancels its annual military exercises with South Korea, it will suspend its nuclear tests.
China also supports this approach and has correctly stated that the compromise could open the door to negotiations and a diplomatic path. North Korea recently reiterated its offers to freeze nuclear and missile testing if Washington suspends its military exercises with the South. But the United States has brushed those offers aside immediately.
North Korea’s request for the United States to stop its military exercises—which have involved nuclear-capable bombers—with the South is not unreasonable. Imagine if Russia held annual large-scale military exercises with Cuba or Mexico, just next to the United States. How would Washington react?
In addition, the United States has recently deployed the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system to South Korea. It is a missile system consisting of mobile launchers to intercept missiles flying toward the United States.
But this is only raising tensions with China, which does not like to see the United States encircle it by establishing closer military links with its neighbors. Also, THAAD’s radar detection capabilities could be used to spy on China.
3. Diplomacy is the only thing that has worked with North Korea in the past
The 1994-2002 period was one of success in engaging North Korea. In 1994, the so-called “Agreed Framework” was signed with the United States and it resulted in a freeze of the North’s nuclear activities that lasted eight years. The North stopped its nuclear activities while the United States worked to provide alternative energy sources.
Experts estimate that without this agreement, North Korea could have built hundreds of nuclear weapons by now. But in 2002, the Bush administration, in the context of the “War on Terror”, labelled North Korea a member of the “Axis of Evil” and essentially jeopardised the accords, which were abandoned.
We should push to return to some version of the agreement, which worked.
4. Understand North Korea’s motivations
North Korea has been targeted by American nuclear weapons for decades. Indeed, there are about 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, 90% of which belong to the United States (6,800) and Russia (7,000). Experts estimate that North Korea has about 30.
So we have a 6,800 versus 30 nukes confrontation, not exactly an even contest. Trump should work to reduce the United States’ nuclear arsenal. But instead, he and Obama have been spending more money to modernise it.
In this respect, it’s important to understand the context for the North’s nuclear activities. First, during the Korean War in 1950-1953, the United States literally turned North Korea into a moonscape through repeated bombing. Then, during the Cold War, up until 1991, Washington stationed nuclear weapons in South Korea.
Today, the United States still has nuclear-armed submarines and aircraft targeting the North. Sure, we can blame the North for being militaristic and careless. But look at the context, and at who’s had thousands of nuclear weapons for decades.
In short, Trump should eliminate US nukes, give a chance to diplomacy, and drop the war talk.
Julien Mercille is an associate professor at University College Dublin.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
So the US should just get rid of what is possibly the one thing that has kept NK, Russia, China and numerous other crackpot nations in check for decades?
@Lord Clanricarde: read t
@Lord Clanricarde: read the article… he’s promoting diplomatic relations rather than nuclear war
@Lord Clanricarde: off all the countries you mentioned which one has started and been in the most wars the last 100 years????.
@Roy Dowling: You tell us. Should make good read
@john Appleseed: He said they should eliminate the nukes!! It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the US arsenal is what keeps many nations in check. A UK or US without nukes would be a very different world, that’s a fact!
@Lord Clanricarde:
“It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the US arsenal is what keeps many nations in check”
Give me any shred of evidence that proves this. The US have the most advanced military in the world.
So take away the nuclear option and other nations would still be wary.
@Stephen Coveney: it’s called Israel? Ever heard of it?!
@Mick Micky:
So i ask clanricarde to prove that its nuclear weapons that keep nations from attacking the US instead of the fact they have an advanced military and you point to Israel where they have defeated all the nations around them because they had a more advanced military? no nuclear weapons used….
what is your point?
@Frank Cooney: Couldn’t have said it better.
@Celtic_Horizon: It’s not us NK that’s the problem there are many other countries in the Middle East with nukes. Reducing the amount of nukes is pointless. The damage would be done from very few anyway. Appeasing man men like Kim Jung is like giving into a spoiled delusional child time after time. Trump might have a big mouth but the US is never going to give up their military advance and why should they? They are just as entitled to have nukes and having them does maintain a balance of power. Just look back to the Cold War years for a good example of that. You can’t take incidents or countries like this insulation. You need to look at the bigger world picture and you need to look at world history too!!! Gotta love the younger generations. They never look at historical context and think they have all the answers. Totally wrong answers based on limited and often too academic a viewpoint !!!
@Catherine Sims: Actually, the USA is Not entitled to have nukes. They signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT), one aspect of which requires them to work towards eliminating their own nukes. Ditto for most other countries who have nukes – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. There are only four nuclear armed countries who have not signed the NNPT, namely North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel. If the US, along with the other nuclear powers who signed the treaty actually started to implement it, there might actually be some movement on getting those four non-NNPT countries to do so too. This would make the world a much safer place. Check out Pugwash and their ‘nuclear war clock’. Incidentally, the next use of nuclear weapons will more likely be between India and Pakistan.
“In short, Trump should eliminate US nukes, give a chance to diplomacy, and drop the war talk.” – One of the dumbest lines ever written by a lefty writer in the journal, and that’s a high bar.
@Mike:
Agree.
He seems to struggle with the auld maths also. 90% of 15k….
@Tweed Cap: His math is ok. His sentence structure of the stats leaves a lot to be desired.
@filthypete: Auld maths was what Cap was on about, again¡ Aka ‘owl…
@filthypete: maths
@Mike:
hmm so you think “more nukes, no diplomacy and more war talk”?
idiotic “righty” talk. well done for winning the dumbest comment award
@Stephen Coveney: Kinda disingenuous to say that. The writers statement is ludicrous but so is yours. The USA needs a nuclear deterrent as does Russia, China etc. The USA would rather North Korea not have one but trying to achieve their goals by removing their nuclear deterrent is something no competent politician, tactician or anyone with any sense would advocate. The writer has good company in Jeremy Corbyn tho.
Yes, NK was bombed extensively during the Korean War, but why fail to mention that it was their invasion of the south that caused the war?
@Avina Laaf:
Presentation of the story would be very different.
@Frank Cooney:
Yes, and to read the piece you’d think NK never dropped any bombs on South Korea.
Since India and Pakistan both gained nuclear capabilities, fighting has stopped – and peace reigns in the region. A fact worth noting! In addition, the UK’s nuclear power has never been utilised – over many years!
@Fank Pulman: c65 years!
@Fank Pulman:
“fighting has stopped – and peace reigns in the region.”
Kashmir??? not the most peaceful area in the world.
@Stephen Coveney: neither is Limerick…
@Fank Pulman:
haha, limerick needs to be a nuclear power :)
@Fank Pulman: India is busy wanting a war with China now as my links earlier show…
@Fank Pulman: Are you taking the piss? India and Pakistan have edged closer to war — and a nuclear one at that — as recently as last year (September 2016): https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/715838/Pakistan-threatens-India-nuclear-war-Kashmir-dispute-heightens-tensions/amp
Just because something is not extensively covered in the media doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Julien is living in a fantasy world, nobody likes it but M.A.D. Is the only thing that works right now, that hopefully qill change in the future
@Ian McNally: Trump is not the first President that seems mad, Nixon use to run around the White House after mixing his drinks with his medications wanting to Nuke Russia. Which his generals use to run after him and controlled him from doing.
I believe the POTUS can start a war but after a certain period of time, I forget if its 30 or 90 days he needs backing from congress to carry it on but it seems too that the Generals have a say about wars over what the President might want to do as well? As it seems do lobbyists and financial backers to those two parties in the US?
But reality is stranger than fiction as they say?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fall-1941-pearl-harbor-and-the-wars-of-corporate-america/28159
People are getting confused with the wish that nuclear bombs could be un-invented. Can’t be done, so we are where we are.
@Tom Newnewman: The US has 71.000 tonnes of nuclear waste being stored in an unsafe manner and a giant dump of the same waste in the sea at New Jersey. From time to time the barrels float and the US army shoots them to sink them, exposing the waste to the sea quicker than the rust of the barrels can. Scary stuff that is ignored is the waste that is the by product of making these nukes?
Ireland introduced the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to the UN in 1967. Current efforts to re awaken that process are most welcome. The world would be well served by new approaches to security, based on trust and treaties. This would also require measures for effective intervention by the global community on rogue regimes such as that of Kim Yong Un.
@Neil Patrick McCann: well said Neil. But don’t forget India, Pakistan and Israel, all of whom refuse to sign the NNPT too.
This is shockingly naive for an academic.
The US cannot unilaterally disarm, especially not for North Korea.
North Korea had undermined the General Framework before Bush even took office by getting nuclear technology from Pakistan. They had no intention of keeping the deal.
In retrospect, Clinton should have carpet bombed the entire country and cleaned up shop. A war is the only way this is going to end in the long run, doing it before nukes got involved would have at least derisked it.
@Seán J. Troy: “the US should have carpet bombed the area and cleaned up shop”.
Read what you wrote again Troy and contemplate similar actions perpetrated by the US and contemplate their “success”. psycho. ..
Given what we know about the US this is a piece of fantasy. With the Donald in charge, God knows where this will all end. He’s achieved something remarkable by being able to show George W’s presidency as a model of intelligence and tact.
Stop with the madness Julian. North Korea is just a lunatic state and the USA will invade it with its freedom bombs or don’t you watch enough U.S tv?
@john Appleseed: You watch too much m8¡
@john Appleseed: Are you actually insinuating that NK is a legitimate country??..The country should have been invaded years ago, but it had no oil to bother Bush and no wealth of any value for wall street to send in their stooges the Clinton’s and Obama.
The presence of nuclear deterrent has somehow kept the world away from a WW3. North Korea wants its own deterrent. What is at issue is whether North Korea possessing nuclear weapons can tip the balance. It is important that China can rein them in. Trump by maintaining a tough stance is also helping China in its efforts.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair:
“The presence of nuclear deterrent has somehow kept the world away from a WW3. ”
What? I can easily say that maybe its the fact that WW2 was so devastating to the world that countries do not want another one.
@Stephen Coveney:
Did they say that after the mass slaughter of WW1 too??
@Avina Laaf:
good point. I just dont believe nuclear weapons are as big a deterrent as people make out. If the UK get rid of theirs I cant see nations thinking that invading them is an option now.
@Micheal S. O’ Ceilleachair: You think mutually assured destruction is better than mutually assured security? For how long will the M.A.D. strategy work???
Thanks Julien good article. So the US has 1) been engaging in military exercises in South Korea antagonising a) North Korea, China and Japan. 2) It has deployed a THAAD system to detect North Korean missiles and 3) It has 13500 nuclear weapons as opposed to North Koreas 30 and sorry …who is the aggressor ?!!
@saoirse janneau: zzzzzzzzzzz
@Warthog: yeah truth is tiring. .
@saoirse janneau: Your leftie rant fell apart when you included Japan in the antagonising bit. Not to mention that South Korea, Japan and Taiwan all get their missile defence systems from the US, much to the annoyance of NK and China as it renders their missiles useless…Typical numb nut liberal, your mentality makes you try to paint NK as the victim due to your hatred of Trump. Grow up, learn just a little bit about NK regime!
@saoirse janneau:
So the US and South Korea are antagonising NK by holding military exercises….
Don’t you think NK are also antagonising the US and South Korea by continually firing test missiles (illegally) and openly threatening them both with a first nuclear strike??
Typical liberal blinkers on you lad….
@Lord Clanricarde:
you seem to have a fascination with the “leftie” and “liberal” words. you cant seem to post a comment without them. and i think the above comment is dimwitted at best.
@saoirse janneau:
And let’s not forget, when it comes to North Korea and South Korea there’s only one with a history of aggression.
@Lord Clanricarde: Proponents of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) strategy should realise the strategy could only possibly work if the destruction between two or more opponents is mutually assured. Deploying THAAD and other similar missile interception systems neutralises the assured destruction threat from one’s opponents, resulting in their developing ever more sophisticated missile systems to counteract the anti-missile systems. The result is a dangerous escalating nuclear arms race. This is not a stable situation. War is inevitable in this scenario. It’s therefore not that MAD has prevented a nuclear war. It’s only that it has prevented it SO FAR. Eventually it will happen. Mutually Assured Security is a much safer strategy, whereby all parties have their security assured through mutually negotiating to reduce and ultimately to eliminate the weapons. That actually requires all sides to have the maturity to be willing to offer concessions.
@Lord Clanricarde: Not a lefties rant. Merely a summary of Juliens excellent overview and advice to mitigate escalation.
@Avina Laaf: when you American trolls start arguing the case for the US on non American news sites why don’t you go to the trouble of finding out whether it’s a man or a woman you’re arguing with. Amateur!!
@Avina Laaf: really Avina? ?? What about the 3 year period where the US practically obliterated North Korea into the ground. Might have something to do with their defensive nature presently.
Good sum up and excellent essay in link. So much of this relevant context has been overlooked.
No one wants a nuclear war unless they are mad? Many in the machine of war enjoy war because it makes profits for them selling weapons or services to the military and co, like ex CIA employees?
Even the military with their Napoleonic sociopathic generals need the threat of war as a way for them to exist and to carry on using the idea of war to control those under them like any good sociopath does. As the control over those under them can be more of a trill for the ego than any war, do they see war but no, they just send out those under them like a dog will to please themselves to jump off a cliff for them with a thank you sir. As in the end the war becomes the excuse and nationalism with national pride is the excuse for young people to die for lobbyists who financially support their government, they die with the excuse of their countries security but in reality die for big business and their security as in ores and oil?
War is a business for some and for other like generals etc it allows them to play with people lives who are under them without putting themselves at risk. Even the lobbyists don’t want risk, so no, no one will use the nuclear bomb as everyone involved in war has their own interests first and their way of life to consider secondly?
Also no one wants a war with N. Korea AS THEY KNOW they loose unless Kim is mad but he wants to scare his own people and to use this nonsense as propaganda and probably as an excuse for more food aid?
If Kim was removed it would be like Iraq or Libya and no one wants that not even the military in the US because then anyone could fill that gap and end up selling their nukes at worse or at best using them at Japan or S. Korea?
Also no one wants a war with Russia, NATO uses Russia as an excuse for those who control NATO are the US who use fear of Russia to sell weapons to NATO countries, NATO is just a fear factory to sell weapons. Could NATO go too far and cause an East European country to attack Russia then that is possible as well as pushing Russia too far and causing a more nationalistic leader to be elected or even a military coup to happen. Then that is very possible but wars and sanctions are about who gets the profits and the resources and that is why no country will start a nuclear war because death and sacrifice for lies is about those far away who only care about profits, control and image or the lies they use to justify killing for money.
But they say world wars start after trade wars and that says what the core is really about for them?
“Trump should…”
And that’s where you lost me. Trump won’t. He’s living on planet Trump. Think Eric Cartman without the whiney voice. Get Trump out, then we’ll talk nukes…
@Colm Flaherty: Is Trump a sociopath, is he the President in the film, The Dead Zone lol.
have your say