10-17-2017, 10:16 PM
*** 18-Oct-17 World View -- North Korea crisis: Would the United States sacrifice Los Angeles for Seoul?
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
****
**** North Korea nuclear missile crisis close to reaching a tipping point
****
![[Image: g171017b.jpg]](http://Media.GenerationalDynamics.com/ww2010/g171017b.jpg)
Gruesome North Korean propaganda painting claiming to depict American war crimes during Korean War (News Dog Media)
On Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that "diplomatic
efforts will continue until the first bomb drops." When I first heard
I immediately thought that he was being intentionally ambiguous,
because he could easily have made it clearer whether he meant the
first North Korean bomb or the first American bomb.
Tillerson was responding to a question about whether President Trump's
tweets undermine him:
<QUOTE>"Well, I think what the President is doing is he is
trying to motivate action on a number of people's part in
particular the regime in North Korea. I think he does want to be
clear with Kim Jong-un and that regime in North Korea that he has
military preparations ready to go and has those military options
on the table and we have spent substantial time actually
perfecting those. But be clear, the President has also made clear
to me that he wants this solved diplomatically. He is not seeking
to go to war.
[Question: So he does think it is a waste of time?]
No, sir. He made it clear to me to continue my diplomatic efforts
which we are. And we will - as I told others the diplomatic
efforts will continue until the first bomb drops."<END QUOTE>
When we try to interpret what Tillerson and Trump mean by this we have
to understand that the United States has run out of time. As Nikki
Haley said last month, "We have kicked the can down the road long
enough. There is no more road left." This means that one US
administration after another have allowed North Korea to carry out
their threats to develop a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead.
Most analysts believe that North Korea will "soon" have the ability to
target the United States mainland with a nuclear weapon equipped
ballistic missile, where "soon" could mean several weeks to several
months. Indeed, North Korean officials have repeatedly said that they
are working non-stop to develop this nuclear missile capability,
neither diplomacy nor sanction nor anything else will stop them. At
that point, the North Koreans are expected to do something
spectacular, like launch a nuclear missile to land in the Pacific
Ocean halfway to the US mainland.
This will be a clear tipping point in the North Korean crisis. The
North Koreans believe, possibly correctly, that once this point is
reached, then they will be able to use nuclear threats to make demands
of the US, South Korea, and Japan, such as demanding that all US
troops be withdrawn. The North Koreans would then continue
development, and would soon have an arsenal of ballistic missiles with
nuclear missiles targeting the US mainland. This will also presumably
make the Russians and the Chinese very happy as well.
Would the North Koreans actually carry out their nuclear threats? I
keep going back to 2010, when the North conducted two acts of war
targeting South Korea -- in May, North Korea torpedoed and sank the warship Cheonan,
killing dozens
of South Korean crew members, and in November, North Korea killed
South Korean civilians by shelling Yeonpyeong Island.
In both cases, the South Koreans chose not to
respond, but it's pretty clear that they might have.
The North Koreans carried out those two acts of war because they
correctly concluded that the South Koreans would not retaliate. Since
the beginning of his term, President Trump has repeatedly made clear,
through tweets and statements, that unlike the South Koreans in 2010,
we actually would retaliate, and forcefully. But after three decades
of empty threats by American administrations, the North Koreans may
quite reasonably conclude that Trump's tweets are simply another empty
threat.
And so we return to Tillerson's remark, and to the question: Why was
it so carefully and meticulously ambiguous as to whether "the first
bomb" would be dropped by the US or North Korea?
Will Trump and Tillerson permit North Korea get to the point where
they have an arsenal of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles pointed at
the United States? These are two older men, Boomers, decisive, sharp
businessmen who now have to make the most important and critical
decisions of their lives. I certainly can't read their minds, but I
find it hard to believe that they would just sit back and let North
Korea develop a nuclear arsenal with impunity, and then have to lead a
humiliated United States a year from now. CNN and
AFP and Sputnik News (Moscow) and KCNA Watch (North Korea)
****
**** North Korea crisis: Would the United States sacrifice Los Angeles for Seoul?
****
As tensions over the North Korea crisis rise almost on a daily basis,
the above is the kind of question that a lot East Asians are asking
themselves. Will the United States allow North Korea to develop a
nuclear ballistic missile arsenal that would put Los Angeles at risk?
Or will the US strike North Korea's nuclear capabilities and save Los
Angeles, but risk a retaliatory North Korean attack on Seoul - or
Tokyo?
After World War II, the United States took on the role of Policeman of
the World, and in doing so, signed some sort of mutual defense treaty
with many countries: Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, the
Philippines, the Marshall Islands, the ANZUS agreement with Australia
and New Zealand, a special treaty with Iceland, and the NATO agreement
with all of Europe. The purpose was to discourage attacks on any of
these allies that would otherwise have the risk of spiraling into
World War III.
What we're seeing now is a kind of fatal flaw in the strategy
behind these mutual defense treaties. The idea was that the
United States would protect these countries, but today the
United States is more concerned about protecting itself.
And because of the mutual defense treaties, neither South Korea nor
Japan has a nuclear capability or nuclear deterrent, even though both
countries are threatened with nuclear attack from North Korea (not to
mention China), and even though they now feel unsure that they can
depend on the United States to protect them.
Development of a nuclear capability Japan is deeply unpopular because
of their experience in World War II. But according to Thomas Cynkin,
a former U.S. diplomat in Japan, the Japanese have developed a
"nuclear latency policy," which allows Japan to develop nuclear
weapons very quickly. Cynkin says the country is estimated to have “9
tons of plutonium, enough for over 1,000 warheads,” as well as an
advanced space industry, which provides easy access to ballistic
missile technology.
There is no such easy path to nuclear weapons development in South
Korea. Nuclear development is openly debated in South Korea, but
would infuriate the Chinese and draw retaliation. The Chinese were
infuriated by South Korea's deployment of the Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) missile system, which is purely defensive, and
China retaliated with a harsh economic boycott that's still in place.
Deployment of offensive nuclear weapons would dangerously provoke the
Chinese.
North Korea's last major test was a ballistic missile test that
occurred on September 14. The missile flew over Japan, landing in the
Pacific Ocean far enough to have put the American base on Guam within
range, raising international anxiety. It's been a whole month since
that test, so international anxieties have subsided. But all it would
take is another North Korean test of a nuclear bomb, or a long-range
ballistic missile, or the two combined, and international anxieties
will rise higher than ever, along with a new debate over
deploying nuclear weapons in Japan and South Korea.
The Diplomat and Washington Post and Cipher Brief and National Interest (5-Sep)
Related Articles
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, North Korea, Japan, South Korea,
Rex Tillerson, China, Thomas Cynkin,
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com
- North Korea nuclear missile crisis close to reaching a tipping point
- North Korea crisis: Would the United States sacrifice Los Angeles for Seoul?
****
**** North Korea nuclear missile crisis close to reaching a tipping point
****
Gruesome North Korean propaganda painting claiming to depict American war crimes during Korean War (News Dog Media)
On Sunday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that "diplomatic
efforts will continue until the first bomb drops." When I first heard
I immediately thought that he was being intentionally ambiguous,
because he could easily have made it clearer whether he meant the
first North Korean bomb or the first American bomb.
Tillerson was responding to a question about whether President Trump's
tweets undermine him:
<QUOTE>"Well, I think what the President is doing is he is
trying to motivate action on a number of people's part in
particular the regime in North Korea. I think he does want to be
clear with Kim Jong-un and that regime in North Korea that he has
military preparations ready to go and has those military options
on the table and we have spent substantial time actually
perfecting those. But be clear, the President has also made clear
to me that he wants this solved diplomatically. He is not seeking
to go to war.
[Question: So he does think it is a waste of time?]
No, sir. He made it clear to me to continue my diplomatic efforts
which we are. And we will - as I told others the diplomatic
efforts will continue until the first bomb drops."<END QUOTE>
When we try to interpret what Tillerson and Trump mean by this we have
to understand that the United States has run out of time. As Nikki
Haley said last month, "We have kicked the can down the road long
enough. There is no more road left." This means that one US
administration after another have allowed North Korea to carry out
their threats to develop a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead.
Most analysts believe that North Korea will "soon" have the ability to
target the United States mainland with a nuclear weapon equipped
ballistic missile, where "soon" could mean several weeks to several
months. Indeed, North Korean officials have repeatedly said that they
are working non-stop to develop this nuclear missile capability,
neither diplomacy nor sanction nor anything else will stop them. At
that point, the North Koreans are expected to do something
spectacular, like launch a nuclear missile to land in the Pacific
Ocean halfway to the US mainland.
This will be a clear tipping point in the North Korean crisis. The
North Koreans believe, possibly correctly, that once this point is
reached, then they will be able to use nuclear threats to make demands
of the US, South Korea, and Japan, such as demanding that all US
troops be withdrawn. The North Koreans would then continue
development, and would soon have an arsenal of ballistic missiles with
nuclear missiles targeting the US mainland. This will also presumably
make the Russians and the Chinese very happy as well.
Would the North Koreans actually carry out their nuclear threats? I
keep going back to 2010, when the North conducted two acts of war
targeting South Korea -- in May, North Korea torpedoed and sank the warship Cheonan,
killing dozens
of South Korean crew members, and in November, North Korea killed
South Korean civilians by shelling Yeonpyeong Island.
In both cases, the South Koreans chose not to
respond, but it's pretty clear that they might have.
The North Koreans carried out those two acts of war because they
correctly concluded that the South Koreans would not retaliate. Since
the beginning of his term, President Trump has repeatedly made clear,
through tweets and statements, that unlike the South Koreans in 2010,
we actually would retaliate, and forcefully. But after three decades
of empty threats by American administrations, the North Koreans may
quite reasonably conclude that Trump's tweets are simply another empty
threat.
And so we return to Tillerson's remark, and to the question: Why was
it so carefully and meticulously ambiguous as to whether "the first
bomb" would be dropped by the US or North Korea?
Will Trump and Tillerson permit North Korea get to the point where
they have an arsenal of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles pointed at
the United States? These are two older men, Boomers, decisive, sharp
businessmen who now have to make the most important and critical
decisions of their lives. I certainly can't read their minds, but I
find it hard to believe that they would just sit back and let North
Korea develop a nuclear arsenal with impunity, and then have to lead a
humiliated United States a year from now. CNN and
AFP and Sputnik News (Moscow) and KCNA Watch (North Korea)
****
**** North Korea crisis: Would the United States sacrifice Los Angeles for Seoul?
****
As tensions over the North Korea crisis rise almost on a daily basis,
the above is the kind of question that a lot East Asians are asking
themselves. Will the United States allow North Korea to develop a
nuclear ballistic missile arsenal that would put Los Angeles at risk?
Or will the US strike North Korea's nuclear capabilities and save Los
Angeles, but risk a retaliatory North Korean attack on Seoul - or
Tokyo?
After World War II, the United States took on the role of Policeman of
the World, and in doing so, signed some sort of mutual defense treaty
with many countries: Japan, South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, the
Philippines, the Marshall Islands, the ANZUS agreement with Australia
and New Zealand, a special treaty with Iceland, and the NATO agreement
with all of Europe. The purpose was to discourage attacks on any of
these allies that would otherwise have the risk of spiraling into
World War III.
What we're seeing now is a kind of fatal flaw in the strategy
behind these mutual defense treaties. The idea was that the
United States would protect these countries, but today the
United States is more concerned about protecting itself.
And because of the mutual defense treaties, neither South Korea nor
Japan has a nuclear capability or nuclear deterrent, even though both
countries are threatened with nuclear attack from North Korea (not to
mention China), and even though they now feel unsure that they can
depend on the United States to protect them.
Development of a nuclear capability Japan is deeply unpopular because
of their experience in World War II. But according to Thomas Cynkin,
a former U.S. diplomat in Japan, the Japanese have developed a
"nuclear latency policy," which allows Japan to develop nuclear
weapons very quickly. Cynkin says the country is estimated to have “9
tons of plutonium, enough for over 1,000 warheads,” as well as an
advanced space industry, which provides easy access to ballistic
missile technology.
There is no such easy path to nuclear weapons development in South
Korea. Nuclear development is openly debated in South Korea, but
would infuriate the Chinese and draw retaliation. The Chinese were
infuriated by South Korea's deployment of the Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD) missile system, which is purely defensive, and
China retaliated with a harsh economic boycott that's still in place.
Deployment of offensive nuclear weapons would dangerously provoke the
Chinese.
North Korea's last major test was a ballistic missile test that
occurred on September 14. The missile flew over Japan, landing in the
Pacific Ocean far enough to have put the American base on Guam within
range, raising international anxiety. It's been a whole month since
that test, so international anxieties have subsided. But all it would
take is another North Korean test of a nuclear bomb, or a long-range
ballistic missile, or the two combined, and international anxieties
will rise higher than ever, along with a new debate over
deploying nuclear weapons in Japan and South Korea.
The Diplomat and Washington Post and Cipher Brief and National Interest (5-Sep)
Related Articles
- US adopts strategic response to North Korea's threats to shoot down US warplanes (26-Sep-2017)
- Trump's North Korea sanctions stop short of military blockade (22-Sep-2017)
- North Korea and Russia continue to incite a new Korean War (06-Sep-2017)
- America's UN ambassador Nikki Haley says North Korea is 'begging for war' (05-Sep-2017)
KEYS: Generational Dynamics, North Korea, Japan, South Korea,
Rex Tillerson, China, Thomas Cynkin,
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD
Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal
John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe
