How to deal with North Korea?
North Korea has just successfully tested a “good” nuclear bomb. Their scientists know they’ve figured out the technological hurdles, and it now becomes an issue of scaling up the process so that a greater arsenal can be stockpiled. This is, to put it bluntly, just about as great a threat to global security as one can imagine.
Even a nuclear-armed Iran would have to give pause before attempting to “wipe Israel off the map”. Its people may have no great love of Israel, but they understand the principle of mutually assured destruction.
By contrast, the people of North Korea are so thoroughly crushed and cut off from the outside world that there is no legitimate expectation they would ever attempt to rise up against a government willing to bring about nuclear war and its certain retribution. This means that a sufficiently deranged North Korean leader probably would order a nuclear first strike once he had the ability.
Consider for a moment that Kim Jong-Il is believed to be in terrible health, and he has no successor publicly named. In his mind, he may have nothing to lose and everything to gain by hitting us and our allies with the biggest weapon his scientists can give him. And deployed with their increasingly sophisticated long-range ballistic missiles, such a first strike could conceivably be against our own western shores.
The trouble is, how do we deal with a proven nuclear state that is essentially a medieval fiefdom existing in modern times? Negotiations have proven almost fruitless. I concede that they did stop production at their Yongbong facility. That was their outward pretense at good faith, and so their stockpile of nuclear material is not as great today as it could have been.
Yet clearly the laboratory research never stopped. There is no way that the 6 weeks since the 6-party talks broke down was sufficient time to prepare a new nuclear weapon test. They simply needed the talks to fall apart before they could conduct it. That the latest test happened so quickly, and so successfully, we must conclude that the research program never even paused. And the bogus satellite launch last month was merely the North Korean way of sabotaging talks once that test was ready.
I think a military solution may now be the only credible option. We have legitimacy on the international stage because we attempted negotiation with good old fashioned carrot and stick diplomacy. We can point to multiple UN resolutions to demonstrate our sincere efforts at multilateralism. And while I dread to contemplate what war with North Korea could bring about in human cost, I think that we have proven all other methods are doomed to failure.
So, if it is to be war, how should a war with such a state be waged?
The first clear action is to halt humanitarian supplies. South Korea, China, and UN aid shipments are essentially propping up the country, as the assumption has been that a humanitarian crisis there would send waves of refugees out into the region, destabilizing nearby countries. And that’s a valid concern. So, prior to the cessation of humanitarian shipments, the most likely border crossings should be identified and transit routes prepared to assist the expected refugees’ journey to the nicest refugee camps that can be fashioned in a short amount of time.
The purpose of these refugee camps will be to both provide for basic needs like food and shelter, as well as to introduce these people to the outside world. There should be high-quality recreational facilities for playing, and lots of bathrooms with hot showers and fluffy towels. There should be outdoor movie screens that show fun, family-friendly movies every evening the weather will permit. And while not the Ritz-Carlton, these camps need to be demonstrably more enjoyable than whatever their old lives were.
Back in North Korea, the initial air-strikes should be targeted at the political leadership, and their emblems of authority and prestige. The people need to see that we are not seeking to hurt them, only their leaders.
The follow-up ground invasion should proceed with a simple dictum: ‘join us and be fed - fight us and die’. Every territory established under the rule of the occupying multinational force will see full resumption of humanitarian aid, as well as a few perks, such as road repairs and free clinics. The goal is not to kill an enemy, but to replace a regime, and do so with as many survivors among the population as possible - military and civilian alike.
In the end, I think the civilians will flock to areas controlled by the coalition, leaving the leadership increasingly alone and irrelevant. Plus, unlike Iraq, we won’t disband the army once the leadership is out of power. We’ll simply raise their wages and turn them to the task of rebuilding and improving their own country.
And rather than try to build a brand new democracy, our goal should be to facilitate reunification of the Korean peninsula, leaving the South Korean government to rule the entire country. Once our presence is no longer needed in fighting the army of North Korea, our troops should begin withdrawing from the region. If there is an insurgency, and I think it would be unlikely, it need not be our problem.
I don’t imagine it will be cheap, but in the long run I think we’ll be better off fixing North Korea than defending ourselves against it.