North Korea is already planning to test a couple more atomic devices. Perhaps the Iranian export model with tail fins needs some tweaking:
North Korea has told its key ally, China, that it is prepared to stage one or even two more nuclear tests this year in an effort to force the United States into diplomatic talks, said a source with direct knowledge of the message.
Further tests could also be accompanied this year by another rocket launch, said the source, who has direct access to the top levels of government in both Beijing and Pyongyang.
First off, while North Korea surely wants talks with America to turn on the spigot of aid and end sanctions, it is foolish to believe that North Korea is willing to end their nuclear and missile programs in exchange for those goodies.
Even claims that if we'd only recognize the North Korean government and conclude a peace treaty that Pyongyang would finally believe we aren't going to invade them are mistaken. North Korea would only conclude that we Americans were very devious to falsely claim peace in order to lull the worker's paradise into lowering their guard. Recall that the North Koreans had a fit when we announced we were pulling troops back away from the DMZ.
As North Korea gets closer to nuclear weapons, neighbors don't seem to want to risk mere talks or even defensive weapons as the answer to North Korean nukes. They're thinking nukes of their own:
North Korea's claim this week to have successfully conducted a third underground nuclear test is prompting some in South Korea and Japan to advocate possessing their own such weapons.
South Korean lawmaker Chung Mong-joon of the governing Saenuri (New Frontier) party made such a remark during a meeting of his colleagues from the National Assembly, comparing the situation with North Korea to “a gangster in the neighborhood buying a brand-new machine gun” and trying to defend oneself with merely a pebble. ...
Former four-term Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara, now a member of parliament, and co-leader of the Japan Restoration Party, has openly stated his country should have nuclear bombs to counter China, North Korea and Russia.
Sure, part of this is to get China's attention to stop North Korea. And these are stirrings rather than a solid consensus likely to lead to actual nuclear programs in the near term.
But it shows that depending on America's nuclear umbrella isn't seen as not seen as secure as it might otherwise be. It was one thing for America to guarantee an American nuclear retaliation when American cities were out of reach of North Korean missiles. And fans of just letting North Korea get nukes because we could devastate North Korea if North Korea fires one or more at us miss a point more basic than just assuming we would easily commit mass murder in retaliation.
I know, you are convinced that North Korea can be deterred because they aren't jihadi-level nuts. The basic problem is would America really reply with nukes if North Korea nuked a South Korean or Japanese target yet held enough missiles to hit an American city or two? You'll forgive the Japanese and South Koreans if they doubt that we'd risk Seattle or Anchorage in order to retaliate over the loss of Kyoto or Taegou. So even if North Korea can be deterred, assuming America is the one who can deter North Korea is an error.
We could have a world where in a very small theater with very short missile flight times there are 5 nuclear-armed states warily watching one another. And if China, Russia, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan have nukes, you can assume that Taiwan and Vietnam will wonder why they have been left out of the club. Even the Philippines might decide that nukes are the only way to stand up to China's conventional power.
And then will Indonesia want to avoid the shame of being a large nation in the region yet not possessing nukes? Then it is hello nukes for Australia. Maybe Singapore, too, for that matter.
And that happy chain reaction ignores the related chain reaction in the Middle East if the Iranians are as associated with the North Korean nuclear and missile programs as it seems. Even if you aren't too worried about North Korea in isolation and discount proliferation concerns in Asia, what's your confidence level for the Middle East on the questions of deterrence, proliferation, and stability with a number of nuclear-armed states in close proximity (Pakistan (and a related mention of India), Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and Egypt, to speculate on the Middle East chain)?
Have a super sparkly day.
