I think this post from several months ago on what the different countries talking to North Korea want describes the varying objectives pretty well. I'd add that we don't want North Korea to proliferate nukes to others who might use them on us. I don't know why I left it out at the time.
I think that we can still afford to be patient and put the screws to North Korea since we face the least immeditate threat from North Korea. We can run the risk of pushing too hard and North Korea lashing out more than others because of our relative distance from North Korea. They may be a mad dog but we are mostly beyond the length of their leash. And following their nuke test, we have some momentum to tighten the screws more than we could before, as I wrote nearly a year and a half ago when I urged the Pillsbury Nuke Boy to smoke 'em if he's got them:
So if North Korea has nukes, why not end the ability of some to pretend there is no problem? If North Korea lights one up, nobody can deny the need to confront North Korea. Do we really want this gulag with a UN seat to have nukes and survive for long? And the Pillsbury Nuke Boy will have one fewer nuke to wave around if push comes to shove. I'd certainly be happier if North Korea can't build nukes; but if they can, end the uncertainty.Remember, we've known North Korea is nuclear capable. This test tells us nothing new on this score. What we don't know even after the test is whether North Korea can weaponize their nuclear devices to theaten us. In time they will do it. Right now, and tomorrow, North Korea is not a direct nuclear threat to us.
With this cleared up, we can focus on containing North Korea. We can cut off all but a trickle of aid to keep them hoping for recovery rather than banking on war. We can welcome refugees. We can try to get information about the outside world into the north. We can build missile defenses around North Korea with the Japanese to guard against the worse. We can focus surveillance assets on the north. We can intercept any attempts to export nuclear materials or weapons. In short, we contain them and pull the plug so that they die. Regime collapse is our goal.
And we can prepare to strike North Korea's missile sites and leadership positions in a disarming strike should we detect signs of missile launch preparations. Remember, it is one thing to hide development in a deep cavern. But if you want a weapon, you have to bring it close to the surface where it can actually be launched. We can detect and strike these.
The problem for us is the long run. If North Korea survives long enough to get nuclear weapons that can reach us, our options are far more limited. And if North Korea sells devices that can be hauled around on boats, trucks, trains, or planes even if not a launchable weapon, we could lose a city to a terror attack.
We must destroy North Korea in the short run while the threats to us are limited.
It may seem cynical to push for a North Korean collapse when the risk of a North Korean reaction is higher for our friends in the region; but remember that our friends in the region don't seem to lose sleep over the prospect of Los Angeles being a potential target in the long run.
Look to our interests. The worst thing isn't a nuclear capable North Korea but a nuclear-capable North Korea with a longer leash that lets them take a bite out of us.
Bribing North Korea just lets them live longer and the longer they live the more likely they are to get nukes that threaten us. Besides, we know they don't stay bought. They cheat. If not, why are we even discussing what to do about a nuclear North Korea?
And while I want to destroy the Kim regime, I don't think military action is appropriate or possible (and no, we are not "distracted" by Iraq. If you don't think our military is large enough to occupy 25 million Iraqis how can you think we could occupy 23 million North Koreans instead?).
Without South Korea in whole-hearted agreement, we simply can't invade North Korea.
Aerial attacks on our own could certainly cripple North Korea, but I'd hate to do it on our own and let our more vulnerable allies simultaneously complain and reap the fruits of our actions. They have more to fear in the short run so they should be full participants if military options are necessary. If things get bad enough, we have powerful military allies near North Korea who can shoulder the burden. South Korea's military and Japan's air force and navy are capable to smashing up North Korea. China's army--assuming North Korea's army remains near the DMZ facing South Korea--could push south quite a bit, too. And our naval and air power remains free to support a war against North Korea. Most importantly, we have time to wait and engineer a collapse of North Korea before we must consider a military attack in the short run.
Nor is encouraging proliferation by Japan, South Korea, and/or Taiwan anything more than a bit of revenge against China for failing to do something useful to stop North Korea. With mutually hostile states owning nukes that can reach neighbors in under five minutes, we'll recall our Cold War twenty minute notice of Soviet attack as positively geological in scale. It is simply not good to have six nuclear-armed neighbors bumping elbows with each other. It is not stable and somebody will lob some nukes.
I don't know how good the computer models are, but aren't pacifists constantly telling us that even a small number of nuclear blasts can destroy our climate? I may wonder about their models (they thought Saddam's oil fires in 1991 would cause a nuclear winter scenario) but I'd really rather not risk it. Plus the economic impact of the fast-growing Asia getting hammered. And not least, mega-deaths shouldn't be something we consider a good outcome.
Plus, Iran is a bigger threat than North Korea. I repeat my rule of thumb:
Better to stop the nutball from getting their first nuke than to take away the nuke from the nutball who already has one.
Iran with nukes will be far worse than North Korea with nukes. There are jihadis out their but darn few Kimunists willing and eager to kill us. Iran with nukes can lead jihadi nuts. Who on Earth will North Korea with nukes lead? Further, against Iran, by contrast to the allies we have lined up over North Korea, we maybe have Britain and Australia to help us on the margins. So allies can watch our backs in Northeast Asia while we face the more dangerous threat of Iran mostly on our own.
So let's squeeze North Korea harder with the added support of a nervous UN while we turn our attention back to Iran. Funny how Hugos and Nasrallahs and Kims keep popping up to make us forget that Iran is missing yet another deadline to stop their nuclear work.
But really, it's a lovely decade we're having, eh?
