|
Nuclear blackmail by a rogue state: The real lesson of N. Korea
|
By Christopher Holton
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, March 3, 2003
Today we are faced with a cold, hard fact: North Korea is almost untouchable because the CIA estimates that Kim Jong il has as many as three enriched uranium atomic bombs. These bombs are believed to be something on a par with the Hiroshima ÒLittle BoyÓ and the Nagasaki ÒFat Man.Ó Such bombs may be small and primitive by today's standards to be sure, but they are still capable of ruining your whole day. If one of those ÒdevicesÓ were to be set off in Seoul, Tokyo, Okinawa, or even Anchorage and Honolulu, casualties would run into the hundreds of thousands. We have to assume that the CIA does not know the exact whereabouts of North Korea's nuclear arsenal. This is what makes them virtually untouchable; deterrence works on the United States. Even if unbalanced despots seem to be unfazed by our huge nuclear arsenal, America must approach any potential adversary who may be armed with nuclear weapons much differently.
To complicate matters even further, people in a position to know say that North Korea has at least some ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) capability. Their Taepo Dong series of rockets is thought to at least theoretically be capable of delivering a warhead of several hundred pounds to at least Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps even the U.S. west coast. Now, for some reason that I cannot even begin to fathom, the US news media treated CIA Director George Tenet's recent comments about North Korean missiles being able to hit the United States as a new and major revelation. This simply shows that they haven't been paying attention until now. It was widely reported as far back as 1995 that the North likely had a ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. While the one known test of the Taepo Dong was something less than a success, there is no reason to believe that North Korea hasn't improved its rocket technology through cooperation with China, Pakistan, Libya and especially Iran.
What we are witnessing now from Pyongyang is the first case of nuclear blackmail by a rogue nation. This is truly uncharted territory. Appeasement is certainly not the answer; it never has been and never will be. On the other hand, any military action taken against North Korea would have to be a decisive and massive operation with just about complete strategic and tactical surprise to head off any use of nuclear weapons and ICBMs. It is not realistic to think that this can be accomplished in this day and age. Still, those who encourage dialogue based on the truly silly notion that Òif they're talking, they're not shootingÓ should go back and study world history.
The best alternative policy for dealing with North Korea is one of containment combined with covert efforts to overthrow Kim Jong il through revolutionary, as opposed to military, means. We must work with South Korea and Japan to develop such a policy. Surprisingly, Japan has emerged as a stronger ally than South Korea with regard to the issue of North Korea, but South Korea is hardly a Germany or a France. They will come around eventually. They have a competent military and many South Koreans understand all too well the dangers posed by North KoreaÑdangers they cannot face alone. If the U.S. and Japan continue to deal firmly with North Korea, South Korea will have no choice but to eventually fall in line. This is a good thing because South Korea almost certainly offers the best chance to end Kim Jong il's reign of terror through covert/revolutionary means. This may take time and in the interim, it is essential that the U.S., Japan and South Korea adopt a defense posture that can make Kim Jong il realize that he cannot win any armed conflict.
Containing North Korea will require a sustained commitment to defense in Seoul, Tokyo and Washington. Seoul must modernize and enlarge its entire military. They must also get on board with ballistic missile defense, including the procurement of PAC-2 and PAC-3 missile defense systems and AEGIS-equipped destroyers. The same goes for Japan. A call for the Japanese to arm themselves may alarm some, but the real threat posed by North Korea, in addition to the seemingly forgotten threat posed by Red China, far outweigh any perceived threat from a strong Japan. Japan would be much more secure today and in the future if it were to expand the offensive potential of its air force, acquire and deploy a national missile defense system, build more AEGIS-equipped destroyers and make plans to build and deploy a modern aircraft carrier, similar to the recent decision made by the United Kingdom. Such a defense build-up would have the ancillary benefit of helping to stimulate the chronically deflating Japanese economy.
For the U.S., containing a nuclear-armed North Korea means an expanded military presence in the Western Pacific, though not necessarily on the Korean peninsula or even in Japan. Expanding the U.S. military presence on Guam would be a positive first step. Guam is a U.S. possession and carries none of the potential political baggage associated with Korea and Okinawa. Even the most ardent neo-isolationists would be hard-pressed to criticize the U.S. bolstering the military presence in our own territory (though I am sure they will find a way to whine over even that). But the real needs militarily are for more aircraft carrier battle groups, more amphibious lift capability, more airlift capacity, and more pre-positioned equipment. Obviously, these needs are not unique to the Pacific region or the Korean peninsula. Over the past dozen years, the U.S. systematically dismantled the Reagan war machine. It will take time to rebuild it. I pray that we have that time.
Looking forward, there are some key lessons to be learned by what has happened in North Korea over the past decade:
- Rogue, terrorist nations must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Even if it means going to war, no other adversaries should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. This includes each of the nations on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist sponsors: Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, and, of course, Iraq. I would also add Saudi Arabia to that list. Iran, Libya, Syria, and Iraq all have weapons of mass destruction programs of one sort of the other. And each one of those nations has already committed at least one act of war against the United States through the use of terrorist groups as proxies. Given their track record of murdering innocent American civilians and military personnel alike, why do you suppose they have weapons of mass destruction programs, including nuclear ÒenergyÓ projects? I can assure you that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons with the intention of bombing Bolivia!
Even Bill Clinton evidently knew of the importance of not allowing rogue nations to develop nuclear weapons. It has been confirmed by credible third-party sources that in the 1993-94 time period, he had plans to strike militarily at North Korea's then incomplete nuclear weapons programs. It was a refusal on the part of South Korea to go along with the plan that resulted in the tragically flawed ÒAgreed FrameworkÓ which led to the North's covert enriched uranium program that the CIA says has now successfully produced bombs.
Stopping a rogue nation doesn't always have to mean bombing, cruise missile strikes or invasion. Especially in the case of Iran, guile may work better than force. Already there is much opposition to the radical Islamic regime throughout Iran. Doing what ever we can to help that movement blossom may just be the best way to see to it that the Ayatollahs never get The Bomb.
- Rogue, terrorist nations must not be allowed to develop ballistic missiles capable of threatening the U.S. or our bases overseas. It must be viewed as no coincidence at all that the same nations who sponsor terrorism and have weapons of mass destruction programs also have ballistic missile programs. The world's leader in ballistic missile proliferation is none other than North Korea. The fact that the same nation that has a ballistic missile capable of intercontinental flight and striking the United States from across the Pacific Ocean is also the preferred dealer of missiles to nations like Libya, Syria, Iran, and possibly Iraq, should concern us all. If Moamar Qaddafi in Libya or the Ayatollahs in Iran suddenly were able to purchase ICBMs capable of reaching the western hemisphere, who do you think should be more concerned, the United States or Guatemala? If you answered, Òthe United States,Ó then you surely understand why, either by force or by guile, we must never allow any more rogue, terrorist nations to obtain long-range ballistic missiles.
- The U.S. and our allies must develop national missile defense systems and theater missile defense systems. Such defenses are not intended to defend against a mass ICBM volley from Russia. They are needed to defend against a tyrannist in a rogue nation, especially unbalanced and radical Islamic dictators, launching a few ICBMs against America in an act of ultimate terrorism, aggression or desperation. No longer can we depend on MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) to deter madmen and Jihadists. If Saddam Hussein had a few nuclear tipped ICBMs and knew that his demise at the hands of U.S. Special Forces operators was at hand, do you think compassion and humanity would prevent him from launching those missiles as a last act? If a Jihadist like Osama Bin Laden or the Ayatollah Khomeini was ever to rule a nation and obtain a few nuclear-tipped ICBMs, and he felt it was his sacred duty to Allah to launch them at the United States, do you think deterrence would keep him from that duty? I don't. I think they would consider their entire nation as martyrs and press the button with glee. We must have missile defense.
- Treaties and agreements and pieces of paper make for great public relations, but they don't make America any more secure. In 1994, Bill Clinton allowed Jimmy Carter to railroad him into an unverifiable agreement with North Korea, a country that has never honored an agreement in their history. Clinton even structured the deal (the so-called Agreed Framework) in such a way as to avoid the constitutionally mandated Senate ratification. Jimmy Carter got the Nobel Peace Prize for that agreement. What did North Korea get? A covert enriched uranium program, which led to as many as three nuclear bombs and an unmolested ballistic missile program, which has resulted in an ICBM. And now, North Korea's plutonium program, which the 1994 Agreed Framework was meant to stop in the first place, is up and running once again. Neville Chamberlain couldn't have done any better himself. Way to go Jimmy and Bill.
As America is now faced with the prospect of dual crises in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean Peninsula, a cynical chorus of shrill voices from both the neo-isolationists and the anti-national defense crowd can be heard slinging irresponsible accusations and specious statements:
- "North Korea is a bigger threat to the United States than Iraq, why don't we attack them?"
- "North Korea has nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein does not, so why are we going to attack Iraq?"
- "North Korea has ballistic missiles that can reach U.S. territory, Iraq does not. We should be focusing on Kim Jong il, not Saddam Hussein."
- "The only reason Bush doesn't want to go after North Korea is because they don't have any oil. Iraq does."
- "Iraq is a decade away from having nuclear weapons and North Korea already has them. Why are we going after Iraq?"
- "North Korea has kicked UN inspectors out and Iraq is cooperating. We should give inspections more time to work in Iraq."
Each of the schools of thought expressed above fail to get to the real issue: what to do about rogue, terrorist nations with weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.
A member of the World Tribune Board of Advisers, Christopher Holton heads up the Blanchard Economic Research Unit and has been writing on economic and national security affairs for more than a decade. He can be reached through his non-profit web site, http://www.nationalsecurityonline.com.
|
