What should the West do? - Mark Almond, Daily Mail, August 29th
As evidenced by another missile launch that traveled over Japan (seriously - a missile flies over your country...) as well as the thermonuclear explosion last week, North Korea continues to flaunt the US and the increasingly strict UN sanctions. The cartoon above reflects the fact the leaders of North Korea have used their military strength and provocations to maintain their relevance and negotiate for terms that guarantee their survival. However, the current level of brinkmanship does seem to be teetering on the edge of actual conflict as South Korea, Japan and the US increase their level of readiness. In fact, President Trump's threats to North Korea underscore the propaganda used by the north that characterizes the US as wolves intent on the destruction of the "defensive DRPK." The defensive argument does relate to the idea of nuclear deterrence, which states that nuclear armed states cannot attack one another because of the massive destruction that would result. Given all the factors, Mark Almond is able to detail 7 options in the article, though none of the options seem viable or desirable. There are obviously catastrophic consequences if there is any direct conflict and Trump's idea that China would simply pressure the North Koreans does not seem to be working. Moreover, Russia continues its limited public support of sanctions while surreptitiously maintaining relations with the Kim regime. Surprisingly, the days of Jim Jong Il's madness coupled with his unique love of basketball and Hennessy seem dreamy compared to the nightmare scenarios that a Trump-Un escalation might bring.
1. Which of the options in the article provide the best strategy to deal with King Jong Un? Explain.
2. Do you think nuclear deterrence theory is accurate and how does that affect King Jong Un's strategy?
3. Which countries are truly threatened by Jim Jong Un & how does it relate to US involvement in the immediate region near the Korean peninsula?
1. I believe that furthering the goal of having China restrain the DPRK is the best way to confront this problem. Because North Korea seems to care not about sanctions and because an invasion or assassination would only escalate the issue, this seems to be the most viable option.
ReplyDelete2. The nuclear deterrence theory is accurate, however, North Korea is an exception. From their actions it is clear that the DPRK does not care about the consequences of escalating conflict into a nuclear war.
3. South Korea and Japan are the most threatened currently, but this could continue to lead to China and the US being threatened as well. Even without the US being under direct threat, this situation does affect the US quite a lot due to Japan being one of the US's closest allies.
- Henry Lambson
1. The United States must reach a deal with North Korea. The only way to do this realistically is through China. If Trump finds a way to make talks with Korea and China, then the path to improved security and relations will be a lot more stable than it seems now.
ReplyDelete2. Nuclear deterrence theory is very accurate, and should be very familiar to the United States as well. MAD was a reality during nuclear escalation of the Cold War because the US and the USSR both knew that an attack on one side would lead to catastrophe. If Kim Jong Un acknowledges this theory, his nuclear missile tests should be viewed as a way to gain some leverage in international affairs (the Kim regime fears what happened to Hussein in Iraq under the Bush presidency). Kim will most likely continue to pursue and test his nuclear program, and there is no logical way that Kim Jong Un would actually attack anybody anytime soon.
3. The animosity between countries around the Korean Peninsula has been especially great ever since the Korean War. Tensions between South Korea and North Korea are high, not to mention the poor relationship between Japan and North Korea. The United States is a big influence in the region in terms of alliance with South Korea and Japan. Though China (and maybe Russia) has the greatest leverage against DPRK, they are less likely to use it. The US wouldn’t risk diplomatic ties with China for an attack on the peninsula.
Christopher Xue
1. Enforcing tougher economic sanctions on North Korea is the best strategy for dealing with Kim Jong Un. Although this is the most subtle and least aggressive option, in the long run, it will be the most effective and safest option since it will strangle North Korea financially-- they will have no choice but to change their behavior. Other options, such as limited strikes, full invasions, assassination, and a U.S. nuclear strike, are too risky, as it would just escalate the situation and the chances of them pressing the button are much higher.
ReplyDelete2. The nuclear deterrence theory is correct. If Kim Jong Un wanted to launch nukes on other countries he would have done it by now. The reason he hasn't is precisely because of the nuclear deterrence theory -- he realizes that this would result in massive destruction. Because of this realization, his strategy is exactly what he is doing now: launching missiles and deliberately missing targets in hopes of intimidating the world without prompting nuclear war.
3. Both South Korea and Japan feel truly threatened because they are total enemies of DPRK and at the same time are very close in proximity, which means that they are essentially first in the line of fire. At the same time, although Russia and China are also in close proximity to North Korea, they have better relationships and business ties. For instance, 90% of North Korea's trade goes through China, which would make China an important "asset" to Kim Jong Un. Overall, both China and Russia are North Korea's "lifeline to the outside world", whereas Japan and South Korea have no value and should feel threatened.
-Jacob Chudnovsky
1. Diplomacy is the best option to deal with Kim Jong Un. However, the effectiveness of this option would largely depend on the deal itself, which won't be known until it happens (and that might be never). Although sanctions is also another viable option, forcing countries such as China and Russia to enforce sanctions onto North Korea may potentially strain the only considerably good relationships between North Korea and any other countries. In addition to that, enforcing tougher sanctions could also force North Korea to launch a nuclear missile at any neighboring country because, quite frankly, at that point in time, they would not have that much to lose. The other options such as assassination, invasion, limited strikes, and US nuclear strikes are also not very good options because all of those could very possibly trigger a third world war.
ReplyDelete2.The nuclear deterrence theory is accurate in most cases, but depending on North Korea's decisions regarding what they are going to do with their nuclear weapons, the theory may be an exception for North Korea. However, as of right now, we can argue that, yes, the nuclear deterrence theory is accurate. If Kim Jong Un believes in this theory, then his current missile tests can be viewed as a form of intimidation to demonstrate the capabilities of North Korea in order to be "treated as an equal and not a rogue." From this assumption, we can infer that because Kim Jong Un realizes the detrimental results of a nuclear war, he will not prompt one with his missiles and will only continue testing them to intimidate the world.
3. South Korea and Japan are truly threatened by Kim Jong Un due to their bad relationships with North Korea and their less than ideal proximity with the country. This relates to US involvement because in addition to being allies of the US, both South Korea and Japan also house multiple US military bases making it fairly unlikely for the US to not become involved.
- Tiffany Tam
1. The best option is diplomacy because most of the other options include some type or invasion or provoking. There is no other way that the US would be able to make a deal without nuclear weapons being targeted towards US military The countries which would start a nuclear war. affiliated wouldn't work Assassination even if Kim is assassinated there are other people that would follow through with the release of the nuclear weapons.
ReplyDelete2. Yes I think the nuclear deterrence is accurate. Kim Jong Un has been testing missiles into the pacific ocean since 1998. This means almost 20 years, if he wanted to take action he would've already but as stated "He is a small boy behaving very badly so that the biggest boy on the block, the U.S., will take him seriously." All he is really doing is getting the attention of possible threats and showing them that he can do something if they threaten him.
3. The countries that are currently most threatened are South Korea and Japan, but this could expand to China and Russia depending on how they react. This relates to the US involvement because of the US and Japanese alliance, and the fact that the US has military bases in both countries.
-Sabrina Schmid
3. South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia are most threatened by North Korea. These countries are threatened because of their proximity to North Korea. The largest reason why none of the options of dealing with North Korea are viable options is the fact that if North Korea were crossed in any way, they could take their anger out on their neighbors using nuclear weapons and of none of their neighbors are willing to take that risk. At the same time, the US is allies with North Korea's closest neighbors, South Korea and Japan and has military bases in both countries, so, if anything were to happen to those two countries, the US would be involved as well.
ReplyDelete-Kailey Nichols
1. The best option is probably diplomacy. The US needs to recognize North Korea, but at the same time they must be wary. And despite this being the best option, the outcomes rely heavily on North Korea. If North Korea is genuine and sticks to their word, this could be a very viable option. However, more likely than not, this will not happen and instead it may result in deception and war.
Delete2. The nuclear deterrence theory is accurate in big countries that already hold a lot of power like the US, however, in smaller countries like North Korea who are vying for more power and recognition in the world, using nuclear weapons is the perfect way to command that power and recognition. So far, North Korea's efforts to draw attention to themselves through the use of nuclear weapons has been very effective. As a result, it is very likely that North Korea will continue to use nuclear weapons as a threat to gain power and attention in the world.
1.) I believe that although none of the suggested courses of action are perfect, Diplomacy is likely the smartest course of action. Many conflict, both on large and small scales can be largely resolved by people being better to each other. I think a strike or invasion, no matter how limited, would only make matters worse and invoke the fury of North Korea. Managing relations with North Korea on the other hand would work towards de-escalating this serious situation.
ReplyDelete2.) I believe that the Nuclear Deterrence theory works in certain places that aren’t able to fight back as easily or defend themselves, but against a place like North Korea I don’t believe it is a winning proposition. Kim Jong Un is unlike leaders of other countries and his country is a threat to us just as ours is a threat to his. It would likely cause him to further build up the strength of North Korea’s nuclear program or encourage him to be the first to attack.
3.) The countries that are truly threats to Kim Jong Un are those like the US that are developed countries with strong global influence. This relates to US involvement the the area near the Korean Peninsula because it makes the US appear to be even more of a threat. Their presence so close creates an ominous and visible threat due to the proximity.
-Ally R.
1. In order to deal with the nuclear threats caused by kim jong un, the United States needs to consider Diplomacy as an effective way to deal the problems. Diplomacy will make the USA and North Korea deal with each other in a effective way without any war threats. However, if North Korea backfires then this could instigate the U.S into war. Also, I also believe that China needs to enforce more authority by implementing economic sanctions over North Korea. Since North Korea's economy depends heavily on China and its production, enforcing tougher economic sanctions such as trade barriers and tarrifs, North Korea will then struggle financially as a nation.
ReplyDelete2. The Nuclear deterrence theory is accurate. However, if North Korea decides to actually target a specific population then the nuclear deterrence theory may be incorrect. As if for now. North Korea has not targeted anyone specifically and Kim Jong Un is only working on intimidating the world by proving his nations nuclear power. Kim knows that if his missle strike causes any destruction to another country then there will be a big war and it will result in a large destruction. If Kim Jong Un wanted to harm or target a nation he would have done his damage by now.
3. Currently Japan and South Korea are threatened by Kim Jong Un. However, the USA will also always be a threat under North Korea. Kim Jong Un in unexpected and so are his missle launches. He could launch at Russia or even China if he wishes to. However, if North Korea attacks Japan then that would be considered an indirect attack to the USA since Japan and the US are allies. Nations around North Korea are under great amounts of threat since Kim Jong Uns next missle target is unknown.
- Kelly Prashar
Delete1. I believe that before we engage in war with North Korea, the US and North Korea should attempt diplomacy. Hopefully, this would end the threat of a nuclear war. While it seems far fetched, this method would try to peacefully remove us from brinksmanship with such a dangerous country.
ReplyDelete2. The Nuclear Deterrence theory is correct. It is difficult to say whether Kim Jong Un is just trying to scare us, or if he is just ignorant of the consequences of creating a Nuclear War. Since he has the means, the question becomes why hasn't he done it yet? Hopefully this is because he knows the horrible effects that it will have on the entire globe.
3. South Korea and Japan are the most threatened by North Korea. Not only does North Korea hate these countries, but they are close enough to be completely destroyed. If one of these countries was attacked, it would be hard for the US to sat uninvolved due to their alliance. Frankly, everyone is kind of threatened by North Korea because Kim Jong Un's desire to be on top could lead him to attempt to defeat even his allies, Russia and China
1. Although it is highly unlikely, North Korea should highly consider diplomacy as a solution. This could potentially end the threat of a nuclear war that could take place between the US and North Korea. Diplomacy would help the US and NK communicate more effectively to stop more threats of war since there are several red flags North Korea is imposing on us.
ReplyDelete2. The Nuclear Deterrence theory is something that should continue to be implemented as it is not only accurate but decreases the chances of war, but beneficial to countries. Though momentarily it is unclear whether Kim Jung Un trying to seem tough or if he is unaware of the danger that a Nuclear War has, especially to North Korea. Because of how unreasonable and unpredictable Kim Jung Un is, it is difficult to think about trying to stop him, though hopefully this is just a threat, not a sign that a war will break out because he knows how badly this will effect not only North Korea, but the world as a whole.
3. As of now, South Korea and Japan are the two most threatened countries by North Korea, although the US will always still on Kim Jung Un's "most hated" list. Not only are these countries a short distance away, they have the potential to be completely destroyed by a nuclear war. However, because the US and Japan are allies, it is likely that if something were to happen, the US would step in though it would not be easy. It is especially dangerous though because as mentioned, we are unaware, for the most part, of the advancements on North Korean nuclear technology which makes them a threat to almost every country, even his allies. South Korea, however, is in an even greater threat because not only of the hatred, but of the short distance that the missiles would have to travel.
1. Diplomatically suggesting China to participate in economic sanction to North Korea would be the most efficient and safe way to block further threat based on the fact that North Korea imports natural resources and foods; however, it is unlikely that China would pose a sanction to North Korea.
ReplyDelete2. Base on the history of North Korean threat, deterrence theory is not trustworthy. Neglecting military pressure from other Pacific nations, North Korea has been launching ICBMs and testing nuclear bombs with their mindset of "nothing to lose".
3. Japan and the United States will be the most threatened although South Korea will have the most physical damage when another Korean war happens. Actually, South Koreans, despite three major attacks after 2000, are not sensitive to the war.
1. Despite the damaging effect sanctions have had on the North Korean economy, Kim Jong Un has shown ability in evading a complete crippling of the economy. However, with new increased UN sanctions as of a few weeks ago, the best option for restricting escalation of the North Korea situation would be convincing China, who still holds close economic relations with North Korea, to increase their enforcement of sanctions.
ReplyDelete2. The Nuclear Deterrence Theory has held thus far and will more than likely remain intact. For North Korea to launch a nuclear strike on the US or any territory/ally of the US (let alone neighboring countries) is unlikely as of now. Instead, generating publicity and issuing threats places Kim Jong Un in a position of increased power and leverage for bargaining.
3. The countries most in danger are probably Japan, South Korea, or neighboring small island territories. For North Korea to attack China is unlikely, considering the economic reliance that exists between the two. Also, to strike the actual US is unlikely too, for Un knows the repercussions and dangers for his country following an attack of that nature. However, any attack against a foreign country in that immediate Korean peninsula area would more than likely result in harsher negotiations/involvement if not direct military force.
Jake Scigliano
1. I believe that the best way to reach peace with North Korea is to instill even tougher economic sanctions against their country. Kim Jong Un has made it clear that he does not want to reach an agreement through talking, so wee need to take some action. However, I don't think that violent action is the answer because it could kill innocent civilians and result in retaliation.
ReplyDelete2.The nuclear deterrence theory is completely accurate. It definitely applies to Kim Jong Un's strategy because if he wanted to use a nuclear missiles to obliterate another country, he would have done it by now. He is just flaunting his missiles in a show of power to establish that he should not be messed with. It is simply a threat.
3. South Korea and Japan are the most at risk in this situation. Neither of these countries are on good terms with North Korea. Both South Korea and Japan have some sort of U.S. military base, which creates a problem for the U.S. We are also allies with both of these countries, which means that if they were to get bombed, we would most likely have to get involved.
-Madeline Tragoutsis
1. I think the best way to defuse the North Korea situation is to pressure their Chinese allies. China has traditionally used North Korea as a buffer state between Westernized Asian countries and itself to minimize the risk of invasion, and the only reason North Korea survived its famine in the 90s was thanks to Chinese aid. If we can pressure the Chinese successfully, they will stop their support of the Un dictatorship, leaving them truly alone on the world stage. It is in the interest of China to do this as a rogue nuclear North Korea could also pose a threat to them.
ReplyDelete2. Unfortunately, its very true. The only reason we have not attacked is that their nuclear weapons and other ballistic materials could easily target Seoul only 80 miles away. North Korea subscribed to this theory, which is why they are trying to build missiles. Kim Jong-Un knows that his power is very precarious, but his possession of nuclear weapons strengthens his hold on the country.
3. The countries that are in immediate danger from North Korea's nuclear arsenal are Japan and South Korea. Both of these countries have healthy economies, are important military and trade partners for the United States, and present an important ally in the volatile geopolitical region that is the Far East. North Korea's threat to them is particularly sensitive to the United States, as a direct hot for them could spell diplomatic disaster for the US.
-- Diego Escobedo
1. I think that diplomacy is the best option because, first of all, wars are expensive. They cost both lives and money. Secondly, it seems that these threats posed by North Korea are just “a cry for recognition.” After all, if North Korea actually wanted to start a nuclear war, it would have started by now.
ReplyDelete2. I guess nuclear deterrence theory is correct. As I said, if North Korea wanted to start a nuclear war, there would’ve been one by now. I’d like to assume that Kim Jong Un is, at the very least, sensible enough to realize that a nuclear war would cause the destruction of humanity, but at the same time, I remember that in computer science, one should always assume user incompetence, and I guess the same applies to real life.
3. I think Japan and South Korea are most threatened because they are really close to North Korea. Moreover, historically speaking, they have not had the greatest relations with North Korea. Considering the South Korea-US alliance, if anything were to happen to South Korea, the US would likely intervene.
Shiloh Andersson
It is likely that a single option will not be enough to neutralize North Korea into a state where nearby countries such as China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea can consider themselves safe. As of now, they are the countries in the most danger of North Korean war. However, at some point, Kim Jong Un will die. In my mind, the appeasement strategy is still valid because eventually things will calm down. An increase of tension will serve to only make relations worse. For example, with nuclear deterrent, not only does it not work (as no one would ever wish to give up any sort of power that they had to fight for) but it also would serve to break relations. The American continent, however, serves no part in this conflict. Therefore, our influence in this should be drastically limited.
ReplyDelete(This was published on the 4th period blog, on 9/18)
1. The entire situation is a nightmare to navigate but the wisest plan going forward is to continue to attempt diplomacy until direct attack on any population. At that point we would need a swift bombing response. Until this is necesarry it's also important that we re-emphasize communication with China.
ReplyDelete2.I'm sure Kim Jong Un and his top brass are aware of the reasons not to initiate nuclear war but I have trouble trusting them to not act irrationally in a last ditch effort for supposed glory.
3. North Korea casts a shadow over a number of Asian countries. It is a trading partner for countries such as Taiwan and China but a looming threat to the likes of Japan and South Korea. A factor to consider when thinking about increased American presence in the region is expected Chinese opposition to what it sees as an unacceptable encroachment and a threat to their supremacy in the South China Sea.
This is Jackson Gravagno's conmment
Delete1) For years the US has pushed for more and more economic sanctions to deal with the North Korean Crisis and so far all this seems to have done is worsen the lives of the citizens as the government continues to build nukes. I believe that the better option c would be to use our superior cyber tools to take disable the missiles before they launch and this could be what we are doing according to British intelligence officials as well as congressmen. Disabling the missiles could be relatively easy (we did it on Iran about 10 years ago) and would put as little lives at risk as possible. It is naive to believe that China will fully cut off support for North Korea or that Kim will negotiate.
ReplyDelete2- The nuclear deterrence theory is accurate as it has protected us for 60 years. It keeps Kim for launching missiles at us because he fears the counterattack from our own nukes.
3- South Korea and Japan are most threatened by Kim's missiles and this has forced the US to take an active role in keeping Kim in line as South Korea and Japan are our important allies.
-Nick Dohemann
Just to prove that I'm not crazy about #1
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/asia/cyber-missile-defense-north-korea/index.html
1. The many options given do not seem to be the best course of action if North Korea is looking to start a war. However, diplomacy would be the best route of going about this issue if the U.S. is trying to avoid nuclear war. The last thing the U.S. needs right now is another issue to tackle with another county, especially one under a dictatorship.
ReplyDelete2. In this case nuclear deterrence theory does not seem very accurate. This is due to the fact that even with knowledge of our nuclear power, North Korea would still attempt to challenge the powerhouse that is the United States of America. Even if the U.S. has the bigger weapons at the moment, Kim Jong Un would not stop until he gets the upper hand, regardless of who would actually wwin the nuclear battle, or how much damage results from it.
3. Places near North Korea are in great danger, such as South Korea and Japan, due to their already being tension in place. The U.S.'s attacks on Japan and the war in Vietnam are surely demonstrations of how the U.S. likes to use their armies, so North Korea would not only gain experience from that, but motive as well since the U.S. has already flexed their power.
-Luis Chacon
1. The many options given do not seem to be the best course of action if North Korea is looking to start a war. However, diplomacy would be the best route of going about this issue if the U.S. is trying to avoid nuclear war. The last thing the U.S. needs right now is another issue to tackle with another county, especially one under a dictatorship.
ReplyDelete2. In this case nuclear deterrence theory does not seem very accurate. This is due to the fact that even with knowledge of our nuclear power, North Korea would still attempt to challenge the powerhouse that is the United States of America. Even if the U.S. has the bigger weapons at the moment, Kim Jong Un would not stop until he gets the upper hand, regardless of who would actually wwin the nuclear battle, or how much damage results from it.
3. Places near North Korea are in great danger, such as South Korea and Japan, due to their already being tension in place. The U.S.'s attacks on Japan and the war in Vietnam are surely demonstrations of how the U.S. likes to use their armies, so North Korea would not only gain experience from that, but motive as well since the U.S. has already flexed their power.
-Luis Chacon
1. The best strategy in dealing with King Jong Un is diplomacy and to get China involved. These two methods ultimately retract the United States and prevent our country from getting into a deeper hole with more problems and threats. Best case scenario, we can come to an agreement without launching any attacks or creating further issues. However, this is pretty unlikely. Therefore, as the probable backup option, we should turn to China to get involved. This is the best way in confronting the situation because launching a preemptive strike or assassination would only cause an impulsive attack back at us and involving China relieves pressure and is a long, overdue debt payed back to the United States through poor supervision of North Korea.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, I think that the nuclear deterrence theory is very accurate. Kim Jong Un wants North Korea to be seen, recognized, and respected as a nuclear power. Furthermore, if Kim Jong Un intended to actually launch a missile, it would have done by now. CNBC reporter Dauba-Pantanacce says, “Kim's move to test the missile at a more horizontal angle was "to prove that they can reach a certain distance" – namely, North Korea's threat against the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam. Up until now, missile tests have been vertical, Dauba-Pantanacce added.” Here is an interesting point: If missiles are tested vertically, then the only reason why it would have been tested horizontally is to show some type of intimidation, aligning with the nuclear deterrence theory.
3. Japan and South Korea are truly threatened by Kim Jong Un. This relates to US involvement in the immediate region near the Korean peninsula because not only do we have ties with those countries, Japan and South Korea are enemies with North Korea. Therefore, any strike from North Korea against either of those territories would trigger further US involvement.
-Cale Goodman
1. Because of the many major consequences that unfriendliness with North Korea could bring, it is essential that the US remains diplomatic in working out a deal with North Korea. The US should not antagonize or threaten North Korea, however, should North Korea act against the US, we should respond appropriately.
ReplyDelete2. While nuclear deterrence theory is not ideal, in many ways it is the only plausible theory present. While fighting nuclear weapons by matching nuclear weapons does not solve problems between countries, it could possibly prevent attacks until a better solution is sought out. I believe that Kim Jong Un's strategy is to beat the US in an arms war, rather than match the US for safety. If and after he achieves this I'm not sure what his next step would be.
3. The countries most at risk as of right now are South Korea and Japan, because tensions since the Korean War have not significantly subsided. Relations between North Korea and these two countries are unfriendly and therefore at risk. US involvement in the Korean Peninsula would increase should Jong Un attack South Korea or Japan because limiting North Korean influence in other countries is a primary concern for the US.
1. The best option is to achieve peace and agreement between North Korea and the US although this is something quite difficult to do. However conflict between two countries with nuclear power will only result in disaster. I think that the best way for the US and North Korea to reach an agreement is through other countries.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the theory of nuclear deterrence is extremely true, however I worry that the leaders of North Korea and the US would keep this theory in mind. They are both easily provoked leaders that have a pattern of not being considerate in their actions.
3. I think that the countries threatened by Kim Jong Un are the ones geographically closest to North Korea because attacks are more realistic with a shorter distance. Specifically, I think Japan and South Korea are in danger due to their proximity, small size, and geographic isolation. Countries like Russia, China, and US are much larger than North Korea and on mainland so I think they are in less danger despite Kim Jong Un showing clear hostility towards them/us.
3. I feel that the main countries threatened by Kim Jong Un are ourselves and our allies, specifically in South Korea, Japan, and other U.S territories in the pacific isles. Because they are so close, they are at much higher risk for a hit as they have not yet completely developed their full long range missles
ReplyDelete1.)The most beneficial option for both the U.S. and N. Korea is diplomacy. While our president's most recent threats towards the country seem to steer the conversation towards action, and possibly nuclear war, diplomacy is the only way to safely handle this situation.
ReplyDelete2.)Nuclear deterrence uses basic logic to make the claim that we have created weapons they are so unethical we cannot use them. Were we to, we would effectively destroy a sizable portion of the world. And while it may seem counter intuitive to develop more weapons to not use them, it is better than the distopian future stated above.
3.)Japan and South Korea are most threatened by North Korea, but I would consider all of the pacific nations not allied with N. Korea in some level of danger. That said, North Korea's ICBM's are limited in range, meaning that farther nations like the U.S. are less threatened for the moment.