North Korea has been dominating news coverage recently with missile tests and rumors of ICBMs capable of traveling as far as Chicago in the central part of the United States. But despite rhetoric and hype on both sides. What’s the real danger in the situation?
North Korea-existential threat or rational global actor.
North Korea has been ruled by this guy.
Kim Jung Un ever since his father died in 2011. He’s the youngest leader in world history to control nuclear weapons and isn’t afraid to kill members of his family who threaten his rule. But is he really a menace to international society at large?
There are three ways that North Korea can do great harm…
The first is to massively damage Seoul in the opening salvos of a restarted war on the Korean peninsula. Of course ROK and international forces would strike back, but in the first few hours of the war many many people would be killed.
This shows the range of artillery and rocket fire and how deep into South Korea it would fall.
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/how-north-korea-would-retaliate
This is plausible but would be the end of the line for North Korea and nothing would stop regime change once the war ended. Not very likely.
The second danger is for an ICBM strike on a Japanese city.
The blue circle in the middle is where ICBMs have been flown most frequently so far and have the greatest chance of being accurately guided. Once again, this is a regime ending event. The North Korean leadership will not survive an attack like this and the DPRK will be ended after an international coalition strike. Also not very likely.
The last danger is a first strike against an American city or territory. Guam has been mentioned recently. But so has Hawaii, LA, San Francisco, and Chicago.
DPRK ICBM ranges as of 2015
The most advanced missile among the North Korean arsenal has the capability of reaching those places but has also not been tested extensively yet.
If Kim Jun Un isn’t a madman bent on world destruction then what does he want. I believe he is looking for international recognition and a guarantee that he won’t end up like any of these guys.
Saddam Hussein lost his nuclear program in a surprise Israeli airstrike in 1981 then lost his life after the US invasion.
Muammar Gaddafi in Libya voluntarily gave up his nuclear program and was killed after a popular revolt supported by Western air power.
And last but not least, the current leader of Syria, Assad lost his nuclear program in an Israeli airstrike in 2007 and is now fighting a civil war with multiple foreign powers involved in the conflict.
Let’s recap then...
Those autocratic leaders who have nuclear weapons are still in power while those who are not are dead. Seems simple to me. Have nuclear weapons and you will prosper. Perhaps Kim Jun Un is not so crazy after all.
So...maybe this?
Well not that he is entirely peaceful either…
One noted military strategist and scholar Thomas P.M. Barnett recently said that giving Japan the option to build nuclear weapons would force China to step on North Korea in a much more forceful way. Here’s his comment on Twitter.
Seems logical to me.
But what do you think readers of Steemit?
(CH)
