Lessons from North Korea’s nuclear program

by | Mar 22, 2017

Lessons from North Korea’s nuclear program

by | Mar 22, 2017

In a successful test earlier this month, North Korea fired four missiles into the Sea of Japan, heightening concerns about its nuclear weapons program. As Victor Cha, a former Bush administration adviser, recently said of the missile tests, “This is now a military testing program to acquire a proven capability.”

The tests continue to raise the stakes for President Trump, who indicated before he took office that North Korea acquiring long-range, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles is something that “won’t happen.” Trump’s blunt message and the urgency of the international response are understandable. But although its nuclear weapons present a threat today to its neighbors, and likely down the road to the United States homeland, North Korea also provides two important lessons that the United States could use to reorient its foreign policy in a more useful direction.

The first lesson is that neither the United States, nor the international community, can solve every problem that occurs in the world. Many problems do have solutions, and there is every reason to try to find reasonable solutions to pressing challenges – especially those involving peace and security – before acknowledging that they cannot be resolved. But some problems simply do not have solutions, or at least none that would come at a reasonable price.

North Korea’s nuclear program appears to be one of the latter problems. The United States and the international community tried hard throughout the 1990s to keep North Korea from pursuing nuclear weapons, but eventually those efforts failed. More than 20 years later, it is clear that North Korea’s nuclear weapons are here to stay.

Not only is there little reason to expect diplomatic solutions to work today where they failed before, but any military option has long since passed beyond the realm of thinkable. One does not attack nuclear-armed nations; the risk of catastrophe is simply too great.

The obvious implication of this first lesson is that at this point, the United States needs to stop trying to roll back North Korea’s nuclear program.

More fundamentally, the United States needs to consider which of the many foreign policy problems it has identified can be solved, and which cannot.

The second lesson from North Korea is that the U.S. needs to think much harder about the limits of military intervention and the unintended consequences of maintaining a forward military presence in troubled spots around the world.

North Korea’s famously paranoid style often makes Pyongyang seem unhinged, but what nation wouldn’t be worried with tens of thousands of well-armed American troops staring across the demilitarized zone?

North Korea might have developed nuclear weapons even if the U.S. had not stationed troops in South Korea, but Americans should not be blind to the proliferation incentives created by the sustained presence of U.S. military forces since the Korean War. And today the only reason a North Korean nuclear program presents any real threat to the United States is because of the continued U.S. presence in South Korea.

North Korea’s nuclear program is no longer a problem that can be solved at a reasonable cost. Though nobody is happy about this, trying too hard to roll back this fact carries a real chance of making things worse.

Republished from the Detroit News.

About Trevor Thrall

Trevor Thrall is a senior fellow for the Cato Institute’s Defense and Foreign Policy Department. Thrall is an associate professor at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government. He teaches courses in international security, political communication, and U.S. military intervention. His recently edited book, American Foreign Policy and the Politics of Fear: Threat Inflation since 9/11 (Routledge 2009), examined why and how the Bush administration was able to build public support for the war in Iraq in 2003. The companion volume to that work, Why Did the United States Invade Iraq? (Routledge 2011), collects competing explanations about why the administration decided to go to war in the first place. Prior to arriving at George Mason, Thrall was an associate professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn where he directed the Master of Public Policy and Master of Public Administration programs. He received his PhD in political science from MIT.

Our Books

latest book lineup.

Related Articles

Related

TGIF: Spooner versus bin Laden

TGIF: Spooner versus bin Laden

In his 2002 letter to America justifying the savage 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (himself killed in 2011) wrote after listing his grievances against the U.S. government: You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against...

read more
What Killed the Peace Talks in Ukraine?

What Killed the Peace Talks in Ukraine?

The accepted Western narrative is that, in February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine with the intent of conquering the entire country. But there is a competing narrative that is compelling enough to be worthy of consideration. Following the...

read more
America is a Democracy (That’s the Problem)

America is a Democracy (That’s the Problem)

Our rulers constantly talk about “our democracy,” often while justifying doing things which are profoundly anti-democratic. A common midwit response is, “America is not a democracy, it is a republic.” While your ninth grade history teacher may have felt smart telling...

read more
April 20, 2024: Final Nail in America’s Coffin?

April 20, 2024: Final Nail in America’s Coffin?

When future historians go searching for the final nail in the U.S. coffin, they may well settle on the date April 20, 2024. On that day Congress passed legislation to fund two and a half wars, hand what’s left of our privacy over to the CIA and NSA, and give the U.S....

read more