TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 11 °C Thursday 20 June, 2013

Column: North Korea’s pursuit of the bomb should not be ignored

While a functioning nuclear weapon remains years away for North Korea, recent activities and statements will nevertheless have a worrying effect in Seoul, Washington and the wider world, writes Jason Douglas.

Jason Douglas

NORTH KOREA’S THIRD nuclear test conducted on the 12 of February did not go unnoticed by the international community. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously agreed to impose more economic sanctions on the pariah state. This latest round of sanctions is designed, in the words of US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, “to significantly impede North Korea’s ability to develop further its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, as well as its proliferation activities.”

Pyongyang has responded to these sanctions in characteristically brusque fashion. It has declared the fragile 1953 armistice (which ended the Korean War) null and void, significantly raising tensions on the Korean Peninsula. It has also threatened to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks on Seoul and the United, leading the Pyongyang-based Korean Central News to announce that “a nuclear war may break out right now.”

North Korean Provocations

North Korea has long engaged in provocative behaviour. In 1998, Pyongyang launched a missile which flew over Japanese territory, hoping to place a satellite in orbit. This venture failed – but not before raising tensions in East Asia and the United States. In 2002, in contravention of the 1994 Agreed Framework with the United States, North Korea was found to be in the process of pursuing uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies – key ingredients for nuclear weapons manufacturing. A year later, it withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Since then, efforts led by the US, Russia and China as well as South Korea and Japan (the Six-Party talks) to compel the regime to abandon its illicit activities have all ended in deadlock. The death of Kim Jong-Il in December 2011 and his replacement with his Swiss-educated son, Kim Jong-Un led to speculation that the latter might be a reforming character. North Korea’s recent erratic behaviour, however, has proven these hopes to be way off the mark.

Since his succession, Kim Jong-Un has embarked on a provocative and alarming course. Efforts to test and develop a nuclear capability have intensified under his rule. In December 2012, Pyongyang conducted a successful missile launch, widely seen as an attempt to develop a means of delivering a warhead. This led to widespread condemnation and the renewal of economic sanctions on the country. Dismissing these sanctions, the regime announced its intention to go ahead with a third nuclear test, which it conducted in February at the Punngye-ri nuclear installation.

The developments of the past several days are the after-effects of this nuclear test. The latest round of sanctions, while not enforced by military power (which the UNSC could have invoked under Chapter 7, Article 42 of the UN Charter), are still hitting the regime and curtailing its ability to act as it pleases.

China and its wayward neighbour

Seen as the only ally of the isolated and beleaguered regime, China has had the ability to influence its wayward neighbour. More recently, however, this ability seems to have waned. It now backs the imposition of sanctions. Whether this development marks a shift in China’s policy toward North Korea remains to be seen.

Usually, China’s trade with North Korea increases in the aftermath of sanctions. China’s national interest is in maintaining peace and stability in its surrounding area. At present, China is concerned with nurturing its domestic economy and gives aid to Pyongyang in the form of oil, food and machinery. Beijing does not do this out of altruism or friendship; the collapse of the regime in Pyongyang could spark a humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of refugees spilling over China’s border.

What do these developments mean? North Korea seems to have settled on its path of attempting to acquire a weaponised nuclear capability and it seems that no amount of sticks and carrots will deter it from its course. Further provocations of some sort should be expected in the coming weeks and months. Its nuclear threats to the US and South Korea, however, should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Thus far, Pyongyang has not demonstrated its ability to launch a nuclear weapon. It is one thing to demonstrate an ability conduct a nuclear test, quite another to turn this ability into a working weapon. This will require miniaturising this ability into the size of a deliverable nuclear warhead. There is also the added difficulty of preparing this warhead for re-entry to the atmosphere as the process of re-entry causes objects to burn up. But this should not minimise the threat posed: the regime possesses hundreds of Nodong missiles which could conceivably be used to strike US military bases in the region, as well as South Korea and Japan. It has also demonstrated that it is slowly, but perceptibly, mastering the technologies needed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Robust and credible nuclear deterrence

If North Korea acquires a nuclear capability, which it might yet do in the coming years, it is unlikely to risk national suicide by using the weapon. Robust and credible nuclear deterrence, though imperfect, might play a role in maintaining stability. A more worrying development would be the influence a nuclear-armed North Korea might have on its regional neighbours.

South Korea and Japan, rendered insecure, might clamour for a deterrent of their own. Currently, the US extends its nuclear umbrella to these states, so that they do not pursue independent nuclear capabilities. A North Korean bomb would be a severe setback to the pursuit of non-proliferation and disarmament in the region and might raise tensions to boiling point.

It seems years before this will take place. Short of pre-emptive strikes on its nuclear facilities, which China would never agree to, the international community is doing all it can to prevent it. The idea that Pyongyang could strike the US homeland with nuclear weapons, or anything else, is at this point laughable but, despite this, its recent activities and statements will be sure to have a worrying effect in Seoul, Washington and the wider world.

Jason Douglas is a PhD student in UCC. He has written on various nuclear weapons issues such as  deterrence, non-proliferation and missile defences. Samples of his work can be found at Academia.edu.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (63 Comments)

  • The people of his country deserve better. I was stupid enough to think he would of been a good leader but he’s just as much of a c*nt as his dad. It’s only a matter of time before America cross the border, which would be the biggest war in years.

    Reply
  • ptriley 12/03/13 #

    On a nicer note Mr Kim beat McIlroy in a friendly round of golf today.

    Reply
  • They’re all deluded and complete nutters, it was mentioned today that men and women were begging to join the armed forces after the US imposed sanctions.. Even if they are eventually defeated it will take years before the people become accustomed to life without a leader to idolise!

    Reply
  • Bunch of nutters there in government

    Reply
  • There’s no place to leave comments on the north Korean version of the journal you can be sure of that…. Then again no internet at all I presume

    Reply
  • B Lowe defending another dictatorship.

    Reply
  • “It has also threatened to launch pre-emptive nuclear attacks on Seoul and the United” – the United what? Does this mean they’re planning a launch at Man United? The United Arab Emirates? Or the United Left Alliance?

    Reply
  • ”North Korea has long engaged in provocative behaviour. In 1998, Pyongyang launched a missile which flew over Japanese territory, hoping to place a satellite in orbit”
    Good god – they launched a missile that flew over japan – and this caused tensions in the US .. Is the author saying they did not invade any other country – and occupy and murder its inhabitants – as US has done .
    As for Chinas errnat neighbour- what about th errant neighbour we glorify over in USA – that invades – and kills – its leader has a kill list .
    it is illicit for N Korea to have the bomb – but not for the US/UKFrance / Isreal – - there articles that paint everyone that disgrees with USA – or rather that the the USA disagrees with are getting tiresome .

    The US Govt is the biggest danger to peace on this planet – it has the biggest army , biggest defence budget – and has invaded more countries than any other state in modern times . Iit has draconian measures – even for its own popultaion – and some of the nuttiest politicins that would give any other a run for their money . Now they debate whether its is ok to use drones on US citizens.
    The MAD doctrine works – and US has never invaded a country that has Nukes – that is not its style .
    What is worrying to the wider world is the actions of US – both at home and abroad .
    N Korea nor any group like the Talian etc are no real threat to USA govt – but it has to keep up the spin that these are a threat – while the people they really fear are the US population themselves – ie that they will cop on that are being taken for a ride – and being fed fear 24/7 by their own media

    Reply
  • No nukes no problem end of. Anybody who thinks its ok to spend billions on weapons that can destroy the planet and thinks this can bring peace is crazy. I agree North Korea is a bad regime and should not be allowed the bomb, but the fact is America have used nukes twice! I think one demonstration was more than enough. They basically used the Japanese people as lab rats for their experiment in mass destruction.

    Reply
    • So you think it would have been better for the Americans to launch a ground offensive on the Japanese mainland? Even knowing the propensity for suicidal attacks rather than surrender. As terrible as those 2 bombs were the loss of life would have been much much higher without them.

      Reply
    • According to Oliver stones secret history of the United States Japan had offered to surrender before the bomb. As I said I believe the bombs where just a show for the Russians.

      Reply
    • And the documentation to support this claim is where? Would this be like when they surrendered in Saipan and Iwo Jima? No wait they fought to the death didn’t they!!

      Reply
    • @Mick Jordan
      Everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing

      Reply
    • Nuclear weapons do bring peace to a certain extent. It can be argued that the only thing preventing Red Army troops from pouring into Western Europe after WW2 was the possession of nuclear weapons by the US. It can also be argued that Mutually Assured Destruction prevented the Cold War from going hot.

      Reply
    • Niall is actually a lot closer to the truth than most people think. In recent years, declassified documents from the Russian archives indicate that Imperial Japan had attempted to send peace feelers to the Western Allies via the USSR as early as 1943. Stalin of course, had little time for such proposals.

      There is certainly no doubt that gauging the destructive power of the atom bomb was a factor in their use; that is the reason why two types were used: one uranium bomb and one plutonium bomb. It is also the reason why they were dropped on cities which had been untouched by conventional bombing.

      Indeed this issue of conventional bombing has raised also some questions. Hasegawa for example points to the fact that even before Hiroshima over 60 Japanese cites had been burned to ash. On the night of March 9-10 1945 alone, more than 100,000 people died in Tokyo. He therefore argues that the destruction of 2 more cities were not the decisive factor leading to surrender and that much more crucial was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and South Sakhalin on August 9th.

      With regards to the issue of Japanese soldiers always fighting to the death as a matter of pride, this belief started to be challenged in the 1980s. John Dower for example argued that the racial nature of the Pacific War meant that prisoners were rarely taken on either side and his interviews with US veterans indicate that killing surrendering Japanese soldiers became almost a point of pride. These stories spread through the Imperial Army and help reinforce an already strong aversion to surrender.

      It is impossible to know what would have happened had the atom bombs not been used, but recent historians have tended to lean towards the argument that factors such as the blockade, the firebombing and the Soviet entry to the war were as important as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      Reply
    • The Japanese themselves estimated with up to 20 million casualties after a ground invasion,so there may be some truth in the rumor’s that they were about to capitulate. No proof either way at the moment.

      Reply
  • What it comes down to us this.the Americas are just pissed off that North Korea stand up to them and they won’t but the reruns of friends

    Reply
  • B Lowe 12/03/13 #

    The author cannot quote Condoleezza Rice statement re US position and North Korean nuclear capacity when the US was the very country who turned a blind eye to its ally Pakistan, when they helped North Korea with its nuclear programme after there own very successful Nuclear Programme which was only possible due to US aid.

    A bit more objectivity would be nice.

    Reply
  • B Lowe 12/03/13 #

    To the author:

    Why have you not mentioned the following critical piece of information.
    When the Soviet Union collapsed the US redeployed 10-20% of the nukes aimed at the Soviet Union and aimed them instead at North Korea in the early 90′s.
    It was after this clearly provocative action that North Korea went down the road of nuclear armament.

    Your article should mention that. While I am not in favour of some policies of North Korea, the country does have a right to defend itself. It needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against an American invasion.

    Reply
    • Please!!!! Why would the Americans bother to invade North Korea? They could have invaded multiple times on the past but are more than happy to keep the Kims bottled up on their own side of the border. And least we forget it was the North’s invasion of the South in 1950 that kicked off the war.
      You are letting your blind hatred of America and the West conjure up imaginary conflicts.
      If anyone starts a war off again it will be the North.

      Reply
    • B Lowe 12/03/13 #

      Re Mick.
      America has invaded lots of countries in the last 50 years. Maybe your letting your dislike of plain old facts cloud your judgement.

      Reply
    • What would be gained by the Americans invading the North? World trade interrupted,damage to the South Korean economy and possibly Japan and China’s as well. Such an action would cause global chaos on the markets. So what would be in it for the Americans to invade?

      Reply
    • B Lowe 12/03/13 #

      Maybe the military industrial complex are not happy with the jump in the military budget from just over $300 billion in 2000 to $732 billion today.

      Reply
    • So by your reckoning the would invade for the sake of a couple of 100 Billion and risk 100′s of Trillions of Dollars worth of trade? Yes I can really see that happening!!! Your argument is getting more outlandish each time you comment.

      Reply
    • B Lowe, can you tell us the policies that you are in favor of in north korea and the policies that you are not in favor of?
      Waiting….

      Reply
    • I rarely agree with B Lowe but he does raise a valid point. The US isn’t exactly renown for acting with peaceful restraint towards countries it doesn’t like. During the Korean war the dictatorship only survived with Chinese assistance and it is very likely China would leave them to their fate in a second war. So they’re pursuing the only policy which they’ve seen which tempers the US which is possession of nuclear weapons.

      Is it right to starve the population to achieve this? Of course not, nobody can justify it. But the reasoning behind developing them is sound.

      Reply
    • Jason you are forgetting an important point. In the Korean war of the 50′s it was Nothing Korea that invaded South and it was a multinational force of UN troops lead by America that fought back only when they were on the verge of crushing the North did the Mao’s Chinese intervene.
      And China is a much different place today. If the Chinese got a wiff of North Korea starting a war Kim would find himself looking at the wrong side of a firing squad. Because they would have too much to lose economically.

      Reply
    • B Lowe 12/03/13 #

      Thank you Jason.

      Reply
    • B Lowe NK is not a country. It is a Gulag.

      Reply
    • Mick, I’m not forgetting that point at all. North Korea is in itself an aggressive country and I’m well aware of that. I’m merely saying that the North Koreans are all too aware that they cannot rely on China for support so developing nuclear weapons is, in their eyes, a logical step to protect the regime.

      I also never said I agree with them. Just that I can see why they would do it.

      Reply
    • Last comment jason I agree with.

      Still I think the likes of b lowe confuse their hated of die hard american Republicans as a hatred for all americans.

      If some country does not agree with the US they dont invade. Thats poppycock, half of south America is proof of that.

      Have to remember koeran war was UN backed war with south asking for help after being invaded. Stopping the spead of communism was so important. In fairness had vietnam been won Saigon would probably have been a jewel in the crown of asia.

      I will admit I even know some americans that are so stupid as to believe we are goverened under thier constitution and dont touch our guns. Ya know, rednecks. Know a few. But thankfully the vast sway are liberal. Bar a grossly illegal war in iraq (I fully agree with invading Afghanistan) I think all other military intervention was for moral reasons

      Reply
    • @ Youdontknow me :The US were in nogiations with the taliban considering the pipelines until talks broke down shortly before the invasion.
      Michel Chossudovsky, October 6, 2012
      * * *
      The 2001 bombing and invasion of Afghanistan has been presented to World public opinion as a “Just War”, a war directed against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, a war to eliminate “Islamic terrorism” and instate Western style democracy. The economic dimensions of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) are rarely mentioned. The post 9/11 “counter-terrorism campaign” has served to obfuscate the real objectives of the US-NATO war.
      The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, ”a resource war”.
      While Afghanistan is acknowledged as a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on the former Soviet Union, China and Iran, at the crossroads of pipeline routes and major oil and gas reserves, its huge mineral wealth as well as its untapped natural gas reserves have remained, until June 2010, totally unknown to the American public.
      According to a joint report by the Pentagon, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and USAID, Afghanistan is now said to possess “previously unknown” and untapped mineral reserves, estimated authoritatively to be of the order of one trillion dollars (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010). deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
      The US Administration’s acknowledgment that it first took cognizance of Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth following the release of the USGS 2007 report is an obvious red herring. Afghanistan’s mineral wealth and energy resources (including natural gas) were known to both America’s business elites and the US government prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1988).
      Geological surveys conducted by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and early 1980s confirm the existence of vast reserves of copper (among the largest in Eurasia), iron, high grade chrome ore, uranium, beryl, barite, lead, zinc, fluorspar, bauxite, lithium, tantalum, emeralds, gold and silver.(Afghanistan, Mining Annual Review, The Mining Journal, June, 1984). These surveys suggest that the actual value of these reserves could indeed be substantially larger than the one trillion dollars “estimate” intimated by the Pentagon-USCG-USAID study.
      Afghanistan is a land bridge. The 2001 U.S. led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been analysed by critics of US foreign policy as a means to securing control over the strategic trans-Afghan transport corridor which links the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea.
      Several trans-Afghan oil and gas pipeline projects have been contemplated including the planned $8.0 billion TAPI pipeline project (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) of 1900 km., which would transport Turkmen natural gas across Afghanistan in what is described as a “crucial transit corridor”. (See Gary Olson, Afghanistan has never been the ‘good and necessary’ war; it’s about control of oil, The Morning Call, October 1, 2009). Military escalation under the extended Af-Pak war bears a relationship to TAPI. Turkmenistan possesses third largest natural gas reserves after Russia and Iran. Strategic control over the transport routes out of Turkmenistan have been part of Washington’s agenda since the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991.

      Reply
    • @youdontknowme So not only on moral grounds. That said I think its highly unlikely they will invade N.Korea.

      Reply
  • Another case of ” Do as I say, not as I do ” on the nuke issue.

    Reply
    • Brian is the idea not to reduce the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons not increase them? The fact that North Korea is ruled by an inheritantly unstable family doesn’t concern you in anyway. Its bad enough that a country like Pakistan have them who can’t even control a few savages in the north west of the country.

      Reply
  • Why should only Israel, Britain, Russia, the US and Chine be allowed to have them? Oh that’s right, for power and control. It’s not fun picking on someone as well armed as you. Bully boy tactics…

    Reply
  • Asians think we smell of milk. Did anyone tell them they smell like shite?

    Reply

Add New Comment