Pacific Blackmail
In recent days Kim Jong Un, the young leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, has pushed the bad situation his country is in to the very limit with his provocative speeches. He has stated that relations between North and South Korea “will be entering a state of war,” he has ordered a military training exercise and had the background of a military map adorned to show a nuclear military attack on the U.S. mainland. One gets the feeling that he is playing on Washington’s nerves, and they have not been subjected to this type of provocation for a long time.
The response was sluggish, to say the least. South Korea and the U.S. have continued their joint military exercises, and two “invisible” B-2 strategic bombers flew less than 100 km from the border with North Korea just days after two of the newest American F-22 “raptor” fighters were transferred from the military base in Okinawa to South Korea.
Apart from expressions of concern, Washington’s reaction has been rather restrained. The U.S. press speaks of “aggressive rhetoric,” “provocations from the young leader” and an “escalation of tensions,” but not much more. The Washington Post quoted an unknown source inside the White House, who stated that “Putting on a show is not the same as taking action. Describing the situation as akin to war is not to be remotely confused with wanting a war, let alone going to war.”
Moreover, the U.S. media are excitedly saying that a nuclear missile attack from Pyongyang is simply impossible — North Korean scientists are still far from creating a nuclear weapon compact enough to fit onto a ballistic missile, and the missiles themselves can barely reach Alaska. Kim Jong Un’s behavior can only be explained as a desire to win credibility among his population.
Rather than escalating tensions, increasing the level of conflict and threatening military action, the U.S. is trying to calm its society and downplay the potential danger of the North Korean regime.
Why? One possible reason is that the provocative, aggressive behavior towards the U.S. is in itself a way of avoiding aggression, because all regimes who have offered concessions and compromises to the world hegemon have fallen in one way or another. Moreover, the very fact of owning weapons of mass destruction is enough to supposedly defend any country from foreign attack.
It is possible that this is what King Jong Un believes or, in any case, what he is trying to convince his people and the international community. Today he proclaimed that nuclear weapons were “a national treasure,” its “life.”
But are they really? Do nuclear weapons really guarantee North Korea immunity? Of course not. From a military point of view, the U.S. is immeasurably stronger. Even if we assume that Pyongyang will succeed in attaching a nuclear warhead onto a ballistic missile, those missiles would be few and their launchers would be easily visible from space and from the side of bombers. If the U.S. decides on a military operation, the problem will be resolved in the course of a week. Missile and nuclear facilities will be the first to be destroyed — they would cease to exist within the first hour of fighting.
At the end of World War II, the Nazis were in possession of the most perfect weapon at the time — not counting the atom bomb, which had not yet been tested in combat. Moreover, we are not talking about some kind of explosive device, but rather the means of delivery — V-2 ballistic missiles and jet planes. However, this did not help Germany. The Allies' many advantages in the air did their job. Hitler was not able to change the course of war with the help of a “retaliation weapon.”
North Korea has no “super-weapon,” so Pyongyang's entire blackmail scheme is based solely on the idea of nuclear capability. Of course, the U.S. does not need a nuclear explosion in the region, and the low probability of its occurrence is a strong argument in favor of ignoring North Korea's provocations. But everything has a limit. If Kim Jong Un makes more threatening statements, there will be simply no way out for the U.S. If North Korea attacks first — its neighbor to the South, for example — China could abandon its alliance obligations.
So it is entirely possible that the situation will end badly. But nobody wants that to happen. The problem is that nobody is willing to tolerate a nuclear North Korea — it's too much of a destabilizing factor.
The only positive we can take from the North Korean attempt at blackmail would be a new strategic agreement signed by leading nuclear powers — Russia, the U.S. and China — on global non-proliferation safeguards and, as a first step, on the disarmament of the nuclear newcomer. The previous global agreement, reached in 1945 in Yalta, lasted for more than 40 years.
The response was sluggish, to say the least. South Korea and the U.S. have continued their joint military exercises, and two “invisible” B-2 strategic bombers flew less than 100 km from the border with North Korea just days after two of the newest American F-22 “raptor” fighters were transferred from the military base in Okinawa to South Korea.
Apart from expressions of concern, Washington’s reaction has been rather restrained. The U.S. press speaks of “aggressive rhetoric,” “provocations from the young leader” and an “escalation of tensions,” but not much more. The Washington Post quoted an unknown source inside the White House, who stated that “Putting on a show is not the same as taking action. Describing the situation as akin to war is not to be remotely confused with wanting a war, let alone going to war.”
Moreover, the U.S. media are excitedly saying that a nuclear missile attack from Pyongyang is simply impossible — North Korean scientists are still far from creating a nuclear weapon compact enough to fit onto a ballistic missile, and the missiles themselves can barely reach Alaska. Kim Jong Un’s behavior can only be explained as a desire to win credibility among his population.
Rather than escalating tensions, increasing the level of conflict and threatening military action, the U.S. is trying to calm its society and downplay the potential danger of the North Korean regime.
Why? One possible reason is that the provocative, aggressive behavior towards the U.S. is in itself a way of avoiding aggression, because all regimes who have offered concessions and compromises to the world hegemon have fallen in one way or another. Moreover, the very fact of owning weapons of mass destruction is enough to supposedly defend any country from foreign attack.
It is possible that this is what King Jong Un believes or, in any case, what he is trying to convince his people and the international community. Today he proclaimed that nuclear weapons were “a national treasure,” its “life.”
But are they really? Do nuclear weapons really guarantee North Korea immunity? Of course not. From a military point of view, the U.S. is immeasurably stronger. Even if we assume that Pyongyang will succeed in attaching a nuclear warhead onto a ballistic missile, those missiles would be few and their launchers would be easily visible from space and from the side of bombers. If the U.S. decides on a military operation, the problem will be resolved in the course of a week. Missile and nuclear facilities will be the first to be destroyed — they would cease to exist within the first hour of fighting.
At the end of World War II, the Nazis were in possession of the most perfect weapon at the time — not counting the atom bomb, which had not yet been tested in combat. Moreover, we are not talking about some kind of explosive device, but rather the means of delivery — V-2 ballistic missiles and jet planes. However, this did not help Germany. The Allies' many advantages in the air did their job. Hitler was not able to change the course of war with the help of a “retaliation weapon.”
North Korea has no “super-weapon,” so Pyongyang's entire blackmail scheme is based solely on the idea of nuclear capability. Of course, the U.S. does not need a nuclear explosion in the region, and the low probability of its occurrence is a strong argument in favor of ignoring North Korea's provocations. But everything has a limit. If Kim Jong Un makes more threatening statements, there will be simply no way out for the U.S. If North Korea attacks first — its neighbor to the South, for example — China could abandon its alliance obligations.
So it is entirely possible that the situation will end badly. But nobody wants that to happen. The problem is that nobody is willing to tolerate a nuclear North Korea — it's too much of a destabilizing factor.
The only positive we can take from the North Korean attempt at blackmail would be a new strategic agreement signed by leading nuclear powers — Russia, the U.S. and China — on global non-proliferation safeguards and, as a first step, on the disarmament of the nuclear newcomer. The previous global agreement, reached in 1945 in Yalta, lasted for more than 40 years.
Next article![]( "What Happens if America Pulls Out of Europe?")
