Why North Korea Wants Nukes and How to Live In A Nuclear World
Published October 22, 2006
The testing of a nuclear device by North Korea has drawn the ire of the US, South Korea, and Japan, among others. Countless penny-a-quote pundits have come forth with their opinions as to why North Korea developed nuclear weapons, with most “analysis” limited to understanding North Korea’s development of nukes as an act of villainy by the autocratic “thug” ruling the “hermetic” kingdom. That the puerile minds of non-analysts bloated on clichéd Hollywood fare will offer such trash is expected but the relative lack of other explanations is stunning.
Why does North Korea want nuclear weapons? I argue that North Korea wants nuclear weapons for the same reason India and Pakistan wanted them, and that is as a deterrent against hostile action from other states. Walter Pincus of The Washington Post traces North Korea's initial interest in nuclear weapons to the threats made by US presidents Harry S Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower to use nuclear weapons against North Korea during the Korean War.
"In 1950, when a reporter asked Truman whether he would use atomic bombs at a time when the war was going badly, the president said, 'That includes every weapon we have.'"
Three years later, Eisenhower made a veiled threat, saying he would "remove all restraints in our use of weapons" if the North Korean government did not negotiate in good faith an ending to that bloody war.
In 1957, the United States placed nuclear-tipped Matador missiles in South Korea, to be followed in later years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, by nuclear artillery, most of which was placed within miles of the demilitarized zone.
Aside from the initial nuclear threats, today over forty thousand American troops man the Korean peninsula and another thirty thousand stay on a base in Japan. Stack on to this the fact that Japan is widely acknowledged to have capability to produce nuclear weapons at a short notice, and we can begin to understand North Korea’s motivations for developing nuclear weapons as a response to its threat perception.
One may argue that understanding the motivations behind North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear capability does not fundamentally change anything for either U.S.; South Korea or Japan, all of whom still see a nuclear tipped North Korea as a threat. I believe differently – understanding North Korea’s actions in terms of its threat perception can inform our policy in multiple ways. Firstly, if you look at North Korea’s actions as a primarily defensive measure then one may argue that North Korea will probably only use nuclear weapons if attacked. This posit is most likely to hold true because U.S. owns an arsenal of over 10,000 nukes and any usage of nuclear weapons by North Korea will evoke a swift, debilitating response.
Secondly, the lessons learned should inform US diplomacy in the future – especially towards Iran, Cuba, and Iran. Threats from US will only hasten these countries attempts to develop nuclear arsenal.
- Why North Korea Wants Nukes and How to Live In A Nuclear World
- Published: October 22, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: International
- Writer: Spincycle
- Spincycle's BC Writer page
- Spincycle's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
You are right. what's wrong with North Korea having an atomic weapon? Okay, Kim Jong-Il is a paranoid megalomaniac. But isn't Dubya the same? Okay, though the latter's country is partly more democratic but....really what's wrong? If India, Pakistan, Russia, England can have, why not North Korea? Is the world a more dangerous place now? Excuse me but USA remains the only country to actually kill people with a nuclear reaction.
The only solution, if we all desire a safe world, is to destory all the nuclear weapons of all the countries. Otherwise just learn to live with the bombs and their crazed owners. All or nothing at all.
I dont think that North Korea only wants the Nukes for defense because if they were to use them against a country which does not have them the US and China would not nuke North Korea because of their Codes of Conduct... so it would still be a ground war!!!!
Mayank,
While I agree with you that destroying all the nuclear weapons, including those in the U.S. would be ideal, it will never happen. It's the 'put the toothpaste back in the tube' trick, it simply is not possible.
If the U.S. suddenly ponied up and said 'yep, we're destroying all our nukes, we hope everyone else does too', we'd be giving away any military superiority we think we have. We'd suddenly be at the military mercy of Russia and China, even India and Pakistan. It never should have gone this far but once nuclear weapons were produced, the only way to maintain good behavior by all was to have other countries with nukes. This happened not by design but by competition and fear.
All that being said, I absolutely believe that the international community has a responsibility to require every nation without nukes to refrain from aquiring them.
Just because history has provided this generation with the bomb doesn't mean we should throw our hands in the air and be ok with every maniac who gets his hands on the wheel having access to a weapon that can harm the entire globe. After all, radiation doesn't pay attention to borders.
Another thought. It shouldn't be merely the U.S. that enforces this non-proliferation. It should be the nations of the world that speak up and demand that N.Korea give up its nuclear aspirations. Everyone has a stake in this, not just the U.S.
The only way we can get ride of nuclear weapons in our world is removing the borders .. one world government a united world no more flags . if you like the idea pleas press your elected government officials to pass a law for world union and we all will live in peace and concentrate in space exploration
Mike, don't tell me that you are so naive to actually believe that we won't have territorial disputes in Moon and Mars.
Someone I know who was teaching in North Korea up to a year or two ago (he taught English at a school for the children of the élite there) learned from sources of his own that the basic reason the North Koreans want nukes is protection from the US and as a source of revenue. In our neighborhood (Syria and Iran) are about 1,000 North Korean missiles, the requisite missile launchers and North Korean tchs to do the firing. They are aimed a us, of course. As I've said elsewhere, if someone coughs up enough cash, the North Koreans will gladly provide nuclear tips or whatever to those missiles.
"Enough cash" means an awful lot of money, though, at least several hundred $ billions in gold or silver bullion, probably.
It's a Camaro: every teenage boy, including Kim Song Il, wants one.
I thought I'd choke laughing when Bush declared that no other country would be "allowed" to go into space without his permission. Talk about megalomaniacs-! Kim is NOTHING compared to Dubya.
kim jong il has penis envy. he is trying to make up for a lack in that category. I really appreciated the philosophy of this article; namely the idea of allowing N. Korea to USE its weapon before we turn it into a parking lot.
it worries me that steve here knows the size of Kim Jong Il's dick...well, he woudl have to to come to the "penis envy" conclusion...
all that aside.. for Mayank in comment #2...
the difference is that the Nations you mention have not stated that they are willing to sell nuclear devices/tech to non-governmental agents who woudl actually use nuclear tech against innocent people...
theonly even close examples are from rogues in ex-soviet states and Pakistan...in both cases, at least their governments are attempting to stop said sales...
there is nothign to stop N Korea if they Kim Jong Il ecides to do so
big difference
Excelsior?
Gonzo please help me understand. We were able to prevent Russia from deploying but we wouldn't be able to deter N. Korea??
I just don't get how we get to tell anyone not to have weapons in their own country especially when we have more than everyone put together.
How does that work and why is it OK with everyone else (other countries)
Is it because we DID deploy the atomic bomb on Japan that we feel skiddish that others may follow suite because we are the leaders of the world?
I am lost on this one. I lack a sophistacated understanding of these matters. I guess I am looking at it in a school yard sort of way.
Please help me through this.
Zedd, you don't ask easy ones, do you?
a lot of it , when dealing with the soviets, had to do with the gunboat diplomacy of Mutually Assured Destruction, as well as both governments having a clear memory of how close the shitstorm came with the Cuban Missile Crises
lay that over the two Examples of what a nuke can really do, and the Knowledge that what they had now made Hiroshima and Nagasake look like wet firecrackers
as for the sticky one of who gets to have nukes, that is a really tough one
notice there was a lot of bluster when it came to India and Pakistan, but not much done about it.. the worry has always been Pakistan selling nukes or the tech... a well founded worry wiht what we know now
the Thinking is that the problem is MUCH worse in the case of N Korea.. not any knid of government except a very unstable dictator, national financial woes.. all add up to a genuine concern of selling weapons...not to mention the possibility of some kind of strike against S Korea or Japan
as to why... a bigger Question than the likes of me can Answer...
might have something to do with Nations trying to impose their Will on the world's Stage, to protect their Interests, and guard against possible threats whenever they can
hope that helps a bit
Excelsior?
Gonzo Thanks. That is what I suspected. The challenge that I am faced with is how it is decided what nations are allowed to have nukes. Is it the most wealthy and therefore the most influencial???
I can't imagine that N.Korea would use nukes on populations at such close proximity to themselves. Also knowing that doings so, the US would be obliged to use nukes (not ground forces) to amend that action.
If the concern is that nukes may get into the wrong hands, that N.Korea or Iran will sell them to terrorist groups (that would be a huge bundle), there would have to be a criteria set by the UN to distinguish countries who are known to have sold weaponry to acknowledged terrorists, banning them from expanding their nuclear capability beyond a certain level. But I suppose there will have to be a comprehensive definition of what a terrorist is. Nelson Mandela and the ANC were considered terrorists at some point.....
However we the US will have to be more responsible about whom we support and understand that our international alliances will be more closely scrutinized. We won't be able to do what we have done so freely in developing nations; supporting coup d'etas and various assassinations.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/54691)
And here I thought N Korea wanted nukes because Kim Jong-Il was a paranoid megalomaniac. Nice article though.