Doug Bandow Advocates for Ending America’s Denuclearization Policy with North Korea

Doug Bandow writes that it is time for the U.S. to give up its policy of denuclearizing North Korea:

After three decades of insisting that the DPRK can never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, Washington must confront the failure of U.S. policy. American policymakers should consider accepting North Korea as a nuclear state and treating it as a normal country.

It no longer makes sense to talk of preventing the North from developing nuclear weapons. It already has them. There is great uncertainty as to how many nuclear weapons the Kim regime has or could potentially make—around sixty is a common estimate. However, that could be just the start. The Rand Corporation and Asan Institute figure Pyongyang could possess some two hundred by just 2027, a scant six years away. That would give it more nuclear weapons than currently possessed by India, Israel, and Pakistan. (………..)

Most realistic would be a focus on arms control, with the hope of developing a relationship that might lead to denuclearization. Even such a more limited objective would be advanced by developing a broader and more normal relationship. Meaning diplomatic ties—officials contacts are especially important with potentially dangerous adversaries—cultural exchanges, and economic ties.

The National Interest

You can read more at the link, but I agree with Bandow that denuclearization is now a fantasy. What is more realistic is negotiating away North Korea’s ICBM program, capping their number of nuclear weapons, and stopping nuclear proliferation. Without ICBMs their nukes cannot threaten the United States and it is in the US’s interest that North Korea not sell nuclear technology abroad like they have done in the past.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Korean Man
3 years ago

I agree with Bandow even though he’s an ultra-right American nationalist.

This pipe dream that North Korea will give up their nukes has to come to an end. I also agree with Bandow’s call for US military withdrawing from South Korea on one condition: the US should stop restricting South Korea’s right to defend itself. South Korea should have the right to choose to arm itself with nukes, should have the right to develop nuclear powered weapons, and should have the right to reprocess spent nuclear wastes. And also, it’s none of South Korea’s business if North Korea wants to sell their weapons to other countries or other entities. That’s an American concept that nobody cares or should care.

setnaffa
setnaffa
3 years ago

Bandow is a crook. And far from an “ultra-right American nationalist.”

From Wikipedia:

In 2005, Bandow was forced to resign from the Cato Institute after it was revealed that for over ten years, he accepted payments in exchange for publishing articles favorable to various clients. Bandow referred to the activities as “a lapse of judgment” and said that he accepted payments for “between 12 and 24 articles,” each article costing approximately $2,000. Bandow was subsequently allowed to return to the Cato Institute.

Bandow regularly writes on military non-interventionism and is a vociferous critic of NATO enlargement.

The National Interest is similarly no longer conservative. Also from Wikipedia:

Writing in Politico, journalist James Kirchick argued in 2016 while commenting on Donald Trump’s Russian relationships that The National Interest and its parent company “are two of the most Kremlin-sympathetic institutions in the nation’s capital, even more so that the Carnegie Moscow Center.”

But we expect agitprop and disinformation from Beijing and Pyongyang.

2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x