Tag: nuclear weapons

North Korea expected to test a missile loaded with a live nuclear weapon in 2018 https://t.co/bAtLqcjGSB

— NorthKoreaRealTime (@BuckTurgidson79) December 22, 2017

The Venerable Pomnyun Sunim is a Buddhist monk who has done aid work inside of North Korea.  He believes based off his experience and history of North Korea that China is not the answer to resolving the current nuclear issue:

Today, the North Korean leadership considers China to be the primary threat to regime survival. Despite paying lip service to their alliance, the Kim dynasty cannot afford to have any forces within the regime answer to foreign governments, especially China with its huge influence on North Korea’s viability.

This has always been the case. In August 1956, Kim Il Sung purged people he suspected of seeking to overthrow him with backing from the Chinese Communist Party. Soon afterward, Kim forced Mao Zedong to remove all remaining Chinese military presence — which had saved him during the Korean War — from North Korea.

His son, Kim Jong-il, was also quoted as saying that the Chinese should never be trusted. This underlying mistrust seems to be the reason behind the death of Jang Song-thaek and Kim Jong-nam, both of whom were suspected as China’s potential alternatives to the current leadership.

As such, allowing Chinese pressure, whether economic or political, to dictate the terms of North Korea’s national security goes against the country’s fundamental nature and self-interest of the current regime. A nation founded on anti-imperialism simply cannot allow an imperial power, even a nominally friendly one, to interfere in its own affairs.  [Joong Ang Ilbo]

You can read more at the link, but I would say that most people that closely follow the North Korean nuclear issue know that China is not the answer because the status quo is in their national interest.  However, before other options are executed the US government has a responsibility to try all diplomatic angles which working with the Chinese is one of those options even if expectations are low of it working.

I expect the engagement crowd will say that the Kim regime doesn’t really mean what they say:

North Korea on Tuesday rejected U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s latest proposal for dialogue without preconditions, saying that it has no interest in Washington’s scheme to make it give up its nuclear program.

Tillerson said last week that the U.S. is ready to begin talks with North Korea “without preconditions” in a possible shift of U.S. policy. But days later, he said that the North should halt its “threatening behavior” before talks can begin, backpedaling on his previous remarks.

The Rodong Sinmun, the mouthpiece of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK), said that nothing has changed in its stance of pursuing nuclear weapons, regardless of whether Washington has offered talks without strings attached.

“The U.S. is trying to shift responsibility for tensions on the Korean Peninsula to us with its dialogue offensive,” the newspaper said in a commentary. “The move is seen as being intended to set the tone for manipulating new U.N. Security Council resolutions that may include a maritime blockade if we do not accept dialogue aimed at discussing the abandonment of our nuclear weapons.”

North Korea made it clear that it will not put its nuclear weapons and missiles on the negotiation table if the U.S. does not ditch its hostile policy toward Pyongyang.  [Yonhap]

You can read more at the link, but I believe in believing what the Kim regime says.  It is pretty clear they only want to talk if the US ditches its hostile policies.  What that means is that the Kim regime wants the sanctions to go away and a peace treaty to be offered as part of negotiations.  This basically rewards the regime for bad behavior before the talks have even begun.  From their perspective this strategy has worked in the past and I guess they figure at some point the Trump administration will reward them as well.

Here is what a former nuclear negotiator with North Korea had to say recently about the Trump administration:

Robert Gallucci, the chief negotiator during the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis, called for dialogue with the North to make a breakthrough in the crisis on the Korean Peninsula, during his speech at Seoul’s National Assembly, Monday.

Gallucci, chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C., reiterated the U.S. should negotiate with Pyongyang, if there’s room for improved circumstances through the negotiation.

“What we should not ask is a perfect deal. We should not ask how much does it cost,” Gallucci said in an event co-hosted by Reps. Kim Kyung-hyup and Lee Tae-kyu, members of the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee.

“We should rather ask are we better off with the deal,” the former special envoy noted, referring to his past experience of talking with his North Korean counterpart Kang Sok-ju in Geneva, Switzerland.

“In 1994, our intelligence community estimated North Korea was capable to produce 200 kilograms of plutonium a year. However, when President George Bush came into office in 2001, North Korea had zero nuclear weapons,” he said. “Did the North cheat us? The answer is yes. However, the deal was still a good one.”  [Korea Times]

That last paragraph is all everyone needs to see to understand the problem with past negotiations with North Korea.  Gallucci is apparently more than happy to allow the North Koreans to cheat on a deal as long as there is a deal.

Here is what else he had to say:

Touching on the heightened tension sparked by the North’s Nov. 29 launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), Gallucci pointed out that it is a crisis between the North and the entire international community.

“It is a crisis because if military activity were to begin in days, indeed just days, no one in this room could be surprised, or should be surprised. That I think is a fair definition of crisis,” he said.  [Yonhap]

Who is assessing military action to happen within days except for people that don’t closely follow North Korea?  The ICBM launch was a research and development activity like their other prior test launches.  The US military has not launched any retaliatory strikes in response to these R&D activities and has instead focused on deterrence responses.  If the Kim regime fires a missile that lands in or near US territory than we will definitely have a military crisis on our hands.

The Kim regime has clearly been firing missiles in areas that are no where near US territory in order to not provoke a crisis.  Additionally the Kim regime has not shelled any islands, attacked ROK naval vessels, or murdered ROK servicemembers in quite sometime.  It is clear the Kim regime does not want a military crisis and instead is focusing on R&D of their ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities.

Why they are developing their ICBMs and nuclear capability Gallucci believes is for deterrence:

“This North Korean capability raises a question about whether the U.S. will fulfill its alliance responsibilities to its allies,” he said. “It raises a question about whether the U.S. will put Washington D.C. and New York City at risk in order to prevent North Korea from blackmailing South Korea and to deter any attack on Seoul specifically.”

But he noted the military dominance of the South Korea-U.S. alliance, saying Pyongyang cannot hold Seoul “hostage” with its artillery or nuclear weapons unless it is “suicidal.” He also voiced skepticism about the existence of a “good” military option without any cost or risk.

“Its nuclear weapons are good for one thing only to deter an effort at changing their regime. That is plausible,” he said.

“But the North cannot plausibly blackmail, it cannot deter a military response to its adventurism, it cannot compel the ROK (Republic of Korea) or the U.S. to do anything, it cannot break our alliance,” he added.   [Yonhap]

I think his remarks that North Korea is not developing nuclear weapons to blackmail the South is in direct response to ROK Drop favorite Joshua Stanton.  Stanton of One Free Korea fame has long argued that the North’s nuclear program is less about deterrence and more about driving concessions out of the South to create a confederation of the two countries on Kim’s terms.

I support Stanton’s position because reunification is a driving force within the Cult of Kim.  The Kim regime has long had deterrence through its conventional weapons that could destroy Seoul.  Most other countries in the world would have faced regime change retaliation for the provocations the North Koreans have executed over the years.  However, the Kim regime has faced little military retaliation because of the threat to Seoul.

Developing nuclear weapons allows the regime to threaten the US homeland for the first time.  It is arguable the regime wants to create a negotiating environment where it hopes to separate the ROK from the US.  This would explain why the North Koreans continuously bring up wanting to negotiate a peace treaty to end the Korean War.  If a peace treaty is signed then why would US troops be needed in South Korea any more?  The next goal for the Kim regime would be to co-opt the ROK into a confederation on North Korean terms.

Only time will tell who is right or who is wrong.

The New York Times has a very good article published that shows who are the various scientists in North Korea that have made Kim Jong-un’s nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions so successful:

“We have never heard of him killing scientists,” said Choi Hyun-kyoo, a senior researcher in South Korea who runs NK Tech, a database of North Korean scientific publications. “He is someone who understands that trial and error are part of doing science.”

Analysts are still trying to explain how North Korea managed to overcome decades of international sanctions and make so much progress so quickly. But it is clear the nation has accumulated a significant scientific foundation despite its backward image.

Its new ICBM is a feat of physics and engineering that has stunned the world, and each of its six nuclear tests has been more powerful than the last, boosting Mr. Kim’s stature at home and his leverage abroad.  [New York Times]

Also if you are wondering how the North Koreans have been so successful so quick with their nuclear and missile programs, this may explain it:

In 1992, a plane carrying 64 rocket scientists from Moscow was stopped before departing for North Korea. It is not clear how many, if any, former Soviet scientists made it to North Korea in the decades since.

Theodore A. Postol, a professor emeritus of science, technology and international security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the North has “this fantastic record for flying rockets the first time and having them succeed.”

Here we go again with yet more momentum building towards a freeze deal:

A South Korean ruling party lawmaker said Thursday that President Moon Jae-in and Chinese President Xi Jinping share an understanding that suspending North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises at the same time is the most realistic way to start resolving the standoff.

Rep. Lee Hae-chan of the Democratic Party also said during a security conference that Moon and Xi talked a lot in their meetings about the simultaneous suspension, as well as the idea of seeking the North’s denuclearization and a Korean War peace treaty at the same time.

“I can say that (Moon and Xi) have come to a point where they share an understanding that it is perhaps the most realistic way,” Lee said during the conference organized to mark late former President Kim Dae-jung’s winning of the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize.  [Yonhap]

I have been saying this for quite sometime, but signing a peace treaty would mean the end of the US-ROK alliance.  That is because if there is “peace” then why does the US need troops in Korea?  This would play into the North Koreans strategy of separating the US from South Korea to set the stage for coopting South Korea with their nuclear weapons.  There is a false belief that North Korea is solely pursuing nuclear weapons for regime survival when the regime has survived just fine with the threat of a massive artillery strike on Seoul.  The ultimate goal of the North’s nuclear weapons program is to co-opt the ROK into a confederation on North Korean terms.  A freeze deal followed by a peace treaty plays right into the Kim regime’s hands.

Additionally the freeze deal for treaty plays into China’s hands who have also long wanted to separate the ROK from the US in a bid to increase their hegemony over the region.

The fact that Europe is within ICBM range means that any NATO country that to comes to the aid of South Korea during a crisis puts them at risk of nuclear retaliation.  Will any NATO countries risk nuclear retaliation to help the ROK?:

North Korea responded Wednesday to European concerns about being in the path of Pyongyang’s potentially nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) by assuring the leader of Western military alliance NATO that such weapons were only intended for the U.S.

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said during an interview last week with Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun that “Europe has also entered the [North Korean] missile range, and NATO member states are already in danger.” North Korea’s ruling party-run Rodong Shinmun newspaper countered these claims, calling Stoltenberg’s remarks “false and groundless” because, although European states are indeed in North Korea’s missile range, Pyongyang has no intention of pulling the trigger.

“The DPRK’s ballistic rockets are for deterring the U.S. nuclear war hysterics and ensuring peace and security on the Korean peninsula and the region. They are not for threatening Europe and the world,” the commentary read, according to the official Korea Central News Agency, referring to the country’s official title: The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  [Newsweek]

You can read more at the link, but this is just another example of how their nuclear and ICBM programs are about more than regime survival.  They also are being developed to isolate the ROK from its allies and ultimately separate the ROK from the US.

The architect behind the failed 1994 Agreed Framework, Robert Gallucci has joined the chorus to restart talks with North Korea though they have repeatedly said they don’t want to:

Former U.S. nuclear negotiator Robert Gallucci said Monday that North Korea might not be interested in talks on its nuclear and missile programs until it secures an intercontinental ballistic missile capability that levels the playing field with the U.S.

“Maybe it’s true that the North has no interest at this moment in having the negotiations that involve its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles,” Gallucci said in a lecture at Seoul’s Yonsei University.

“Some suspect in the U.S that they don’t want to enter through negotiations with the U.S… until they have demonstrated an ICMB capability that makes the U.S. vulnerable to them… so that they have leveled the playing field,” he added. “That’s possible.”  [Yonhap]

You can read the rest at the link, but Gallucci in the article tries to blame the Trump administration for not restarting talks though he even states in the article the North Koreans are likely waiting to perfect their ICBM before wanting to pursue talks.

The drum beat continues for the Trump administration to sign a “freeze deal” with North Korea.  The latest academic to push this is non-proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis:

If Washington wants to depart from this cycle, it is time to talk to the North Koreans—not about denuclearisation, but about other ways to calm fears and improve relations. The two antagonists, along with South Korea and Japan, need to find a way to reduce tension on the Korean Peninsula. This may include a freeze on the testing of both nuclear and conventional missiles in exchange for limits on US and South Korean military exercises. They also need to think about crisis communications, such as hotlines, and transparency measures related to military activities. And ultimately, they need to think about replacing the armistice, under which the US and North Korea remain at war, with a peace treaty. If all this sounds like a victory of North Korea’s campaign to develop thermonuclear weapons that can strike America, well, it is. China’s first nuclear test was in October 1964. By February 1972, Richard Nixon had famously gone to China. By 1979, the US had diplomatic relations with China and Deng Xiaoping had made a state visit to America. Nuclear weapons confer power and status, whether we like it or not.

If hosting Kim Jong-un, the dictator of a starving nation, for a sumptuous state dinner seems hard to accept, that is the triumphalism of 1991 clouding judgment. In the insecurity of 2017, Americans have to accept that they do not have the power to simply topple dictators who abuse human rights or threaten their neighbours. If one looks closely, it becomes clear that it was the illusion of omnipotence, born in a moment of triumph and sustained by desperate efforts to extend it, that brought us a nuclear-armed North Korea. Powell could not see the threats of the future because he was looking in the wrong place. The villains that beset America and the demons that led Washington astray, were never to be found in Cuba or North Korea. They were to be found at home, within America itself.  [Prospect Magazine]

You can read more at the link, but signing a peace treaty would mean the end of the US-ROK alliance because if there is “peace” then why does the US need troops in Korea?  This would play into the North Koreans strategy of separating the US from South Korea to set the stage for coopting South Korea with their nuclear weapons:

A lot is now being said here, in other words, which indicates the North has reason to fancy its prospects of decoupling the alliance and subjugating the rival state. But I can hardly fault Keck or any other American observer for not knowing things the foreign press corps in Seoul prefers not to write about.  (…….)

Should push come to shove, texts and tweets would be more likely to drive Seoulites to peace or pro-confederation demonstrations than to the flag-waving rallies of the security-minded. Hasn’t President Moon himself called on candlelighters to help prevent a war on the peninsula? Not to prevent or deter a North Korean attack, mind you, but to prevent a war, an exchange of fire.  [B.R. Myers]

Myers’ point above is the weakness of Mr. Lewis’ argument for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.  Lewis focuses solely on North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons for regime survival when the regime has survived just fine with the threat of a massive artillery strike on Seoul.  The ultimate goal of the North’s nuclear weapons program is to co-opt the ROK into a confederation on North Korean terms.  A freeze deal followed by a peace treaty plays right into the Kim regime’s hands.

Here is the latest on what the expert class think of President Trump’s latest statements about negotiating with North Korea:

President Donald Trump said North Korea has been making “fools of U.S. negotiators” and “only one thing will work,” the latest hint of possible military action against the communist state.

The comments came amid fears that the North may test-fire another missile in connection with the anniversary Tuesday of the foundation of its ruling party.  (……)

“Trying to ‘out Kim Jong Un’ Kim Jong Un in the threat department is not a winning strategy,” said Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the U.S.-based Arms Control Association.

“It’s only making the problem worse and reinforces North Korea’s desire to advance its nuclear and missile development as rapidly as possible in order to strengthen deterrence against a possible U.S. attack,” he added.  (……)

Past efforts at negotiating an end to North Korea’s missile and nuclear development have had limited success in exchange for concessions from the West.

Washington and Pyongyang signed a deal known as the “agreed framework” in 1994 in which the North committed to freezing its plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid. But that agreement collapsed in 2002.

Subsequent six-party talks involving the two Koreas, China, Russia, the United States and Japan fell apart in 2009 after the North launched a rocket shortly after President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Reif pointed out talks have been effective in the past.

“A more effective strategy would be to marry continued pressure, deterrence and containment with pursuit of diplomatic off ramps,” he said. “There is no military solution to this growing problem.”  [Stars & Stripes]

You can read more at the link, but first of all President Trump’s makes comments are irrelevant to North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.  They were rapidly pursuing them during the Obama administration and they are rapidly pursuing them now.  It doesn’t matter who is in the White House the Kim regime has made this a national goal to become a nuclear weapons state regardless of who is in the White House.  The US could re-elect Jimmy Carter and Kim Jong-un would still be pursuing nuclear weapons.

As far as President Trump’s comments, it is clearly a negotiating strategy for those that pay attention.  Based off of Trump’s Art of the Deal style negotiations he wants the North Koreans to think he is about to launch a massive military strike on them.  This actually strengthens the State Departments negotiations attempts to find an off ramp.

Plus anyone that thinks there has been any success with negotiations with Kim Jong-un is fooling themselves.  Prior negotiations brought delays in the North Koreans nuclear program when Kim Jong-il was in power, but did not end it.   Can anyone name one success negotiations has brought the United States during Kim Jong-un’s time in power?  The Kim Jong-un regime has made it quite clear that they plan to become a fully developed nuclear weapons state.

However, as I stated before the off ramp is not going to be North Korea giving up their nuclear weapons program.  At best some sort of freeze deal could be worked out which is what the Russians, the Chinese and the academic class has been advocating for in recent months.