North Korea and Nuclear Weapons - Policy Options
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies, 2003
What follows is a framework of policy "Options" that address the current debate
about North Korea. These options are designed to help you think about a range of
possible policies and the ramifications of each.
The four options provided are not intended as a menu of choices. Rather, they are
framed in stark terms to highlight very different policy approaches. Each option
includes a set of criticisms against it. These are designed to help you think carefully
about the risks and trade-offs of each.
After you have had a chance to consider each of the options presented, we
encourage you to articulate your own considered judgment on this issue. You may
want to borrow heavily from one of the options presented, combine ideas from
several, or take a new approach altogether. As you frame your "Option 5," think
about the following questions:
- What U.S. interests are at stake in this issue?
- What is the history of U.S. relations with North Korea?
- What is motivating North Korea to take this path?
- How pressing is the issue of North Korea compared to other security
priorities?
- How does the war on terrorism fit into discussion about this issue?
- How does our relationship with China, South Korea, and Japan fit into this
issue?
- What steps should the United States take in the coming weeks and months?
- What should our long-term goals be?
- What values are important to you?
- What are the pros and cons of this option?
Option 1: Launch a Preemptive Military Strike
The security of the United States is in jeopardy as long as this regime in North Korea
is in power. In order to eliminate the nuclear threat posed by North Korea, we must
act quickly and decisively. A speedy, surgical attack on nuclear weapons
development sites will destroy North Korea's ability to make nuclear bombs, initiate
the downfall of Kim Jong-Il's regime, and send a clear message that the United
States will not accept nuclear proliferation. Waiting much longer before taking action
will ensure that North Korea will have at least one nuclear bomb that it could use
against its neighbors, if not against the United States. Weapons-grade fissile material
is also easy to transport. Once North Korea has what it feels is enough to gain
leverage, it could begin to sell its nuclear power to whomever it wants. If we choose
to negotiate with the North Koreans, it will give them time and we will never know
how much weapons-grade nuclear material was squirreled away in the interim.
Therefore, we will never be able to remove North Korea from the list of countries
possessing nuclear weapons. This uncertainty could compel Japan or Taiwan to
develop their own nuclear weapons program as a deterrent. Nuclear proliferation in
Asia could, in turn, set off an arms race that could go world-wide. We must act now
to prevent this possibility. Our only option for peace and security in the future is to
take military action now.
Goals
- Eliminate North Korea's threat of nuclear war by destroying the reactors and
processors that are producing weapons-grade plutonium and uranium.
- Communicate to other states that nuclear proliferation is unacceptable.
U.S. Policies
- Use the U.S. military to destroy North Korea's nuclear weapons production
facilities.
- Prepare to respond to any North Korean attacks.
Underlying Beliefs
- Military might is the only language Kim Jong Il understands. We should not
negotiate with irrational, evil people.
- The molasses-like speed with which the international community can deal
with problems such as these will not meet the requirements of the timetable
in this case.
- The containment policy in use since 1994 has failed.
Criticisms
- A pre-emptive unilateral attack on North Korea would violate international
law.
- To bypass negotiation in favor of plans for military action will only increase
North Korea's determination to build a nuclear capability as quickly as
possible as a deterrence.
- It is very possible that the North Korean nuclear weapons development
facilities are not all above ground. We are sure to miss some of them in a
conventional airstrike.
- In response to a military strike North Korea could launch strikes of its own
against Japan, China, or South Korea, or our bases in those countries. Such a
war could mean the deaths of millions.
- A war could also mean economic disaster resulting from the possible
destruction of the Tokyo, Beijing, and Seoul stock markets.
- The radiation released from attacks against nuclear weapons facilities could
kill thousands and be deadly for years to come.
- In order to prevent North Korean retaliation, the United States may be forced
to threaten the use of nuclear weapons. Invoking such a threat would put the
United States in the position of threatening to kill hundreds of thousands of
people.
- Our allies in the region are opposed to military action against North Korea.
- If this pre-emptive military option leads to war, or even widespread
destruction, the United States would be blamed. This would heighten
resentment of the United States throughout the rest of the world.
- Our presence in the Koreas is already unwanted by many in South Korea.
Engaging in a war with their neighbor would destroy an already fragile
relationship between the United States and South Korea.
Return to Top
Option 2: Contain and Deter North Korea
North Korea's long-range missiles and their arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
are of the utmost concern, but we have no reason to give in to their attempts to
blackmail us. We have successfully contained the threat from North Korea for the
past fifty years, and we can continue to do so now. North Korea's recent
announcement about its nuclear weapons program is part of an attempt to gain
international leverage with the United States. North Korea has attempted to provoke
us in the past, just as they are doing today by restarting their nuclear weapons
program. The people of North Korea are starving; providing aid in return for false
promises from the North Koreans only prolongs the existence of a regime that will
create another crisis in the future when it needs more assistance. If we make deals
now, the North Koreans will only be back later asking for more. Tyrants like Kim Jong
Il understand force and power and he will take advantage of what he perceives to be
weakness. We cannot afford to appear weak. We have a successful model for dealing
with a hostile nuclear power - the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet
Union was deterred successfully from using its tens of thousands of nuclear
warheads by the threat of massive retaliation from the United States. Today, North
Korea has one or two weapons and the ability to begin producing one or two a
month, far fewer than the Soviet Union. If our goal is security for the region and the
world, the wisest course of action is continued containment of the North Korean
danger coupled with the threat of massive retaliation.
Goals
- Contain the threat from North Korea and deter its use of weapons of mass
destruction.
- Contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
- Protect U.S. interests in the region.
U.S. Policies
- Provide strong U.S. support for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspections.
- Make it very clear that we will counter with comparable force - alone or with
others - any aggressive actions on the part of North Korea.
- Reinvigorate negotiations between North Korea and other states in the region
to provide other avenues for revenue and support for North Korea.
- Do not reward North Korea's threatening behavior with aid.
Underlying Beliefs
- Kim Jong Il is a dangerous dictator but he is not insane. He will not use
weapons of mass destruction if he faces the risk of complete annihilation.
- The United States plays an essential role in containing and deterring threats
to regional security. Peace and security on the Korean peninsula are critical to
maintaining stability throughout Asia.
- Tyrannical dictators understand the equations of power and force.
Negotiations and deals that reward bad behavior will only produce more
problems for the United States in the long run.
Criticisms
- Containment by itself is not enough; if we do not take additional action with
North Korea, we or our allies will eventually become targets of North Korea's
weapons of mass destruction.
- Nothing short of a military attack can guarantee U.S. security. Unless we
destroy their weapons facilities, they will continue to build nuclear weapons.
- Containment of North Korea will not address the underlying problem which is
North Korea's fears that its national security is at risk.
- The policy of deterrence (and its potential consequences) is morally
repugnant when there are alternatives like diplomacy and negotiation.
- Containment would not facilitate the dialogue between North Korea and South
Korea that is desired by most Koreans and other Asians as the best long term
guarantor of peace and security on the peninsula.
- Deterrence depends on rationality. Counting on Kim Jong Il to act rationally
could be a huge miscalculation with horrific consequences.
- Deterrence may not work. North Korea's weapons could find their way into
the hands of terrorists or other states willing to use them.
- Containing North Korea will not do anything for the people of North Korea.
Millions are starving and oppressed. It is time for a regime change in North
Korea.
- How can we guarantee that other states in the region will join the United
States in a substantive way in a campaign to contain North Korea? Why
should we bear the bulk of the burden?
- We are unwelcome in South Korea and Asia. Why should we risk American
lives or spend our defense dollars for nations whose politicians gain popularity
by exploiting public resentment of the United States, but rely on us to protect
their countries?
Return to Top
Option 3: Engage North Korea in Negotiations
We must confront the issue of North Korea's weapons with diplomacy. The countries
in the region are asking the U.S. to talk directly with the North Koreans. The United
States should remain flexible in its negotiation tactics, offering to work with others in
the region. The UN Security Council or other international organizations or figures
could help mediate discussions. However, it is essential to impress upon the
countries surrounding North Korea that North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons
threatens the countries of the region and their own national interests. We must
encourage South Korea, in particular, to see the North as a threat, not simply a
wayward relative. If the United States enters into negotiations with the North
Koreans, the support the U.S. would receive from its allies in the region would
significantly diminish tensions between the United States and its Asian allies. The
United States should begin negotiations with North Korea immediately. We should be
willing to conduct talks anywhere that North Korea is willing to meet us. We should
be willing to engage in diplomatic give-and-take to ensure that North Korea ends its
nuclear program. Promoting talks is the best and safest way to halt the growing
crisis with North Korea and promote peace and security for the region.
Goals
- End the development of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in North
Korea.
- Engage North Korea in the community of nations in order to remove its
motivation to build weapons of mass destruction.
- Promote regional peace and strengthen diplomatic relationships with regional
powers.
U.S. Policies
- Impress upon regional powers the severity of the crisis.
- Begin negotiations with North Korea. Offer significant, diplomatic carrots and
sticks so that North Koreans recognize the benefits of halting their nuclear
weapons program.
Underlying Beliefs
- North Korea does not want to engage in a suicidal war. It simply wants to get
the world's attention, be given the aid it was promised by the United States in
1994, and feel secure.
- Negotiation is less expensive than war.
- Negotiation is the logical first step to resolving international problems.
Criticisms
- Initiating talks will be submitting to nuclear blackmail and will weaken the
United States in the eyes of the world.
- If we negotiate, small countries will learn that they can get what they want
from the United States by using "provocations."
- History has shown that negotiating with North Korea does not work.
- The time it takes to bring all the actors to the table - or even some of them -
is too long. In the interim, North Korea may launch nuclear weapons against
the United States or others in the region.
- While we negotiate, North Korea could sell its weaponry to terrorists.
- A policy of engagement will suggest to other rogue leaders that the
possession of nuclear weapons will not result in strong action from the United
States. Such an outcome would surely lead to further security threats to the
United States.
- Our presence in the Koreas is unwelcome. Meddling in the affairs of the region
will only subject us to further danger.
- Negotiating with North Korea, while simultaneously refusing to do so with
Iraq, may be seen as a double standard.
Return to Top
Option 4: Withdraw from Korea
The smartest thing that the United States can do at this point is get off of the Korean
Peninsula. Our 37,000 troops - costing us 100 [more like $5 billion/year for USFK
alone, $25 billion for other forces in Western Pacific dedicated to supporting war in
Korea] million dollars a year - are neither wanted there nor necessary to protect our
Asian allies or ourselves. South Korea, with its own army of 600,000, has been
hosting many anti-American rallies, as have other Asian countries. Our presence on
the peninsula is no longer necessary as a military deterrent and we are clearly not
welcome. It seems that all our presence on the Korean peninsula only serves to
increase anti-American sentiment. Why should we risk American time, money, lives
or reputation to protect countries that do not like us or want us there, yet cower and
hide behind our might during tense moments, all the while criticizing our decisions
Pulling our troops off of the peninsula will force other Asian countries to accept that
they need to stand up to North Korea. North Korea's weapons program is a breach of
world security and international treaties. The United States should not be the only
country to take a stance against them. The whole world should take collective action.
Until others accept some responsibility, we should remove ourselves from the
peninsula, lower our profile, and use our time, money, and efforts elsewhere.
Goals
- Eliminate what appears to be a growing pattern of manipulation and threat by
the North Korean government.
- Lower our profile on the peninsula and in Asia in general.
U.S. Policies
- Remove American troops from the peninsula.
- Encourage China, Japan, and Russia to play a more significant role in Asian
security.
Underlying Beliefs
- North Korea does not want to go to war with the United States. It just wants
publicity and attention.
- Our limited military presence in South Korea does not add to either our or
South Korea's security. If a real threat emerges, we have bases in Japan,
Guam, and Hawaii to protect our interests in Asia.
- Attacking North Korea, or levying stricter sanctions, will only lead to increased
resentment toward our country by greatly exacerbating the humanitarian
crisis there.
Criticisms
- By withdrawing, the United States would allow North Korea to develop nuclear
weapons - a reality that endangers the world and weakens our image in the
war on terror.
- By withdrawing from the peninsula, the United States might be seen as
walking away from a clear and present danger. Some may see this is a
contradictory move as we prepare for a war against Iraq.
- As the world's lone superpower, it is our responsibility to help ensure the
safety of smaller countries. South Korea will be rendered nearly defenseless if
the United States withdraws.
- If the United States withdraws, any hope of successful North Korean/South
Korean dialogue would be undermined, reducing the potential for
reconciliation between the two Koreas.
- By ending all aid to North Korea and refusing to discuss a new aid package,
the already horrific humanitarian situation in North Korea could be greatly
exacerbated, leading to increased starvation and poverty as well as more
anti-American sentiment.
- Leaving North Korea's neighbors to fend for themselves may cause them to
adopt their own nuclear weapons programs due to feelings of vulnerability.
- The United States must remain engaged around the world if it hopes to stop
the spread of nuclear weapons and terror.
- Withdrawing from the peninsula could be perceived by other countries as a
sign of U.S. weakness. The message will be: If you just make enough of the
right kind of noise the United States will pick up and leave.
- North Korea, with its desperate economic condition, might sell some of its
products to anyone who will pay a pretty penny, including terrorists.
Return to Top
Copyright Choices for the 21st Century Education Program. All rights reserved.
|