Our Future with North Korea

Late Sunday night, North Korea tested its nuclear technology by detonating a nuclear bomb underground. They also launched three short-range missiles, both cases causing a shockwave of pronouncements by world leaders and the UN Security Council. Hours after President Obama condemned their actions; they launched two more missiles Monday night and another missile only hours later on Tuesday. Back in April, you may recall North Korea tested a long range missile under the guise of launching a satellite into orbit. What does this mean for us? Do not be alarmed, it’s not World War 3, yet.

Apparently the State Department and President Obama’s flowery statements did not pose much of a threat to North Korea last month and it will take more than a statement to make a point this time. This is where a reactive foreign policy has its draw backs. During the Bush administration, much of the North Korea policy was handed over to talks organized by China, minor successes but not the best model going forward.

China has always been tough to move when it comes to their relations with North Korea. They supply North Korea with its food and fuel among other resources and supplies. For them to reprimand North Korea and threaten with their resources, it could yield a better result than a Security Council slap on the hand which is not worth the paper it is written on. Surprisingly, China said they were “resolutely opposed” to the nuclear test as reported by Reuters. Maybe this could be a change in past attempts by the U.S. to have China act.

One counter measure is an array of different missile defense measures. Ranging from ground based midcourse defense, Aegis ballistic missile defense (sea based), and the study and implementation of SDI (space based), commonly referred to as “Star Wars”, and others. The purpose of the systems at their implementation was to deter the Soviet Union from firing a weapon at the United States and eventually led to its collapse due to their lack of funding. Some can say that the Cold War era is back and we are looking at the possibility of a nuclear scare from different areas that may be more trigger happy than our enemies of the past.

This nuclear test happening only weeks after Iran conducted it’s own missile test. The problem, rogue nations like North Korea and Iran tend to stick together. If North Korea furnishes a warhead to Iran to attach to a ballistic missile that has a range far enough to hit Israel our ally, the United States has an obligation to act. The same scenario applies to North Korea firing upon Japan and South Korea who feel threatened by these actions. But why should we have to react after the destruction of our ally? The missile defense capabilities provide reactive measures but we must remain on the offensive and not allow the enemy the opportunity to attack.

This is where the topic of preemption comes in. Do we have the right to go after a country that has shown they pose an imminent threat to us, our allies, and our strategic interests? To take a phrase from the Obama playbook, “YES WE CAN”. Or should we wait for the mushroom cloud and thousands dead to signal our action.