North Korea is a hard
country to define. It's nominally communist, but is run as a cross
between a medieval absolute monarchy and a military dictatorship. It
also bears many of the hallmarks of Nazi Germany – including
concentration camps, practising a twisted form of eugenics, a very strident xenophobia
and a racist belief that the North Koreans are a "clean"
race.
In the last few weeks, tensions between North Korea, South Korea and the United States have ratcheted up following various pre-planned military exercises, as well as nuclear and missile tests by the North Koreans. Last night, the North Koreans made a specific threat to use "nuclear weapons" against unspecified American targets. The US are taking this seriously, and have moved a new missile defence system to their overseas territory of Guam in the Pacific.
Threats of "merciless" and "unstoppable" war from North Korea are nothing new. This is just the latest in a long line of somewhat risible rhetoric from Pyongyang. But when you judge the wider actions – including the closure of the joint-Korean industrial zone – it seems as if Kim Jong-un is going much further than any of his predecessors in confronting the United States directly.
It's worth pointing out though, that most North Korean belligerence is unannounced – like the sinking of the Cheonan (which hasn't been proven to be the work of the North Koreans one way or another), shelling of Yeonpyeong island in 2010, or the various missile and nuclear tests.
It's highly unusual for a combatant to announce their intentions or tactics before going through with them. There was no ultimatum, more an announcement. That hints that this latest rhetoric is for internal consumption than a genuine threat. You can never tell though.
There are reports from South Korean intelligence that
Kim Jong-un was targeted for assassination recently due to an
internal power struggle between military factions. All of
this could be some way for him to (re)establish some dominance and
control, solidifying his position by stoking the flames with the
North Korean's most hated enemy, uniting the people behind a common
cause.
The guy's only slightly older than me, which is still a baby in political terms. He's clearly showing his inexperience here. Although all the threats of war could be for show, even for the North Koreans, I doubt you can make threats against the Americans lightly without "walking the walk" somehow.
It looks as though he's talking himself into a corner, and unless the Americans are going to offer him a way out, that's a dangerous game to be playing.
Maybe he has a genuine blood lust and wants to go out as a crusading martyr. Maybe he genuinely believes he can use a nuclear weapon – no matter how crude – against the US and scare the Americans into not retaliating. Or, he's hoping that the Americans will blink first, so he can "declare victory" in exchange for aid and returning to six party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme.
Maybe I'm showing my own naivety here by thinking he really wants the latter, but he's pretty much blown it due to the actions and words taken over the last few months. The Kims have historical staying power, but I suspect this is going to end with his brains blown out on a Pyongyang street, probably by some "senior military aide", in the next few months or years.
"Loot a burning house"
I
don't think this is going to be decided in Pyongyang or Washington.
Beijing's reaction will be the one to watch.
North Korea and China have had a mutual defence pact since the 1960s. That's probably to ease China's worries about a successful American-South Korean led reunification, which could result in American troops stationed on the Chinese border. Although North Korean-Russian relations haven't been as strong since the fall of the Soviet Union, China at least has always seemed quite happy to have North Korea as a client state, kept appeased with aid, perhaps including an unwritten agreement with the US that they'll keep the Kims on a short leash.
Over the last few years though, you get the impression that the Chinese are starting to lose patience with the North Koreans. The North Koreans have continued to press on with their nuclear programme and seem to have developed an arrogant swagger, perhaps knowing/believing that the Chinese will back them against "imperialist aggressors" regardless of what they say or do.
Publicly, Beijing is calling for "calm", but privately I'm willing to bet nothing would give them greater pleasure than to see the Kim dynasty end – minus a reunification of the Korean peninsular. North Korea could then, with the right economic reforms and assistance from Beijing, become a big, cheap overseas industrial zone/client state for the Chinese, enabling more indirect trade between China, South Korea, the US and Japan.
There's nothing in reunification for the South Koreans. It would likely cost trillions of dollars, making the reunification of Germany – which still has left parts of East Germany economically underdeveloped – look small time.
There's nothing in it for the Americans either. I don't think they would really want to expend troops or equipment in what would likely be a very messy conflict on mountainous terrain against an enemy who've been raised to fanatically hate them. They've done enough of that in Afghanistan.
One thing that could change all that is the prospect of North Korea being home to around $6trillion worth of rare minerals. North Korea already out-produces the South in terms of coal mining, but that could be expanded to include "rare earth elements" like neodynium, promethium and scanidum. These elements play a key role in the development on lasers and electronics, and currently China is the pre-eminent world supplier of them.
Trident deters North Korea? - Nah
Almost
inevitably as a result of this, David Cameron proclaimed that the UK needs to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent to protect
"ourselves" from North Korea.
I'm sure David Cameron remembers this, but we handed Hong Kong back to the Chinese a good 15 and a bit years ago. Although the UK fought in the Korean War, the UK currently has no specific military or strategic interests in the region other than business interests. The threat to the UK would be a North Korean attack on somewhere like Tokyo or Seoul that would destabilise global financial markets, as well as British citizens caught up in anything.
Would "we" be willing to launch a nuclear strike against Pyongyang because HSBC's share price plummets?
It's also worth pointing out that the European Union as a whole are, whilst not exactly friendly and still passing sanctions, not on as bad terms with the North Koreans as the Americans are.
At the moment, only five nuclear powers have the capability to launch a (missile) nuclear strike against the UK – France, the US, Russia, China and probably Israel too. If you include submarines, then India could be included as well.
It's unclear if North Korea even has the capability to launch a successful nuclear payload. At the moment, the maximum range of their missiles appears to be around the 3,000-6,000km mark – a good 3,000-6,000km short of being able to strike the UK. Also, those missiles are....well, crap. They have a tendency to fail, and the payloads are minuscule (though there's nothing minuscule about any nuclear weapon). When it comes to Iran, they're in a similar position technology wise, minus the nuclear weapons - for now.
To hit the UK, North Korea would either have to launch nuclear missiles from a submarine suspiciously parked off the coast, or they would have to develop an ICBM as advanced as the Chinese or Americans have. Those ICBMs would also have to be launched successfully over Russian and Chinese airspace, and avoid getting intercepted by the Americans in the process.
The real threat posed by North Korea is that they could sell a radiological or low-yield nuclear device on the black market to terrorists, who could then cause small-scale destruction within an urban area via a "dirty bomb" attack. Trident won't help you there.
I think you have to take into account the psychology behind regimes like North Korea too. I don't think they're really going to care if you have your own nuclear deterrent or not. Would they really choose to attack somewhere like Germany over the UK because Germany can't retaliate with nuclear weapons unilaterally? Would they bully or attack the Canadians instead of the US?
As long as the Americans have interests in the region, there's no need for the UK to get too overexcited about the prospect of launching a couple of megatons of atomic death on behalf of Her Majesty.
So, as I see it, the UK wants an independent deterrent to maintain a pretence that the UK - and France too - can remain stand alone global military powers instead of larger bit players in a wider American-led alliance of liberal democracies.
The UK wants nukes for prestige and to be taken seriously on the world stage. Sort of like the North Koreans, then?
In the last few weeks, tensions between North Korea, South Korea and the United States have ratcheted up following various pre-planned military exercises, as well as nuclear and missile tests by the North Koreans. Last night, the North Koreans made a specific threat to use "nuclear weapons" against unspecified American targets. The US are taking this seriously, and have moved a new missile defence system to their overseas territory of Guam in the Pacific.
Threats of "merciless" and "unstoppable" war from North Korea are nothing new. This is just the latest in a long line of somewhat risible rhetoric from Pyongyang. But when you judge the wider actions – including the closure of the joint-Korean industrial zone – it seems as if Kim Jong-un is going much further than any of his predecessors in confronting the United States directly.
It's worth pointing out though, that most North Korean belligerence is unannounced – like the sinking of the Cheonan (which hasn't been proven to be the work of the North Koreans one way or another), shelling of Yeonpyeong island in 2010, or the various missile and nuclear tests.
It's highly unusual for a combatant to announce their intentions or tactics before going through with them. There was no ultimatum, more an announcement. That hints that this latest rhetoric is for internal consumption than a genuine threat. You can never tell though.
The guy's only slightly older than me, which is still a baby in political terms. He's clearly showing his inexperience here. Although all the threats of war could be for show, even for the North Koreans, I doubt you can make threats against the Americans lightly without "walking the walk" somehow.
It looks as though he's talking himself into a corner, and unless the Americans are going to offer him a way out, that's a dangerous game to be playing.
Maybe he has a genuine blood lust and wants to go out as a crusading martyr. Maybe he genuinely believes he can use a nuclear weapon – no matter how crude – against the US and scare the Americans into not retaliating. Or, he's hoping that the Americans will blink first, so he can "declare victory" in exchange for aid and returning to six party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme.
Maybe I'm showing my own naivety here by thinking he really wants the latter, but he's pretty much blown it due to the actions and words taken over the last few months. The Kims have historical staying power, but I suspect this is going to end with his brains blown out on a Pyongyang street, probably by some "senior military aide", in the next few months or years.
"Loot a burning house"
 |
| How long with China tolerate having such a loose cannon on its border - almost provoking the Americans into military action? (Pic : blogs.cfr.org) |
North Korea and China have had a mutual defence pact since the 1960s. That's probably to ease China's worries about a successful American-South Korean led reunification, which could result in American troops stationed on the Chinese border. Although North Korean-Russian relations haven't been as strong since the fall of the Soviet Union, China at least has always seemed quite happy to have North Korea as a client state, kept appeased with aid, perhaps including an unwritten agreement with the US that they'll keep the Kims on a short leash.
Over the last few years though, you get the impression that the Chinese are starting to lose patience with the North Koreans. The North Koreans have continued to press on with their nuclear programme and seem to have developed an arrogant swagger, perhaps knowing/believing that the Chinese will back them against "imperialist aggressors" regardless of what they say or do.
Publicly, Beijing is calling for "calm", but privately I'm willing to bet nothing would give them greater pleasure than to see the Kim dynasty end – minus a reunification of the Korean peninsular. North Korea could then, with the right economic reforms and assistance from Beijing, become a big, cheap overseas industrial zone/client state for the Chinese, enabling more indirect trade between China, South Korea, the US and Japan.
There's nothing in reunification for the South Koreans. It would likely cost trillions of dollars, making the reunification of Germany – which still has left parts of East Germany economically underdeveloped – look small time.
There's nothing in it for the Americans either. I don't think they would really want to expend troops or equipment in what would likely be a very messy conflict on mountainous terrain against an enemy who've been raised to fanatically hate them. They've done enough of that in Afghanistan.
One thing that could change all that is the prospect of North Korea being home to around $6trillion worth of rare minerals. North Korea already out-produces the South in terms of coal mining, but that could be expanded to include "rare earth elements" like neodynium, promethium and scanidum. These elements play a key role in the development on lasers and electronics, and currently China is the pre-eminent world supplier of them.
Trident deters North Korea? - Nah
 |
| Neither North Korea or Iran currently have the capability to use nuclear missiles against the UK or its interests. So are claims that these "threats" justify Trident renewal tenuous at best? (Pic : The Guardian) |
I'm sure David Cameron remembers this, but we handed Hong Kong back to the Chinese a good 15 and a bit years ago. Although the UK fought in the Korean War, the UK currently has no specific military or strategic interests in the region other than business interests. The threat to the UK would be a North Korean attack on somewhere like Tokyo or Seoul that would destabilise global financial markets, as well as British citizens caught up in anything.
Would "we" be willing to launch a nuclear strike against Pyongyang because HSBC's share price plummets?
It's also worth pointing out that the European Union as a whole are, whilst not exactly friendly and still passing sanctions, not on as bad terms with the North Koreans as the Americans are.
At the moment, only five nuclear powers have the capability to launch a (missile) nuclear strike against the UK – France, the US, Russia, China and probably Israel too. If you include submarines, then India could be included as well.
It's unclear if North Korea even has the capability to launch a successful nuclear payload. At the moment, the maximum range of their missiles appears to be around the 3,000-6,000km mark – a good 3,000-6,000km short of being able to strike the UK. Also, those missiles are....well, crap. They have a tendency to fail, and the payloads are minuscule (though there's nothing minuscule about any nuclear weapon). When it comes to Iran, they're in a similar position technology wise, minus the nuclear weapons - for now.
To hit the UK, North Korea would either have to launch nuclear missiles from a submarine suspiciously parked off the coast, or they would have to develop an ICBM as advanced as the Chinese or Americans have. Those ICBMs would also have to be launched successfully over Russian and Chinese airspace, and avoid getting intercepted by the Americans in the process.
The real threat posed by North Korea is that they could sell a radiological or low-yield nuclear device on the black market to terrorists, who could then cause small-scale destruction within an urban area via a "dirty bomb" attack. Trident won't help you there.
I think you have to take into account the psychology behind regimes like North Korea too. I don't think they're really going to care if you have your own nuclear deterrent or not. Would they really choose to attack somewhere like Germany over the UK because Germany can't retaliate with nuclear weapons unilaterally? Would they bully or attack the Canadians instead of the US?
As long as the Americans have interests in the region, there's no need for the UK to get too overexcited about the prospect of launching a couple of megatons of atomic death on behalf of Her Majesty.
So, as I see it, the UK wants an independent deterrent to maintain a pretence that the UK - and France too - can remain stand alone global military powers instead of larger bit players in a wider American-led alliance of liberal democracies.
The UK wants nukes for prestige and to be taken seriously on the world stage. Sort of like the North Koreans, then?
There is no nuclear link whatsoever between the UK and North Korea. It's absolute guff. The UK isn't part of the Six-Party system that the US and China have set up over the years to contain North Korea. Trident has nothing to do with Kim Jong Un and there is no conceivable security threat to the UK from North Korea.
ReplyDeleteI strongly doubt the North Korean regime will ever nuke anyone. It would be their death warrant. What they want is a bargaining chip and a card to play. Their bombastic rhetoric is a hallmark of how they've acted for decades. They should of course be contained by the regional powers; USA, SK, Japan, China and Russia. Those 5 countries need to work out between them how to contain North Korea, and gradually bring them back to the table.
The UK using this to try and promote Trident is completely disingenuous.
"The UK wants nukes for prestige and to be taken seriously on the world stage. Sort of like the North Koreans, then?"
ReplyDeleteWhen you put it like that, how right you are
Thanks for the comments.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:53 - Precisely. The UK isn't even part of the talks with Iran either AFAIK, only via the EU. If the UK still had little bits of pink on the map to protect it all might be understandable. It's frustrating, because I'd prefer to see the money that will be pissed up the wall on Trident spent protecting existing troops pensions or making sure they have better conventional equipment.
North Korea does seem "unhinged". I think we need to remember that the generals advising Kim Jong-un are likely to be more fanatical. I think this time though they've talked/backed themselves into a corner and will need to do "something" to save face, even if it's something relatively minor compared to a missile launch.
Anon 14:48 - I might've gone a little too far in the analogy there. Clearly I'd prefer neither the UK or NK to have nuclear weapons, but in a toss up between the two I'd pick the UK. Doesn't mean it's right though.