Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

North Korea, Trump and war



The latest strut and show of force on the Korean Peninsula again shows that the pugnacious, dangerous leader of the DPRK (North Korea), Kim Jong-un, is holding the cards over his counterpart, US President Donald Trump.

Kim Jong-unThe intercontinental ballistic missile test by Pyongyang last Tuesday of the Hwasong-14 — one that was, on this occasion, successful — was the outcome of insecurity and fears that have been the hallmark of the regime for decades.

In and of itself, that is understandable: the peninsula is technically at war, having not formally normalised peace after hostilities concluded in 1953. Given that very fact, and the most heavily militarised border on the planet, military initiatives to bolster North Korean security have been inevitable.

The DPRK's options in terms of defending itself against the might of the US and its allies were always limited, leaving the way open for an assortment of pantomimes. The arsenal of the threat became normal: that, for instance, of incinerating Seoul in a sea of fire, the possibility that Tokyo or Alaska might be targets.

So far, the show seems to be moving beyond the next line, the next boundary of what is deemed acceptable. But that is largely because Trump deemed it impossible that Pyongyang would have a viable ICBM option that could reach the United States.

From the start, the stance on negotiations has been intentionally frozen. The placement of the unacceptable objective is a constant feature of dealing with the DPRK. Central to this is the effort to prevent any attempt on its part to acquire a viable nuclear deterrent.  

The refusal by the United States to consider a peace and security solution that involves denuclearisation only after the formal signing of a peace-treaty; the open acknowledgment that Washington will not engage in regime change, has assisted this dilemma. This is a regime that exists on smoke signals of reassurance that never arrive.

The entire matter of capability and options remains a matter of conjecture. The illusion is fundamental, and that is part of the show in the game of deterrence. As the announcement on North Korean state television went with inevitable hyperbole, North Korea had become 'a full-fledged nuclear power' that had acquired 'the most powerful inter-continental ballistic rocket capable of hitting any part of the world.'


"Kim Jong-un's conduct behind a weapons program that will form a credible deterrent has been logical, effectively making the response from his enemies irrational."


A dangerous error here, and one that propels further risk, is the assumption that Kim Jong-un is a lunatic who needs to be treated as unhinged. True, he may well be dangerous, but his conduct behind a weapons program that will form a credible deterrent has been logical, effectively making the response from his enemies irrational. This very fact assumes that a crazed supreme leader is beyond the realm of diplomacy and must therefore be restrained, and even removed.

Trump's own reaction seemed uncertain, frustrated. In Warsaw, he suggested 'severe things' needed to be done against the regime; the DPRK was 'behaving in a very, very dangerous manner'. China was also singled out, again under the mistaken assumption it can bully Pyongyang into compliance. 'So much for China working with us — but we had to give it a try.'

The options open to the Trump administration, short of what have been mistakenly deemed unthinkable negotiations, are virtually non-existent. A lethal, pre-emptive strike against both nuclear arsenal and the DPRK leadership is untenable given the losses that would take place at the end of 8000 rocket launchers and artillery pieces.

Given that half the population of South Korea lives within 50 miles of the border, a murderous calculus comes into play. It was a point that played into calculations in 1994, when the Clinton administration pondered a strike on the Yongbyon reactor. 'We reckoned,' recalled Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Ashton Carter, 'there would be many, many tens of thousands of deaths: American, South Korean, North Korean, combatant, non-combatant.'

In 2012, Roger Cavazos for the Nautilus Institute for Security and Stability suggested the infliction of 'three thousand casualties in the first few minutes' that would diminish once the element of surprise was lost. Speculatively, he suggested that if North Korean forces targeted Seoul, 'instead of primarily aiming at military targets, there would likely be around 30,000 casualties in a short amount of time'. But who wants to try?

The North Korean supreme leader, despite a string of failed weapons tests, is sitting well. As Yun Sun of the Stimson Centre suggests, 'The ICBM test removed the false hope that we might be able to stop North Korean nuclear provocations with either sanctions or the use of military provocations.' The US, and South Korea, may well be forced back to the negotiation table.


Binoy KampmarkDr Binoy Kampmark is a former Commonwealth Scholar who lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.

Topic tags: Binoy Kampmark, Donald Trump, North Korea



submit a comment

Existing comments

The West does like to portray Kim Jong-un as an unhinged provocateur hell-bent on attack. And news footage of robot-like military might seems to validate that view. However with Trump in charge, the US doesn't look like a reliable and steady antidote to this very real threat. I'm thinking that the negotiation table could well be the scene of very volatile and outrageous antics. Maybe some prudent interpreters will be needed.

Pam | 10 July 2017  

I simply want to ask why it should be so impossible to ask for a conversation instead of a angry confrontation. All the parties have enough bullets to wipe everyone out so let's try the other way. Not dignified?

Mary Maraz | 11 July 2017  

The US has no nuclear weapons in South Korea and apparently will not engage in regime change. Hasn't the US already given the game away?

Roy Chen Yee | 11 July 2017  

While China has thousands of troops on the border with NORTH kOREA to stop their citizens leaving and while China hold the purse strings on the worlds economy North Korea is not a threat. Our missile detectors will know of somethings coming and the bomb will only land in Australia if the US decide to let it so they have an excuse to go to war. Be careful but dont be afraid or too aggressive

Phil | 11 July 2017  

The North Koreans wish to be bought off, and will he back for more.... and more! Classic "Dane-geld". And essentially the world has no choice but to put up, hoping that NK will gradually modernise , which in fact it is doing. The situation will always be unstable and dangerous especially if/when the Kim dynasty comes under pressure which us probably inevitable.

Eugene | 13 July 2017  

http: //victorhanson.com/wordpress/west-can-neither-live-with-nor-take-out-north-korean-nukes/#more-10383

Roy Chen Yee | 18 July 2017  

Similar Articles

Jane Goodall's quest to stem the human plague

  • Catherine Marshall
  • 12 July 2017

Revered for her groundbreaking study of chimpanzees in Tanzania's Gombe Stream, Goodall has spent the past three decades travelling the world in an effort to alert its human inhabitants to the alarming news: we are destroying the planet. The message seems to have been lost on those in a position to halt the change, for research scientists have just reported that a mass extinction is currently underway, a biological annihilation in which billions of regional or local populations have already been lost.