Politics

Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

port1080.

Posted to Politics on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 04:46:49 AM EST. RSS.

Nuclear non-proliferation suffered a dangerous blow today, as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka DPRK, aka North Korea) now claims to have successfully tested a nuclear weapon (NK's official announcement). First and foremost, this test proves that the North Koreans weren't bluffing about their capability. Perhaps more seriously, it also implies that the DPRK has enough plutonium to make multiple weapons, as a plutonium-poor country would be unlikely to waste material on a test.

The current crisis dates back to 2002, although the conflict has arguably been ongoing since the beginning of the Korean War. The DPRK leadership claims to be pursuing the bomb only for deterrent purposes, in light of US hostility. US and regional leaders fear that the DRPK will use the deterrent leverage gained by possession of the bomb to blackmail its neighbors for increased aid, and perhaps more threateningly that the North Koreans may sell their nuclear or ballistic missile technology to other countries or perhaps non-state terrorist actors, further weakening the non-proliferation regime.

Although the prospect of a nuclear armed North Korea is threatening in and of itself, perhaps the greatest problem caused by the DRPK's test will be the damage it does to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Codified in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), this powerful interstate norm (pdf) has up to this point been largely successful (with two glaring exceptions), and has even convinced some countries to turn back on their weapons programs. All that success is in doubt now, however, as North Korea is the first state to sign the NPT and then flagrantly break it, and also the first state that did not have credible nuclear potential in 1968 (when the NPT was written) to develop and test nuclear weapons. With this taboo broken, "rogue states" like Iran will have a stronger argument for their own right to possess nuclear weapons - which many scholars argue will set off a chain reaction of armament, as regional powers (faced by a classic security dilemma) will be forced to scramble to match their neighbors' capabilities.
edited by kiwiana

Tags: politics, nuclear, north korea, china, south korea, war (all tags)

This story: 28 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
4

A big bang

kiwiana.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:28:46 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

Here is the record ofthe seismology reading that seems to confirm the test.

Man this is freaking me out.  Maybe it's because I recently watched "Team America", but i am currently having no trouble with the notion that Kim Jong Il is just a paranoid lunatic.

One possible side effect of thie move will hopefully be a speeding up of the rapproachment between Japan and China.  I always had the vague impression that NK was somewhat moderated by China, but I seriously doubt China wants them to have the bomb. If they feel threatened as well, they could bring some fairly serious weight to bear.

the only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.

5

^ 4

Re: A big bang

patientfox.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:36:20 AM EST

4.00

China's public rhetoric has been harsh, but is it harsh enough to get anything done? Obviously it didn't stop the test.

I think China is just hunkering down for the eventual collapse of North Korea and the corresponding rush of refugees across their border.

Beyond that, either they aren't trying hard enough to put NK in check, or NK just isn't listening to them.

7

^ 5

Re: A big bang

port1080.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:38:18 AM EST

5.00 (informative, interesting, informative)

China is my focus area, and despite that I really don't have a fix on what their strategy is. Asian diplomacy focuses a lot on back-room negotiations, because Asians highly value the notion of face, and publicly calling out countries over their activities is seen as very embarrassing. Thus, it is very surprising that over the last week or so China has been very publicly criticizing the DRPK, by name. That suggests that China has been putting a lot of back room pressure on the DPRK, that that pressure failed to result in anything, and that the Chinese are now pretty pissed off. The question isn't whether or not they want to influence the North Koreans - the question is whether they have any leverage. After all, a bomb that can hit Tokyo can also hit Beijing...

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

11

Was it a dud?

Coelacanth.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:44:11 AM EST

5.00 (informative, informative)

These guys think so.  From the article:

3.58-3.7 gives you a couple hundred tons (not kilotons), which is pretty close in this business unless you're really math positive. The same equation, given the US estimate of 4.2, yields (pun intended) around a kiloton.

A plutonium device should produce a yield in the range of the 20 kilotons, like the one we dropped on Nagasaki. No one has ever dudded their first test of a simple fission device. North Korean nuclear scientists are now officially the worst ever.

12

^ 11

Re: Was it a dud?

T Slothrop.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 01:04:39 PM EST

none

The first story I read on it (MSNBC? CNN?) gave the yield estimate as 550 tons. Not kilotons. Tons. I wondered then why they were testing something that sounded to me more like a terrorist's weapon than anything you'd consider mounting on a missile.

A dud sounds like a much more plausible scenario from The Dear Leader and his discount store Dr. Evil minions.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

13

^ 12

Re: Was it a dud?

Shy Elf.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:07:55 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

     As opposed to a uranium bomb, the hard part of which is enriching the uranium, with a plutonium bomb (assuming access to used power-plant fuel), the hard part is actually getting a good explosive yield instead of a very-low yield explosion.  This is because plutonium has a high level of spontaneous fission, and hence the chain reaction begins much earlier, while the fissionables are still in a barely critical configuration.  To counter this, a spherical shell of precisely timed explosions are used to compress the plutonium uniformly.  A "dud" or more properly a "fizzle" explosion like this is actually the most likely result of a first attempt to test a plutonium bomb, and to even get this much of an explosion out indicates that they're fairly close to solving their technical problems and getting a "working" bomb.

     This explosion could actually have been generated by conventional explosives, or the site could have been carefully insulated and the actual explosion could have been much larger, but by far the most likely explanation is a "fizzle" nuclear weapon.  Even with a low-yield weapon like this, there would still be a significant amount of fallout.  There has been speculation for some time that the North Koreans have been reprocessing used fuel from their power reactor to use as fuel, and if, as seems likely, this is the source of the plutonium for this explosion, the number of bombs (or test bombs) which North Korea could make is probably limited to around ten.

     North Korea has for some time been attempting to blackmail the West into supplying with them with fuel oil, nominally in compensation for the electricity which they lose by not running their nuclear reactor, and actually negotiated such an agreement with the Clinton administration.  Shortly after the Bush administration took over, they claimed that North Korean enrichment activities were continuing, and suspended the fuel oil shipments, and refused direct two-party negotiations.  This provides at least one motive for the nuclear test.

     A more likely explanation, however is the degree to which, for internal political reasons, North Korea requires a serious external enemy.  Despite economic collapse so serious that North Korea is unable to come even close to feeding itself, the government remains relatively popular internally, because they have effectively used their control of information flow to place blame for their failures on South Korea and the United States.  Thus, it is much easier for North Korean leaders to maintain power in the face of international sanctions and open enmity from South Korea and the United States, than it would be if relations were friendly.

     It is unclear to what extent North Korea's leaders believe the paranoia about the intentions of South Korea and the United States which they have been teaching to their populace.

20

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

Thalia.

Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 04:12:29 PM EST

4.00 (informative)

I found this a fascinating analysis of the North Korea situation.  If this Administration remains committed to not negotiating, what can we do to ensure that North Korea doesn't become a bigger threat?

I'm also curious about what will happen if, or when, China and Japan get nervous enough.  Between them, they own an incredible percentage of the U.S. debt.  They could put a lot of pressure on the government to do something.

Thalia

22

^ 20

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

Shy Elf.

Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 07:24:04 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

That's a great link.

The U.S. response seems to be that it's o.k. for North Korea to build all the nuclear weapons they want, as long as they don't try to sell them.  It's highly unlikely that North Korea would sell them in the first place, but if they wanted to, it's hard to see why they would take the United States seriously, since they were firmly warned not to make them in the first place, but testing them seems to have drawn little in the way of a response.

If anything, US diplomatic disengagement would make it less likely for Japan and China to dump their U.S. bond portfolios, as it would likely help the U.S. economy to stay out of any military involvement in the region.  China has always deeply resented U.S. involvement in Korea, and it is only the U.S. involvement in Korea which has convinced them to support part of their traditional enemy Korea in the first place.

Japan currently relies heavily on its alliance with the U.S. to protect Japan.  If no action is taken against North Korea, they would likely conclude that they cannot rely on the United States for defense anymore, and would likely create their own nuclear weapons.  This would greatly increase the pressure on South Korea and Taiwan to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

The real unknown at this point is what China is going to do, since all of their options look bad.  They can ignore the test, and have a growing number of nuclear weapons on their border in the hands of their traditional enemy.  They can try to bring down the government by cutting off trade, killing millions more North Koreans from starvation, and creating a refugee crisis that they would welcome just about as much as the U.S. would welcome an economic collapse of Mexico.  Or, they can try to make a deal with Japan that they will invade North Korea and get rid of the nuclear weapons there, and Japan in exchange will not build nuclear weapons.  In any case, with all available U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq, the next move at this point is China's.

21

^ 20

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

dzetetes.

Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 06:19:55 PM EST

none

Good article.  Here's another one, also by Fred Kaplan, detailing some possible scenarios that might unfold in the near future.

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

23

^ 21

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

Toby Flip.

Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 09:06:41 PM EST

none

More is made than it should be of the Nakasone think tank advocating nuclearization of Japan's military and the popular abhorrance the Japanese still feel towards nuclear weapons has a strong influence in this.  Much more likely we will see increased efforts, working with the Americans, to get an effective Missile Defence Shield up and running.

Just cause you feel so good, do you have to drive me out of my head?

24

^ 20

Some Reactions

uncarved block.

Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 10:15:36 PM EST

none

   I'm surprised that Kaplan is so surprised as the administration's lack of military buildup when it came to NK. They came in early on with the notion of getting rid of the "two fronts" concept of readiness the armed forces had operated under for decades. Were the forces even there? Is it so far-fetched to believe they'd let NK go nuclear rather than admit the proposed changes were bad? Rumsfeld is an ornery coot, and I doubt Cheney wasn't back there throwing his weight around as well. Seems possible there was more than one style of "purity" at work here.
   What's also interesting is how little discussion there is about the asking price for fissile material. Hugh Hewitt, as a touchstone, completely ignores the issue, due to an unusual fascination with suitcase nukes. (Hey, Hugh, you can fit a nice nuke in a shipping container, and it won't get nervous crossing the border. But I guess we're only supposed to worry about the fear the RNC is spreading this week.) As I understand it, the hard part about nuclear devices is the fuel, not the bomb. Hmmn, you don't think Iran wouldn't pay a pretty penny for a couple pounds of plutonium, do ya? Oh no, Hugh says, the atheists and Muslims would never deal with each other, not even for a one-off deal . . .
   Enough toying with the fanatics. It's fun, but a vice I'd rather not indulge too often. Seriously, though, it's rather disturbing that both sides of the debate seem to operate under different facts. Kim Jong-il may live in a different reality, but it's rather disturbing to think where Bush's head is really at in times like this.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

25

^ 20

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

T Slothrop.

Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 10:27:04 AM EST

none

I know discussion usually dies here as soon as an article gets bumped off the front page, but in case anyone is still following this The Atlantic published a fascinating article outlining possible scenarios surrounding the collapse of the Kim regime. Although written before the nuke test, I would still rate it as required reading for anyone interested in what is likely to happen next in the region.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

1

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

Coelacanth.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:37:00 AM EST

3.50

Nice writeup.  North Korea's strategy here is still unclear to me.  They (should) have no real fear of being attacked (like, say, Iran).  This long after the Korean War, they don't have an immediate mortal enemy on a disputed border like India/Pakistan.  One obvious answer is that Kim is a nut, or as you've suggested, a plan to sell the technology.  I think I'm leaning towards the "nut" explanation.  Unfortunately it gives no help in anticipating the next move.

3

^ 1

A brief primer on NK military thought

patientfox.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:19:57 AM EST

4.75 (interesting, interesting)

They (should) have no real fear of being attacked (like, say, Iran).

I think this stopped being about some kind of rational fear of attack a long time ago. You really have three options: A) Either the NK leadership is just crazy, B) They're crazy like a fox or C) some kind of mixture of A and B.

While it outwardly does indeed appear as though they're a helpless state ran by lunatics in it's death throes, there's a lot going on underneath the surface. A cursory review of their military capabilities shows that they have a massive array of hardened sites built into the sides of various mountains near the DMZ, housing everything from barracks, to massive tunnels leading underneath the DMZ (ie enough to fit a battalion sized element in), to hardened shelters for pre-aimed artillery pieces (literally on tracks to be wheeled in and out). And those tunnels I mentioned? While the South Koreans have discovered something like 3-5 of them, it's estimated there are 20+ of these huge tunnels: leading right under the DMZ. Go take a spin over to the DMZ in google earth and you'll see that that region is unmanageably mountainous, at best.

And for those of you who are not familiar with the geography of the Korean peninsula, the number 1 thing you need to know is that Seoul is "danger close" to the DMZ and there is literally hundreds of these hardened artillery pieces all dialed in on the northern part of the city. The popular logic is when the war kicks off, the NK will hammer northern Seoul with artillery for a few hours, then do a blitzkrieg to take the city, pushing the South Koreans and Americans further south, and use the city as a bargaining chip future negotiations on the final status of the peninsula. It is estimated that the North Koreans have logistics (food, fuel, munitions) stockpiled to last them maybe a week.

In my mind, the nuke is (in the NK leadership's mind) a last resort and not part of an opening gambit. It's pretty common knowledge that their ultimate longterm goal is reunification of the peninsula under their rule (pretty much the same as the south) and a nuke would goes a long way to nullify that point. The same stands for the idea of them using the nuke on a foreign nation (Japan/US), since our retaliation would turn Pyongyang into a radioactive crater (and don't think we wouldn't/shouldn't, either).

Then again, our policy for the last 50-odd years has been to attempt to rationalize, derive some kind of sense from the actions of North Korea. And the only conclusions we have came to are all this weird, convoluted Machiavellian shit you're hearing about today. I think it's just too scary to imagine that the North Korean state is run by a fucking maniac.

6

^ 3

Re: A brief primer on NK military thought

ByeByeBaby.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:19:59 AM EST

5.00 (interesting, illiterate)

It's pretty clearly option (C); the DPRK leadership seems to me to be about three parts the most cynical and ruthless bastards on the face of the earth, and about two parts actually buying into their own hype.

First off, let's face a few facts:
 - The Korean War never officially ended. There's been a 50 year ceasefire, but it's still technically a war and both sides are armed to the goddamn teeth.
 - Absolutely everything they do has a propaganda value to it. It doesn't have to make sense externally, as long as it makes them look good internally. As a prime example of this, the current head of state of the North Korean government is still Kim Il-Sung, despite the fact that he fucking died in 1994.
 - North Korea has absolutely nothing going for it. They have little in the way of natural resources, lousy weather, the entire place is hills, a small population, and they're completely surrounded by regional powers. China's now more dependent on South Korea through trade and investment than they are on North Korea for geopolitical reasons. Other than this one friend-of-convenience, the North has absolutely nobody; even Chavez is smart enough to stay out of this one.
 - Despite the fact that they spend a huge proportion of their resources on the military (and they have to; the South's heavily armed, and there's 30,000 Yankees parked there too) and, to top it off, they waste a bunch of their resources for propaganda purposes, they are still here.

Which is why people rationalize the DPRK as being a bunch of Machiavellian geniuses. Because they've been dealt a shitty hand, but they're still, somehow, at the no-limit table with the big boys. They have so much opposing them, and so little going for them, and they still exist. The Great Leader, the Dear Leader and their cronies would have to be either Forrest Gump, cluelessly bumbling into great success without realizing what they're doing, or they are a bunch of Machiavellian geniuses.

I've been to North Korea; I was in the neighbourhood, and couldn't pass up the chance, so I spent a week around May Day 2005 in the country. (One group of people were playing a fun game of "Bayonet the Imperialist" in the local park.) Although you get lied to on a regular basis, you also get a feeling of what it's like under the surface, and it's absolutely unbelievable. One of our tour guides (our group had three tour guides, two of which were actually tour guides) was a 19 year old, with okay English skills. She lived in the capital, her mother was a high-ranking official. She seemed uneasy on the ride from the airport into town. We later found out this was because she had only ever met one foreigner before (there's a small handful, I believe mostly British, who are employed by the DPRK government as English tutors). The average residents -- and this woman was far better off than the average resident -- have no concept whatsoever of what life is like in the outside world beyond what they are told from their government. North Korea doesn't have the Internet, but they do have the Intranet. (Seriously, we were told this at one point.)

The country is run by a bunch of elites who live as well as they ever could in the West; all the luxuries they want. So they don't want change. The population in general sincerely believes that they are living better than in the West, so they don't want change. It's an absolutely amazing tribute to the power of propaganda, and it's one reason that Korean reunification will be a hell of a lot messier than Germany. East Germans had been watching West German TV long before the wall fell; they knew what they were missing out on.

But how long can you run this kind of propaganda scheme without having it go to your head? Kim Il-Sung is rapidly being deified in the North (they use the Juche calendar, reckoned from the date of his birth). Everything -- including this test, which falls on the ninth anniversary of Kim Jong-il's ascension as head of the Korean Workers' Party -- has an element in it glorifying the leadership. Everybody wears a pin of Kim Il-Sung at all times.

The whole place is crazy, but damn if it isn't holding together from the perspective of the people who actually run the joint.

14

^ 6

Re: A brief primer on NK military thought

tomc.

Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:46:10 AM EST

4.50 (funny, funny)

The Korean War never officially ended.

You're telling me.

They've played two episodes of it every night on TV for at least the past 30 years.

15

^ 6

Re: A brief primer on NK military thought

Thalia.

Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:56:38 AM EST

none

I'm curious how they can prevent the influence of radio as well.  The primary outside source of information in the formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe was shortwave radio, and Voice of America.  I do believe they also broadcast in Korea.  How do the North Koreans prevent reception?  Back in the communist days, we owned numerous radios, including one that lived in the bathroom and was only turned on when the shower was also on.  It received the BBC as well as Voice of America.

Thalia

19

^ 15

Re: A brief primer on NK military thought

ByeByeBaby.

Wed Oct 11, 2006 at 07:11:12 AM EST

4.00 (interesting)

When I arrived, my bags were thoroughly searched (and you haven't lived until you've had your bags thoroughly searched by North Korean customs). I was bringing in some weird stuff, too -- a dialysis machine and a few days' supply of dialysis fluid -- and they only seemed concerned about the possibility of me having a cell phone or a GPS. You have to check your cell phones when you enter the country, for instance. I'm told that they jam signals from the South along the border as well.

And, yeah, the government is the only source of radios or TVs, so they all come pre-tuned. Even if some Western ones came across, the whole country is apparently based on spying on your neighbour, so it would be hard to use them without getting turned in. And, of course, North Korean TV is a sight to behold; propaganda movies, then propaganda news, then propaganda documentaries, then more propaganda movies. Sort of like if Fox News also showed The Green Berets, really.

16

^ 15

Re: A brief primer on NK military thought

Shy Elf.

Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:16:43 AM EST

none

From the BBC:

Radio and TV sets in North Korea are pre-tuned to government stations that pump out a steady stream of propaganda....Ordinary North Koreans caught listening to foreign broadcasts risk harsh punishments, such as forced labour.
I've heard it suggested that we should drop short-wave radios on Iran, where it would have no effect.  In North Korea that might actually work, eventually.

17

^ 15

Re: A brief primer on NK military thought

3fingerspointback.

Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 03:28:49 AM EST

none

All legal radios are preset to government channels only, and sealed.  If you want to live dangerously, these can be hacked, or you can get an open radio smuggled from China.  NK also attempts to jam foreign stations.  Reporters Without Borders has an overview.

(is 3fingerspointback)

2

^ 1

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

MayorBob.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:51:54 AM EST

3.50

My belief is that the North Koreans fear becoming irrelevant unless they have the ability to yank the big dog's chain.  As late as Saturday, I believe, the North Koreans were telling the Chinese they would agree to call off the test if the US agreed to bilateral discussions.  Then, the very next day, they go and blow off a nuke.  Confusing doesn't quite describe the North Korean moves.

Their strategy is likely aimed at being able to get the US to concede to sit down with them and them alone.  I'm not sure what beyond that goal they have in mind.  It's as if they have said "here, see we're truly crazy enough to test one -- now if you don't pay attention we might just lob one over the border to our brothers to the south or the Japanese, whatever gets us more attention."  The question being, what response can we possibly have if they do the unthinkable?  

Illegitimi non carborundum.

8

^ 2

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

rombuu.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 09:44:50 AM EST

none

The question being, what response can we possibly have if they do the unthinkable?  

Oh, I'd imagine the whole region would glow in the dark for a while.  While they may act someone unbalanced at times, I don't think they have a suicide wish.

9

^ 8

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

port1080.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:07:28 AM EST

5.00

The problem is, deterrence isn't (at least in theory) always going to be successful. You have the problem of the stability / instability paradox - i.e. the notion that countries with nuclear weapons cannot use them on each other, due to their obscene destructiveness, and are therefore free to fight conventionally against each other. Pakistan used this notion as cover to launch attacks against India in 1999. Even if you argue that the stability / instability paradox is incorrect, as long as the DRPK leadership thinks it is correct we have the possibility of conventional war breaking out on the peninsula, which could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. Is it so difficult to imagine that the DPRK might think that since it has nukes, the US would do nothing if the DPRK attacked or invaded the south? If world sanctions pressure the regime enough, an invasion of the south might even start looking like a good idea. There is a long tradition of research which suggests that it becomes much more difficult for leaders to act rationally when they face high pressure situations (such as those caused by war or crisis). In those cases, the DPRK leadership might just convince itself that using a nuke is necessary...and then all bets are off.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

10

^ 8

Re: Heating up the Korean Peninsula?

Lou.

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 10:13:22 AM EST

4.00

I don't think they have a suicide wish.

I agree.  But there is still a little tremor of doubt there.  This whole thing has me thinking about power.  Why do powerful people do stupid shit?  Because they think they won't get caught.  Foley, Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, Ken Lay et al and all the rest.  People at Kim Jong Il's level (or at least the oligarch's that support him) may really believe they won't suffer the consequences.  Hubris?  Cluelessness?  Insanity? Who knows?  So while they probably don't have a death wish, they may see themselves uncatchable or beyond consequences.  For me, that's the scarier scenario.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

18

^ 10

Big Bang theory

nmiguy.

Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 09:41:22 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

Lou, add to the fact that Kim Jong Il has been reported to be suffering health problems.  If he thinks he is about to die anyway, he may want to bring down North Korea as well and go out with a bang.

Committing suicide may seem irrational to you or I, but not to someone who is ill and debilitated and treated as a God.  He has the reputation of being a cruel dictator.  He has shown no love for his people or country, only his power and legacy.  He may not be crazy, per se, he may be apathetic, and wishing just to do his enemies harm as he exits this life.  Go out with a bang.  A BIG Bang.

This story: 28 comments (0 from subqueue)
Post a Comment