North Korea: from pest to menace

Last week Saturday the first 5 minutes of NPR’s “Wait, Wait…Don’t tell me!” took aim at one of many bizarre threats by North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un to wipe out specific locations, including: Washington D.C., Los Angeles and …. Austin, Texas. (!?!)

The Wait Wait cast was off and running: why did Austin made the list? Does North Korea have it in for hipster cowboys and alt-country music? Should other trendy cities start worrying, or take offense at being ignored? (Portland, Oregon must be next!)

Cast member Peter Grosz jested about the difference location makes, saying: “I used to live in Los Angeles. If I still lived there, I would be legitimately, possibly, almost scared. And on the east coast, I’d be like, I’m just going to see what happens.”

So much levity. Unfortunately, it is a deadly serious situation that keeps escalating.

My parents and siblings live in Hawaii. I’ll be there myself for a visit later this month. Naturally, I’ve been interested in maps that show the predicted range of North Korean missiles system such as this one from CNN. (Note the difference in reach between tested and untested delivery systems.) I sure hope the experts are right when they say Hawaii and the 48 contiguous U.S. states are not in proven/reliable range – yet.

No, the “only” places that have to worry are South Korea and the tens of thousands of U.S. military there, plus Japan, maybe Guam and maybe parts of Alaska. Enough places and people to cause untold suffering and some sort of major war –  just what we need right now, right?

I began this post Thursday morning. By that afternoon more news stories erupted over something new to worry about – maybe. As covered in the New York Times:

The report issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency last month was titled “Dynamic Threat Assessment 8099: North Korea Nuclear Weapons Program.” Its executive summary reads: “D.I.A. assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles; however the reliability will be low.”

By Friday there was much media discussion asking if that assessment was true, or not. And if that unclassified section of a still-classified report should have been released, or not. And more strong statements that North Korea should not test another missile, which they very well might do anyway, and soon. By Saturday there was even a guest op-ed in the NYT, calling for a targeted pre-emptive strike.

The Korean crisis has now become a strategic threat to America’s core national interests. The best option is to destroy the North Korean missile on the ground before it is launched. The United States should use a precise airstrike to render the missile and its mobile launcher inoperable.

The regular editorial board at the Times offered a more measured column that asked if there was any cohesive, effective way to respond, which is the $64,000 question, isn’t it? At least one reader (Porter from Sarasota FL) commented the escalating tension sounded all too familiar:

A fair number of readers commented that maybe North Korea should simply be ignored. Let China, Japan and South Korea sort it out. 

While going over maps and graphics, here’s an article from Canada’s National Post that says nukes or no nukes, North Korea is a prickly, highly-armed customer.

With the world staring down the barrel of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal, intercontinental missiles, and biological and chemical weapons, sane people might be wondering why no one has started bombing them yet? The answer is simple.

The repercussions would be disastrous. While North Korean arms are mostly antiquated, much of it dating back half a century, what they lack in modernity they make up for in both volume and location.

Most of the Post article is devoted to a graphical representation of what’s in North Korea’s arsenal, from a surprisingly big navy and air force, to a large standing army that could also mobilize up to 3.5 million reservists in defense of the homeland.

It’s easy to be visually impressed by a sea of icons representing this many rocket launchers, etc. But it does boggle the mind.

I thought North Korea was a dirt poor nation with a terrorized, starving population. But I guess one can have a pretty impressive fleet of tanks if feeding your own flesh-and-blood people is a non-issue. It’s a horrifying display of channeling resources into militarization.

Perhaps it is all bluster. A bluff made of mirages with broken old equipment that can’t do much. Or perhaps North Korea is a force to be reckoned with, under the command of someone who may as well be mad, as far as other nations are concerned.

If only most of South Korea and parts of Japan were not the equivalents of available hostages in this stand-off. Then it might be easier to say “Enough of this”, or attempt yet another regime change. (As if we haven’t all learned to shudder when the words “regime change” get tossed around.)

In my family tree, throwing tantrums was a strategic error with no pay-offs to encourage more. Naturally my inner compass says nonsense should be not be tolerated internationally either. Only there’s a big difference between managing unruly – generally unarmed – children and containing a grown toddler who controls nukes and commands a serious army.

Where North Korea is concerned, do you see any solution? Or just another huge mess we can’t seem to steer around?

Tags: Kim Jong-un, military strategy, North Korea, nuclear proliferation