North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north-korea-now-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons-us-analysts-say/2017/08/08/e14b882a-7b6b-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.26853f6f9979

by rbanffy • 9 years ago

46 94 9 years ago

washingtonpost.com

cjsuk• 9 years ago

This is going to end in a war again.

smithmayowa• 9 years ago

why does it need to end in a war, to be frank I think the we in the west; ( particularly USA) should stop getting involved in every bodies business. The west is under a sorry ass illusion if we think other regions are not interested in acquiring their own nukes seeing as we have them, and thanks to our constant intervention around the world e.g Libya, non-allied world leader see nukes as their get out of western intervention ticket.

jordache• 9 years ago

This will be a very convenient narrative for the faltering Trump

mathperson7• 9 years ago

No it won't. The united states will never put boots on the ground against a nuclear capable state willing to use them. maybe it will end in a nuclear exchange by mistake..but if we (the human race) survived the cold war with a vastly more threatening posture this will be fine in the end.

TomMarius• 9 years ago

The big difference is that back in the day, the opposing side was consisting of fairly reasonable people.

icefo• 9 years ago

I read a bit about North Korea and it seems that no one wants to do something because should the regime fall, you'd have to deal with North Korea's population that is largely uneducated and believes in all Kim's propaganda.

I wonder if Kim will be able to obtain what he wants (money ?) by threatening other countries.

Still, I hope I'm wrong and that China, South Korea and the US will cooperate to put an end to Kim's regime.

Koshkin• 9 years ago

largely uneducated

To be fair, according to Wikipedia, "Education in North Korea is universal and state-funded schooling by the government. The national literacy rate for citizens at age of 15 and older is 100 percent (approx.)."

believes in all Kim's propaganda

How do you know?

neves• 9 years ago

The Washington Post usually is the official voice the USA Gov. Can someone tell my why the allegations this time are different than Saddam's WMD?

alva2• 9 years ago

A very worthwhile thing to question. I think I am more likely to believe the accusations as they have been reaffirmed by those who are "on NKs side". China and Russia have confirmed the various missile and nuclear tests, despite having a strong incentive to dismiss them.

em3rgent0rdr• 9 years ago

Well externally measurable events such as actual nuclear tests are easier to verify that allegedly covert operations. And it helps when NK publicly documents successful tests in their media.

hyperbovine• 9 years ago

In the runup to the Iraq war there was a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein did not even have an active WMD program, or stockpiled WMDs, and had not since probably the mid-90s. In contrast, there is universal agreement that NK has a highly active WMD program and the ambition to possess a big threatening nuclear arsenal.

jonknee6• 9 years ago

North Korea proudly talks about their nuclear program and has tested it extensively. Nuclear tests are globally verifiable in ways that chemical weapons are not.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/earthquakes-north-korea-...

ge96• 9 years ago

I wonder if there are geosynchronous orbital strike platforms aimed at North Korea you know those God's rods. Maybe they are more effective when in low earth orbit higher kinetic energy.

Edit: seeing that one autonmous vehicle that landed after being in orbit for 2 years wow.

Edit: I will admit I am ignorant to politics, in general a dim, barely lit bulb. I don't get the whole thing, not care about his people, yet they get aid from outside. I could understand the "bully" or "ominous threat" the outside world nuclear threat. Wanting your own to be sure you're safe. But the thought that you'd risk your own country but hey what does he have to lose. I saw that copy of OSX.

Also sound conspiracy but I've never been there myself. I'd like a real time satellite stream of North Korea or something. I just see what is in the media/assume it is true. Not much of a "deep web" user to "find the truth" haha. I don't know I'm a sheep. Nothing.

etaty• 9 years ago

Well, with so much effort to isolate North Korea and bring them on the path of war with repeated threat, I would not expect less from them. And knowing the past history of the USA in deescalating conflict, I would expect war at some point.

throwasehasdwi2• 9 years ago

Well, North korea has been working on nukes for like 40 years and there hasn't been a war yet so I don't think the US is as eager as you think.

You don't see anything wrong with a madman in a country always on the edge of collapse that's constantly threatening to turn the USA into a crater having nuclear weapons?

Kimmy is over there threatening to bomb out the US and Japan and put everyone's heads on pikes pretty much weekly. I don't recall even our crazy fucker president Trump saying anything remotely close to that.

bitL3• 9 years ago

It's different if you have baby nukes you can't launch, and if you have MIRV ICBMs with mastered launch from submarines; i.e. one submarine capable of wiping out the whole west coast. There was recent noise that NK is testing (so far unsuccessfully) submarine launch for their new ICBMs; once they are successful, it stops being kindergarten stuff but a global issue.

philipodonnell• 9 years ago

Yeah, but they're always just threats, that's kind of the point for him. Its always for the audience at home.

Prevailing wisdom seems to be that Kim treats nuclear weapons as an important deterrent from invasion, not a first-strike weapon. The US doesn't have much appetite for invasions atm, so the chances the missiles will ever be fired is pretty remote even if he does have them.

malnourish• 9 years ago

The question is will it be much of a war?

throwaway91111• 9 years ago

It will be to South Korea. Millions would die.

jonknee6• 9 years ago

The effort to isolate North Korea is mutual. They're not exactly itching to join the global community.

AndrewZM• 9 years ago

And here it goes... Someone (guess who) definitely needs a new war to distract people from his own problems.

readams• 9 years ago

For those unfamiliar with how intractable this problem really is, this article provides an excellent summary: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-wor...

jseliger• 9 years ago

A useful link. Boiled down, there are really two options: attack NK or leave them to slowly but surely advance missiles and warheads. The former is a bad idea because it is likely that millions of people will die, most of them in South Korea. The latter is a bad idea because it may mean that millions will die in the future.

But war is not inevitable, anymore than it was with the Soviet Union, and it's possible that the regime will eventually collapse. So rather than pursuing the near-guaranteed path, we delay and hope.

JustAnotherPat3• 9 years ago

How many general secretaries of the Soviet Union fed their opponents to dogs or blew them up with missiles? Short of somebody poisoning Kim Jong-un while he sleeps, I don't see a conflict free regime change or collapse.

shahar2k• 9 years ago

and wouldn't a regime collapse mean looser controls on who has access to said nuclear weapons, and where they end up? like the Soviet Union.

jasonlaramburu• 9 years ago

What about getting Trump and Kim in a room together to hash it out? Seems like the best option for all parties.

jessriedel4• 9 years ago

Seems strange to not mention leaving 25M people in abject poverty under a dictatorship for half a century.

ankushnarula• 9 years ago

The author of the article, Mark Bowden, was interviewed by Sam Harris on his podcast: https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/must-we-accept-a-nucl...

To call this problem intractable is an understatement.

ericfrederich• 9 years ago

... for loose interpretations of the word summary ;-)

jonknee6• 9 years ago

The Economist has a piece in the current issue about how war with North Korea could develop without either side wanting it. It's worth a read:

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21725763-everyone-wo...

Mr Trump, however, was undaunted. He tweeted: “Nuke attack on Seoul by evil Kim was BAD! Had no choice but to nuke him back. But thanks to my actions, America is safe again!”

dbatten• 9 years ago

The uncomfortable conclusion I've come to recently: the world (and especially the US) has come to terms with a nuclear-armed North Korea being the least bad option in this whole ordeal. Sure, we still need to pass sanctions and throw around words like "unacceptable" a lot for PR purposes. But we've ultimately accepted that there's nothing we can do to stop Kim from getting nukes that doesn't involve laying waste to most of the Korean peninsula, a massive refugee crisis, and the potential that the conflict will already go nuclear.

bitL3• 9 years ago

I frankly doubt so. The same problem will happen with Iran within 10-20 years. Either USA resigns on maintaining its own safety/defense or it will use NK as a beta-test for all future wars. With SU you could have still expected rational actors; these days it seems like insanity is the new normal and future looks unstable.

bitL3• 9 years ago

I am just wondering - if this were a computer game, it would be like the last moment when I still could strike the enemy to wipe out their capabilities before they acquire the capability to hit me and cause unreasonable damage.

So this looks to me like war is unavoidable as after NK manages to get ICBM/MIRV/submarine launch done, nobody would be able to stop them ever again (baring some virus) and they could ramp up their requirements. While having nuke capability as means to prevent an invasion is understandable, the question is if other nuclear powers would like to invite another member (I doubt so).

bluthru4• 9 years ago

"The Libyan disarmament issue was peacefully resolved on December 2003 when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi agreed to eliminate his country's weapons of mass destruction program, including a decades-old nuclear weapons program."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_Libya

US foreign policy has shown that the only leverage you have is nukes. Libya disarmed and the government was still overthrown because Gaddafi threatened to start a new gold-backed African currency.

scottLobster3• 9 years ago

Actually US foreign policy is demonstrating right now that large conventional forces are an equally effective deterrent. If they weren't we would have overthrown North Korea by now, given the continuous threats they've made over the years.

Also perhaps I'm just a "sheep" but I'm pretty sure the Libyan people didn't rebel over a theoretical currency change. Or was that a CIA job like 9/11? /sarcasm

bluthru4• 9 years ago

Actually US foreign policy is demonstrating right now that large conventional forces are an equally effective deterrent.

I don't understand your point. North Korea has had nuclear bombs for over a decade.

Also perhaps I'm just a "sheep" but I'm pretty sure the Libyan people didn't rebel over a theoretical currency change.

Of course not, but it was a reason for us to care. Lose the attitude. It's obvious you're not familiar with this topic:

https://news.vice.com/article/libyan-oil-gold-and-qaddafi-th...

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/09/20/349549267/w...

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_bac...

samfriedman• 9 years ago

For those who want more of this "analysts' insight", I can heartily recommend the blog and podcast, Arms Control Wonk [0]. The researchers and experts there work to perform analysis into most new missile launches in the interest of non-proliferation.

Since the recent ramp-up of NK missile tests, I've found their writing and (largely less formal) podcasting extremely interesting and valuable both as an expert opinion on the capabilities of NK (and other proto-nuclear states), and as a look into the research that feeds journalism like this piece.

[0] http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/

grandalf4• 9 years ago

It is strongly in N. Korea's interest to develop nuclear weapons. NK is acting highly rationally in every respect.

I simply can't handle the statements from US officials accusing Kim Jong-un of being "insane" or "irrational". That sort of nonsense is an indication that there is a propaganda story being told.

The real question is why the US keeps blustering about N. Korea and why US hawks keep fanning the flames.

US sanctions have helped NK become an insular place where reality is distorted and basic famine prevents much dissent from occurring.

There is absolutely zero reason to have any trust/faith in US leaders who are calling for the same hawkish nonsense that they did about Iraq, Lybia, Syria, etc. It simply doesn't work and it costs the US tremendous amounts of money to effectively genocide those populations with "pre-emptive strikes".

Like playground bullies, US politicians need small countries to push around to make themselves feel powerful. Sadly the real message that is being sent is that if you want the US to back off nukes are an absolute necessity.

We in the US need to realize that when we allow our leaders to do wars, sanctions, and bombing campaigns we are complicit in the massive amount of suffering those policies cause.

We should be truly confident that such policies are sensible and not get caught up in the simplistic narratives they offer us. Just say no!

npiazza83• 9 years ago

Watch me make a grand jury disappear.

mathperson7• 9 years ago

Honestly there have been efforts to bring north korea back into the fold (in regards to keep fanning the flames)..see the Sunshine Policy see the Kaesong Industrial Region see the Six-Party Talks. These have been largely ineffective and in some cases ended in North Korean military action (see Cheonan). It hasn't been all sanctions and war and bombing. It sometimes takes two to tango...

jacobolus• 9 years ago

It’s also “highly rational” for the NK leadership to run a autocratic dictatorship, brutally crack down on dissidents, leave the nation’s people starving, and shut off most contact with the outside world. The regime seems unlikely to survive any dramatic change in political order.

Bill Clinton’s administration tried a much more conciliatory approach, but it’s not like the North Koreans have been especially cooperative partners in renormalizing relations and deescalating the conflict over the past few decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

Overall it’s a very tough situation for the US, because NK could do catastopic damage to South Korea and maybe Japan in the event of a war, but in their current political position NK has little reason to negotiate in good faith.

ordu• 9 years ago

It’s also “highly rational” for the NK leadership to run a autocratic dictatorship, brutally crack down on dissidents...

Maybe it is rational. NK situation is very fragile. To keep it they need to minimize risks of some riots or disobedience to the government. I think you are confusing terms "moral behaviour" and "rational behaviour". One can be completely immoral and at the same time highly rational.

Bill Clinton’s administration tried a much more conciliatory approach, but it’s not like the North Koreans have been especially cooperative partners in renormalizing relations and deescalating the conflict over the past few decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

Maybe I misunderstood something but article you are referring to claims that US take their part in breaking the agreement. I reason from that, that blaming NK in breaking an agreement and marking NK as uncooperative and unwilling to deescalate is just wrong.

in their current political position NK has little reason to negotiate in good faith.

NK has a lot of reasons to negotiate. But NK cannot let itself to show weakness in initiating negotiations and taking one-sided deescalation steps. Its the rules of deescalation. Peaceful process of deescalation can be initiated by strongest side only, and at least first steps should be reciprocal and reciprocal not on the paper but in reality too, judging by results of that steps. If weakest party try to start it would be the sign of weakness, sign of relying on mercy, and the result of such a try might be the reverse -- futher escalation from strongest in hope that weakest just die from terror and drops all his claims. If weakest party start deescalating it would bury all his hope for some sort of compromise.

scottLobster3• 9 years ago

North Korea is highly rational? If they get a nuclear missile we'll really find out. Their overblown threats can be tolerated as long as their capabilities remain conventional, as US/South Korea has substantial conventional defenses in the region. If they start making the same threats with viable nuclear missiles, how can we not take them seriously? Or should we just normalize countries threatening to nuke each others' major cities?

Also, the US committed genocide in Iraq/Lybia/Syria? Just goes to show you how little people know of history. I'm pretty sure the US killed many times more Germans and Japanese in WWII and no one accuses us of "Genocide" there, because by the definition of the word it wasn't. And it sure as hell isn't in Iraq/Libya/Syria. Hell what have we actually done in Syria besides provide support to some native factions, launch a few cruise missiles, some air strikes, and some special forces operations? If that's genocide then we're going to need a new term for the holocaust.

Reminds me of the BBC broadcast talking to the Somali ambassador about recent US drone strikes against Al-Shabbab and civilian casualties. The interviewer seemed aghast that the ambassador actually supported the strikes in the face of civilian casualties. The ambassador responded that they were at war, and if they'd sent in conventional ground forces the civilian casualties would have been much worse.

People in the west seem to have forgotten the nature of war. I sometimes wonder if western populations would have the will to fight Russia if they invaded Lithuania or something.

grandalf4• 9 years ago

I sometimes wonder if western populations would have the will to fight Russia if they invaded Lithuania or something.

Let's hope not. I certainly don't think it's worth anyone I know dying to protect Lithuania from Russian aggression. But anyone in Lithuania who wants to immigrate to the US should be welcomed.

People in the west seem to have forgotten the nature of war.

We haven't forgotten, it's kept hidden from us by officials who do drone strikes and secret raids. War should be abundantly obvious. What we are doing is more appropriately called terrorism because it's focused violence intended to instill fear in people to achieve a specific political outcome. In many cases the desired outcome is removing a leader from power so that one of the militia groups who oppose him can take power, but with little thought to the consequences.

War is obvious and any brave citizen would likely be happy to fight in an actual war that was necessary to defend his or her homeland! What we do today is simply not war, it's high tech terrorism and political meddling.

I'm pretty sure the US killed many times more Germans and Japanese in WWII and no one accuses us of "Genocide" there...

This is a straw man. Even if we assume WW2 was perfectly justified it is perhaps arguable that the US used "just enough" force to win. But if you consider the many civilians killed in Japan both through nukes and fire bombing of the mainland, is it really fair to say that the US killing of civilians weren't war crimes? We spend extra money (smart bombs, etc.) to make our war morally clean. But we didn't do that in WW2, we killed as many civilians as we could to break the will of the Japanese to keep fighting.

That sort of moral/economic tradeoff is why we consider a $50 suicide vest morally abhorrent and a $1M smart bomb acceptable, so by that standard the US committed massive war crimes in WW2. To win the war without crimes, kill only soldiers, period.

We've had decades of propaganda telling us that the US was heroic in that war, but war is ugly and men had to be drafted (mostly poor people) to fight a war they didn't consent to.

The difference with the modern stuff is that the US foments political chaos in countries and intentionally escalates violence. The net effect of this is that more and more fighting age people die off. It's hard to say that the massive number of Iraqi civilians killed isn't a useful byproduct of the US invasion. Sooner or later the people are simply psychologically broken from all the loss of life and chaos around them. The US strives to create this situation around the world. It has nothing to do with American values, freedom, enlightenment values, etc., and is simply about creating compliant people in oil producing regions.

The worst part of all this is that oil is likely to decline so much in importance in the next 30 years that US "investments" in all this middle east chaos is perhaps the most outrageous misallocation of capital in the history of the world. If you believe oil is going to be highly relevant and extremely scarce for 1000 years then perhaps the invasions are economically prudent, but we've got at best a few decades during which to reap the spoils of Bush and Obama's war escapades. Money doesn't grow on trees, lots of people's paychecks and future security is being raided to pay for these wars, which are only weakening the US and propping up oil regimes and dictators, all for only a few years more internal combustion dominance.

Why does NK make threats? Because they work. That's rational. They are keeping the US at bay. Obviously if the US could launch a few hundred missiles on NK and make the problem go away it would have done so long ago.

merpnderp• 9 years ago

One of the reasons the US keeps "blustering" about N. Korea is S. Korea and Japan are extremely worried about a nuclear armed N. Korea. Likely because N. Korea has been conducting low level military actions against them over the last 50 years, abducting and killing civilians, firing artillery barrages, attacking and sinking military ships, all with the intent of blackmailing ransom payments.

Now N. Korea can only go so far with artillery barrages or sinking military ships before they face military retaliation. But once they are nuclear armed, they could bombard the suburbs of Seoul until a ransom was paid. Without fear of retaliation. Because they've already made it quite clear they really want to use their nuclear weapons, so pay up or get nuked.

So if the US backed off, S. Korea, Japan and likely every other country in the region would immediately acquire nuclear weapons. And either N. Korea stops its blackmail programs or a nuclear war breaks out.

methodover• 9 years ago

There are two options:

#1: Do not intervene. Continue to trust that NK changes course, but in all likelihood NK will continue to build up its arsenal.

#2: Destroy NK. Any arsenal that NK's built up will be unleashed.

It's a game of chicken. If option #2 were to come to pass tomorrow, that means heavy loss of life in South Korea and Japan. In a few more years, it might also mean a nuke in Los Angeles or San Francisco (though it's likely they have that technology even now). It seems possible that, eventually, NK gets to the point where it could become an existential threat to the United States, though this is probably a long way out.

If we never pull the trigger on option #2, would NK ever attack the United States or our allies? That's the big question. NK certainly threatens us, and our allies, all the time. If we're to believe their words, they will eventually strike. We're hoping that they're lying.

Would they respond to lifting sanctions, as you seem to suggest? So far, no, not really. We've lifted sanctions and improved relations in return for promises to turn away from their present course, and time and time again NK betrays their agreement and continues on anyway.

I'm all for doing whatever we can to have a prosperous future for Korea, the United States, and the rest of the world for that matter -- but I'm not so sure it's as black and white as you suggest. There are few good options when it comes to North Korea. Intervening now means an incredible amount of destruction. Yet if we wait, it means even worse destruction down the line. Then again, if we wait, perhaps NK changes course.

It's a horrible, horrible game.

loonattic• 9 years ago

Regardless of whether our nations are corrupt, it makes no sense to consider NK "rational" with all the... executing an official with an anti-aircraft gun because he fell asleep, the cult of personality... Un is volatile. But yeah, the sanctions are useless and just make everything worse. We should've already learned from WW2. Sanctions only helped the Nazi regime succeed.

Sangermaine8• 9 years ago

This is almost North Korean propaganda.

The real question is why the US keeps blustering about N. Korea and why US hawks keep fanning the flames.

North Korea fans the flames by its continued, calculated provocations. You're right in that they aren't crazy: this periodic activity is designed to elicit a response from the international community, and up until the 2000s this worked. Their provocations used to result in more aid being sent their way. They've become less effective in recent years.

US sanctions have helped NK become an insular place where reality is distorted and basic famine prevents much dissent from occurring.

No, the brutal and monstous Kim regime did that by establishing a totalitarian police state. It's wrong and frankly somewhat racist to strip every non-US actor of their agency.

Like playground bullies, US politicians need small countries to push around to make themselves feel powerful.

North Korea created the current situation when it attempted to conquer its southern neighbor and was forced back. It has created a nightmare state of total control explicitly built on a "military first" policy. It has routinely and repeatedly threatened to attack and destroy its neighbors South Korea and Japan. The idea that the US is just "bullying" this dangerous state is simply mad.

That's not to say they must be attacked. It's a very difficult situation where either the world attacks North Korea and millions die, or they let it stand and millions of North Koreans suffer while the regime builds up a nuclear arsenal.

And this ridiculous idea that North Korea needs nuclear weapons to keep the US out is equally absurd. The US doesn't invade North Korea today for the same reason it didn't do so for the 60 years since the end of the Korean War: NK doesn't need nuclear weapons to wreak massive devastation on South Korea. It has enough conventional weapons to make a war with North Korea, however short, utterly deadly. Nuclear weapons changes the game in that North Korea can now threaten Japan more fully, and can possibly even sell them.

If you're not a paid propaganda agent, you should be. You do good work.

grandalf4• 9 years ago

That's not to say they must be attacked.

So then what's the point of all the bluster and outrage?

up until the 2000s this worked.

It's apparently still working. The past administrations have each come into the picture claiming to finally be ready to do something about NK, but have simply continued the stupid bluster of their predecessors.

My prediction is that the US will offer to re-establish improved relations with NK if KJU steps down. This is the GWB strategy that worked so beautifully with Saddam Hussein.

Then, when KJU doesn't step down the US will have an excuse to do all the horrible stuff that should never have been seriously considered as an option, such as additional intervention, arms sales, surveillance, etc.

Nuclear weapons changes the game in that North Korea can now threaten Japan more fully, and can possibly even sell them.

I think you are forgetting about the mutually assured destruction that nukes offer. If NK uses a single nuclear weapon in an aggressive way its entire land mass would be obliterated within minutes. A rational leader (such as KJU) would simply not do that. He'll say all sorts of outrageous, Trump-like hyperbole, but he won't actually do anything. FWIW we all know that is how a rational leader would behave which is why US hawks try to convince us he's irrational or mentally ill.

The solution is for the US to offer unconditional carrots to facilitate engagement. Totalitarian regimes are aided by factors that make them more insular, and weakened by things like trade and foreign entanglements associated with it. The goal should not be to weaken KJU but to strengthen enough factions in NK who have peaceful long term interests.

US policy puts way too much emphasis on "regimes" and a black and white (frankly stupid) moralistic view. As the US abolitionist movement and other humanitarian movements should attest, regimes improve over time when economic activity creates many powerful interests to counteract the backward ones.

If we continue the horrible status quo on NK, we are much more likely to have accidents due to brinksmanship which could trigger nuclear war.

pyroinferno• 9 years ago

China would never allow it. A massive influx of SK/NK refugees would absolutely destroy their economy. They also do not want to give the US a reason to gain a stronger foothold in the East, especially with Trump, who has been very critical of China, as the current president.

North Korea now making missile-ready nuclear weapons, U.S. analysts say

Related Stories