August 2006

Nuclear Attacks are Inevitable

For well over two and a half years, North Korea has obstructed the six party talks aimed at encouraging the reclusive state to renounce its nuclear weapons programme. Each successive round of the six party talks that include the United States, China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan has ended in failure as Kim Jong-Il’s regime has remained defiant and mercurial. Tensions have continued to build throughout this long and difficult process, culminating with North Korea’s test on July 4, 2006 of seven missiles including the Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of up to 3,500 miles. Since then, the world has scrambled to respond to this event that destabilizes world peace, particularly in the Asia Pacific region.

North Korea’s most flagrant and bold act of disregard for international agreements further illustrates the true nature of Kim Jong-Il’s regime. When international attention focused more intensely on the showdown with Iran, Kim Jong-Il embarked on actions that, like a little child begging for attention, would inevitably reignite heightened interest in his own regime. Despite broad international consensus and encouragement not to test missiles, North Korea pressed ahead with little regard for its obligations under various international agreements and international diplomacy. This is further testament to Kim Jong-Il’s systematic contemptuous, attention getting behaviour—behaviour that should indicate that neither he nor his regime can be trusted in any way.

It is quite helpful to review some of the most important events that have led up to this recent missile test. The following timeline was compiled by the BBC and is accessible on the BBC’s website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2604437.stm).

October 2002—Assistant Secretary of State visits Pyongyang during which time the regime admits to having a nuclear programme for energy and a missiles programme. This is clearly in defiance of a 1994 Agreed Framework developed by the Clinton Administration, which provided North Korea with two light water nuclear power reactors and oil shipments in exchange for abandoning its nuclear programme. Kim Jong-Il agrees to allow international weapons inspectors to check suspected nuclear facilities.
November 2002—North Korea issues a statement that may acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons. There is some confusion over whether the statement says North Korea “has” nuclear weapons or “is entitled to have” nuclear weapons.
December 2002—North Korea refuses to allow international inspectors to visit its nuclear facilities. U.S. authorities detain a ship bound for Yemen that contains North Korean Scud missiles. North Korea begins removing the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) monitoring devices from the Yongbyon plant where it is later confirmed by the UN that there are 1,000 fuel rods that could be used to make plutonium.
January 2003—North Korea announces that it will withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
February 2003—North Korea threatens preemptive strikes on American forces in the region should the United States increase its troop levels there. IAEA refers North Korean nuclear matter to the UN Security Council. North Korea test fires a missile into the sea between South Korea and Japan.
March 2003—North Korea test fires a second missile into the sea.
April 2003—The United Nations Security Council expresses concern about North Korea's nuclear programme, but fails to condemn Pyongyang for pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Talks begin in Beijing between the US and North Korea, hosted by China. American officials say Pyongyang has told them that it now has nuclear weapons, after the first direct talks for months between the US and North Korea in Beijing end a day early.
May 2003—North Korea says it is scrapping a 1992 agreement with the South to keep the peninsula free from nuclear weapons - Pyongyang's last remaining international agreement on non-proliferation.
June 2003—North Korea says publicly that it will build a nuclear deterrent, "unless the US gives up its hostile policy.”
August 2003—North Korea agrees to six-way talks on its nuclear programme.
October 2003—North Korea announces publicly it has reprocessed some 8,000 spent fuel rods and indicates that it will "physically display" its nuclear deterrent. North Korea later agrees to resume talks on the nuclear crisis, after saying it is prepared to consider the U.S. offer of a security guarantee in return for ending its nuclear programme.
December 2003—North Korea offers to "freeze" its nuclear programme in return for a list of concessions from the US. It says that unless Washington agrees, it will not take part in further talks. The US rejects North Korea's offer.
January 2004—An unofficial U.S. team visits what North Korea calls its "nuclear deterrent" facility at Yongbyon. U.S. nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker tells Congress that the delegates visiting Yongbyon were shown what appeared to be weapons-grade plutonium, but he did not see any evidence of a nuclear bomb.
February 2004—Second round of six nation talks end without breakthrough in Beijing.
May 2003—The UN atomic agency is reported to be investigating allegations that North Korea secretly sent uranium to Libya when Tripoli was trying to develop nuclear weapons.
June 2003—Third round of six nation talks held in Beijing, with the U.S. making a new offer to allow North Korea fuel aid if it freezes then dismantles its nuclear programmes.
July 2004—North Korea rejects US suggestions that it follow Libya's lead and give up its nuclear ambitions, calling the US proposal a "daydream."
September 2004—North Korea says it has turned plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods into nuclear weapons. Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su-hon said the weapons were needed for "self-defence" against "U.S. nuclear threat."
February 2005—North Korea says it is suspending its participation in the talks over its nuclear programme for an "indefinite period", blaming the Bush administration's intention to "antagonise, isolate and stifle it at any cost." The statement also repeats North Korea's assertion to have built nuclear weapons for self-defence.
May 2005—North Korea test fires a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan, on the eve of a meeting of members of the international Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea says it has completed extraction of spent fuel rods from Yongbyon, as part of plans to "increase its nuclear arsenal."
July 2005—South Korea offers the North huge amounts of electricity as an incentive to end its nuclear weapons programme. The fourth round of six-nation talks begins in Beijing.
September 2005—In what is initially hailed as an historic joint statement, North Korea agrees to give up all its nuclear activities and rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the US says it had no intention of attacking. North Korea later says it will not scrap its nuclear programme until it is given a civilian nuclear reactor, undermining the joint statement and throwing further talks into doubt.
July 3, 2006—Washington dismisses a threat by North Korea that it will launch a nuclear strike against the U.S. in the event of an American attack, as a White House spokesman described the threat as "deeply hypothetical."
July 4, 2006—North Korea test-fires at least six missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2, despite repeated warnings from the international community.
July 5, 2006—North Korea test-fires a seventh missile, despite international condemnation of its earlier launches.

These events should clearly highlight the following:

· Kim Jong-Il has been riding circles around those nations engaged in the six party talks, continually stalling for time as it seeks to perpetuate its nuclear weapons programme.

· Withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty indicates that Kim Jong-Il has no intention of abandoning his aggressive and diabolical nuclear weapons programme. He will continue to seek longer range missiles capable of reaching deep into the continental United States. He will use this nuclear weapons programme to supplement his military, already the fifth largest in the world with 1.2 million troops and 7.7 million reserves.

· Kim Jong-Il will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against any nation by which he feels threatened, including South Korea, Japan, and the United States.

· He cannot be trusted to uphold any agreement that he has ever made or that his predecessor made, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the 1991 Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korea Peninsula, IAEA safeguards agreement, and the 1994 Geneva Accords (Agreed Framework).

· Any further efforts at diplomacy will ultimately fail, as Kim Jong-Il is not committed to successfully resolving this crisis in a peaceful manner.

Though it cannot be proven, it is highly likely (based on the shipment of Scud missiles to Yemen) that Kim Jong-Il’s contempt for the West, and particularly the United States, would lead him to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists, organizations that sponsor terrorists, or nations that harbour and support terrorists. This is particularly likely if he feels that his regime is threatened by military force or even sanctions imposed unilaterally by the United States, multi-laterally by other nations, or via the United Nations Security Council. In addition, he has indicated that he may use his weapons in preemptive strikes against U.S. or other military forces in the region.

Like the situation in Iran, North Korea will remain defiant regardless of the amount of international pressure placed upon the regime. To be sure, Kim Jong-Il, unlike his counterparts in Iran, is not a religious fanatic who puts this issue in terms of one civilization against another. Nor does he profess and subscribe to the ideals of Islamic extremists that if you are not of their faith, you are an infidel and, therefore, you must die. Kim Jong-Il is merely a ruthless dictator whose tyrannical rule leaves millions of North Koreans living in poverty and starvation and fear. His quest is to blackmail the world with his nuclear weapons in order to secure as many concessions possible—concessions that will ensure his dictatorial regime remains in tact and that his stranglehold on power in his reclusive state is never weakened but only strengthened. He seeks financial gain at the expense of his people, who remain oppressed and deprived of many of the basic human liberties that we in America and throughout the West agree upon. Like the Islamic extremists, however, he shares a fundamental disdain for human rights, democracy, freedom and liberties for their peoples.

But just as appeasement did not satisfy Hitler, appeasing Kim Jong-Il and making generous concessions will only embolden him further. He will always seek more and more from the West, and he will never be satisfied with any amount of concessions. Ultimately, he too will aggressively seek more—whether it be an invasion of South Korea or an assault on Japan or the United States. Nuclear capabilities make him all the more dangerous and unpredictable, particularly in light of his past behaviour and flip-flopping on various issues.

President Bush was right to include North Korea with Iran and Iraq as part of an “Axis of Evil.” Though the world knows that there are many atrocities with his regime, we are largely ignorant of the extent of these atrocities. To be sure, there are undoubtedly as many or more torture chambers in North Korea as there were in Iraq. The dangers posed by Kim Jong-Il’s regime to the peace and stability of the region and, indeed, the world is even greater than that posed by the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein and equally as dangerous as that posed by Iran and Islamic extremists. The world must not underestimate this and must join together in addressing these matters forcefully and finally.

North Korea has already declared that imposition of sanctions will be considered an act of war. But this must be the first step. They have continued a nuclear programme, despite international concerns, and they have withdrawn from the respected and widely-accepted Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They defied international consensus and fired seven missiles. The world should use this opportunity to impose strict sanctions, with or without the support of Communist countries such as Russia and China, and warn the North Korean regime that continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities will not be tolerated. Thinking Outside the Boxe believes that the sanctions will be ineffective in stopping North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme and will only further embolden Kim Jong-Il. Furthermore, Thinking Outside the Boxe believes that a foreign policy of containment, such as that proposed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and used during the Cold War, will not be effective in the case of North Korea, which is likely to retain economic support from fellow Communists Russia and China, and will also embolden the reclusive state.

Thinking Outside the Boxe believes that the launch of seven missiles on July 4, 2006 is indicative of the threat of North Korea and was provocation for an attack on North Korea’s nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, such an attack on North Korea’s nuclear facilities may prompt an invasion or an attack on South Korea or Japan. Such event would have severe and significant consequences and would, undoubtedly, lead to another war on the Korean peninsula. Therefore, Thinking Outside the Boxe believes that the only way around this is to drop one or more nuclear bombs on North Korea, in hopes of destroying both their nuclear capabilities and their leadership, including Kim Jong-Il.

Such a strategy would have two purposes. First, the dangerous regime of Kim Jong-Il in North Korea would be removed. The United Nations could then begin the process of forming a new, democratic regime in North Korea with the goal of lifting the country out of decades of poverty and oppression, giving the people of North Korea hope for a better life. Second, this would serve as a reminder why nuclear weapons should be reduced and eliminated. The world has largely forgotten those sixty seconds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945, respectively. The despotic leaders of rogue nations who seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction cannot comprehend the power of nuclear weapons and what wide-spread devastation and destruction those weapons are capable of inflicting. Perhaps it is time we remind the world of this. Third, using a nuclear weapon upon North Korea would likely set a precedent to other nations, such as Iran, that are aggressively seeking development of nuclear weapons. As we are the only nation in history that has used a nuclear weapon upon another nation, why would we be afraid of using these weapons again? Though some suggest this would only spark more intense hatred and embolden those other regimes seeking nuclear weapons, Thinking Outside the Boxe contends that this would clearly show them their own fate should they continue to pursue nuclear weapons programmes. In the interests of self-preservation, they may think twice about their nuclear ambitions. Should they continue to pursue nuclear weapons in spite of international consensus to the contrary, they would be subject to the same painful lessons as North Korea.

Whilst it may seem that Thinking Outside the Boxe is warmongering, we maintain that preemptive action against rogue regimes that are a threat to U.S. and world security is the most appropriate course of action and is justified. We do not relish the thought of using nuclear weapons. In fact, we see no reason for any nation to have nuclear weapons. However, the stark reality is that nuclear weapons, though dormant in use for over sixty years, will be used again in the near future—perhaps in the next decade—either by the United States in defence of world peace and security or by rogue nations or terrorists seeking to destroy the civilized world. Even French President Jacques Chirac has indicated that his nation will use its nuclear capabilities in defence if it is attacked. We must not be afraid to confront the challenges posed by North Korea, Iran, and Islamic extremists through firm, resolute action. The world must not shirk from its responsibilities in preserving peace and security. The time for talk is nearly ended. Now, we must act.