Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
North Korea Now Miniaturizing Warheads for Their ICBMs
Well, this isn’t good.
North Korea has successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit inside its missiles, crossing a key threshold on the path to becoming a full-fledged nuclear power, U.S. intelligence officials have concluded in a confidential assessment.
The new analysis completed last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency comes on the heels of another intelligence assessment that sharply raises the official estimate for the total number of bombs in the communist country’s atomic arsenal. The U.S. calculated last month that up to 60 nuclear weapons are now controlled by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Some independent experts believe the number of bombs is much smaller.
The findings are likely to deepen concerns about an evolving North Korean military threat that appears to be advancing far more rapidly than many experts had predicted. U.S. officials last month concluded that Pyongyang is also outpacing expectations in its effort to build an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking cities on the American mainland.
The UN Security Council unanimously passed a new sanctions regime against North Korea which is expected to cut its export revenue by a third. This led Pyongyang, or course, to issue more threats:
“Packs of wolves are coming in attack to strangle a nation,” the North Korean statement said. “They should be mindful that the D.P.R.K.’s strategic steps accompanied by physical action will be taken mercilessly with the mobilization of all its national strength.”
Given Seoul’s 10 million residents are located just 35 miles from the demilitarized zone, all allied military options would be very bloody indeed. How do you recommend the US and its allies respond?
Published in Foreign Policy, Military
They could have it tomorrow if we give it to them. FedEx, when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight. :)
Accurate, but I think this would violate their Constitution.
Slippery. Here is Article 9 – apparently relevant. They seem to have a defense force already, so…
ARTICLE 9. (1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
Hard to argue that a nuclear weapon is “Defensive.” You could make some argument about deterrence or what have you, but then everybody gets to make that argument and suddenly Saudi Arabia, Iran and everybody else is going to have a nuke and things are going to spin out of control pretty quickly.
Don’t they? I thought the Saudis had a call on the Pakistani nukes and who knows what Iran has or doesn’t…
My suspicion is that if they do, they wouldn’t advertise it because they may be signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I can’t be bothered to look that up because nobody will actually enforce it, demonstrating that there is no such thing as “international law” but what we choose to enforce with warfare.
I believe that the generally understood definition of “Defensive” in Japan is they’re not allowed to have a force capable of strinking beyond their borders.
Apparently Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants to revise that part of their constitution by 2020.
Isn’t that going to happen eventually anyway? Non-Proliferation strikes me as more of a stalling tactic than any kind of permanent solution, over time the costs will go down and secrets are harder and harder to keep, especially in the age of hacking and cyberwarfare. More nations will secretly nuke up, and then their neighbors will nuke up as well to keep the strategic balance.
We association nukes with great powers, but actually tiny nations have the most to gain from going nuclear. If I were President of one of the Baltic republics, for instance, I’d be thinking a small nuclear arsenal is the only thing that’s going to deter Putin from invading my country and guarantee our independence long-term.
Wouldn’t starting an active front with NK be just as much of a violation of international law as starting a grey war?
No.
We still do not have a peace treaty with North Korea; technically that war is still ongoing. Either side can resume hostilities at any moment.
Also, “grey war” as I understand it, means sending your troops to the foreign country, but not wearing actual uniforms that identify them as lawful combatants. I’m pretty sure that violates the Geneva Convention.
There are many forms of gray war. I see it as any conflict with some level of deniability. That can include arming others with weapons etc…
Yes, I believe that is the case.
Yes, it’s idiotic for us to keep following these rules while at the same time giving full Geneva Convention protections (and access to civilian courts) to our enemies who don’t. I’d prefer we continue to follow the rules & fight honorably, and then treat those who do not (i.e. terrorists and other non-uniformed combatants) the way we used to treat spies & pirates.