Krauthammer: With North Korea, we do have cards to play


Given that Pyongyang has had nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles for more than a decade, why the panic now? Because North Korea is headed for a nuclear breakout. The regime has openly declared that it is racing to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the United States — and thus destroy an American city at a Kim Jong Un push of a button.

The North Koreans are not bluffing. They’ve made significant progress with solid-fuel rockets, which are more quickly deployable and thus more easily hidden and less subject to detection and pre-emption.

At the same time, Pyongyang has been steadily adding to its supply of nuclear weapons. Today it has an estimated 10 to 16. By 2020, it could very well have a hundred. (For context: the British are thought to have about 200.)

Hence the crisis. We simply cannot concede to Kim Jong Un the capacity to annihilate American cities.

Some will argue for deterrence. If it held off the Russians and the Chinese for all these years, why not the North Koreans? First, because deterrence, even with a rational adversary like the old Soviet Union, is never a sure thing. We came pretty close to nuclear war in October 1962.

And second, because North Korea’s regime is bizarre in the extreme, a hermit kingdom run by a weird, utterly ruthless and highly erratic god-king.

If not deterrence, then prevention. But how? The best hope is for China to exercise its influence and induce North Korea to give up its programs.

For years, the Chinese made gestures, but never did anything remotely decisive. They have their reasons. It’s not just that they fear a massive influx of refugees if the Kim regime disintegrates. It’s also that Pyongyang is a perpetual thorn in the side of the Americans, whereas regime collapse brings South Korea (and thus America) right up to the Yalu River.

So why would the Chinese do our bidding now?

For a variety of reasons.

— They don’t mind tension but they don’t want war.

— Chinese interests are being significantly damaged by the erection of regional missile defenses to counteract North Korea’s nukes.

— For China to do nothing risks the return of the American tactical nukes in South Korea, withdrawn in 1991.

— If the crisis deepens, the possibility arises of South Korea and, most importantly, Japan going nuclear themselves. The latter is the ultimate Chinese nightmare.

These are major cards America can play. Our objective should be clear.

Because Beijing has such a strong interest in the current regime, we could sweeten the latter offer by abjuring Korean reunification. This would not be Germany, where the communist state was absorbed into the West. We would accept an independent, but Finlandized, North.

Here we would guarantee that a new North Korea would be independent but always oriented toward China.

There are deals to be made. They may have to be underpinned by demonstrations of American resolve. A pre-emptive attack on North Korea’s nuclear facilities and missile sites would be too dangerous, as it would almost surely precipitate an invasion of South Korea with untold millions of casualties. We might, however, try to shoot down a North Korean missile in mid-flight to demonstrate both our capacity to defend ourselves and the futility of a North Korean missile force that can be neutralized technologically.

The Korea crisis is real and growing. But we are not helpless. We have choices. We have assets. It’s time to deploy them.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Letters to the editor: Feb. 23, 2018
Letters to the editor: Feb. 23, 2018

Re: Feb. 18 article, “Playing to an audience of one, Dan Patrick doesn’t need your approval.” The article did a good job capturing Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s lack of interest in good policies for our communities that government is supposed to oversee, like public education, transportation and water resources Instead, Patrick just...
Opinion: A case for small steps to fix a big gun problem
Opinion: A case for small steps to fix a big gun problem

In the effort to reduce gun violence, or gun massacres, should we go big or go small? Should we concentrate on steps that have a consensus behind them, at the risk of not making much difference? Or should we seek to transform American law and culture, even if success looks pitifully unlikely? The movement to regulate gun ownership has pursued both...
Facebook comments: Feb. 23, 2018
Facebook comments: Feb. 23, 2018

As reported by the American-Statesman’s Melissa Taboada, Austin Independent School District trustees are nearing a vote on whether to change school names with ties to the Confederacy. Two meetings were held this week this week to accept feedback from the community on the proposal to rename five campuses. At the meetings, the goal was to provide...
Opinion: Gun control about saving lives, not waging culture wars

WASHINGTON — You have perhaps heard the joke about the liberal who is so open-minded that he can’t even take his own side in an argument. What’s less funny is that on gun control, liberals have been told for years that if they do take their own side in the argument, they will only hurt their cause. Supporters of even modest restrictions...
Commentary: How GOP shows its true colors with tax breaks
Commentary: How GOP shows its true colors with tax breaks

Congressional Republicans are betting that their shiny new tax reform bill will distract from their repeated failures to implement a policy agenda that appeals to middle-class Americans. It’s a bet they are going to lose. Tax policy reveals a political party’s true colors – its priorities and who it advocates for provide unique insight...
More Stories