Opinion: Are we headed toward a new Korean war?


If there was a message in North Korea’s launch of a new missile capable of reaching anywhere in the United States, it was that America’s strategy toward that country is failing — and that war may be looming.

The American public is far too complacent about the possibility of a war with North Korea, one that could be incomparably bloodier than any U.S. war in my lifetime. One assessment suggests that 1 million people could die on the first day.

“If we have to go to war to stop this, we will,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told CNN after the latest missile test. “We’re headed toward a war if things don’t change.”

President Donald Trump himself has said he stands ready to “totally destroy” North Korea. His national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, says Trump “is willing to do anything necessary” to prevent North Korea from threatening the U.S. with nuclear weapons — which is precisely what Kim Jong Un did.

One lesson from history: When a president and his advisers say they’re considering a war, take them seriously.

The international security experts I’ve consulted offer estimates of the risk of war from 15 percent to more than 50 percent. That should be staggering.

Trump said Wednesday that new sanctions were in the works and that “the situation will be handled.” But he has already been quite effective in increasing the economic pressure on North Korea, and it’s difficult to see how a 10th round of sanctions — after nine rounds so far since 2006 — will make a huge difference.

The problem is twofold. First, the U.S. goal for North Korea — complete denuclearization — is implausible. Second, our strategy of economic sanctions is ineffective against an isolated regime that earlier accepted the death by famine of perhaps 10 percent of its population.

In short, we have a failed strategy to achieve a hopeless goal.

This problem is not Trump’s fault, and he’s right that previous administrations (back to the first President George Bush’s in the late 1980s) have mostly kicked the can down the road. He’s also right that we’re running out of road, now that North Korea has shown the ability to send a missile some 8,000 miles, putting all of the U.S. within its theoretical range.

It’s important to stop North Korea from the final testing needed to be confident of its ability to strike the U.S.

Some analysts believe in retrospect that it would have made sense for the U.S. to have attacked North Korea’s nuclear sites just as it was beginning its program, in the late 1980s. But even then, North Korea had the capacity to rain chemical and biological weapons on Seoul.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon was tempted to strike at North Korea after it shot down an American spy plane, killing all 31 people aboard. Aides warned that any military strike could escalate into all-out war, and eventually Nixon backed down.

In Washington, there’s sometimes a delusion that a war would be over in a day after the first barrage of American missiles. Remember that tiny Serbia withstood more than two months of NATO bombing in 1999 before agreeing to withdraw from Kosovo; North Korea is incomparably more prepared for enduring and waging war.

The last, best hope for the Korean Peninsula is some kind of negotiated deal in which Kim freezes his nuclear programs. North Korea just may be hinting in its latest statements that it is open to negotiations.

So let’s try talking, rather than risk the first exchange of nuclear weapons in the history of our planet.

Writes for The New York Times.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: What is the real message of #MeToo?

The feminist website Babe published an account of a date gone bad. The pushback has been swift and sharp. I share some of the concerns of the critics, but I also think young women are sending a message that is being missed. The account by the anonymous “Grace” about a bad date with comedian Aziz Ansari was, if not “3,000 words of...
Readers Write: Jan. 22

Perdue on wrong side of history It is now clear that U.S. Sen. David Perdue has no intention of separating himself from the racist attitudes on immigration that President Trump recently articulated. That is because Trump represents Perdue’s own attitudes and positions. However it may appear to him at this moment, history teaches us clearly that...
Readers Write: Jan. 21

Nonpartisan committee needed for districting maps News about gerrymandering seems to be everywhere … in the AJC, on radio and TV. A decision of the federal court in North Carolina overturned maps because of extreme partisan gerrymandering. Two cases currently before the Supreme Court involve Republican gerrymandering in Wisconsin and Democratic...
Opinion: Journalists must give light; public can find its way

I was wrong. Years ago, people used to ask me what journalists should do to combat the nation’s drift toward “factish” and “truthy” logic. What was needed, I’d reply with misplaced confidence, is robust fact-checking. If news media were more aggressive in calling people out for lying, I predicted, they’d be...
Opinion: Choosing immigration criteria is a Sisyphean task

WASHINGTON — In 1790, the finest mind in the First Congress, and of his generation, addressed in the House of Representatives the immigration issue: “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us.” Perhaps today’s 115th Congress...
More Stories