There are basically four options, divided into two categories.
The immediate options are the stick and carrot used by successive US Governments. Clinton and Obama, when confronted by North Korea's nuclear ambitions, tried the "carrot": such as foreign aid and offering to provide civilian nuclear power under international supervision. North Korea has not taken up the carrot.
Bush tried the "stick": increased sanctions and increased threats. North Korea ignored the stick as well.
Advertisement
The longer term options are more dramatic - a limited strike or détente.
On the one hand, there could be a limited attack on the North Korean nuclear facilities. An exasperated United States - which still has 30,000 troops in the South and so under threat of North Korean violence - could simply say that it is tired of being messed around by the unpredictable regime. It could then carry out a limited bombing strike (which could be done with conventional weaponry). (In Iran's case, Israel would attack Iran - in much the same way as it bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq in June 1981 and stopped Iraq's nuclear ambitions).
The other longer term option is simply to recognize that the North Korean nuclear programme has now gone too far and so a limited attack would not be sufficient. Therefore the US and South Korea (and the rest of the world) would have to get used to living with a nuclear armed North Korea - in much the same way as we got used to living with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union and China.
Neither of the longer term options is particularly pleasant. A limited strike might not be enough to destroy both North Korea's nuclear facilities and its nuclear ambitions. In other words, as soon as the attack was over, the North Koreans would start all over again.
But if the world were to pursue détente, what message would then be sent to other potentially nuclear countries? South Korea - now with an economy about the size of Australia's - could decide to start its own programme.
Given the US's current range of problems, South Korea could never be sure that the Americans could be relied upon if there were another North Korea invasion (as in 1950). Besides the "carrot" approach hasn't work and so South Korea has to think about the unthinkable.
Advertisement
Therefore it might decide that the best defence was nuclear self-reliance. It could then follow the North Korean path: resign from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and begin its own programme. There is no penalty for withdrawing from the NPT (as North Korea has shown).
Other countries could then follow South Korea's example. Therefore the long-term implications of North Korea's military policies are a lot more complicated than the threat of a war on the peninsula.
Ironically, given the Chinese involvement in the Korean War (1950-3), the best hope for some form of settlement now comes from China. In 1950, with a fresh communist leadership ready to show its determination to stand up to the US, China backed North Korea. Now it is not so sure.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
9 posts so far.