For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/go-ahead-let-japan-south-korea-go-nuclear-17897?page=show
Go Ahead. Let Japan and South Korea Go Nuclear.
Nonproliferation zealots are making sure nuclear weapons now proliferate only to totalitarian states.
James Van de Velde
October 1, 2016
Comments 34
Japan ought to become a nuclear-weapons power as soon as possible. South Korea ought to begin a nuclear-weapons program.
The North Korean state is a national gulag. The regime is illegitimate, unstable and totalitarian—and a proliferator of nuclear-weapons technology. It brings nothing to the world but misery, widespread death to the Korean people, suffering and political instability.
Foolishly, the state is sustained by China, which thinks that it would be better to sustain North Korea than to facilitate its collapse, which might lead to a larger U.S. presence on the Korean Peninsula. But this thinking is politically shortsighted: the collapse of the North Korean regime would allow the Republic of Korea to absorb the North, thereby ending the entire reason U.S. forces are on the Peninsula. American forces would likely leave Korea, not grow, once the Pyongyang regime collapses.
Further, it was China that gave North Korea many of the ballistic-missile technologies that it uses to threaten us and our allies. China is not timidly and reluctantly standing with North Korea; it is, as usual, actively contributing to the North Korean mess. China uses North Korea to shove the United States away from Asia and keep Western diplomacy off balance, defensive and uninitiated.
Nonproliferation zealots are making sure nuclear weapons now proliferate only to totalitarian states. Despite much rhetoric and sincere, well-intentioned efforts, the United States sat by as North Korea developed its nuclear weapons. It is not too late to disabuse China and North Korea of the idea that nuclear proliferation pays. Japan ought to begin a sincere program to build deliverable nuclear weapons to show China that China’s support to North Korea is counterproductive and strategically naive. The Republic of Korea ought to begin a nuclear-weapons development program.
Since China would greatly oppose Japan becoming a nuclear-weapons state, should Japan declare its intention to start a nuclear-weapons program in response to these repeated, unjustified and deeply threatening provocations by the Pyongyang regime, China might finally realize that it is in its interest to facilitate the collapse of the totalitarian regime in Pyongyang and allow the Seoul government to absorb the North. The United States could reassure China that U.S. forces are in Korea only to defend the South Koreans. And Japan could assure China that its program is entirely defensive and would likely be suspended, should the North Korean regime collapse and the peninsula become completely denuclearized. A Japanese nuclear-weapons program would be entirely within Japan’s constitutional rights, given the North Korean nuclear-weapons program.
The U.S. nuclear umbrella for Japan is made credible by the presence of U.S. forces in Japan (which is declining, given our indebtedness and weakening of alliances), the presence of U.S. naval forces in the region (which is being challenged by China) and a strong commitment by the U.S. government (which is questioned these days). But if, of course, North Korea successfully develops an intercontinental ballistic missile and a compatible nuclear warhead that could be delivered to U.S. soil, then the same threat to the U.S. nuclear umbrella that occurred in Europe will occur for Japan and the Republic of Korea: North Korea might have the capability to strike either with a nuclear weapon and then deter the United States from retaliating with the threat of a North Korean nuclear weapon on top of an ICBM. The North Korean ballistic missile program threatens the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Japan and the Republic of Korea have every right—in fact, a duty and a UN-protected right—to self-defense.
In short, there is no future and no other solution to this regional problem other than the collapse of the Pyongyang regime. There is no historical model through which a totalitarian state like North Korea evolves. There is no confederation scenario that is possible with a totalitarian state. Unlike authoritarian states, totalitarian states cannot evolve; they implode. The best future—dissolution—should be something for China to seek, trigger and help manage.
Since the initiation of a Japanese nuclear weapons program would provoke China into concluding that North Korea is far more trouble than it is worth as a buffer against U.S. forces in the South, the people of North Korea would benefit the most, since they suffer daily. The goal is to collapse the Pyongyang regime peacefully, much like the East German regime collapsed. This is also the best means to effect true nuclear counter-proliferation; without it, the world will have to live with one more totalitarian nuclear state—a nuclear North Korea—forever.
If the Chinese played chess and not tic-tac-toe on the Korean Peninsula, they would maneuver to collapse the northern regime by first opening Chinese borders (like Hungary did to East Germany) and then provide asylum to the Northern political leadership and general officer corps and ask Seoul to assume economic and political responsibility for the entire Korean people, in exchange for a nuclear-free (and U.S.-military-free) Korean Peninsula. The Koreans (and Japanese) would jump at the deal. And the Japanese nuclear-weapons program would end.
At present, the Chinese wrongly think that they can tolerate the North’s antics and provocations, because they assume the Kim Jong-un regime is not serious with its threats to start large-scale conflict, and North Korea serves a purpose of keeping the Americans in the South. The North acts out with these threats to secure its continuation and appearance of legitimacy with the rest of the world, seeking a peace treaty/agreement with the United States that will allow it to continue unthreatened and deter Western designs for the Pyongyang regime’s collapse.
The Chinese government must conclude that North Korea is far more of a strategic danger to China than a unified and strategically neutral Korea under the governance of Seoul. A Japanese and South Korean nuclear-weapons program would bring a geostrategic situation clearly less favorable to China. At present, politicians in the West are too timid to recommend such a step, and cling to shallow arguments that the world should be rid of nuclear weapons—so that only rogue states will have them.
James Van de Velde is Adjunct Faculty at the National Intelligence University, the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies, Johns Hopkins University and the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. government, the Department of Defense, or the National Intelligence University.
----
34 comments
Join the discussion…
Zsari Maxim • 17 hours ago
Sure, every country in the world should develop nuclear weapon, let's just drop non-prolifteration altogether, not just in the northeast Asia. I bet the author would love that.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Dossi Zsari Maxim • 9 hours ago
The author can't think past next meal.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Mark Tucker • a day ago
James, why are you so sure that if North Korea collapsed the end result would be a reunification with the south? Korea is not Germany, and today is a different time to the end of the cold war in Europe.
Also is not like the US and China are that friendly that the US would not see a need to defend this new Korea from China. I find the idea that all US forces would then go home rather optimistic to say the least.
I cannot see China wanting to see the DMZ moved north to the Chinese Korean border.
It is at least just as possible that this event would result in China taking over North Korea. Either China would appoint a pawn who would do as he is told or the territory would be added to China.
Yes, North Korea's Nuclear program would be stopped, but that is probably the only positive from a South Korean perspective.
As far as South Korea and Japan going nuclear, the best leverage to get China to do something about North Korea would be the threat of this outcome. Tell them that a spread to Taiwan is also a possibility if you really want to give them nightmares.
The trick will be to ensure the threat does not become reality, giving China time to fix North Korea. Otherwise China may not react as you expect. Just look at the Chinese reaction to the proposed THAAD battery deployment to South Korea. It may think the only solution at this point is a strike first. Possibly justifying the use of nuclear weapons in their minds.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
stephen duval Mark Tucker • 13 hours ago
What makes you think that NKorea is not doing exactly what China wants. NK plays the madman that threatens Japan with nuclear weapons. It is not a coincidence that Pakistan threatens India with nuclear weapons.
During the cold war, the US nuclear umbrella for Europe was enhanced by the nuclear weapons in France and the UK. If the Russians invaded, even if the US chickened out, the French and British had their own soil to defend.
Japan, SK, and Taiwan going nuclear is not a negative for the US but a major positive. China would have to put all thought of military aggression aside. The US could continue to play a major role with a reduced budget.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Mark Tucker stephen duval • 2 hours ago
The Chinese North Korean relationship has never been a typical client state relationship. North Korea has always been a difficult relationship for China to manage, mostly because North Korea does not accept being a junior partner to anybody. Just for good measure they are paranoid of being taken over by the Chinese.
It has suited China's interests for North Korea to act as a buffer to a US backed South Korea. So providing just enough support to prevent NK falling has been Chinese policy for a long time.
The bottom line is North Korea thinks China does not do enough to help them, and resents that perceived lack of support, thus China does not have the influence many like you think it does.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
peck Mark Tucker • 16 hours ago
If China does not want THADD deployed, they can stop the NK nuclear program. They have that ability. They should learn to negotiate.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Zhuge Liang peck • 34 minutes ago
" they can stop the NK nuclear program. They have that ability."
An American lie designed to absolve the US of responsibility.
South Korea had plenty of options for missile defence, and they chose the one that is most threatening to China. Let them suffer the consequences.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Jim Jatras • 12 hours ago
"American forces would likely leave Korea, not grow, once the Pyongyang regime collapses." You mean just like American forces left western Europe after the Warsaw Pact collapsed?
Quite to the contrary, Beijing has every reason to expect that if North Korea collapsed they would face American troops on the Yalu, on the same pattern that Washington expanded to fill the vacuum left by the Soviets by expanding NATO.
But congrats to Mr. Van de Velde for putting his finger on what is indeed the key issue. He just has the dynamic backwards. As things stand now, China has a vital incentive to hold its collective nose and prop up Pyongyang any way possible for as long as possible. If, however, the U.S. withdrew our forces and abrogated our defense treaty with Seoul (which may indeed decide to go nuclear at the point; ditto Tokyo), the prospect of a reunified, neutral Korea not aligned with an extra-Asian power (i.e., us) would be much more palatable. Rather than having an imperative to maintain the obscene Kim clan China would have reason, and perhaps the means, to help achieve a "soft landing" solution to the DPRK monstrosity.
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
VVV • 11 hours ago
>the collapse of the North Korean regime would allow the Republic of Korea to absorb the North, thereby ending the entire reason U.S. forces are on the Peninsula
This nonsense again? Then why didn't all US forces retire from Europe after the collapse of the USSR? Who or what will prevent the Republic of Korea and the United States from changing their alliance in pretty much the same way NATO changed in the 1990s, aiming it explicitly against China?
On the point of nuclear proliferation, I would remind the author that you can't have your cake and eating it, promoting proliferation in East Asia while trying to achieve non-proliferation in the Middle East.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Dossi VVV • 9 hours ago
Fool me once... fool me twice... Them Americans can't be trusted, too much lies, and author is either naive or underdeveloped intelligently.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
jstrong365 • 12 hours ago
What makes anyone think Japan wants to develop nuclear weapons? The nation is the only one in history to suffer a nuclear attack. Abhorrence of nuclear weapons is ingrained in the national DNA.
The only other statement that requires a rebuke is North Korea's missile defenses may prevent a retaliatory strike by the US. What the ? is he talking about. The US has GMD and it doesn't work. How many decades will it take the US to catch up to the vaunted North Korean missile defenses?
To defend against a nuclear attack, you just put some Aegis Cruisers in South Korean waters and knock ICBMs out of the sky during the boost phase. THAAD is being deployed which can provide point defense against short range missiles.
The author thinks he is in control of Japan's and South Korea's foreign policy and is playing war games in his bathtub. This is the most ridculous article published by TNI in years.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Marathon-Youth • 14 hours ago
That also holds true of the Middle East.
Iran is becoming a nuclear armed nation. Israel is an established nuclear armed nation. Both pose an existential threat to the Arab world.
Then the logic used to support Japan and South Korea going nuclear is the same logic for the Arab nations to go nuclear.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
MeraAbhipraye Marathon-Youth • 14 hours ago
None of the Arab nations have technology at present to build nuclear weapons. However, Pakistan has those to counter Iran. Nukes in Pakistan are also very dangerous.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
TMark • a day ago
Author: "Nonproliferation zealots are making sure nuclear weapons now proliferate only to totalitarian states."
.
This fits a pattern in international relations, in which less civilized nations are given a pass due to "the bigotry of low expectations." In many long-term conflicts there is an extra burden placed on the more civilized, more wealthy, more advanced nations to bend and accommodate the less civilized. The more advanced a state, the more it negotiates, therefore an expectation to bend first and give more.
.
Much of this is derived from a class warfare viewpoint, or that colonialists bear extra responsibility for encroaching on perceived 'savage' cultures. This has created a worldview favoring "despot entitlement." Examples: Iran has learned it can secure billions in shipped paper currency by kidnapping Americans. Hamas in Gaza can launch rockets from a school's rooftop, but Israel can't respond to the launcher without international condemnation. North Korea is gradually building the ultimate entitlement status: nuclear blackmail.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
MeraAbhipraye TMark • 14 hours ago
Don't forget Pakistan. It is a country ran amok with Islamist jihadi nuts who are openly advocating use of Nuclear arms. It also has received billions in ransom money from the west on the past 10 years through various sorts of blackmailing.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
luke • a day ago
China will not protest that much if Japan or South Korean become nuclear capable overnight,but the west should fear more of that development than China should, imagine Japan nuclear bomb US for what it did to it in WW2 backstabbing is not an impossibility.
North Korea will neither abandone their nuclear program may be pause for a while if there seems to be peace other than the annual war rattling exercises.
To claim the US will likely leave South Korea anytime whether NK denuclearize or not is immaterial .The US will NEVER leave Korea because it wants to be seen as the world superpower having a permanent foothold in Asia
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment.
luke Donny Wu • a day ago
Exactly Japan and South Korea do not have the means to oust the Americans if the latter does not want to leave. When one is much stronger and sees its presence serves its interest why would America want to exit. Mark my word Japan and South Korea will ALWAYS have the American military presence there whether they like it or not is not up to them .unification of the Koreas will only happen when the Americans leave simply because China will not let NK do so.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
woodpecker luke • 18 hours ago
According to the treaty signed by Japan and America, either party has the right to terminate the treaty. Let us quote Article X of The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan: "This Treaty shall remain in force until in the opinion of the Governments of Japan and the United States of America there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance of international peace and security in the Japan area. However, after the Treaty has been in force for ten years, either Party may give notice to the other Party of its intention to terminate the Treaty, in which case the Treaty shall terminate one year after such notice has been given."
That is, Japan can ask the Americans to leave anytime after a one year notice. I think there is no such a thing as a perpetual agreement or treaty.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Zsari Maxim woodpecker • 17 hours ago
If Japan can tear up its pacifist Constitution and develops nuclear weapon, what else would it not tear up.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment.
Random guy Donny Wu • a day ago
Yes, in reality Communists didn't win the Korean war. They won the Vietnamese war.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
TMark Donny Wu • a day ago
Yes, I agree. Shutting down Pyongyang and allowing Korean reunification would be interpreted within China as losing the Korean War 66 years after it started. The PLA is respected, politically strong, and has maintained a narrative that Korea was a PLA victory.
.
It would seem the more likely option is for China to influence NK to deactivate its nuclear program, while allowing the Kim Jong Un regime a distracting victory elsewhere similar to the Cheonan naval sinking incident. Another alternative is to simply undercut Kim and allow NK to conduct their own regime change that is amenable to Beijing's demand to end nuclear development. These options are much less destabilizing than allowing Japan or SK to go nuclear.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Zhuge Liang • 27 minutes ago
This author's views amount to nothing more than idle threats, childish hopes, assumptions, topped with a dangerously arrogant attitude towards nuclear strategy.
Literally nothing he says is backed up by evidence.
What is truly shortsighted is his blatant disregard for viewpoints which do not adhere to his views. But then it is always easier to dismiss other people as "foolish" rather than to think through the consequences of your actions.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
boonteetan • 9 hours ago
S Korea and Japan go nuclear? Very big "business". Goodness gracious.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
afhack62 • 11 hours ago
If China has a Grand Plan to dominate all of Asia not all of that effort is likely to be through its version of soft power. If it does have one its actions in the South China Sea are just first steps in this larger plan. China probably finds the NK regime noisome, but in the event of hostilities it's has that country figured into its GP. Knowing this, the NKs are exploiting their indulgence for all its worth, which to them amounts to a green light to do their worst.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
And you believe that why? • 12 hours ago
If everything follows the script it could work. The problem is what happens if any party decides not to play the game that way? I think it is more likely we would end up with 5 nuclear powers instead of 3 pointing missiles at each other.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
paoburen • 15 hours ago
East Asia is now nuclear. China, N Korea, and Russia all have nukes.
Deterrence works.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Bobloblaw67 • 16 hours ago
The left has no problem with Iran and North Korea getting nuclear weapons but goes into a tizzy if Japan and South Korea devlope nuclear weapons
•
Reply
•
Share ›
The Dead Rabbits • 16 hours ago
Yes, a nuclear arms race in north-east Asia will be the price of China's long standing support for North Korea, and Beijing's consistent mendacity about "helping" keep the peninsula nuke-free. Maybe China's willing dupes in the west will wake up when there are nukes on all sides. Thank you Obama, Clinton, Rice, Medieros, Nye, Kerry et. al.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
rtn_dtn • a day ago
60 plus year has passed since the Korean conflict. NK lacks the ability to invade SK because of a much smaller population & antiquity military hardware for a conventional conflict. The threat of invasion is the other way around. NK has publicly announced willingness to abandon nuclear development in exchange for no invasion guarantee from US, the latter refused.
Van de Velde 's proposal is in fact a brilliant excuse to contain China with nuclear capable Japan & SK.
In a chess game, China may not play in the moves that James want. China may negotiate with Russia on a joint defense guarantee for NK if cause of NK invasion is initiated by US/SK. With such guarantee, NK may stop further nuke development and continually to provide a buffer for China. NK understands that her resources can be put to better use in economical development if threat from US on regime change is eliminated.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Random guy rtn_dtn • a day ago
Defense guarantees mean nothing in modern day. Ukraine had the same guarantee in exchange of transfer of its Nuclear Arsenal. What happened now?
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
stephen duval rtn_dtn • 12 hours ago
There is no threat of a US/SK invasion of NK.
China and Russia are already strategic partners with Iran as a junior member.
China also uses Pakistan to threaten India, its other major regional competitor.
A nuclear Japan, SK, and Taiwan would face a nuclear China, Russia, and NK, This would be good news for the US; it would greatly contribute to stability in NE Asia while the US military dominance declines.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
rtn_dtn stephen duval • 7 hours ago
Typical NeoCon talk, shouldn't be surprise,this is National Interest blog after all. U wouldn't be Sanders or Trump supporter.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
stephen duval rtn_dtn • 4 hours ago
Trump does not want the US to be the policeman for the world anymore.
Allowing Japan, SK, and Taiwan to defend themselves from potential aggressors makes it possible for the US to reduce its posture and for allies to increase their contribution to their own defense.
Trump/Pence 2016
•
Reply
•
Share ›
rtn_dtn stephen duval • 4 hours ago
I see, good, let whoever want nuke develop it & we withdraw from being world policeman without pay.
trump/pence '16
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/go-ahead-let-japan-south-korea-go-nuclear-17897?page=show
Go Ahead. Let Japan and South Korea Go Nuclear.
Nonproliferation zealots are making sure nuclear weapons now proliferate only to totalitarian states.
James Van de Velde
October 1, 2016
Comments 34
Japan ought to become a nuclear-weapons power as soon as possible. South Korea ought to begin a nuclear-weapons program.
The North Korean state is a national gulag. The regime is illegitimate, unstable and totalitarian—and a proliferator of nuclear-weapons technology. It brings nothing to the world but misery, widespread death to the Korean people, suffering and political instability.
Foolishly, the state is sustained by China, which thinks that it would be better to sustain North Korea than to facilitate its collapse, which might lead to a larger U.S. presence on the Korean Peninsula. But this thinking is politically shortsighted: the collapse of the North Korean regime would allow the Republic of Korea to absorb the North, thereby ending the entire reason U.S. forces are on the Peninsula. American forces would likely leave Korea, not grow, once the Pyongyang regime collapses.
Further, it was China that gave North Korea many of the ballistic-missile technologies that it uses to threaten us and our allies. China is not timidly and reluctantly standing with North Korea; it is, as usual, actively contributing to the North Korean mess. China uses North Korea to shove the United States away from Asia and keep Western diplomacy off balance, defensive and uninitiated.
Nonproliferation zealots are making sure nuclear weapons now proliferate only to totalitarian states. Despite much rhetoric and sincere, well-intentioned efforts, the United States sat by as North Korea developed its nuclear weapons. It is not too late to disabuse China and North Korea of the idea that nuclear proliferation pays. Japan ought to begin a sincere program to build deliverable nuclear weapons to show China that China’s support to North Korea is counterproductive and strategically naive. The Republic of Korea ought to begin a nuclear-weapons development program.
Since China would greatly oppose Japan becoming a nuclear-weapons state, should Japan declare its intention to start a nuclear-weapons program in response to these repeated, unjustified and deeply threatening provocations by the Pyongyang regime, China might finally realize that it is in its interest to facilitate the collapse of the totalitarian regime in Pyongyang and allow the Seoul government to absorb the North. The United States could reassure China that U.S. forces are in Korea only to defend the South Koreans. And Japan could assure China that its program is entirely defensive and would likely be suspended, should the North Korean regime collapse and the peninsula become completely denuclearized. A Japanese nuclear-weapons program would be entirely within Japan’s constitutional rights, given the North Korean nuclear-weapons program.
The U.S. nuclear umbrella for Japan is made credible by the presence of U.S. forces in Japan (which is declining, given our indebtedness and weakening of alliances), the presence of U.S. naval forces in the region (which is being challenged by China) and a strong commitment by the U.S. government (which is questioned these days). But if, of course, North Korea successfully develops an intercontinental ballistic missile and a compatible nuclear warhead that could be delivered to U.S. soil, then the same threat to the U.S. nuclear umbrella that occurred in Europe will occur for Japan and the Republic of Korea: North Korea might have the capability to strike either with a nuclear weapon and then deter the United States from retaliating with the threat of a North Korean nuclear weapon on top of an ICBM. The North Korean ballistic missile program threatens the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Japan and the Republic of Korea have every right—in fact, a duty and a UN-protected right—to self-defense.
In short, there is no future and no other solution to this regional problem other than the collapse of the Pyongyang regime. There is no historical model through which a totalitarian state like North Korea evolves. There is no confederation scenario that is possible with a totalitarian state. Unlike authoritarian states, totalitarian states cannot evolve; they implode. The best future—dissolution—should be something for China to seek, trigger and help manage.
Since the initiation of a Japanese nuclear weapons program would provoke China into concluding that North Korea is far more trouble than it is worth as a buffer against U.S. forces in the South, the people of North Korea would benefit the most, since they suffer daily. The goal is to collapse the Pyongyang regime peacefully, much like the East German regime collapsed. This is also the best means to effect true nuclear counter-proliferation; without it, the world will have to live with one more totalitarian nuclear state—a nuclear North Korea—forever.
If the Chinese played chess and not tic-tac-toe on the Korean Peninsula, they would maneuver to collapse the northern regime by first opening Chinese borders (like Hungary did to East Germany) and then provide asylum to the Northern political leadership and general officer corps and ask Seoul to assume economic and political responsibility for the entire Korean people, in exchange for a nuclear-free (and U.S.-military-free) Korean Peninsula. The Koreans (and Japanese) would jump at the deal. And the Japanese nuclear-weapons program would end.
At present, the Chinese wrongly think that they can tolerate the North’s antics and provocations, because they assume the Kim Jong-un regime is not serious with its threats to start large-scale conflict, and North Korea serves a purpose of keeping the Americans in the South. The North acts out with these threats to secure its continuation and appearance of legitimacy with the rest of the world, seeking a peace treaty/agreement with the United States that will allow it to continue unthreatened and deter Western designs for the Pyongyang regime’s collapse.
The Chinese government must conclude that North Korea is far more of a strategic danger to China than a unified and strategically neutral Korea under the governance of Seoul. A Japanese and South Korean nuclear-weapons program would bring a geostrategic situation clearly less favorable to China. At present, politicians in the West are too timid to recommend such a step, and cling to shallow arguments that the world should be rid of nuclear weapons—so that only rogue states will have them.
James Van de Velde is Adjunct Faculty at the National Intelligence University, the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies, Johns Hopkins University and the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. government, the Department of Defense, or the National Intelligence University.
----
34 comments
Join the discussion…
Zsari Maxim • 17 hours ago
Sure, every country in the world should develop nuclear weapon, let's just drop non-prolifteration altogether, not just in the northeast Asia. I bet the author would love that.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Dossi Zsari Maxim • 9 hours ago
The author can't think past next meal.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Mark Tucker • a day ago
James, why are you so sure that if North Korea collapsed the end result would be a reunification with the south? Korea is not Germany, and today is a different time to the end of the cold war in Europe.
Also is not like the US and China are that friendly that the US would not see a need to defend this new Korea from China. I find the idea that all US forces would then go home rather optimistic to say the least.
I cannot see China wanting to see the DMZ moved north to the Chinese Korean border.
It is at least just as possible that this event would result in China taking over North Korea. Either China would appoint a pawn who would do as he is told or the territory would be added to China.
Yes, North Korea's Nuclear program would be stopped, but that is probably the only positive from a South Korean perspective.
As far as South Korea and Japan going nuclear, the best leverage to get China to do something about North Korea would be the threat of this outcome. Tell them that a spread to Taiwan is also a possibility if you really want to give them nightmares.
The trick will be to ensure the threat does not become reality, giving China time to fix North Korea. Otherwise China may not react as you expect. Just look at the Chinese reaction to the proposed THAAD battery deployment to South Korea. It may think the only solution at this point is a strike first. Possibly justifying the use of nuclear weapons in their minds.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
stephen duval Mark Tucker • 13 hours ago
What makes you think that NKorea is not doing exactly what China wants. NK plays the madman that threatens Japan with nuclear weapons. It is not a coincidence that Pakistan threatens India with nuclear weapons.
During the cold war, the US nuclear umbrella for Europe was enhanced by the nuclear weapons in France and the UK. If the Russians invaded, even if the US chickened out, the French and British had their own soil to defend.
Japan, SK, and Taiwan going nuclear is not a negative for the US but a major positive. China would have to put all thought of military aggression aside. The US could continue to play a major role with a reduced budget.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Mark Tucker stephen duval • 2 hours ago
The Chinese North Korean relationship has never been a typical client state relationship. North Korea has always been a difficult relationship for China to manage, mostly because North Korea does not accept being a junior partner to anybody. Just for good measure they are paranoid of being taken over by the Chinese.
It has suited China's interests for North Korea to act as a buffer to a US backed South Korea. So providing just enough support to prevent NK falling has been Chinese policy for a long time.
The bottom line is North Korea thinks China does not do enough to help them, and resents that perceived lack of support, thus China does not have the influence many like you think it does.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
peck Mark Tucker • 16 hours ago
If China does not want THADD deployed, they can stop the NK nuclear program. They have that ability. They should learn to negotiate.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Zhuge Liang peck • 34 minutes ago
" they can stop the NK nuclear program. They have that ability."
An American lie designed to absolve the US of responsibility.
South Korea had plenty of options for missile defence, and they chose the one that is most threatening to China. Let them suffer the consequences.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Jim Jatras • 12 hours ago
"American forces would likely leave Korea, not grow, once the Pyongyang regime collapses." You mean just like American forces left western Europe after the Warsaw Pact collapsed?
Quite to the contrary, Beijing has every reason to expect that if North Korea collapsed they would face American troops on the Yalu, on the same pattern that Washington expanded to fill the vacuum left by the Soviets by expanding NATO.
But congrats to Mr. Van de Velde for putting his finger on what is indeed the key issue. He just has the dynamic backwards. As things stand now, China has a vital incentive to hold its collective nose and prop up Pyongyang any way possible for as long as possible. If, however, the U.S. withdrew our forces and abrogated our defense treaty with Seoul (which may indeed decide to go nuclear at the point; ditto Tokyo), the prospect of a reunified, neutral Korea not aligned with an extra-Asian power (i.e., us) would be much more palatable. Rather than having an imperative to maintain the obscene Kim clan China would have reason, and perhaps the means, to help achieve a "soft landing" solution to the DPRK monstrosity.
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
VVV • 11 hours ago
>the collapse of the North Korean regime would allow the Republic of Korea to absorb the North, thereby ending the entire reason U.S. forces are on the Peninsula
This nonsense again? Then why didn't all US forces retire from Europe after the collapse of the USSR? Who or what will prevent the Republic of Korea and the United States from changing their alliance in pretty much the same way NATO changed in the 1990s, aiming it explicitly against China?
On the point of nuclear proliferation, I would remind the author that you can't have your cake and eating it, promoting proliferation in East Asia while trying to achieve non-proliferation in the Middle East.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Dossi VVV • 9 hours ago
Fool me once... fool me twice... Them Americans can't be trusted, too much lies, and author is either naive or underdeveloped intelligently.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
jstrong365 • 12 hours ago
What makes anyone think Japan wants to develop nuclear weapons? The nation is the only one in history to suffer a nuclear attack. Abhorrence of nuclear weapons is ingrained in the national DNA.
The only other statement that requires a rebuke is North Korea's missile defenses may prevent a retaliatory strike by the US. What the ? is he talking about. The US has GMD and it doesn't work. How many decades will it take the US to catch up to the vaunted North Korean missile defenses?
To defend against a nuclear attack, you just put some Aegis Cruisers in South Korean waters and knock ICBMs out of the sky during the boost phase. THAAD is being deployed which can provide point defense against short range missiles.
The author thinks he is in control of Japan's and South Korea's foreign policy and is playing war games in his bathtub. This is the most ridculous article published by TNI in years.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Marathon-Youth • 14 hours ago
That also holds true of the Middle East.
Iran is becoming a nuclear armed nation. Israel is an established nuclear armed nation. Both pose an existential threat to the Arab world.
Then the logic used to support Japan and South Korea going nuclear is the same logic for the Arab nations to go nuclear.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
MeraAbhipraye Marathon-Youth • 14 hours ago
None of the Arab nations have technology at present to build nuclear weapons. However, Pakistan has those to counter Iran. Nukes in Pakistan are also very dangerous.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
TMark • a day ago
Author: "Nonproliferation zealots are making sure nuclear weapons now proliferate only to totalitarian states."
.
This fits a pattern in international relations, in which less civilized nations are given a pass due to "the bigotry of low expectations." In many long-term conflicts there is an extra burden placed on the more civilized, more wealthy, more advanced nations to bend and accommodate the less civilized. The more advanced a state, the more it negotiates, therefore an expectation to bend first and give more.
.
Much of this is derived from a class warfare viewpoint, or that colonialists bear extra responsibility for encroaching on perceived 'savage' cultures. This has created a worldview favoring "despot entitlement." Examples: Iran has learned it can secure billions in shipped paper currency by kidnapping Americans. Hamas in Gaza can launch rockets from a school's rooftop, but Israel can't respond to the launcher without international condemnation. North Korea is gradually building the ultimate entitlement status: nuclear blackmail.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
MeraAbhipraye TMark • 14 hours ago
Don't forget Pakistan. It is a country ran amok with Islamist jihadi nuts who are openly advocating use of Nuclear arms. It also has received billions in ransom money from the west on the past 10 years through various sorts of blackmailing.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
luke • a day ago
China will not protest that much if Japan or South Korean become nuclear capable overnight,but the west should fear more of that development than China should, imagine Japan nuclear bomb US for what it did to it in WW2 backstabbing is not an impossibility.
North Korea will neither abandone their nuclear program may be pause for a while if there seems to be peace other than the annual war rattling exercises.
To claim the US will likely leave South Korea anytime whether NK denuclearize or not is immaterial .The US will NEVER leave Korea because it wants to be seen as the world superpower having a permanent foothold in Asia
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment.
luke Donny Wu • a day ago
Exactly Japan and South Korea do not have the means to oust the Americans if the latter does not want to leave. When one is much stronger and sees its presence serves its interest why would America want to exit. Mark my word Japan and South Korea will ALWAYS have the American military presence there whether they like it or not is not up to them .unification of the Koreas will only happen when the Americans leave simply because China will not let NK do so.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
woodpecker luke • 18 hours ago
According to the treaty signed by Japan and America, either party has the right to terminate the treaty. Let us quote Article X of The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan: "This Treaty shall remain in force until in the opinion of the Governments of Japan and the United States of America there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance of international peace and security in the Japan area. However, after the Treaty has been in force for ten years, either Party may give notice to the other Party of its intention to terminate the Treaty, in which case the Treaty shall terminate one year after such notice has been given."
That is, Japan can ask the Americans to leave anytime after a one year notice. I think there is no such a thing as a perpetual agreement or treaty.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Zsari Maxim woodpecker • 17 hours ago
If Japan can tear up its pacifist Constitution and develops nuclear weapon, what else would it not tear up.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment.
Random guy Donny Wu • a day ago
Yes, in reality Communists didn't win the Korean war. They won the Vietnamese war.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
TMark Donny Wu • a day ago
Yes, I agree. Shutting down Pyongyang and allowing Korean reunification would be interpreted within China as losing the Korean War 66 years after it started. The PLA is respected, politically strong, and has maintained a narrative that Korea was a PLA victory.
.
It would seem the more likely option is for China to influence NK to deactivate its nuclear program, while allowing the Kim Jong Un regime a distracting victory elsewhere similar to the Cheonan naval sinking incident. Another alternative is to simply undercut Kim and allow NK to conduct their own regime change that is amenable to Beijing's demand to end nuclear development. These options are much less destabilizing than allowing Japan or SK to go nuclear.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Zhuge Liang • 27 minutes ago
This author's views amount to nothing more than idle threats, childish hopes, assumptions, topped with a dangerously arrogant attitude towards nuclear strategy.
Literally nothing he says is backed up by evidence.
What is truly shortsighted is his blatant disregard for viewpoints which do not adhere to his views. But then it is always easier to dismiss other people as "foolish" rather than to think through the consequences of your actions.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
boonteetan • 9 hours ago
S Korea and Japan go nuclear? Very big "business". Goodness gracious.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
afhack62 • 11 hours ago
If China has a Grand Plan to dominate all of Asia not all of that effort is likely to be through its version of soft power. If it does have one its actions in the South China Sea are just first steps in this larger plan. China probably finds the NK regime noisome, but in the event of hostilities it's has that country figured into its GP. Knowing this, the NKs are exploiting their indulgence for all its worth, which to them amounts to a green light to do their worst.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
And you believe that why? • 12 hours ago
If everything follows the script it could work. The problem is what happens if any party decides not to play the game that way? I think it is more likely we would end up with 5 nuclear powers instead of 3 pointing missiles at each other.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
paoburen • 15 hours ago
East Asia is now nuclear. China, N Korea, and Russia all have nukes.
Deterrence works.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Bobloblaw67 • 16 hours ago
The left has no problem with Iran and North Korea getting nuclear weapons but goes into a tizzy if Japan and South Korea devlope nuclear weapons
•
Reply
•
Share ›
The Dead Rabbits • 16 hours ago
Yes, a nuclear arms race in north-east Asia will be the price of China's long standing support for North Korea, and Beijing's consistent mendacity about "helping" keep the peninsula nuke-free. Maybe China's willing dupes in the west will wake up when there are nukes on all sides. Thank you Obama, Clinton, Rice, Medieros, Nye, Kerry et. al.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
rtn_dtn • a day ago
60 plus year has passed since the Korean conflict. NK lacks the ability to invade SK because of a much smaller population & antiquity military hardware for a conventional conflict. The threat of invasion is the other way around. NK has publicly announced willingness to abandon nuclear development in exchange for no invasion guarantee from US, the latter refused.
Van de Velde 's proposal is in fact a brilliant excuse to contain China with nuclear capable Japan & SK.
In a chess game, China may not play in the moves that James want. China may negotiate with Russia on a joint defense guarantee for NK if cause of NK invasion is initiated by US/SK. With such guarantee, NK may stop further nuke development and continually to provide a buffer for China. NK understands that her resources can be put to better use in economical development if threat from US on regime change is eliminated.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Random guy rtn_dtn • a day ago
Defense guarantees mean nothing in modern day. Ukraine had the same guarantee in exchange of transfer of its Nuclear Arsenal. What happened now?
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
stephen duval rtn_dtn • 12 hours ago
There is no threat of a US/SK invasion of NK.
China and Russia are already strategic partners with Iran as a junior member.
China also uses Pakistan to threaten India, its other major regional competitor.
A nuclear Japan, SK, and Taiwan would face a nuclear China, Russia, and NK, This would be good news for the US; it would greatly contribute to stability in NE Asia while the US military dominance declines.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
rtn_dtn stephen duval • 7 hours ago
Typical NeoCon talk, shouldn't be surprise,this is National Interest blog after all. U wouldn't be Sanders or Trump supporter.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
stephen duval rtn_dtn • 4 hours ago
Trump does not want the US to be the policeman for the world anymore.
Allowing Japan, SK, and Taiwan to defend themselves from potential aggressors makes it possible for the US to reduce its posture and for allies to increase their contribution to their own defense.
Trump/Pence 2016
•
Reply
•
Share ›
rtn_dtn stephen duval • 4 hours ago
I see, good, let whoever want nuke develop it & we withdraw from being world policeman without pay.
trump/pence '16
•
Reply
•
Share ›