It's interesting that this article is funded by Francis Fukuyama, who famously wrote the "The End of History" [1] in 1992, which argued that the rules-based liberal democratic world order had won and there was no more need for geopolitical realism. This article represents a complete repudiation of his past beliefs, and basically an admission that he was wrong.
Anyway, just as how Fukuyama was right for ~20 years and then very, very wrong, I suspect this essay is too. The U.S. mapped out all the game theory around nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. If you have too many states with nuclear weapons, nuclear war becomes inevitable, just like if you have too many firms in a market a price war becomes inevitable. That's why the U.S. and other nuclear powers have put so much effort into nuclear non-proliferation. North Korea may have been right in the short-term national interest sense to pursue and continue its nuclear weapons program, but the end result here is that most of humanity is going to die in a nuclear war, and we won't have such things as states and nations afterwards.
Honestly in a scenario like global nuclear war I see the Kim family, and by extension NK making it out relatively unscathed.
Being one of the little players who got the bomb between the big guys and the rest of the little guys secured them in the short term, and global conflict is likely to break out between the big guys or some little guys, and NK isn't really instigating much with anyone, so when the bombs fly they're just gonna be overlooked.
This is my analogy: If you are a fisherman, and you try to catch big beautiful fish and release small ugly fish back into the water, then eventually the pond will be full of small ugly fish because that is what you are selecting for.
If we want a world in which nuclear weapons are not the primary tools of war (which advantages these smaller players like NK that use it defensively when their means of conventional warfare would be insufficient) then we must work feverishly to undermine nuclear regimes like NK and cooperate with non-nuclear regimes like Iran above all else.
Even within the context of the middle east, we are attacking a state in the process of armament to the benefit of a presumably-already-armed Israel. The message to these minor countries is clear. We are making the political climate inhospitable to non-proliferation.
The message to all other states to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible is reinforced by Trump's scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal. Even if you negotiate a treaty with the U.S. agreeing to deescalation, a new leader will likely tear it up (given the flip-flopping of the U.S. presidency, which has near total power over foreign policy).
Even returning to the negotiating table isn't enough - the U.S. and its allies may strike you anyways. (as they did last year when they killed the lead Iranian negotiator and again preemptively attacked during recent negotiations)
No idea why you're getting downvoted, it absolutely makes sense.
Attacking countries that have no nuclear weapon only strengthen the need for others to acquire it.
Middle eastern, especially, where there is only one country that has the nuclear weapon. Other countries relied on usa support for their own defenses but seeing the mess they're in because of Trump blindly following israelian will and attacking Iran, they might consider acquiring it.
Who'se to say that Israel won't take more land after it finish annexing Palestine and Liban ?
What this type of analysis is missing is that it is extraordinarily hard to build the bomb.
North Korea could get the bomb because they had qualms about letting hundreds of thousands or millions of people literally starve to death [1].
But let's say another country, country X, wants to acquire the bomb now. Then what? First thing: the IAEA inspectors discover that. Building a bomb is too massive an operation to be done completely in hiding. Once the IAEA inspectors find you, you either withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, or you don't, but people know you are lying (just like they knew about Iran). Sooner or later sanctions will follow. You are cut off from all the Western nuclear supply chain. If the unnamed country X is actually Sweden, or some other Nordic country, or Poland, or any country that's part of the "West", you do care if all the nuclear supply chain is legally banned from trading with you. What are you going to do? Go to Russia, or China? Are they going to help you build a bomb that you will then use to deter them? Are you sure they are that stupid?
But let's say you are a country that's not part of the "West". Then you have bigger problems. After what just happened, you know that sooner or later you might have some bunker busters rain down on you. North Korea was lucky, but now the precedent was set. The next nuclear aspirant won't be able to hope that the West will play nice and refrain from bombing you while you are busy enriching uranium.
This article misses a major point: even without nuclear weapons, NK has always had the option to shell Seoul with conventional artillery and completely destroy it.
That, above all else, is likely why no one tried to topple them before they were able to develop nuclear weapons.
The point of nukes for NK is not about being able to use them to attack its neighbours. The point of nukes for NK is to ensure that they don't get invaded themselves. That's why NK makes a big deal about nukes that can reach the US - currently the only viable threat the NK regime has had is the US.
Which is also the reason why Pakistan pursued a nuclear programme (vs India). Which is why India pursued a nuclear programme (vs China). Which is why China pursued a nuclear programme (vs the USSR). People apparently discount the important of nukes and MAD doctrine in helping preserve the peace in today's world.
Yes they were, but the key difference is that North Korea is not actually a threat and its nuclear weapons program is obviously purely a deterrent.
The track record of Iran is very different. Even if nuclear weapons were only a deterrent they would likely embolden them to be more aggressive abroad.
The whole point of the article is that the lesson from North Korea is get yourself a nuclear weapon. If you choose to give up that ambition, you can expect to be punished. If you realize that ambition, you may survive.
It has nothing to do with the particular behavior of the country outside of their ability to achieve a nuclear deterrent. The plain lesson is deterrence works if the country you’re trying to deter is the United States.
Just so that people disagreeing with you can understand: Iran is, as I type this, sending bombs banned by 120 countries (cluster bombs, and they're banned because for they indiscriminately target civilians) on Israel. They also send their islamist guards, a few weeks ago, to finish the job inside hospitals: to slaughter the wounded. As part of tens of thousands executions.
Anyone who thinks the current iranian regime with the atomic bomb wouldn't nuke Israel is out of its mind.
In practice, Iran posed a local threat. It wasn't Iran that exported Wahabism around the globe. Iran didn't fund the Mujahedeen, nor was it the source of IS. It wasn't Persians flying the jets of 911 nor were any Iranians or their allies tied to any terrorist attacks in Europe in my lifetime.
I find the Iranian regime despicable, as frankly any decent human should, and I am glad they don't have nukes.
But I do not see them as the international turbo villains they've been painted as.
> nor were any Iranians or their allies tied to any terrorist attacks in Europe in my lifetime.
Your lifetime is a fuzzy reference that possibly works because your are relatively young.
Iram carried out terrorist attacks in Europe in the 80s that left tens of people dead. Iran has been linked to an infamous bombing in Argentina in the 90s.
Iran has been linked to other attacks since.
Recently, the war in Yemen and attacks on shipping routes has also links to Iran.
You can't compare Iran with north Korea. Iran funds and supports terrorism all over the middle east. They regularly call for the destruction of Israel. If Iran wasn't ruled by aggressive violent religious fanatics it wouldn't be in danger.
North Korea didn't fund terrorism. North Korea isn't an aggressor. You cannot compare them at all.
Israel and the US were monitoring Iran nuclear development and Iran knew that. They wouldn't allow Iran to rush to nuclear without striking them first, like it had happened.
If you're a dictator and you want to learn the lesson from Iran, it isn't to get nuclear weapons. It's too not call for the destruction of Israel and the US and to not fund terrorism.
It's interesting that this article is funded by Francis Fukuyama, who famously wrote the "The End of History" [1] in 1992, which argued that the rules-based liberal democratic world order had won and there was no more need for geopolitical realism. This article represents a complete repudiation of his past beliefs, and basically an admission that he was wrong.
Anyway, just as how Fukuyama was right for ~20 years and then very, very wrong, I suspect this essay is too. The U.S. mapped out all the game theory around nuclear war in the 50s and 60s. If you have too many states with nuclear weapons, nuclear war becomes inevitable, just like if you have too many firms in a market a price war becomes inevitable. That's why the U.S. and other nuclear powers have put so much effort into nuclear non-proliferation. North Korea may have been right in the short-term national interest sense to pursue and continue its nuclear weapons program, but the end result here is that most of humanity is going to die in a nuclear war, and we won't have such things as states and nations afterwards.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Las...
One could argue that a way of proving Fukuyama wrong would require a 'new ideology' leading to global nuclear disarmament.
Honestly in a scenario like global nuclear war I see the Kim family, and by extension NK making it out relatively unscathed.
Being one of the little players who got the bomb between the big guys and the rest of the little guys secured them in the short term, and global conflict is likely to break out between the big guys or some little guys, and NK isn't really instigating much with anyone, so when the bombs fly they're just gonna be overlooked.
This is my analogy: If you are a fisherman, and you try to catch big beautiful fish and release small ugly fish back into the water, then eventually the pond will be full of small ugly fish because that is what you are selecting for.
If we want a world in which nuclear weapons are not the primary tools of war (which advantages these smaller players like NK that use it defensively when their means of conventional warfare would be insufficient) then we must work feverishly to undermine nuclear regimes like NK and cooperate with non-nuclear regimes like Iran above all else.
Even within the context of the middle east, we are attacking a state in the process of armament to the benefit of a presumably-already-armed Israel. The message to these minor countries is clear. We are making the political climate inhospitable to non-proliferation.
The message to all other states to get nuclear weapons as soon as possible is reinforced by Trump's scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal. Even if you negotiate a treaty with the U.S. agreeing to deescalation, a new leader will likely tear it up (given the flip-flopping of the U.S. presidency, which has near total power over foreign policy).
Even returning to the negotiating table isn't enough - the U.S. and its allies may strike you anyways. (as they did last year when they killed the lead Iranian negotiator and again preemptively attacked during recent negotiations)
No idea why you're getting downvoted, it absolutely makes sense.
Attacking countries that have no nuclear weapon only strengthen the need for others to acquire it.
Middle eastern, especially, where there is only one country that has the nuclear weapon. Other countries relied on usa support for their own defenses but seeing the mess they're in because of Trump blindly following israelian will and attacking Iran, they might consider acquiring it.
Who'se to say that Israel won't take more land after it finish annexing Palestine and Liban ?
What this type of analysis is missing is that it is extraordinarily hard to build the bomb.
North Korea could get the bomb because they had qualms about letting hundreds of thousands or millions of people literally starve to death [1].
But let's say another country, country X, wants to acquire the bomb now. Then what? First thing: the IAEA inspectors discover that. Building a bomb is too massive an operation to be done completely in hiding. Once the IAEA inspectors find you, you either withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, or you don't, but people know you are lying (just like they knew about Iran). Sooner or later sanctions will follow. You are cut off from all the Western nuclear supply chain. If the unnamed country X is actually Sweden, or some other Nordic country, or Poland, or any country that's part of the "West", you do care if all the nuclear supply chain is legally banned from trading with you. What are you going to do? Go to Russia, or China? Are they going to help you build a bomb that you will then use to deter them? Are you sure they are that stupid?
But let's say you are a country that's not part of the "West". Then you have bigger problems. After what just happened, you know that sooner or later you might have some bunker busters rain down on you. North Korea was lucky, but now the precedent was set. The next nuclear aspirant won't be able to hope that the West will play nice and refrain from bombing you while you are busy enriching uranium.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_North_Korean_famine
This article misses a major point: even without nuclear weapons, NK has always had the option to shell Seoul with conventional artillery and completely destroy it.
That, above all else, is likely why no one tried to topple them before they were able to develop nuclear weapons.
The point of nukes for NK is not about being able to use them to attack its neighbours. The point of nukes for NK is to ensure that they don't get invaded themselves. That's why NK makes a big deal about nukes that can reach the US - currently the only viable threat the NK regime has had is the US.
Which is also the reason why Pakistan pursued a nuclear programme (vs India). Which is why India pursued a nuclear programme (vs China). Which is why China pursued a nuclear programme (vs the USSR). People apparently discount the important of nukes and MAD doctrine in helping preserve the peace in today's world.
NK is also protected by China. The last time the US tried to militarily topple NK it didn't end well.
> The last time the US tried to militarily
The last many times the US tried to militarily do anything at all it did not end well...
North Korea is protected and bordered by China. Big difference with Iran.
Only slightly more than Cuba is "protected" by the United states.
It's more of a "don't F around in my back yard" statement directed at anyone who might than it is a protection deal.
Yes they were, but the key difference is that North Korea is not actually a threat and its nuclear weapons program is obviously purely a deterrent.
The track record of Iran is very different. Even if nuclear weapons were only a deterrent they would likely embolden them to be more aggressive abroad.
No.
The whole point of the article is that the lesson from North Korea is get yourself a nuclear weapon. If you choose to give up that ambition, you can expect to be punished. If you realize that ambition, you may survive.
It has nothing to do with the particular behavior of the country outside of their ability to achieve a nuclear deterrent. The plain lesson is deterrence works if the country you’re trying to deter is the United States.
> The track record of Iran is very different
Just so that people disagreeing with you can understand: Iran is, as I type this, sending bombs banned by 120 countries (cluster bombs, and they're banned because for they indiscriminately target civilians) on Israel. They also send their islamist guards, a few weeks ago, to finish the job inside hospitals: to slaughter the wounded. As part of tens of thousands executions.
Anyone who thinks the current iranian regime with the atomic bomb wouldn't nuke Israel is out of its mind.
In practice, Iran posed a local threat. It wasn't Iran that exported Wahabism around the globe. Iran didn't fund the Mujahedeen, nor was it the source of IS. It wasn't Persians flying the jets of 911 nor were any Iranians or their allies tied to any terrorist attacks in Europe in my lifetime.
I find the Iranian regime despicable, as frankly any decent human should, and I am glad they don't have nukes.
But I do not see them as the international turbo villains they've been painted as.
> nor were any Iranians or their allies tied to any terrorist attacks in Europe in my lifetime.
Your lifetime is a fuzzy reference that possibly works because your are relatively young.
Iram carried out terrorist attacks in Europe in the 80s that left tens of people dead. Iran has been linked to an infamous bombing in Argentina in the 90s.
Iran has been linked to other attacks since.
Recently, the war in Yemen and attacks on shipping routes has also links to Iran.
Iran hasn't been a "local threat".
[dead]
You can't compare Iran with north Korea. Iran funds and supports terrorism all over the middle east. They regularly call for the destruction of Israel. If Iran wasn't ruled by aggressive violent religious fanatics it wouldn't be in danger.
North Korea didn't fund terrorism. North Korea isn't an aggressor. You cannot compare them at all.
Israel and the US were monitoring Iran nuclear development and Iran knew that. They wouldn't allow Iran to rush to nuclear without striking them first, like it had happened.
If you're a dictator and you want to learn the lesson from Iran, it isn't to get nuclear weapons. It's too not call for the destruction of Israel and the US and to not fund terrorism.