Can Anything Other Than a Nuclear Strike Stop North Korea?

I have a question for the national security crowd.

North Korea clearly wants nuclear capability. They want it very badly because they think—not irrationally—that it’s the only thing that can reliably protect them from an American invasion. It is, right now, their highest priority by far, and nothing will stop them from obtaining it. Not sanctions. Not diplomacy. Not tut tutting from China. Not tweets from President Trump. Not B1 flights or carrier group movements.

In fact, even a conventional bombing strike wouldn’t be effective at stopping their program. Conventional bombs couldn’t get everything, since much of North Korea’s program is buried underground. And anyway, it would take time and invite massive retaliation, both conventional and nuclear, on Seoul.

That leaves one alternative: a nuclear strike. Am I right about that? The only way to halt North Korea’s nuclear program would be a surprise nuclear attack on every known nuclear installation in the country.

I’m asking because I’d like to cut through the fog and understand if we truly have any options here. Are there any other non-fantasy-based alternatives to stopping North Korea’s nuclear program?

EVENING UPDATE: I see that my point has been missed by some people. So here it is in plainer form: I’m asking if we have any real options with North Korea. We are obviously not going to nuke the Korean peninsula—I hope—so does that mean we don’t really have any choice at this point but to accept a nuclear-armed North Korea?

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate