The Wrongologist

What’s
Wrong Today:

We
went to war with North Korea in the 1950’s. We say that we won that war, but in
the 60 years since we signed the ceasefire agreement, there have been many violations,
incursions, threats and deaths among the parties.  Over the years, we got used to the North Koreans being
awful, just not awful enough to merit a major military response.

They
never leave our radar, but we never
consider North Korea a primary threat, much less an existential threat, like we
have Iran.

This
view continues, despite North Korea abandoning the armistice treaty, closing
the border to the joint manufacturing zone, suggesting that foreign diplomats
leave the country for their safety and rolling missiles on to launch pads, all
in the past month.

Yet in
recent years, North Korea has shown a willingness to follow its rhetoric with
actual violence. In March 2010, it sunk
the South Korean ship Cheonan,
killing 46 sailors. That November, Pyongyang attacked
the island of Yeonpyeongdo during a US-South Korea military exercise.

Still,
we remain focused on Iran. As Julian Hattem wrote in The
Atlantic, we treat North Korea as an afterthought:

It’s partly a matter of
geography. Most experts agree that North Korea’s rockets cannot
reach the American mainland. And even if they could, there’s a lot of time
and distance for early warning and for the military to shoot them down. Little
to fear, right?

Wrong! Do you know the Single-Shot-Kill Probability (SSKP) of an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) with a conventional warhead? Its way less than 50%. So unless we use nuclear-tipped ABMs, (SSKP >80%), half of the missiles could get through.

All the while,
we make fun of Kim Jong Un. When
Kim welcomed Dennis Rodman to North Korea in February we thought, Kim Jong Un
is a Dennis Rodman fan, how out of touch he is. We laugh when a map behind Kim
shows that Austin, TX is a ballistic missile target, along with LA and New
York.

Our allies in the
region don’t treat the North Korea so lightly. South Korean and Japanese
citizens tend to view North Korea as an existential threat, as we might if Kim
was sitting in Mexico City or Ottawa.

Iran, meanwhile, is a
Muslim nation and it is easier to stoke American fears with Muslim fanaticism
than North Asian nationalism. Iran brings in the Israel factor. We might not be
directly in Iran’s neighborhood, but Israel is, and the particular dynamics of
the US-Israel relationship and Israel’s oft-stated
willingness to preemptively strike Iranian nuclear sites makes that threat seem
most urgent.

There is also the
fear that Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon would inspire Saudi Arabia and
other countries in the neighborhood to also seek them.

In Asia, South Korea
and Japan accept the United States’ nuclear umbrella as a safeguard
against the North; countries in the Middle East are less willing to rely on us
to protect them from Iran.

However, North Korea
has been almost a constant threat to South Korea and tangentially, to Japan.
When tyrants die, their legacy usually dies with them but we are on to Kim 3.0 and we are seeing the same behavior.

The threat
is palpable. North Korea has thousands of artillery guns and many millions of
shells, some of which are chemically tipped. Their artillery
along DMZ are capable of hitting Seoul. It only takes a artillery round 56
seconds to get there. North Korea’s missiles can reach all of Japan and South
Korea, and they have at least a few nuclear tipped missiles, in addition to their
chemical and conventional missiles.

When the UN,
at our behest, places sanctions on North Korea, Mr. Kim threatens us with pre-emptive
nuclear war, knowing full well that we have little desire for a war with a
nuclear armed nation.

The threat
posed by Iran is different. Iran has fewer artillery pieces, a smaller missile
force, an outdated air force and no nuclear weapons currently. So Iran has less
to threaten us or our allies with than does North Korea.

So, when the
UN places sanctions on Iran at our behest, when “someone” attacks their nuclear
facilities with cyber weapons and when “someone” kills their nuclear scientists,
Iranians can make only vague threats since they do not yet have a means of
retaliation.

This should lead us to treat Iran and North
Korea very differently.

The
North Korean regime isn’t an ordinary regime. Ordinary people don’t threaten
pre-emptive nuclear strikes. They could try to hold South Korea hostage with the
few nukes they have. We would not have sufficient reaction time to prevent
Seoul from falling in that event. The standoff would be North Korea holding the
cities hostage with nukes while we try to create a credible alternative threat.

What
would we do then? There would be no easy answer to that riddle.

And
what about China?  China could get involved as they did in the
1950’s. If China believed North Korea might fall in retaliation for their hostile
acts against South Korea or Japan, China would see North Korea becoming a US
proxy state right on their border, something they would work hard to avoid.

Returning to
Iran’s existential threat: When Iran threatens the United State and Israel, it’s
mostly with hot air.

But Israel won’t tolerate Iran working on a nuclear program, so they’re
obviously the biggest threat facing the world today. At least among politicians
in Washington and that may be all that matters.

Iran has a
boatload of work to do before it is a partner of peaceful nations. But, the “let’s
invade now!” case has not been made. Iran is not launching their
nonexistent nukes with their non-existent ICBM’s any minute now just because they’re
religion makes ‘em crazy.

Iran isn’t
even the craziest country on their street, much less in the world.

That would
be North Korea. Give it your full attention.

Things
could get hot there very soon and what our response will be is far from clear.