Policy Memo about North Korean Nuclear Program

North Korea’s Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons

After abandoning the Six-Party Talks on Denuclearization in 2008, North Korea has vigorously pursued nuclear progress unhindered by international sanctions. The US administration requested Pyongyang halt its nuclear activities and attempted to form a regional consensus opposing North Korea’s efforts; but, the US government was unable to stop North Korea’s nuclear weapons development. North Korea has subsequently continued its nuclear and missile warheads program in an attempt to push US officials to make a costly choice: either comply with North Korea’s reality of nuclear weapons or organize international support for the North Korean administration’s subversion (Lee).

The situation worsened further when Kim Jong-un took over the North Korean regime in 2012, and since then, Kim has used the nuclear weapon program, a legacy of Kim\u2019s father’s rule, as a cornerstone of the government’s national strategy (Bauchamp). North Korea has expanded the nation\u2019s nuclear assault capabilities by testing the nuclear and missile weapons. Furthermore, North Korea has constructed a light-liquid atomic reactor, a facility for enriching uranium and resumed the five-megawatt nuclear-powered reactor at Yongbyon thus enabling the country to further stock nuclear fuel (Negin). According to recent estimates, North Korea’s weapons stockpile includes about ten to eighteen atomic artilleries and could develop quickly by 2020 to a minimum estimation of twenty weapons and a maximum approximation of 125 weapons. North Korea might even consider marketing the surplus nuclear fuel or equipment to make money for economic development and consequently risking of nuclear weapons proliferation. The Northern Korea country has further procured portable launch ability for the unapproved long-range (7,500 km) KN-08 missile, and such a development will decrease the time available to prevent a North Korean missile attack (Negin). North Korea proclaimed to have successfully tried a submarine-launched airborne weapon and to have finally grasped the miniaturization technologies required to put a nuclear-powered warhead on a ballistic projectile.

The Importance of Addressing North Korea’s Nuclear Threat

The global community should be wary of North Korea\u2019s nuclear strife because if the Western nations acquiesce to North Korea\u2019s state, the extent and magnitude of blackmail efforts toward North Korean neighbors will undoubtedly intensify. In the end, an undesirable approach will prompt the use of military power to effect a regime change to attain denuclearization. The loss of life is the last occurrence that the world needs after the middle-eastern confrontations of the past decade. Another reason the world should be concerned is that of the current nuclear capabilities of North Korea. On July 2017, The North claimed that it propelled \u201ca new intercontinental ballistic missile 2800 miles into the sky\u201d (Negin). The missile was called the Hwasong-15, and the North claimed that the missile could carry \u201csuper-large heavy\u201d warheads into any location in the mainland of United States.

Factors That Lead to the Rapid Nuclearization

With the fall of the Soviet Union by 1991, North Korea lost its most valuable ally. The Soviets provided vast quantities of economic support and security aid, sustaining the country. As North Korea\u2019s superpower benefactor, the Soviet Union also provided military and diplomatic support (Bauchamp). Even though China began supporting the North Korean regime after the Soviet Union demise, the North Korean could not trust such support as China was not as dominant the Soviets were. Since the independence of North Korea, the United States and North Korea have a maintained a tense relationship. And so upon losing a valuable protector, North Korea turned to a strategy it new best as history had shown. History had proven through the Cold War that the only thing that deterred the U.S endeavors was having a nuclear program just as Russia had maintained its standby developing the nuclear arsenal. The Pyongyang regime saw that a mutually assured destruction scenario was the best course of action.

After Soviets withdrawal, terrible famine faced North Korea in the mid-90s that killed many. In a bid to save the country, the North Korean leader, Kim Jong II developed a military based form of governance called Songun (Bauchamp). The Songun oversaw all aspects of administration. Kim Jong II convinced the people that a future survival depended on a robust military structure. And so the nuclear program was a strategic design of governance by further assuring the citizens that the country had a stronger fighting force.

During George Bush\u2019s term in office, Bush employed more aggressive approaches to denuclearize North Korea unlike the safe methods used previously by Bill Clinton. The situation was made worse also when Bush invaded Iraq on terms of ceasing Saddam Hussein\u2019s weapons of mass destruction. Also Bush mentioned that North Korea was among the \u201caxes of evil.\u201d (Albert) The events discussed further intensified North Korea\u2019s nuclear program as a form of deterrent against what Iraq faced.

Appropriate Policy Approach

The United States government could apply some steps to force denuclearization. First, Washington should escalate the pressure on Pyongyang to enable the government to distinguish the existential option between survival endurance and nuclear prominence. The U.S should employ an amplified influence on political and economic fronts to convince the North Korean high-ranking officials that a nuclearized North Korea is a dead-end choice. The United States could also unite allies of the U.S to increase sanctions to target industries like banks and other financial institutions that do not cease collaboration with North Korea (Snyder). Also, the U.S and its allies should accentuate to Pyongyang that the international community removes prolonged sanctions if North Korea takes recognizable, concrete steps to denuclearization, for example, the nation would welcome the International Atomic Energy Agency by permitting the return inspectors into the country. The U. S should further remind North Korea that armed provocations jeopardizes escalation that could ensure the country’s demise. Finally with mentioned sanctions, the American nation and South Korea ought to give a directive to the World Bank to classify sectorial trade and investments that will yield tangible economic profits that would supplement the Pyongyang\u2019s integration into the peaceful region. The above tactic would aim to present the benefits of denuclearization, integration, and diplomatic cohabitation in conjunction with stronger sanctions.

The second approach is that the U.S should then pursue five-party dialogues to develop a feasible path for North Koreans to survive and profit from denuclearization (Albert). Such a widespread consensus on a direction to denuclearization would undoubtedly prompt a debate among North Koreans concerning the costs and the benefits of pursuing a nuclear status. The party talks will cultivate a precise measure to seek a North Korean transformation. The parties must come to terms with the scenario that forceful regime change might be the only means to accomplish denuclearization if Pyongyang fails to agree to the measures presented. The parties would then provide a clear pathway to amicable coexistence, diplomatic normalization, denuclearization, and better internal governance. The process established would coordinate a mechanism that allows the U.S and its associates to discuss the Russian and Chinese geopolitical concerns on North Korea (Albert). In the end, the process will increase the pressure on the regime and encourage a policy debate among leaders of North Korea concerning the value of the nuclear program.

Finally, the U.S should encourage China and Russia to remove political backing for increased pressure on Pyongyang until the administration commits to denuclearization (Snyder). The Trump administration could leverage the developing discussion within the China about North Korea’s strategic worth and pressure the Chinese President to strengthen sanctions on the North even at a risk of provoking instability in North Korea. United States could convince the chines government by pledging no U.S army would permanently remain at the 38th apparel (Lee). The above policy is much more appropriate than the immediate military action that many propose, for the system above will ensure the preservation of human life and sustainability of the North Korean people if the policy becomes a success.

Works Cited

Albert, Eleonor. “Addressing North Korea’s Nuclear Problem.” 19 November 2015. Counsel on Foreign Relations. 5 December 2017 .

Bauchamp, Zack. A Brief History of North Korea’s Nuclear Program and the Failed US campaignto Stop It. 7 January 2016. 5 December 2017 .

Lee, Youkyung. “North Korea Crisis: Massive US Airforce Drills Trigger Pyongyang Nuclear War Warning.” 4 November 2017. Indiependent. 5 December 2017 .

Negin, Elliot. Hyping U.S. Missile Defense Capabilities Could Have Grave Consequence . 11 November 2017. 5 December 2017 .

Snyder, Scott A. South Korea at the Crossroads: Autonomy and Alliance in an Era of Rival Powers. Washington: Columbia University Press, 2017.