It is great that now that you are out of government, it is ok to get tough on North Korea. Too bad you all couldn't do it when you were in government and in a position to actually do something about one of the most repressive and dangerous regimes in the world. North Korea violated repeatedly UNSCR 1718 over the past 2 years and most individuals serving in the Bush Administration turned a blind eye to these violations. In the summer of 2007, North Korea launched SRBMs in violation of 1718 and it was a miracle that the White House said anything. The State Department didn't even acknowledge the missile launches, denying them for days in face of press queries. Red lines. Whatever. Some in the Bush Administration actually set them and believed in them, while others, namely those at State, just let the North Koreans walk over them.

not have as much of a right to develop missiles and nuclear weapons as do USA ally non-signatories to international conventions, such as Israel, India, and Pakistan?

Why no wringing of your hands over Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile?

Nuclear know how will spread wildly in the coming years. At some point, the US will have to accept the obvious and threaten to respond to any nuclear terror attack on our soil with extreme force upon all terror sponsoring nations. MAD will have to get MADDER.

Chris,

- Israel is a dynamic and well established democracy that is friendly to the U.S..
- India, is also friendly to the U.S. and by population, the world's largest democracy.
- Association and support of our democratic friends is a good thing.
- I'll concede, Pakistan is a problem and could be a threat to our interest and more directly, India.

North Korea is a profound military threat to Japan, South Korea and the United States. You would have to be insane to associate NK with Israel or India as a potential threat.

Furthermore, equating deterrence in the case of US allies, with North Korea's policy of aggression and naked intimidation is plain foolish.

My guess is, that you consider proclamations of wiping Israel off the map and the Islamist hope for a Jew free world appealing.

Mr. Zelikow is either locked in an opium dream, or is writing to fill the time. I doubt that President Obama would strike N. Korea if they attacked Japan and left it a smoking nuclear ruin. On second thought that's not fair, they can probably do anything they want short of making him look so bad/weak that he would lose reelection. As Rev Wright found out..threaten his election chances and its under the bus for you! Besides Korea is going to have company shortly. Obama is going to talk and by the end of 2009 or sometime in 2010 Iran will have nukes. With the launch of their Satellite...during Obama's first month in office...they've demonstrated they can put a nuke on a missile also. Then we'll have Iran and N. Korea with nuclear armed missles. Mr. Zelikow is right that now would be the time to draw a very bright red line....but Obama simply won't do it. Hillary problaby is strong enough, but she's not going to have any real power.....so start up the atomic clock....its getting close to midnight again!!!!

I got this far........
It is also worth keeping in mind that North Korea was deeply involved in the nuclear reactor being covertly constructed in Syria, which Israel destroyed militarily.

and I thought...........
ANOTHER ONE WHO THINKS WE ARE STUPID!
.........North Korea was deeply involved in the nuclear reactor being covertly constructed in Syria,........

Says who?

Dear Sir,

First of all, I should tell you that I am disappointed by the stupidity of other commentators here. I can't believe that these people read Foreign Policy.

Secondly, your analysis misses a critical point and that is: What Would South Korea Do? US-South Korean relations suffered drastically when W. declared their northern neighbors to be part of the Axis of Evil. It not only undermined Kim Dae-Jung's popular sunshine policy, but once again made the Koreans, a very proud people, feel like a pawn in a great political game being waged by the United States in East Asia and a "little brother" in the US-Korean alliance.

That being said, Lee Myung-bak has been far more hawkish towards the North and the DPRK has responded in kind. Tensions are certainly building on the Koreas peninsula, but I believe that the ailing Kim Jung-Il is in no position to wage any type of war against a far more powerful South Korean army. Furthermore, from a purely realistic perspective, what does the US gain from bombing North Korea? We are pre-occupied with a war in Central Asia and the Middle East and are seeking a closer partnership with China and Russia. Getting militarily involved in Northeast Asia will only increase suspicions in China, alienate the Koreans, and alarm the Russians.

No, I believe that a better method is to put pressure on the Chinese and encourage them to take care of business in a region that historically and geographically falls into their sphere of influence. We should have three, four, or even five way talks that involve all the states in the region (perhaps even bringing in Mongolia, the forgotten state in the region but one that has been a steadfast friend to the US throughout the last decade)and try to come to a mutual solution. At the very least, we must have the go-ahead from China and ROK before making any unilateral moves - otherwise the results of our actions will greatly exacerbate the current situation and have very long term consequences.

The author writes: "There are only two viable weapons options for North Korea: missiles or devices for unconventional delivery (covert terror weapons)." If we adopt a policy of taking away their ability to test missiles by attacking them on the launch pad, isn't it rather foreseeable that the North Koreans will chose their only other "viable weapons option" and develop suitcase nukes? That doesn't sound too appealing to me.

Potentially setting off a war and a humanitarian crisis on China and Russia’s borders will not curry favor with Beijing or Moscow. We need their assistance on Iran, for example. They both have seats on the UN Security Council as well as diplomatic relations with Tehran. Alienating them would be a serious detriment to our efforts to curb Iranian proliferation. Read more.

You know that ABM Missile Defense? That's sounding really good right - missile technology is just getting too damn cheap and widespread for us to simply sit on it.

Personally, what I'd do is let the Norks get the nukes - but build up missile defense in South Korea, Japan, and our other allies, as well as the Continental US. The Norks can then sit on their nukes for all I care.

Do I have "the" answer? No. But we need to stick to facts before reaching any conclusion.

Let’s start by looking at some things asserted, apparently, as facts in the various posts. Mr. Zelikow’s assertions first. “ North Korea's plutonium has now all been weaponized. For what kind of weapons, you may wonder? There are only two viable weapons options for North Korea: missiles or devices for unconventional delivery (covert terror weapons).”

Why are those the only two options? The possible forms of nuclear weapon that I am aware of include stay behind, bomb, missile delivered, artillery delivered, and convert. The two variations Mr. Zelikow names are amongst the most difficult to engineer. They are only essential if the target is, in fact, the US. While obsolescent, the North does have an air force capable of dropping bombs. Is it not possible that South Korea is the target for any nuclear weapons (if they exist) which have been produced? Japan and the ROK are short range targets which do not require a new missile.

Mr. Zelikow cites June 2006 as a decision point. In July 2007, the North attempted to launch a missile similar to the one they are allegedly attempting to launch at present. Well, that one blew up shortly after launch! Is Mr. Zelikow prescient? Does he know this attempt will be a success? Clearly, we will have no confirmation of their state of development if we blow it up before it is launched. The only clear difference between June 2007 and the present is UN Security Council Resolutions 1695 and 1718.

“The United States must consider its own security, the security of its Japanese ally, and the security of its South Korean ally“. Problem is, their security concerns are not identical. If North Korea did opt to respond to the missile being destroyed with war, the US contributes a lot of troops, but it does NOT have 44 million citizens in harms way.

Allen Green: “As long as Japan and China aren’t fretting, why should we?” Their concerns are very different from those of the US. Japan is very much “fretting” (if there is common ground between the North and the South, it is a historical based distaste for Japan). They are in range of missiles which are known to work. China doesn’t fret because they have nothing to fear. China is the only semi-ally of any consequence that North Korea has left! Besides, if for some bizarre reason the North should attempt to nuke China, the Northern authorities are completely aware that China will not hesitate to destroy them. There won’t be any debate, any delay, any concern about public relations, just immediate occupation by the Chinese.

Do you feel luc: “US-South Korean relations suffered drastically when W. declared their northern neighbors to be part of the Axis of Evil. It not only undermined Kim Dae-Jung's popular sunshine policy, but once again made the Koreans, a very proud people, feel like a pawn in a great political game being waged by the United States in East Asia and a "little brother" in the US-Korean alliance.”
Partially true. Relations between the North and South suffered a setback when the 1994 Agreed Framework broke down. But was it the most significant downturn? No, that occurred when President Lee Myun-Buk won the election over President Kim’s party. Apparently, the “popular” sunshine policy was not popular enough to keep Kim’s party in power. On some points, President Lee is far more hard-line on the North than the Bush administration. Do the South Koreans feel like a “little brother” in the alliance? Some certainly do, and it has always been so…in fact, the Bush administrations attempts to remove US troops from the peninsula has been met by some South Koreans with dismay over the departure. To say that Koreans “feel” about this is to say Americans “feel” about the war in Iraq. There is no blanket “feeling”
Let’s examine President Lee’s “hawkish” behavior. It boils down to, “If you keep building bombs and missiles, we (the South) will stop feeding you.” Hmmm…why would he be a hawk for announcing he is not going to feed his enemy, free of charge?
While I’m all for working with China, to expect them to sanction the use of military force (unless it is their own) against the North, in any circumstances, is unrealistic. If you want to take away the military option, fine, but that should be our decision rather than saying “mother may I” to the Chinese when we already know the answer.

CM: While generally interesting, there is at least one problem with the link you cite. When the writer quotes 1.1 million NK troops and 5.2 million ROK troops, he is using two different measures. The 1.1 million is made up of active duty troops (the ROK active duty military consists of about 650,000). The 5.2 million ROK troops includes all forms of reserve troops. The North has those too (One of Kim Il Sung’s basic tenants for the nation was, “every citizen a soldier“…22 million of them. Okay, realistically, given age, physical health, need to continue basic civil functions, etc., the number is well under 22 million. But it is more that 1.1 million. You can’t count active duty for one side and reserve forces for the other. )
“North Korea is a rational actor”. North Korea is a political division on the map, not an actor. There are multiple actors in the North, not all with the same motives. They consist of , at least; the Party, the Kim clan, the military, and the government. Notice “the People” don’t even make it into the Top Four. While generally complimenting each other (if they country collapses, the Top Four all lose), they are not identical and there is infighting. The Kim clan is dependent on the military as they weakened the party and the government in order to solidify Kim Chong Il’s position in the process of taking over from Kim Il Sung. It is a dangerous little act wherein the Chonger must ensure the military is kept at a high “revolutionary “ pitch, but doesn’t slip the chain and do something truly provocative.

Musicmaster: Define “safety from attack by the US”. When the US removed nuclear weapons from the peninsula, the spokesmen from the North insisted it was a trick (after all, aircraft carriers and intercontinental range aircraft are evidence, in the eyes of the North, that the US is planning to attack them.) When the US reduced the scope of exercises in the ROK, the North insisted it was proof that that the US intended to attack (don’t ask me how one reaches that conclusion). When the US pulled troops out of the ROK, the North described it as preparations to attack them (again, I have no idea how one makes that leap in logic…you‘d have to ask the North Koreans). The only point at which the North could declare itself “safe from attack by the US” is when it can be confirmed that the US has no nuclear weapons…anywhere. What was the phrase: “You would leave me dependent upon the mercy of my enemies and the forbearance reptiles”, so I doubt the US is willing to disarm itself given the present world situation. Finally, you are assuming all parties of influence in the North WANT the threat to go away. Does the North Korean People’s Army gain anything if peace should break out? Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven. Without the ‘threat’ (real or imagined) of invasion, the North simply becomes a failed state with no reason for existence, which must ultimately be absorbed by the far more advanced South. I wouldn‘t bring up that idea over a cognac with the Chonger! (There is a reasonable argument to be made for leaving the ROK. It is a strong nation. It will do fine. It can be argued that an exit by the US would eliminate one of the North‘s arguments for being a separate nation. I‘m willing to say it even though it would mean I‘d need to find a new job. But the idea of strengthening an entity that tells its people we are their mortal enemy is poppycock. Did you know that when we provided rice to the North, they originally transferred it to other bags so that there would be no sign of where it came from? Well, some bright boy said, “No, no, leave it in the US bags. We will tell the people that it is tribute from the Americans out of FEAR of the Dear Leader.” Don‘t expect any gratitude from them.)

Let’s start with facts.

The worrying thing is that as well as developing missiles, it is pretty clear that the North Koreans are selling missiles also to other trouble spots such as Iran and the Middle East. While doing research, I came across information that North Koreans may even be doing deals with Taiwan. I found this information on a blog-site called http://kim1602.blogspot.com I think that other readers should look at the information. The potential damage from such deals is massive.