Tag: strategy

To end the tenacity of the Japanese and their kamikaze bombing of United States’ ships in the pacific and their soldiers readiness to commit harakiri rather than surrendering in the face of overwhelming forces, the United States decided on the orders of President Harry Truman to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wiping out hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians and soldiers in 1945 thus ending the Second World War with a bang. With this, the genii got out of the bottle and warfare changed for ever. In 1945 the United States was the only nuclear power but by 1949 the USSR caught up with them. It took one or two years before the USSR developed bombers that could reach the United States which by then had bombers in European bases spread from Britain, Germany to Turkey. Thus began the arms race and American strategy of containment in the face of being outnumbered by Soviet and East European land forces. Containment relied largely on massive nuclear retaliation in the case of Soviet land attack on American forces and their allies in Europe. Decades later, the USSR’s strategy of putting nuclear missiles in communist Cuba led to the missile crisis of 1962 when the whole world faced the possibility of nuclear war between the two superpowers of USA and USSR. This brinkmanship was resolved when in a secret deal, President John F. Kennedy agreed with the Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev of Russia to move out its missiles from Cuba while the USA moved out its own from Turkey on the border of the USSR. From then onwards, the emphasis shifted to development of ICBM and nuclear submarines carrying Polaris missiles as well as developing and deployment in various silos in the USSR and USA intercontinental ballistic missiles. This military advancement gave both superpowers second strike capability. This is to say if the USA were to hit the Soviet Union, it would have had the capability to retaliate because all its missiles would not have been taken out or destroyed. Realizing the futility of further development after the failed attempt of President Ronald Reagan anti-missiles system to be deployed in space to destroy on coming intercontinental ballistic missiles, the so-called Star Wars programme, serious negotiations to limit nuclear weapons by the two superpowers began. The previous SALT (strategic arms limitation talks) moved to the START (strategic arms reduction talks) by which considerable reductions were made in the nuclear arsenals of the two superpowers. In spite of whatever reduction that have been made, each of the nuclear weapons state of the USA and now Russian federation has enough nuclear weapons to bury the world six times over. The destructive awesomeness of nuclear weapons was captured in the statement of Albert Einstein when he said if there was a Third World War, the Fourth World War would be fought with sticks and stones meaning human civilization would have been destroyed and we would be back to the Stone Age. This was before China joined the nuclear weapons states in 1964 adding more explosion to the possible nuclear Armageddon. While the possible use of nuclear weapons in Europe was inconceivable because of the strategic balance then prevailing, it was not ruled out of consideration in other theatres of war outside Europe. For example, before China developed its own bomb, there was a move by General Omar Bradley of the US army and endorsed by his commander in the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur to prevail on President Harry Truman to authorize the use of nuclear weapons against China until he was relieved of his command in 1951.

Because of the awesomeness of nuclear weapons, there has been no direct military conflict between the two major super powers since 1945. There have been proxy wars between the communist world and the USA and her allies as was the case in Korea (1950-1953) and in Vietnam 1955-1975). There have been other proxy wars in Southern Africa and South America. The main reason why there has been relative global peace was because of nuclear weapons since everybody knows that in a direct exchange of nuclear weapons, there will be no winner and the whole world will be victims. Those who survive being incinerated will die as a result of radioactive fallout. It is this fear of the consequences of nuclear exchange that has underpinned the theory of mutual assured destruction (MAD) and of nuclear deterrence.

The relations between USA and Russian federation which inherited the nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union have been based on this strategy of deterrence. When China joined the club, the same equation applied. Before the accession to the NNPT (nuclear non-proliferation treaty), other countries such as Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, covertly Israel and North Korea became nuclear weapons states. Iran has nuclear ambitions and apartheid South Africa actually became a nuclear weapons state clandestinely around 1975 but destroyed this nuclear infrastructure when it realized a black government of South Africa might inherit it. The new comers and prospective comers into the nuclear club argue that it is an insurance against being run over by powerful countries. This is the argument of Israel, Pakistan and apparently North Korea. But none apart from North Korea has threatened to use it to preserve itself or to threaten potential adversary especially the much more powerful USA. This has been the case since the young and impetuous Kim Jon-Un took over the reins of government in North Korea after the death of his father Kim Jon il.

The Kim dynasty officially called the “Mount Baektu Bloodline” is a three generation lineage of North Korean leadership descending from the country’s first leader Kim il- Sung in 1948. Kim came to rule the country after the end of Japanese rule in 1945 led to its division into north and south Korea. He ruled with iron fist and led his country to the brutal Korean War in which he wanted to unify the country under his own rule and failed because of American resistance supposedly under United Nations auspices. Kim il Sung was succeeded by his son Kim Jon-il in 1994 and remained in power till his death in 2011. After his death, one of his teenage sons Kim Jon Un took over and began aggressive development of nuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them. He has tested middle range missiles and once launched an ICBM over Japan and threatened to destroy American forces in Guam and Okinawa. The seriousness of this issue has led twice this year to unanimous condemnation of North Korea by the UN Security Council including the concurrence of China and Russia which usually do not see eye to eye with the United States.

The open threat by North Korea to hit the USA has elicited strong reaction from the pugnacious United States President Donald J. Trump who openly declared before the United Nations General Assembly in September that if provoked the USA will destroy completely the government and presumably the people of North Korea. Since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the possibility of use of nuclear weapons has not been seen anywhere in the world, not even in the eternal conflict between India and Pakistan which developed nuclear weapons in the fear of being attacked by each other over their rival claims of the disputed territory of Kashmir over which they have fought several wars since the partition of the British Raj into India and Pakistan 1947.

The world is actually facing the breakdown of a long established strategy of world peace. This breakdown is occasioned by the apparent lack of fear of retaliation by North Korea, unless its leaders are engaging in a policy of dangerous posturing.  In a conflict between the USA and North Korea, there are several arsenals in the possession of the United States such as tactical nuclear bombs and neutron bombs that can be used to kill people without destroying physically the country. But of what use will the country be if its people are destroyed. Unless it is possible to take out its leadership surgically without the use of nuclear weapons, the present policy of North Korea may lead it to national suicide. If it can only moderate its rhetoric and behave responsibly as a nuclear weapons state, the country may survive. This will mean North Korea embracing the theory and practice of deterrence because it will be futile and dangerous for the USA to attack it if it is accepted as a nuclear weapons state. Then North Korea would have avoided the fate of Muamar Gadhafi’s Libya and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that were invaded because of not having nuclear weapons. It is to avoid this fate that is also driving the nuclear ambitions of Iran in spite of its protestation of pacific intentions and innocence.

The United States’ policy and  the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty which is internationally subscribed to by most non-nuclear  weapons states  has failed in the case of North Korea because  of America’s non-pacific intentions to North Korea. It may also fail in Iran because of the same reasons if America  under President Trump walks away from the carefully negotiated international agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (USA ,China, United Kingdom, Russia, France and Germany). It is ironical that while working for a peaceful world, America’s policy of intervention or threat of intervention is driving some of its potential enemies like Iran and North Korea to want to acquire nuclear weapons as some form of insurance against invasion. While Iran can still be prevented from becoming a nuclear weapons state, it is too late to talk about denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula because North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons. The fear of course is if North Korea does not behave responsibly as a nuclear weapons state should behave, Japan and South Korea, for strategic balance, may develop their own independent nuclear deterrence with or without American encouragement and sadly, the world will be less safe.