Following Up: Growing Asia Nuclear Policy Risks Remain Hidden from Americans

Tags

"The Interview", alliances, allies, deterrence, Donald Trump, extended deterrence, Following Up, Hillary Clinton, Japan, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, nuclear weapons, Obama, South Korea, Team America: World Police

If a longstanding policy U.S. foreign policy position strongly endorsed by the nation’s bipartisan political leadership was steadily becoming a major nuclear threat to the American homeland, and the mainstream media and chattering classes at best glossed over the threat, wouldn’t you start wondering if they were in cahoots with each other against the interests of the mass public – and dangerously so?

Well it’s hard to read the coverage of North Korea’s latest nuclear weapons tests and reasonably reach any other conclusion.

Over the last month, North Korea has fired missiles and set off underground nuclear explosions that revealed major progress toward the goal of developing nuclear weapons capable of hitting American territory. Yesterday’s bomb test prompted a statement by President Obama that condemned the dictatorship of Kim Jong Un, and did refer to implications for the United States:

“”Today’s test, North Korea’s second this year, follows an unprecedented campaign of ballistic missile launches, which North Korea claims are intended to serve as delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons targeting the United States and our allies, the Republic of Korea and Japan. As Commander in Chief, I have a responsibility to safeguard the American people and ensure that the United States is leading the international community in responding to this threat and North Korea’s other provocations with commensurate resolve and condemnation.”

But he didn’t make clear the real reason that the rapidly emerging new North Korean nuclear capabilities endanger America. It’s not, as someone who knows the Pyongyang regime mainly from blackly comedic portrayals in Hollywood films might suppose, because its current leader and his father were homicidal maniacs insanely plotting global conquest or bent on triggering a worldwide nuclear holocaust. (Think Team America: World Police or The Interview.)

Not that anyone can dismiss this possibility with great confidence, given the North’s erratic behavior and how little we know about it. But from a purely strategic standpoint, if Pyongyang really is seeking world domination, unless a preemptive strike is seen as a promising option (and as reported in RealityChek, at least one respected defense consulting firm doesn’t agree), the United States is already doing everything that can plausibly be done to deter the threat. It’s maintained nuclear forces of its own fully able to wipe the North off the map, and whose threatened use would be credible because America’s own survival would be at stake.

And logically, but worrisomely, if Kim really is insane, and harbors suicidal tendencies, there’s literally no deterrence strategy with high odds of succeeding.

So it should be clear that an unprovoked intercontinental bolt from the blue is not what’s on the president’s mind, or those of other foreign policy specialists who are so alarmed by the latest news.

Instead, what Mr. Obama and the rest of the foreign policy establishment’s political, policy, and media wings fear is that North Korea’s improving forces threaten America’s decade’s long commitment to defend U.S allies in East Asia with nuclear weapons. Specifically, as RealityChek regulars know, a pledge that was arguably prudent when the North lacked any nuclear weapons, or still showed no potential of reaching the United States proper, has become anything but prudent if it could result in the destruction of an entire American city. Two. Or more.  

Worse, the North – as well as China – also has been making progress in building what strategy specialists call a secure retaliatory capability.  That means nuclear forces standing a good chance of remaining at least partly functional even if the United States tries to take it out. 

Current U.S. policy looks even less defensible given that America’s allies in the region have ample resources to build the militaries needed to repel any conventional attack by North Korea, and that Washington has long maintained its nuclear umbrella in order to prevent South Korea and Japan from going nuclear themselves. Inadequate allied military spending provides ever greater fuel for charges that American leaders are risking their own countrymen’s safety in order to protect defense deadbeats. And as even the establishment media has begun to report, the non-credibility of the United States vowing to incur nuclear risks on behalf of others has voices in allied countries more earnestly talking about their own nuclearization.

According to President Obama, America’s most sensible course of action is to reaffirm existing policy: “I restated to President Park [of South Korea} and Prime Minister Abe [of Japan] the unshakable U.S. commitment….to provide extended deterrence, guaranteed by the full spectrum of U.S. defense capabilities.” Translation into plain English: Despite the mounting threat to America itself, the nuclear umbrella remains up.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton believes that the North’s new steps require a “rethinking” of U.S. North Korea policy, but only in the sense of strengthening sanctions aimed at denuclearizing the North, and pursuing the kinds of negotiations that resulted in the deal to delay Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. She made sure to add that she would “back allies in the region, including South Korea and Japan,” an Associated Press account reported.

I would be the last person to insist that these positions are by definition out of bounds. Although I strongly disagree, it’s entirely legitimate to conclude that maintaining the (so far peaceful) status quo in East Asia is worth accepting some degree of risk for the American homeland. What should be out of bounds is Washington’s continuing determination to conceal these risks from the American people – with the cooperation of most of the Mainstream Media.

Even the few reports of the North Korea tests and their implications that both mentioned the increasing threat to the United States, along with some relationship to its alliance policy and to America’s deterrence strategy, did so only the most oblique, abstract ways. (See here and here for examples.) None of them explained that, when the North did develop intercontinental strike capabilities, it would remain American policy literally to risk Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago or New York or Washington for Tokyo and Seoul.

Again, the point is not that this risk shouldn’t be taken. It’s that no one has made the nuclear attack realities clear to the American people, and then asked them if they approve.

Of course, there has been one political figure who’s called America’s nuclear commitments to its allies into question. That’s Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. And of course, thanks to Mainstream Media coverage, we all know what a lunatic loose cannon he is.

Following Up: Obama Offers Bravado, not Leadership, Against Cyber-Hacking

Tags

"The Interview", cyber-security, Following Up, hacking, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, Obama, Sony

The more the Obama administration says about the Sony hacking incident — and the related threats against the company and movie theater chains if it released the comedy film “The Interview” — the less confident Americans should feel about Washington’s ability to deal with cyber-attacks, and to protect the public from its effects and similar attempts at intimidation. In particular, the President confused attempting to reassure with indulging in bravado.

If you think this conclusion is overly harsh, consider the president’s remarks in his year-end press conference. Although he expressed sympathy for Sony’s predicament, he declared that the company “made a mistake” by canceling “The Interview’s” release. “I wish they had spoken to me first,” he continued. “I would have told them do not get into a pattern in which you’re intimidated by these kinds of criminal attacks.”

Yesterday, he elaborated, telling CNN “You know, had they talked to me directly about this decision, I might have called the movie theater chains and distributors and asked them what that story was. Sometimes this is a matter of setting a tone and being very clear that we’re not going to be intimidated by some, you know, cyberhackers. And I expect all of us to remember that and operate on that basis going forward.”

But it’s hard to imagine that Sony’s response – or anyone’s – would have been much different if Mr. Obama told the company everything he said on the matter to the American people in his press conference. First the nature of the problem – which the President described with commendable candor:

>”In this interconnected, digitized world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber attacks in the public sector and the private sector.”

>”I think all of us have to anticipate that occasionally there are going to be breaches like this. They’re going to be costly. They are going to be serious.”

>”Even as we get better, the hackers are going to get better, too. Some are going to be state actors. Some are going to be non-state actors. All are going to be sophisticated and many will do some damage.”

“Right now, it is the Wild West. Part of the problem is you have weak states that can engage in these kinds of attacks. You have non-state actors that can do enormous damage.

“This is not just going to affect movies. This is going to affect our entire economy in ways that are extraordinarily scary.”

And here’s why Mr. Obama apparently thinks Sony should have shown more backbone and why, as he said earlier in the week, Americans in general should be confident that they can “go to the movies.”

>“Our first order of business is to prevent these attacks….But a lot more needs to be done.”

>”[W]e will respond. We will respond proportionally and in a place and time and manner that we choose.”

>”More broadly…this should be cause to work with the international community to start setting up some very clear rules of the road in terms of how the internet and cyber operates.”

The first in this second group of statements confesses that America’s cyber defenses remain all too porous. The second, as I explained on Friday, signals weakness. In fact, yesterday, Pyongyang reacted by threatening “the toughest counteraction” to any U.S. retaliation. Given the North’s penchant for over-the-top rhetoric, this statement per se certainly shouldn’t have the administration of the nation quaking. But it also doesn’t reveal much fear of American responses.

As for the third of the above Obama statements, it’s simply delusional. The North Koreans, like the Chinese and the Iranians and the non-state cyber-hackers, clearly lie outside the “international community” when it comes to hacking – and so much else. They won’t respect rules. They’ll only respect results.

I’m not blaming President Obama for his failure so far to devise effective counter-measures for a relatively new threat like cyber-aggression. I am blaming him for suggesting that Sony – and the rest of the nation – are much more secure than they actually are, and for upbraiding the company for a lack of backbone. It sounds like nothing so much as an unseemly recommendation that “Let’s you and him fight.”

Much better – and genuinely inspiring – would have been a vow to work with Sony and the public to develop a clear, joint campaign of defiance to Pyongyang, and leave no doubt to everyone – including current and future hacking victims – that Americans are all in this fight together.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Why the Sony Hack Really Matters

Tags

"The Interview", China, cyber-war, escalation dominance, hacking, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, Obama, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Sony

The most important lesson we may be learning from the hacking of Sony Corp. is also the most disturbing. From what Americans can know so far (and even officials lacking security clearances probably don’t know close to everything), it seems that the United States lacks cyber-war escalation dominance with North Korea as well as with China.

As I’ve written before, escalation dominance is strategists’ fancy way of describing retaliatory power so great that it puts an intimidating fear of God into any prospective attacker. Washington’s weakfish response to Chinese government hacking activity – mainly an offer to discuss hacking rules of the road with Beijing – certainly suggested strongly a determination that some kind of counter-hack or other punishment created too great a threat of a broader cyber-conflict that America simply could not risk waging.

The Obama administration has made no such suggestion to Pyongyang and the threats made by the hackers against prospective patrons of Sony’s “The Interview.” Indeed, the White House publicly threatened retaliation – which sounds more encouraging. So did the President’s own recommendation “people go to the movies” (albeit with the qualifier “For now).

But other administration remarks were much more disquieting. Chief among them were White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s statement that the President believes that “we need a proportional response.” If history teaches anything, it’s that such a tit-for-tat strategy is a sign either of weakness or political uncertainty (see “Vietnam War”), and worse, is interpreted this way by the adversary.

Further reinforcing my fears on escalation dominance are the clear differences between U.S.-China and U.S.-North Korea relations. America’s caution re Beijing’s hacking is at least in theory also justifiable by the myriad strategic and economic interests at stake. China’s aggressive moves in the South and East China Sea, for example, might still be neutralized through diplomacy that in turn could be jeopardized by a strong U.S. hacking response (though I’m skeptical of the former). America’s allies in Asia, moreover, are as reluctant to see anything rock the U.S.-China economic policy boat as are offshoring U.S. multinational companies.

It’s hard, however, to see how North Korea could become more hostile, at least rhetorically. (Any fear of military retaliation by Pyongyang would of course strongly indicate that America has also lost strategic nuclear escalation dominance, as I’ve previously warned.) And although Washington’s regional allies are still pretty conflict-averse regarding Kim Jong Un’s regime, no commercial considerations are complicating American calculations. (For the record, it would be completely unacceptable to let the tail of alliance unity wag the dog of the kinds of core U.S. security interests at risk here.)

And another troubling aspect of American policy: Reports that Mr. Obama “lately has been discussing the issue with aides every day” carry the hint that the Korean actions have Washington by surprise, and that even though cyber-hacking is no longer a new threat, nothing like promising retaliatory plans are yet in place.

I’m not saying that dealing with cyber-hacking is easy, and that goes double for hacking sponsored by foreign governments with formidable militaries. Unquestionably, numerous competing interests need to be balanced, and miscalculations could be disastrous. But America’s responses to date make painfully clear that the administration remains far from sorting out its priorities, and that as a result, the nation remains dangerously vulnerable to cyber-hacks.