Why does the US not just accept North Korea's nuclear ambitions and attempt to mend relationships?

Question

Many experts propose that it is not practically possible (without engaging in war and endangering the lives of many civilians, in both US and ally territory) to prevent North Korea from building nuclear weapons.

Given that, why does the US not just accept that, and attempt to mend relationships? Instead, we have Trump having a pissing contest with North Korea, making threat after threat, largely just throwing a hissy fit, and refusing any sort of diplomatic approach.

What is the point of this, and why does the US not just accept the situation, when they can't do anything about it?

For example, if I was president of the US, my approach would be to accept that here's an enemy which possesses dangerous powers which I can't take away, and thusly, in order to protect people, in my country and elsewhere, I will attempt to befriend this enemy, or at least diminish tensions, and assure them that we wish them no harm and that utilizing those powers against us or our allies is a needless and self-harming act, and after this, I would further attempt to strengthen our relationships with trade and other economical transactions so as to increase our co-dependency and decrease the probability of military conflict. The last thing I would do is to look at a group of plausible sociopaths and go oh you have big guns? Well, say hello to my little friend!, and yet, that seems to be America's plan? Why?

Answer 1

From the USA point of view there are two types of arguments. The first ones are those that state that the less nuclear capable countries there are, the better¹:

• Less nuclear warheads at risk of being captured/sold to rogue actors.

• Non-nuclear countries are less of a worry if they become unstable.

• Every foreign country, no matter how friendly, is at the least a competitor. And countries that currently side with you may change their stance in the future. The less leverage other countries have, the better. For example, once WWII ended the USA stopped helping the development of UK nuclear weapons.

The second part are the reasons for which North Korea may be viewed as a specially worrysome nuclear power are:

• It is certainly not friendly to the USA.

• It is technically in a state of war with one of USA's allies, and occasionally acts aggressively against it (including exchanging artillery fire).

• It has publicly conducted illegal actions in other countries² (kidnapped Japanese citizens, murder of Kim Jong Nam).

• It is a totalitarian regime, which means less controls preventing a single individual deciding to use the nuclear weapons.

• It has little foreign contact, which means both less leverage against it (has no foreign trade to lose if an embargo is placed) and less knowledge of its internal politics (what things are they interested in and which things they see as threatening).

• The North Korean weapon program is in breach of previous pacts to which the USA was part to.

Additionally, internally it is very hard to sell to the public that the USA cannot impose its will in a tiny, backwards country in the Far East and that it has to begin talks without being able to dictate the terms. Politicians court the public favour by the use of grandstanding claims ("Our mighty army! The USA are an exceptional case!") which do not mix well with realpolitiks.

---

¹And yes, you can claim that it is hypocritical for one of the nuclear superpowers to have this aim. Others can claim that, while this approach benefits the USA, it also benefits the rest of the world. We are looking at the reasons from the USA point of view.

²Here again, the USA has done that, too. Did I tell you that these were the reasons from the USA point of view?

Answer 2

Enough deterrent

The United States hasn't invaded North Korea in over sixty years. Why does North Korea need nuclear weapons? The existing threat of artillery hitting Seoul is more than sufficient to prevent an invasion. We know this because the US hasn't invaded North Korea to prevent the development of nuclear weapons because of the more conventional threat to Seoul.

What is different about nuclear missiles? They can be used to attack countries other than South Korea. If North Korea shells or invades Seoul, they can't also deter an invasion by threatening to shell Seoul. They lose their deterrent if they use it. Meanwhile, nuclear weapons leaves them with two threats. So they can use one and retain the other. For example, they could invade South Korea while threatening other countries. Or they could use nukes on a more distant country while threatening Seoul if invaded.

If they wait for the right moment, they might be right. Barack Obama did not intervene militarily when Russia invaded Ukraine. He might not have countered a nuclear North Korea if it had advanced to Seoul. But the US might react differently to an attack from North Korea. For one thing, Obama is no longer president. Also, North Korea is not China much less Russia. It's a small country with few places to hide missile infrastructure and limited missiles. But even if wrong, they might still have to invade to find out they're wrong.

Mending relations

Given that, why does the US not just accept that, and attempt to mend relationships?

There is no evidence that North Korea wants a mended relationship. Obama was president for eight years. His biases favored diplomatic relations, which he opened with both Iran and Cuba. If North Korea wanted mended relations, they had eight years to develop them. And that ignores the fact that during the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations, the US was actually giving North Korea aid. They weren't exactly hostile to diplomatic relations.

North Korea could have easily had a "mended" relationship for twenty-four years. While I wouldn't have followed Donald Trump's approach, as it is too noisy in my opinion, it's not much of an obstacle to normalized relations.

They could do something about it

when they can't do anything about it?

But that's the thing. In this particular case, the US could do something about it. The situation today is that North Korea is no particular threat to the US or even Japan. They are close to developing such a threat. But they are still at the point that a preemptive attack would work. However, that doesn't prevent a conventional artillery attack on Seoul.

It is generally acknowledged that if North Korea did use nuclear weapons on the US, the US would then destroy it. But if that's what's going to happen, the cheapest time for it to happen is now. North Korea will never be weaker than it is today. And Kim Jong-un is on a train that can only go two ways. One way leads to an invasion of South Korea. The other way leads to the fall of his government.

Any other options he might have are already available to him. If they interested him, he could have pursued them during the Obama administration. Instead, he pursued nuclear weapons, which are on the path to invade South Korea.

The question then is not if the US and North Korea will go to war. The question is when they will do so. Pretending that that is not the reality won't make it any less true. And delaying that war until later doesn't help the US position at all. The US is at its strongest relative to North Korea today. Delay only makes North Korea stronger without making the US stronger.

The only other real option is that China steps forward and removes North Korea's ability to produce nuclear weapons. However, they have shown no signs of being willing to do that. Perhaps the US could use trading relations to pressure China, but the truth is that China exports far more to the US than the US exports to China. That path leads to more US pain than Chinese pain.

Four options:

1. The US does nothing and North Korea becomes stronger.
2. The US bribes North Korea with aid and North Korea agrees to stay where it is (and keeps to that agreement despite breaking previous agreements).
3. China steps in. Unlikely, since they helped create the current situation.
4. A military solution. Very painful for South Korea.

If #3 is not really on the table and #2 and #1 are unacceptable, what's that leave? From that standpoint, the US is just waiting for South Korea to realize that and evacuate Seoul.

There are no good solutions. They are only different types of bad. Obama tried #1. Bush and Clinton tried #2. Net result? We're here today. Trump is pursuing #3, which I find unlikely. Absent that, eventually either the US or North Korea will move to #4.

Answer 3

What is there that the US can do to "mend relationships"? I certainly can't think of anything: can you? Seems as though the poor relationship between North Korea (and the rest of the world, basically) is entirely the fault of North Korea, and always has been.

North and South Korea started out as one country & culture, not even one lifetime ago, yet look at the different paths they chose to follow. The South is prosperous and a welcome member of the international community, the North is poor and an international pariah. The US is responsible for this only in that it helped prevent the North from overrunning the South. Everything else, including that attempt to take over the South, has been entirely the choice of the NK leadership.

So now you have a country ruled by a third-generation dictatorship verging on theocracy, with a government filled with people who are either mostly or entirely out of touch with reality, or who are afraid to speak out because that will get them killed by the true believers. How do you "mend relationships" with that?

It's like trying to talk about evolution with your creationist neighbor: there's simply no way to connect. And if your neighbor also happens to be a paranoid sociopath with a closet full of automatic weapons, you're better off not even trying to start a discussion :-)

Answer 4

North Korea would not start any nuclear attack to any one because the first attack will be the last, So why US dont leave them alone?

Because US government and US presidents dont want a complete solution for the issue:

• they show the threat of N.Korea to S.Korea and japan and justify their military presence in the region, near china and Russia borders. (e.g. Look how US use this excuse to justify THAAD deployment to South Korea).
• for US presidents, conflicts outside the borders are good tools for Distracting public opinion from problems people in the US face with; and if needed wars can unite people behind the president.
• US economy is dependent on Arms trading. Imagine there is no war or major conflicts and threats in the world; Africa, middle east, east Asia. Then how many jobs lost?

In fact, as one can see these days, US politics cause more arm producing from N.Korea.

Answer 5

As a supplementary to user1's answer which is just to the point, instead of an extensive comment:

What is the point of this, and why does the US not just accept the situation, when they can't do anything about it? For example, if I was president of the US...

1) The president, or any leader in general, is just the top of the iceberg. The thing visible to the wide public. Obviously, there are deeper reasons besides "psychological of an individual or two" which are responsible and will be responsible for what is going to happen (historical, economical, social reasons).

2) Historically, all big economic crises in the past were followed by either world wars or numerous side wars. Moreover, US intervention policy (or as it used to be called "spreading of democracy") internationally is not something new (Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc, etc)

3) Apart from arms trading, mentioned by user1, there are numerous of other businesses which will be gaining profit from such a war (big credit institutes, resource companies, technology companies-information & telecoms etc., food industry).

Answer 6

Many experts propose that it is not practically possible (without engaging in war and endangering the lives of many civilians, in both US and ally territory) to prevent North Korea from building nuclear weapons.

Yet you cite not a single one of them. However, I agree. Actually North Korea (NK) already built nuclear weapons, so if anything one could only prevent them from building even more nuclear weapons and/or abolishing their existing nuclear weapons.

Given that, why does the US not just accept that, and attempt to mend relationships? Instead, we have Trump having a pissing contest with North Korea, making threat after threat, largely just throwing a hissy fit, and refusing any sort of diplomatic approach.

One could see throwing hissy fits as some sort of diplomatic approach which aims at threatening the other side into submission. While I'm sure that the US are aware of the costs of preventing NK to build more nuclear weapons, they are probably also be aware of the risks of let NK continue developing their nuclear weapons.

They could attempt to try a more benign relationships and indeed I think it is a big mistake of Trump not to at least try to stop NK diplomatically (even though I would guess it would probably not work anyway). The current US administration may be very pessimistic regarding the possibility of mending relationships or it may act not very prudent, kind of on the same level as NK, both is possible.

What is the point of this, and why does the US not just accept the situation, when they can't do anything about it?

You can always do something about anything, a small impact is not the same as zero impact. Especially together with China and Russia and South Korea and Japan they could probably have a more pronounced impact. On the other hand, I wonder how you conclude that the US is not accepting the situation? So far, apart from some sharp remarks, nothing really happened on the US side. They clearly seem to formally accept the current situation so far.

For example, if I was president of the US... I will attempt to befriend this enemy ... I would further attempt to strengthen our relationships with trade and other economical transactions so as to increase our co-dependency and decrease the probability of military conflict. ...

That is one possibility but be reminded that history is also full of examples where this strategy didn't work out very well. Appeasement politics towards Hitler comes to my mind as the first example.

Basically there is no guarantee that befriending NK will decrease the threat they pose. Especially befriending dictators is a very sloppy road I rather would not want to walk down. It can end equally deadly.

...that seems to be America's plan? Why?

For them NK does pose a serious threat, especially if NK obtains the capacity to strike on US mainland territory. It may be better (from their point of view) to stop NK before that, even if the death toll would surely be quite high, than to wait and waste time with diplomacy that may be likely to fail anyway and then stand at a strategically even worse position.

They have to evaluate all options and war is always in option, even in our modern time. It probably also depends on the reaction of China, which is probably not very happy about NK with hydrogen bombs but also not about the prospect of a war between NK and others.

Finally, the current US administration is widely criticized. There may be something to it and they may indeed make errors there, judging the situation wrongly.

If you ask me, I feel like the whole thing won't end well, either way. I would not bet on NK open to an acceptable diplomatic solution (nuclear disarming against lots of money?) at all but I would always try it and put such an offer on the table.

Answer 7

International politics are not simple, especially among nuclear powers. If we were to consider "letting" North Korea have a nuclear arsenal, we must look at who they are. Consider a more personal question. You and your family are having a picnick. In front of you is a young child with a loaded firearm. Would you try to befrend them and try to convince them to eat alongside your family while they hold onto that firearm? Or would you seek to remove the firearm from their control? The answer must consider the nature of the child holding the firearm to have any reasonable probability of success.

Consider:

• North Korea regularly demonized the United States, threatening to destroy it completely. By the child with a firearm metaphor, this is the child that has already threatened to come to school and kill everyone. Do they mean it? I don't think that's an easy question to answer, but I think it does point out that it is highly unlikely that 4 (or 8) years of a president's efforts are going to undo sixty years of aggression and propaganda.
• North Korea has a history of not honoring its diplomatic endeavors. The most poignant, in my opinion, is when North Korea declared the "Six Party Talks" never happened. That attitude lasted until China put their foot down, and North Korea had to admit that they happened. This child is one who is known to say one thing and do another, repeatedly.
• What does North Korea want anyway? We certainly can't agree to be friends with a nation without making sure their attitude is in line with ours, at least minimally. One of North Korea's driving goals is the reunification of Korea on their terms, and they are willing to consider war as a valid tool to achieve those goals.

  In December 1955, Kim Il Sung, the country’s founder-president and Kim Jong Un’s grandfather, said in a speech that "peaceful unification" was the ideal option, and could come about when "we grow stronger" and the "forces of peace, democracy and socialism become more powerful.”

  If that fails, “the problem of reunification might also be solved by war,” he said.

Oh bother this last one is hard to put into a child with a handgun metaphor. Our relationship with South Korea is as complicated as any international relationship. However, to give it a proper feel, I would suggest the metaphor should be that the child holding the handgun is a boy who believes they should be with your daughter forever, and is willing to rape her if necessary to achieve this goal.

So with all this, it should be clear that "just being friends" is not easy. That's not to say for certain that it's the wrong path, but one should be aware of just how daunting of a possibility it is.

Now consider the United State's interests. Honestly, I'd feel comfortable saying that the US doesn't directly care about the building of nuclear weapons. What they care about is the possibility of those weapons being detonated on soil friendly to the US. This leads them to push hard against the building of the weapons, but that's not truly their end goal. Just because North Korea cannot be stopped from building nuclear weapons (if you believe that), does not imply North Korea cannot be stopped from launching them. If you look at it from that frame of reference, you can see why the US uses both carrot and stick, rather than just carrots to accomplish their goals. We may disagree with how much carrot and how much stick is being used, but most agree that both must be used.

Answer 8

Because 1. WE (the people of the USA) have allowed shady, greedy, political criminals to sit in positions of power who only care about self interests. These people don't care about what is best for the country or it's people, yet we allow them to dictate everything.

2. We have allowed corporations to infiltrate everything in America, including politics, and the greedy politicians in office have no problems selling us out for money, and so they (corporations with money) actually control everything (pull the strings). Any decisions that are made are then made for financial interests only, not for the sake of peaceful resolutions.

3. The US has been one of the most corrupt and manipulative countries in the world, and even more so ever since Israel made us their bitch lap dog. As a result, we have committed heinous acts of treason, criminality and terrorism against humanity. Because of these atrocities, no other countries will ever trust us. Only the weaker ones agree to our unfair, intrusive and outrageously hypocritical policies.

4. The world, including Korea, has watched us play dirty games and knows are true intentions (US Propaganda only works on us, not them). Korea likely sees us for the hypocrites we are, thus, doesn't want to be told by the only people in the history of the world to ever use nuclear weapons, what to do with theirs. (If anyone should give up nukes, it should be maniacs who have used them, especially if they used them twice for no good reason).

It doesn't look good when maniacs & thieves want everyone else to disarm themselves and or be less protected. Especially maniacs with a history of invasions, theft and injustice under the guise of freedom and liberation.

5. Our main and real goal is to set up military bases in everyone's backyard. We pretty much brute force our way into others sovereign land if they resist. But only if they're weak and easy prey. N. Korea is not, which is why we sit back and do nothing when a lunatic like Kim-Jon-Un makes threats and fires nukes into the ocean aggressively, but invade places like Iraq over bullshit and lies.

6. Korea may not have the same resources as the Middle East has for us to steal, but our interests are still purely self centered, thus, taken as aggressive. N. Koreans aren't a bunch of poor defenseless farmers who live in the desert and can barely fight. So we tread much more carefully and try to negotiate, instead of the normal invade, kill and steal. Negotiations tend to be more complicated with people who know what your all about, can protect themselves and aren't scared of you.

These may not seem like good answers separately, but together they paint the picture for real answers to your questions. And they're honest.

As you have hinted, it would much easier and safer for us to just leave people be. We should only interject in extreme circumstances. But that doesn't suit the goals of greedy, rich and powerful people with agendas. What's best for the world doesn't matter, even if it means war that leads to millions of deaths.

Answer 9

The thing is: What you hear from the media, what's really happening out there, and how the public reacts to it, is so different we can't really imagine. We are permanently influenced by modern media, most of us take things as we hear them. And that is probably the greatest problem in that conflict.

I don't really think that North Korea will use any of their potentially available nuclear weapons. Any sign of war engagement would cause such a big chain reaction, North Korea would not even survive a week.

Attack against the US is probably the worst one to choose, as the NATO would be engaged. But even without the NATO the US have the capabilities to deal with that attack. Attack against South Korea is probably the same as above, because the US is already there with plenty of equipment to react immediately to such an attack. Same with Japan.

So why would North Korea (or: Kim Jong Un) risk everything they have? It would not be worth it at all.

North Korea is a small country. They are isolated in international community, they do not have any backup in case of war. Even China and Russia did agree to the new UN embargo, they were the last countries that either had understanding for these things.

North Korea just wants a little attention. And because they do not have a big choice, they do it by military development and such things. Starting intercontinental rockets is an act of strength and power. And they get international attention. That is everything they try to achieve. And with the media, they get it.

So before getting too fearful remember: The media does not help you getting an objective point of view. And before a nuclear war starts, there must be more than just a few threats.

The solution for that conflict is not easy. And looking away is not a solution too. But a bit more appreciation for each other would help a lot.

Answer 10

Every other nuclear armed nation doesn't threaten to use the devices on a regular basis. Most don't talk about them at all.

Whether Kim Jong Un really means it, or whether he's just another twenty something bragging about his new toy, isn't the point. He has threatened to use the weapons offensively. The consequences of a nuclear bomb going off in Seoul, Tokyo, Guam, or Pearl Harbor are too serious to ignore.

Answer 11

The USA has to take position against North Korea nuclear ambitions because:

• Ignoring them would encourage a number of other countries to start a nuclear military industry.
• There is a select limited number of nations "allowed" to have nuclear weapons and a few others "tolerated, etc." tied with rules and treaties. There is no wish of these to share the power.