8/29/2017

                  私と音楽との出会い (京都会館の思い出)

 

懐かしい場所の写真が新聞に載っていた。あれは1959年春のこと、同志社大学に入学して間もなく、部活で所属していた同志社交響楽団からのエキストラ応援で同志社マンドリンクラブのクラリネットパートのプレーヤーとして春の演奏会に駆り出されて初めてここのステージに立った。この華やかな経験、人に向かって自分を表現する、そうしたことの感動は私を音楽の楽しさに誘い込んだ。それから4年間、何度もこの京都会館での演奏会があって、いつも楽しい経験をしたが、この音楽への楽しい経験を仕事にも生かしたいと思う気持ちとなり、その一心で開局間もないテレビ局に就職、念願がかなって局の音響効果の仕事を得た。沢山の番組の効果の係として音楽と親しめたのはこの時から始まったのだ。この京都会館は最近リニューアルオープン、ロームシアター京都としてお目見えした。

 

                                                 North Korea

 

An Air Self-Defense Force member stands guard as the ASDF demonstrates the training to utilize the PAC-3 surface to air interceptors at the U.S. Yokota Air Base in Fussa, on the outskirts of Tokyo, on Tuesday. | AP

North Korea fires missile over Japan in sharp escalation of tensions

by and

In an “unprecedented, grave and serious” threat, nuclear-armed North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile over Hokkaido on Tuesday morning, the first unannounced launch of a missile to fly over Japan.

The Japanese government said the missile flew over southern Hokkaido for two minutes, later breaking into three segments before plunging into the Pacific Ocean about 1,180 km east of Cape Erimo.

 

The North launched the apparent intermediate-range missile that traveled for about 14 minutes, at 5:58 a.m., the government said, adding that no damage had been reported to ships or aircraft.

In February 2016, Pyongyang launched an Unha-3 rocket that was believed to have flown over Okinawa. The North said the launch was meant to put an Earth observation satellite into orbit. In 2009 and 2012, one of the country’s rockets passed over Japanese territory without incident, triggering an immediate denouncement by Tokyo.

Pyongyang has claimed the launches were of rockets — not missiles — designed to send telecommunications satellites into orbit, but Washington, Seoul and Tokyo called them thinly veiled tests of long-range missile technology.

South Korea’s military said Tuesday’s missile was fired from the Sunan area near the North Korean capital of Pyongyang and flew a distance of more than 2,700 km, hitting a maximum altitude of around 550 km.

The Self-Defense Forces did not attempt to shoot down the missile, which passed over Japanese territory at around 6:06 a.m., but the government’s J-Alert warning system was activated and people in the area of the missile’s path were advised to take precautions.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters that the government had a grasp of the situation immediately after the launch. He called it “an unprecedented, grave and serious threat” that damages the peace and security of the region, adding that Tokyo had lodged a firm protest with Pyongyang.

However, Foreign Minister Taro Kono told reporters that the North may have “held back” in its latest launch by not targeting the area around the U.S. territory of Guam. In an earlier threat, the North said it had formulated a plan to send missiles into the waters near the island, home to key U.S. military bases.

Kono also told reporters the government had requested that a United Nations Security Council meeting be convened over the launch. That meeting was expected later Tuesday.

In Washington, the Pentagon confirmed the launch, saying it was working to analyze the situation. “We are still in the process of assessing this launch. North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) determined the missile launch from North Korea did not pose a threat to North America,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Rob Manning said in a statement.

Later Tuesday morning, Abe and U.S. President Donald Trump discussed the latest provocation over the phone. The two leaders spoke for about 40 minutes, agreeing that the latest launch made it clear that now is not the right time for dialogue and that increased pressure is necessary, a high-ranking Japanese government official said.

“We completely agreed that we should further strengthen pressure (against the North) by convening an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council immediately,” Abe told reporters at the Prime Minister’s Office.

Abe also quoted Trump as saying the U.S. “stands behind Japan 100 percent” and reaffirmed its “strong commitment” to defending the nation.

The Japan-U.S. security treaty obliges the U.S. to jointly defend Japan if the country is attacked by a third nation, while Tokyo is obliged to allow Washington to use bases for the U.S. military in Japan.

The U.S., South Korea and Japan should all cooperate and urge the international community, including China and Russia, to put more pressure on the North, Abe said.

“We need to have (North Korea) change its policy” of maintaining nuclear and ballistic missile programs, Abe said.

In Seoul, South Korean President Moon Jae-in ordered his country’s military Tuesday to demonstrate its “overwhelming” capabilities, should the North decide to attack, the presidential Blue House was quoted as saying by the South’s Yonhap news agency.

The show of force involved the dropping of eight Mark 84, or MK84, multipurpose bombs by four F-15K fighter jets at a shooting range near the inter-Korean border in Taebaek, Yoon Young-chan, Moon’s chief press secretary, said.

Seoul also made public rare footage of its testing of new ballistic missiles. The state-run Agency for Defense Development’s 86-second video clip showed the test-firing of a 500-km-range ballistic missile with “improved warhead power” and that of another one with a range of 800 km. The footage showed the missile accurately hitting mock targets on the ground and in the water. The tests were conducted last week and were the last ones before the deployment of the missiles, it added.

Outside Tokyo, Tuesday’s launch came as the Self-Defense Forces were deploying anti-missile batteries at three U.S. bases in Japan as part of an already scheduled drill. The U.S. military said the exercise was conducted to test the ability of Japanese and U.S. forces to work together and assess firing locations. It was also intended to allow Japan to practice rapid deployment of its PAC-3 anti-missile system.

Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera said no attempt was made to shoot down Tuesday’s missile because it was not seen landing in Japanese territory. Under the Self-Defense Forces Law, the defense chief can order incoming missiles be shot down if they are seen as posing a threat to Japan.

Onodera added that the missile was thought to have fallen outside Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Japan has in the past vowed to shoot down North Korean missiles or rockets that threaten to hit its territory, though some experts and officials have said this could be potentially technically difficult.

Michael Bosack, a former deputy chief of government relations for U.S. Forces Japan, said that unlike the 2009 launch, this one came unannounced and took an eastern trajectory closer to Japanese population centers instead of a southern route.

“The Japanese government is keenly aware that although North Korea may not be directly targeting Japanese territory, there is still the threat to personnel and property,” Bosack said. “A failed missile or stages of the missile could land on Japanese population centers, and both air and maritime traffic are at risk when missiles are launched without prior warning.

“This launch demonstrates the Kim Jong Un regime’s willingness to accept those risks without fear of reprisal by either Japan or the international community,” Bosack added.

Tokyo’s position that it can and might shoot down a threatening North Korean missile has become more relevant after Pyongyang announced this month a plan to shower the area around Guam with four missiles that would overfly Japan.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, however, appeared to back off on that threat in the following days, leading to an almost monthlong hiatus in missile tests by the isolated country.

That pause was broken Saturday, when the country launched three short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan.

The U.S. Pacific Command said two of the missiles flew 250 km (155 miles) while the other appeared to have blown up immediately.

Despite the “provocative act,” U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson left the door open for talks with the North, having earlier praised Pyongyang for exercising “restraint” and halting launches for nearly 30 days.

Trump, who had vowed to rain down “fire and fury” on North Korea if it endangered the United States, also appeared to tamp down his rhetoric last week, expressing cautious hope for a possible improvement in relations with Pyongyang by telling a campaign rally that Kim “is starting to respect us.”

Tuesday’s launch also came amid the joint U.S.-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Guardian (UFG) military exercises, which are due to wrap up Thursday. The North views the annual war games as a rehearsal for invasion, and has routinely threatened retaliation.

Experts said the test-firing Tuesday was unlikely to be a response to Tillerson, but rather a reaction to the UFG war games.

“A launch of this nature takes time to prepare, so it is unlikely that this was a direct response to recent overtures from Secretary Tillerson,” said Bosack. “Rather, this is part of the ongoing cycle of DPRK provocations associated with the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against North Korea and the Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise.”

DPRK is the acronym for the North’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

North Korea has been one of the Trump administration’s top foreign policy challenges, one that has taken on increased focus after it conducted two test-firings of its Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) last month.

Experts said the second launch saw the missile fly higher and longer than the first, and now puts a large chunk of the United States — including Chicago and Los Angeles — potentially within range of Pyongyang’s ever-improving weapons systems.

The White House has said that all options remain on the table, including military action, stoking concerns of a second Korean War that would devastate the region.


 

Here are the key dates in Pyongyang’s quest to develop a missile capable of hitting the United States:

Late 1970s: North Korea starts working on a version of the Soviet Scud-B (range 300 km). Test-fired in 1984

1987-92: Begins developing variant of Scud-C (range 500 km), Rodong-1 (1,300 km), Taepodong-1 (2,500 km), Musudan-1 (3,000 km) and Taepodong-2 (6,700 km)

August 1998: Test-fires Taepodong-1 rocket over Japan in what it calls a satellite launch. U.S. and others say it is a missile

September 1999: Declares moratorium on long-range missile tests amid improving ties with U.S.

July 12, 2000: Fifth round of U.S.-North Korean missile talks ends without agreement after North demands $1 billion a year in return for halting missile exports

March 3, 2005: Pyongyang ends moratorium on long-range missile testing, blames George W. Bush administration’s “hostile” policy

July 5, 2006: Test-fires seven missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2 that explodes after 40 seconds

Oct. 9, 2006: Conducts underground nuclear test, its first

April 5, 2009: Launches long-range rocket that flies over Japan and lands in the Pacific, in what it says is an attempt to put a satellite into orbit. The United States, Japan and South Korea see it as a disguised test of a Taepodong-2

May 25, 2009: Conducts its second underground nuclear test, several times more powerful than the first

April 13, 2012: Launches what it has said is a long-range rocket to put a satellite into orbit, but which disintegrates soon after blastoff

Dec. 12, 2012: Launches a multistage rocket and successfully places an Earth observational satellite in orbit

Feb. 12, 2013: Conducts its third underground nuclear test

Jan. 6, 2016: Conducts its fourth underground nuclear test, which it says was a hydrogen bomb — a claim doubted by most experts

March 9, 2016: Kim Jong Un claims the North has successfully miniaturized a thermonuclear warhead

April 23, 2016: Pyongyang test-fires a submarine-launched ballistic missile

July 8, 2016: U.S. and South Korea announce plans to deploy an advanced missile defense system — THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense)

Aug. 3, 2016: North Korea fires a ballistic missile directly into Japan’s exclusive economic zone for the first time

Sept. 9, 2016: Conducts fifth nuclear test

March 6, 2017: Fires four ballistic missiles in what it says is an exercise to hit U.S. bases in Japan

March 7, 2017: U.S. begins deploying THAAD system in South Korea

May 14, 2017: North Korea fires a ballistic missile which flies 700 km before landing in the Sea of Japan. Analysts say it has an imputed range of 4,500 km and brings Guam within reach

July 4, 2017: Test-fires a ballistic missile that analysts say brings Alaska within reach. Pyongyang later says it was a “landmark” test of a Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)

July 28, 2017: Launches a missile with a theoretical range of 10,000 km, meaning it could hit much of the United States

Aug. 26, 2017: Fires three short-range ballistic missiles

Aug. 29, 2017: Fires ballistic missile across Japanese territory. South Korea says it was launched from Sunan, near Pyongyang and flew around 2,700 km at a maximum altitude of around 550 km

 

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un oversees a ballistic missile drill in this photo released Wednesday. | KCNA / VIA REUTERS

North Korean leader says more to come as U.N. condemns missile launch over Japan

by and Staff Writer  

More such drills are in store for the U.S. and its allies, the North said.

The nuclear-armed North sent the missile flying over Hokkaido on Tuesday morning, the first unannounced launch over Japan of a missile designed to carry a nuclear payload. It flew more than 2,700 km before plunging into the Pacific Ocean about 1,180 km east of Hokkaido’s Cape Erimo.

The United Nations Security Council denounced the launch, unanimously demanding that Pyongyang halt its missile and nuclear programs.

Following an emergency closed-door session called by the United States and Japan, Tokyo’s envoy at the U.N. suggested that a new sanctions declaration could be issued.

“Next step starting now. We can’t predict the outcome, but I certainly hope it would be a strong resolution following this statement,” media reports quoted Ambassador Koro Bessho as saying.

But the North said the missile drills would continue — possibly including more overflights of Japan.

“It is necessary to positively push forward the work for putting the strategic force on a modern basis by conducting more ballistic rocket launching drills with the Pacific as a target in the future,” state-run media quoted leader Kim Jong Un as saying.

Tuesday’s launch had already elicited a furious response from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who called it an “unprecedented, grave and serious” threat.

It also prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to reiterate his stance that “all options” — an allusion to military action — remain on the table for reining in the isolated country.

Kim had for the first time overseen the drill, which apparently took place at a military airport in the capital, Pyongyang, and gave the order to launch the missile on a “preset flight track,” the state-run Korean Central News Agency said Wednesday.

The missile “crossed the sky above Oshima peninsula of Hokkaido and Cape Erimo of Japan along the preset flight track and accurately hit the preset target waters in northern Pacific,” it said.

“The drill had no impact on the security of the neighboring countries,” it added.

The North had not acknowledged previous missile and rocket launches that overflew Japan, even taking pains to avoid doing so by sending shorter-range missiles into the Sea of Japan or “lofting” its test-firings on a steep trajectory.

The language used in Wednesday’s state media report was another key difference between this and prior launches: It described the firing as a “drill” and appeared to purposely omit any reference to “test” — a possible sign that the North had moved from testing to training.

The latest exercise, KCNA said, had involved units from the country’s Strategic Force “tasked with striking the bases of the U.S. imperialist aggressor forces located in the Pacific operational theater.”

The launch drill, the report added, had been in response to the annual joint U.S.-South Korean war games known as Ulchi Freedom Guardian, which Pyongyang views as a rehearsal for invasion. The U.S. and South Korea insist the exercises, mostly computerized, are purely defensive. They were due to wrap up Thursday.

The North also said the launch had been timed to mark the 107th anniversary of the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1910, under which Tokyo began its colonization of the Korean Peninsula. By doing so, it said, Kim “gave vent to the long-pent grudge of the Korean people” with “a bold plan to make the cruel Japanese islanders insensible on bloody August 29.”

Timing aside, the drill was also a test of the regime’s ever-improving military capabilities, which it said “were all proved perfect.”

Kim was quoted as calling the exercise the North Korean military’s “first step” toward operations in the Pacific “and a meaningful prelude to containing Guam” under a “real war” scenario.

In an earlier threat this month, North Korea said it had formulated a plan to shower the area around U.S. Pacific territory of Guam with four missiles that would have flown over Shimane, Hiroshima and Kochi prefectures.

Guam is home to American military bases and would be a key logistics hub in the event of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

In Washington, Trump doubled down Tuesday in the U.S. standoff with the North.

“The world has received North Korea’s latest message loud and clear: the regime has signaled its contempt for its neighbors, for all members of the United Nations and for minimal standards of acceptable behavior,” Trump said in a statement.

“Threatening and destabilizing actions only increase the North Korean regime’s isolation in the region and among all nations of the world. All options are on the table.”

At the U.N. later Tuesday, the 15-member Security Council was united, with China and Russia agreeing to sign up to a statement condemning the isolated regime’s action.

“The Security Council stresses that these DPRK actions are not just a threat to the region, but to all U.N. member states,” the statement said, using the acronym for the North’s formal name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

“The Security Council expresses its grave concern that the DPRK is, by conducting such a launch over Japan as well as its recent actions and public statements, deliberately undermining regional peace and stability.”

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in spoke for 20 minutes over the phone, agreeing to seek “a more powerful” U.N. Security Council resolution in a bid to pile even more pressure on the recalcitrant North, a high-ranking Japanese official said.

Abe also reiterated his stance on talks with the North, a position he also took in a phone call with Trump a day earlier.

“It’s clear that North Korea is not ready for dialogue. Now is the time to further strengthen pressure,” Abe reportedly told Moon.

In Abe’s call with Trump, the U.S. leader reaffirmed that Washington “stands behind Japan 100 percent” in its “strong commitment” to defending its Asian ally.

Tuesday’s drill came amid North Korea’s dizzying pace of missile launches, including 17 this year, according to the data compiled by the California-based James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies’ North Korea Missile Test Database.

Among those, Pyongyang conducted two successful tests of an intercontinental ballistic missile in July — including one that experts say potentially puts Chicago and Los Angeles within range. Trump had vowed earlier this month to rain down “fire and fury” on North Korea if it endangered the United States.

His statement that “all options are on the table” may imply that military action remains a U.S. option for resolving the nuclear standoff despite recent signs that the White House had shifted its focus to a return to dialogue.

Both Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had appeared to hold out hope in recent days that a nearly monthlong halt in missile launches by the Kim regime had been a sign it was eyeing talks.

Military action to remove Kim or strike nuclear and missile sites would likely trigger a war that U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has said would be “catastrophic.”

 

/

North Korea: End of the nuclear taboo?

by

Among other things, this summer’s crisis highlights the belief held by some U.S. policymakers that an alleged irrational actor such as North Korea cannot be deterred from launching its nuclear missiles by threatening nuclear retaliation. For example, U.S. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster in an interview this month said that “classical deterrence theory” does not apply to North Korea. At the same time, U.S. officials (including President Donald Trump) have repeatedly floated the idea of pre-emptive military strikes against North Korean missile sites as an ostensible last-ditch effort to deter Pyongyang.

Given that North Korea has time and again made it clear that it would counter any conventional attack with overwhelming force, including nuclear weapons (Vipin Narang has coined this posture “asymmetric escalation”), U.S. preemptive military strikes would almost certainly trigger a North Korean nuclear response. North Korea has expanded its nuclear arsenal to up to 30 weapons. Once such a response occurs, the U.S. might retaliate in kind and launch nuclear missiles. The result would be the end of a powerful moral taboo about the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, once the spell is broken after the first nuclear bomb has exploded, the likelihood of nuclear war in other parts of the world will have increased markedly.

The nuclear taboo

 

Underlying the so-called nuclear taboo, a burgeoning international norm against the use of nuclear weapons, is that nuclear deterrence — a function of a country’s nuclear capabilities, doctrine, and command and control procedures for launching nuclear weapons — alone has not prevented nuclear war since 1945, but rather a gradual international consensus that prohibits states from ever using the “Bomb.” This hypothesis is backed up by the work of several scholars.

Nina Tannenwald argues:

“A normative prohibition on nuclear use has developed in the global system, which, although not (yet) a fully robust norm, has stigmatized nuclear weapons as unacceptable weapons of mass destruction. … Ultimately, in delegitimizing nuclear weapons, the nuclear taboo has constrained the practice of self-help in the international system. States are not free to resort to nuclear weapons without incurring moral opprobrium or political costs. National leaders are forced to seek alternative technologies for use in war or defense or else risk being classified as outside the bounds of ‘civilized’ international society.”

In her study, Tannenwald acknowledges that given her focus on the U.S., her thesis does not hold for all countries. Yet a war game held in the 1970s in the Soviet Union that involved Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev pushing a button to launch three intercontinental ballistic missiles fitted with dummy warheads indicates that the idea of a nuclear taboo did perhaps go beyond the U.S.

According to Soviet Gen. Adrian Danilevich, who was present during the exercise: “(W)hen the time came to push the button, Brezhnev was visibly shaken and pale and his hand trembled and he asked Grechko several times for assurances that the action would not have any real-world consequences. Brezhnev turned to Grechko and asked, “Are you sure this is just an exercise?”

Furthermore, other scholars have supported Tannenwald’s proposition. Jeffrey Lewis states that “the implication of this norm, of course, is that we can’t actually use nuclear weapons.”

According to Lewis, John Hersey’s book “Hiroshima” was an important early contribution paving the way for the nuclear taboo. “Over time, we’ve come to see nuclear weapons as Hersey saw them, as the ultimate expression of material and spiritual evil of total war,” he writes. Yet, Lewis also cautions: “I am glad we’ve constructed a norm against the use of nuclear weapons, but let’s not kid ourselves. We’ve constructed it. And like any human construction, it can be

repurposed.”

The academic Steven Pinker sees the gradual establishment of the nuclear taboo as part of a larger “humanitarian revolution” among the public focused on noncombatant immunity.

“The nuclear taboo emerged only gradually. … It began to sink in that the weapons’ destructive capacity was of a different order from anything in history, that they violated any conception of proportionality in the waging of war.”

By the 1990s, Pinker reasons, aerial holocausts like Hiroshima, Dresden and North Vietnam were simply no longer politically acceptable to the American public. Yet it remains unclear how rooted this norm against the use of nuclear weapons truly is among people and policymakers.

Support for nuclear attacks

 

According to a new study, when Americans are presented with a trade-off between a U.S. nuclear attack and the death of thousands of American servicemen, a large percentage would approve of nuclear strikes. “Contrary to the nuclear taboo thesis, a majority of Americans are willing to support the use of a nuclear weapon against an Iranian city killing 100,000 civilians,” the study finds. “Contrary to the theory that Americans accept the noncombatant immunity norm, an even larger percentage of the U.S. public was willing to kill 100,000 Iranian civilians with conventional weapons.” Indeed, Americans are willing “to kill 2 million Iranian civilians to save 20,000 U.S. soldiers.”

Also, despite what the film “War Games” suggests, there appears to be little hesitation among missile crews to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles in real life, according to Ron Rosenbaum in his book “How the End Begins.” “It would be nice to believe. But that certainly did not filter down to the missile crewmen I interviewed, who were mainly concerned … with making sure they could carry out the genocidal threat of deterrence. Instead, it was almost taboo … to talk about reasons for not committing retaliatory genocide, such as questioning the sanity of whoever gave the order.”

In addition, it is impossible to ascertain whether the nuclear taboo would influence individual leaders during an international crisis, for example, when the launch of Russian intercontinental missiles has been detected. Furthermore, the causal relationship between the nuclear taboo and nuclear deterrence remains under-explored. For example, what often could be seen as evidence of the nuclear taboo at work could, in some cases, be deterrence or vice versa.

As Jill Lepore states: “Our nuclear-weapons policy rests on a seven-decade-long history of events that have never happened: acts of aggression that were not committed, wars that were not waged, an apocalypse that has not come to pass.” At the end, absent a nuclear war, both nuclear deterrence and the nuclear taboo are nonfalsifiable theoretical concepts that need to be accepted by all sides to “function as instruments of nuclear war avoidance.”

Indeed, repeated arguing that deterrence works is meant to be a self-fulfilling prophecy and to strengthen its effect. One scholar goes as far as to say that deterrence requires scholars to commit “epistemological self-censorship” given that outside the box thinking could be dangerous. As a consequence, “innovations are often about an adjective or prefix: the most recent innovations would be winter-safe, tailored, or cross-domain deterrence. …” In brief, deterrence only works if we believe that it works: the existence of nuclear weapons alone does not suffice.

Yet, the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence can be undermined by the nuclear taboo since the latter in essence implies that nuclear weapons will never be used — never mind the existence of elaborate nuclear war-fighting strategies. Such a disclosure, that an accepted norm against the use of nuclear weapons exists within a country, invariably reduces the credibility of its nuclear deterrent. If pushed to the limits in a showdown, there is consequently an increased risk of nuclear conflict and the impression that one can get away with a nuclear first strike without having to face retaliation. In short, the taboo could undo the taboo.

Threat of preventive strikes

 

Conversely, the threat of preventive military strikes against North Korea and the Trump administration’s willingness to accept nuclear war as an outcome undermines both nuclear deterrence and the nuclear taboo simultaneously and independent of their relationship to one another. Implying that current U.S. nuclear posture cannot deter North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and that the nuclear taboo is not credible enough to contain irrational behavior weakens the credibility of both and makes them less effective in preventing nuclear conflict.

In other words, we have to realize that nuclear deterrence and the nuclear taboo are social constructs — a shared assumption about political and military realities — and as such can only contribute to strategic stability (i.e., peace) if there is a consensus that they are real. Trump’s talk of preventive war is gradually undermining this shared assumption influencing the U.S.-North Korea nuclear relationship by denying the effectiveness of the two social constructs underpinning it, and that’s a very dangerous development.

The absence of these two restraining influences will embolden North Korea to maintain its aggressive nuclear posture vis-a-vis the U.S. and its regional allies, increasing the risk of accidental nuclear war. It could also force the U.S. to adopt more aggressive and unorthodox methods to try to influence North Korean behavior. This could leave the U.S. not only in the position of a less credible nuclear power in a face off with its chief nuclear competitors, China and Russia, but also raises the prospects of nuclear war across the board.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                       Back to Page of Contents