Last Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that North Korea has miniaturized a nuclear device to fit on an intercontinental ballistic missile. President Trump responded publicly that further threats by North Korea would be met by “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” I turned on CNN. For several seconds, national security reporter Jim Sciutto’s face revealed a fear I’ve never seen displayed by another journalist.

Will North Korea launch a nuke towards Honolulu, Seattle, San Francisco or Los Angeles? Will Kim Jong-un send missiles to Guam? An attempted strike by North Korea would be met by a harsh American response leaving Kim dead or with no functioning nation to rule. Yet it would be foolish to say that Kim might not launch a suicidal attack if he saw a concrete threat to his regime. American foreign policy must weigh the odds of all possibilities and measure its words. The difference between slim and none can be deadly.

Sophisticated diplomacy can reduce—although not eliminate—the chance of a strike by North Korea. This involves firmly but calmly communicating America’s commitment to use all the power we can summon in response to such a strike. For entirely practical matters, that warning should be made in private.

Why not a public statement like that voiced by Trump? As military and law enforcement strategists know, cornering an enemy often makes him more dangerous. We receive continuing reports of police requiring more training to de-escalate difficult situations. A peaceful outcome isn’t always possible, but it’s more probable when criminals or the emotionally disturbed—or a Kim Jong-un—see a way out without losing face.

I’m reminded of a story I read decades ago about a high-school teacher in Chicago. He encountered a student confronting others with a gun. He made no threat. Rather, he calmly said, “Here, let me hold that for you.” The student yielded his weapon. The teacher averted potential carnage.

Nuclear proliferation, particularly involving countries engaged in hostile rhetoric, such as Iran, must be taken seriously. Still, the United States and its allies—those we have left—must recognize a reality not of our choosing and one we may be powerless to reverse. Today’s interconnected world makes the transfer of technology relatively simple and swift. Added to that, nations in Asia and the Middle East—as elsewhere—boast people who are as bright and inventive as us. Disturbed as we may be, regimes with whom we maintain profound disagreements probably will develop nuclear weapons.

I’m hardly the first person to suggest we adapt our foreign policy to recognizing proliferation’s sad inevitability. To prevent calamity, we must make clear that our commitments to friends remain firm, and that we maintain the option to use nuclear weapons in response to nuclear attacks or massive conventional aggression. We must also make clear that talking out our differences, even if we don’t reach resolution, makes far more sense. And we must do this within the framework of diplomacy.

Responding to threats, no matter how vile, with public counter-threats raises the global temperature and risks buttons being pushed in the heat of the moment. Dealing with this issue requires level-headedness and considerable discipline. Mr. Trump’s comment this morning that the U.S. is “locked and loaded” again evidences failure to display these qualities.

To respond, click on “comments” to the right just below the title of this post. Then go to the response space at the bottom of the post.


  1. Jerry Robinson on August 11, 2017 at 5:31 pm

    Well said.

  2. David Newman on August 11, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    One of the best analyses I’ve seen suggests that Kim is not “crazy”; rather, he’s completely rational from his distorted point of view. He sees that other dictators who have given up their nuclear ambitions (Hussein, Qaddafi) subsequently lost their dictatorships and their lives. Maintaining his nuclear program is, in his view, entirely sane.

    As for the current brouhaha, I feel like someone sitting at a bar, where there’s an obnoxious guy at one end who keeps threatening people that he wants to fight. The response, of course, is to quietly move to the other end of the bar. Unfortunately, there’s another guy at that end who is yelling threats back down the bar. Where am I supposed to go if all I want to do is enjoy my beer in peace?

    • David on August 11, 2017 at 6:35 pm

      I agree with the analysis of Kim. Regrettably, he may “rationally” decide that loss of face may cause his generals to attempt a coup, and that some attack on South Korea, Guam or elsewhere utilizing commandos represents a preferred alternative to doing nothing. If he’s going to die, why not anyone else? Whether we can toss out the guy at the far end of the bar remains to be seen, but hopefully we’ll bounce the guy at our end.

  3. Jerry on August 11, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    I think that South Korea and China are way more concerned than we are regarding a war. Maybe upping the prospect of war with a very real threat of millions of refugees flowing into their countries will encourage them to do more to tamp down North Korea’s aggressiveness.

    On the other hand, I don’t believe anybody on the international stage takes Donald Trump’s rhetoric seriously.

    • David on August 11, 2017 at 7:50 pm

      When few people take the President of the United States seriously, that’s a problem. Odds are significant that no violence will take place. But Trump provides those slim—and scary—odds that someone will misread the situation and make a serious mistake. This nation can—and should—do better.

Leave a Comment