It is understandable that Americans focus their attention on the Middle East. The media supplies a daily stream of news about America’s continued war with the Islamic State, or ISIS. And the recent attacks in Europe and San Bernardino, have made terrorism a major issue in this year’s election, whether initiated by Jihadists recruited from at home or abroad.
But is this where Americans should be focusing their attention if they are looking for large-scale threats? The fact is that ISIS does not pose what has fashionably been termed an “existential” threat to the United States. The word existential is increasingly used by politicians and analysts with little regard for its meaning beyond a large-scale threat. But Ted Bromund, a foreign policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, offers this more comprehensive definition:
An existential threat is one that would deprive the United States of its sovereignty under the Constitution, would threaten the territorial integrity of the United States or the safety within US. borders of large numbers of Americans, or would pose a manifest challenge to US. core interests abroad in a way that would compel an undesired and unwelcome change in our freely chosen ways of life at home.
Clearly, Jihadism as an ideology can’t do that to Americans. And despite the recent concerns expressed by President Obama, there is little chance that groups like ISIS can detonate a nuclear weapon in the US. Even the admittedly terrifying release of a dirty bomb wouldn’t kill casualties on a massive scale. As the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission succinctly phrased it,
A dirty bomb is not a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” but a “Weapon of Mass Disruption” where contamination and anxiety are the terrorists’ major objectives.
The American public, particularly Republican voters, may continue to focus attention on terrorism, but they should be focusing their attention on developments in North Korea. Arguably, the events unfolding there far more threatening. The US has a long and violent history of struggle with North Korea, dating back to the bloody war that took place in the early 1950s and cost 36,574 American lives. The truce between the two Koreas was never concluded by a peace agreement. In defense of South Korea, the US has been in a perpetual state of limbo ever since, caught between war and peace.
The Demilitarized Zone “ a 148-mile-long strip of land that separates North and South Korea “ is protected by 37,000 troops to its south and is home to over a million landmines. Indeed, the fact that the US lays mines there is the primary reason often given for its failure to sign the 1998 Global Landmine Treaty. North Korea is an impoverished country that has been propped up by China, its only major ally, since the end of World War II. The Chinese don’t want a reunited, more powerful Korea on their doorstep, let alone one allied to the United States. China is North Korea’s biggest trading partner, and the Chinese have repeatedly provided diplomatic support to stave off the imposition of UN sanctions.
Comprehensive figures on aid or trade with North Korea are hard to find. But the UN routinely provides emergency assistance to stave off the occasional famine. North Korea has been brutally ruled by 33-year-old Kim Jong-un for five years. He succeeded his father, Kim Jong-il, who led the country for 17 years.
To many Americans, then, North Korea seems an appalling place. But they regard it as distant, backward and relatively harmless. They are wrong. North Korea’s leadership has seen “ and still does see “ the United States as its mortal enemy. And, unlike ISIS, it is developing into a viable one. In 1993, a conflict over North Korea’s proposed testing of nuclear weapons generated a crisis that almost resulted in a war. A deal was eventually struck with the UN. But this just delayed the inevitable.
Unlike the Iranians, North Korea moved ahead and began testing nuclear weapons a decade ago, in defiance of a UN agreement. Since then, they have reputedly carried out four underground nuclear tests, the most recent being in January this year. Skeptics have consistently suggested that there is a difference between causing a nuclear explosion and being able to miniaturize the technology to put it is a missile head able to reach the American mainland. But in the last few months, the North Koreans have launched a series of missile tests.
And on April 9 they claimed to have successfully tested an engine designed for an intercontinental ballistic missile. This engine, they claim, would “guarantee” the ability of North Korea to launch a nuclear strike on the US. mainland. To emphasize the point, they also recently released a propaganda video depicting a nuclear strike on Washington. Now that does sound like an existential threat.
It is anyone’s guess if they have in fact figured out how to fit a nuclear weapon in a missile. South Korean officials suggest that it is a possibility. And it is just as unclear if they have developed a missile that can reach the US. mainland.
If North Korea is approaching the point where it has a nuclear capability, then there will inevitably be those who call for a preemptive strike before they join the nuclear club. It is one thing to be near having a nuclear weapon. It is another thing to threaten the US. Only the foolhardy would do both. So is it time to reassess what really constitutes an existential threat to the United States?
Simon Reich is a professor in The Division of Global Affairs and The Department of Political Science, Rutgers University, Newark, US. This story first appeared in theconversation.com
