By Elliot Kaufman
Thursday, August 10, 2017
North Korea has a lot of people thinking about nuclear
war these days. But there shouldn’t be any reason to worry, right? We’re told
that the world saw what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and learned never
to use nukes again. There is now supposedly a “nuclear taboo” that nobody,
especially enlightened Westerners, would be transgressive enough to violate.
If only that were true.
According to a study published last week in International Security, a preeminent
academic journal of international affairs, the strength of the nuclear taboo in
America has
been wildly overestimated. The study is authored by Stanford’s Scott Sagan,
considered one of the nation’s leading experts on nuclear weapons, and
Dartmouth’s Benjamin Valentino, who has extensively studied attitudes toward
the use of force.
In considering the use of nuclear weapons, it turns out,
the majority of Americans would prioritize the safety of American troops and
the achievement of American war aims, even at the cost of deliberately killing
millions of foreign non-combatants. This means that the public would be
unlikely to restrain our president from raining “fire and fury” down on the
North Korean people. It means there is one less guardrail keeping us from a
nuclear exchange.
Unlike other studies, which have shown that Americans
have grown less supportive of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki over time,
this study simulated the Hiroshima scenario — drop the bomb or launch a costly
ground invasion — in the context of a hypothetical present-day war with Iran.
“The most shocking finding of our study,” said Professor
Sagan, “is that 60 percent of Americans would approve of killing 2 million
Iranian civilians to prevent an invasion of Iran that might kill 20,000 U.S.
soldiers.” An even larger percentage would approve of a conventional bombing
attack specifically designed to kill 100,000 Iranian civilians in the hopes of
pressuring Iran into surrendering.
While the American public may value the principle of
non-combatant immunity in the abstract, this reveals their support to be
“shallow and easily overcome by the pressures of war,” Sagan explains. And if
we were living amid an actual war, rather than merely being presented with a
hypothetical one, we would likely be even more willing to use nuclear force in
order to win.
In her ground-breaking book The Nuclear Taboo, Nina Tannenwald claimed that “leaders and
publics have come to view [the non-use of nuclear weapons] not simply as a rule
of prudence but as a taboo, with an explicit normative aspect, a sense of
obligation attached to it.” Non-proliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis has written
that “the implication of this norm . . . is that we can’t actually use nuclear
weapons.” Harvard’s Steven Pinker has even seen declining support for the use
of nuclear weapons as part of a broader “humanitarian revolution.” According to
Pinker, “aerial holocausts visited on foreign civilians as in Dresden,
Hiroshima, and North Vietnam” became politically unacceptable by the 1990s.
But the research of Sagan, Valentino, and some others who
have studied the question before them suggests otherwise. If Americans felt
provoked and if U.S. troops were at risk, it seems the nuclear taboo would fall
away. Winning and ending the war quickly would become more important. And once
a war was provoked, the study found, many Americans feel that enemy casualties
would be the enemy’s moral responsibility, not ours.
All of these trends would likely intensify if North Korea
were studied instead of Iran. For one, the North Korean regime has long been
seen as the very picture of maniacal evil. Second, because North Korea is run
as a prison state, designed to keep its citizens and all information about
their experiences under the regime inside its borders, we know almost nothing
about life on the ground there. As a result, sacrificing the lives of ordinary
North Koreans might be easier to rationalize if it meant saving U.S. troops
from a costly hypothetical invasion.
Pressure or revulsion from the American people, then,
looks unlikely to be a significant factor in deterring U.S. leaders from using
nuclear weapons. Republicans, to whom President Trump is more responsive, are
actually more likely to approve of a nuclear first strike. Besides, the
researchers speculate that in the event of a nuclear conflict, there might be a
strong collective impulse to “rally around the bomb,” much like the impulse to
“rally around the flag” once a conventional war has begun. Americans will want
to support their country in a serious conflagration.
That leaves us with the North Koreans: Surely they, some
might argue, would not be crazy enough to present us with a nuclear dilemma,
knowing we could destroy their entire country. There is some truth to this: Kim
Jong-un, though monstrous and paranoid, is reportedly a rational leader.
But Kim does not have to be mentally insane to initiate a
nuclear confrontation. As Professor Sagan has argued for years, “professional
military organizations — because of common biases, inflexible routines, and
parochial interests — display organizational behaviors that are likely to lead
to deterrence failures and deliberate or accidental war.” This danger persists
even in developed nations. But in North Korea, the state will almost certainly
lack the civilian controls necessary to limit the risk.
First, it is a mistake to assume that North Korean policy
is driven by the national interest. The welfare of the North Korean people is
simply not the government’s primary concern. On the contrary, powerful military
officials’ own narrow interests drive state policy. These interests are
divergent. But for some officials, conflict, brinkmanship, and escalation may
be advantageous, leading to increased budgets (from which to steal as well as
spend), access to Kim Jong-un, and influence over policy.
The North Korean leadership is fundamentally
“inward-looking,” focused on ensuring domestic tranquility and protecting its
own jobs and lives, rather than on national security. Kim Jong-un is not immune
to this mindset, either. Though he gets to decide whom to kill, he also has to
worry constantly about military coups, making sure nobody else gets too
powerful or too close.
Such insecurity also leads tyrants to promote key
officials, especially in the military, based on their loyalty or lack of
ambition, not their competence. In fact, particularly effective military
leaders are often deemed threatening and dismissed or killed. Kim Jong-un seems
to have fallen into this pattern. He has fired his spy and state-security
chiefs, killed his defense minister, and executed at least 340 others during
his reign, according to South Korean reports. This means that North Korean
defense policy is probably being designed and implemented by second-rate men
who desperately seek to avoid disappointing Kim.
In short, we cannot expect a perfectly rational
performance from North Korean leaders in the event of a nuclear confrontation.
Led astray by private interests, they may well enter into an escalation
scenario that is not ultimately in their nation’s interest. In any conflict,
Kim would fear for the internal safety of his regime first and foremost.
Relying on incomplete information given to him by sycophants, and receiving
advice from and enacting the plans of incompetents, Kim could accidentally bait
the U.S. into a first strike, or convince himself that he must strike first. In
either case, he could easily make the “irrational” decision to use nuclear
weapons.
If it has done nothing else, the Trump presidency has
shocked us into recognizing the weakness of the guardrails bounding our
political system. To avoid a nuclear confrontation with a state like North
Korea, America will need every last guardrail and norm, every last bit of
reason and level-headedness that it can find. At home and abroad, nuclear taboos
alone will not keep us safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment