In U.S. and Soviet influence, the government in the

In a
world that is increasingly hostile and driven by geopolitical interests, one
needs to look back in history in order to understand the current political game
played by both the U.S. and North Korea.  Well, Korea was divided along the 38th
Parallel in 1945 after the end of World War II.  The Soviet Union occupied the northern half of
the peninsula, while the United States occupied the southern half.  Following unsuccessful attempts to reconcile
adversarial provisional governments that emerged under U.S. and Soviet
influence, the government in the South founded the Republic of Korea (ROK) in
August 1948 and the following month, the government in the North declared the
establishment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).  Then, after several years of cross-border
skirmishes, the DPRK invaded the South, sparking a full-scale conflict on June
25, 1950 (Gannon, 2015).  According to Joshua Berlinger, the pause
button was hit on the Korean War in 1953.  The U.S. went there and fought the war and
eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another,
and some in South Korea, too.  By the
time the armistice was signed on July 27, 1953, North Korea, which began the war
with a population of 9.6 million had suffered an estimated 1.3 million civilian
and military casualties (2017).  From the number of people who lost their lives
during the war, one could conclude where the resentment and the mistrust for
the U.S. by North Koreans came from.

So, the
questions that remain on the table are: what does Pyongyang want by building
nuclear weapons?  And what is at stake
for the U.S.?  On one hand, when it comes
to North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, the Kim regime looks at leaders
like Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, who despite giving up his pursuit of nuclear
weapons for security guarantees and sanctions relief ended up ousted and
killed.  Therefore, the regime thinks of
those weapons as key to survival (Berlinger, 2017).  So, Pyongyang is convinced that the United
States will not attack a country that has nuclear weapons and is prepared to
use them.  On the other hand, it is
stated that North Korea can probably already target South Korea, Japan, and U.S.
bases in those countries with nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.  And Pyongyang will likely be able to strike
more distant targets, including U.S. bases in Guam and Hawaii, and eventually
the continental United States itself, within two to three years (Revere, 2016).  To sum up, we live in a world driven by
geopolitical interests wherein some nations are willing to do whatever it takes
to ensure its survival while other nations will take drastic measures to curb
any potential threats against its citizens.  So, in the end it all boils down to one thing:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Alternative Solutions

Korea: Comparison of Options

Twenty-five years after discovery of the PDRK’s nuclear
weapons program by U.S. intelligence comparative analysis examines the
continued use of economic pressure or the military application of force by the
United States options to bring about the end of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons
program; conversely, the rationale of analysis only factors the regime and
likely courses if its leader, Kim Jong Un, is of a sane psychological profile.  If not, the application of military force is
the only way to prevent a madman and fanatical regime from acquiring delivery
systems for WMD.  The analysis also
relies on the rational assumption that Kim Jong Un and the PDRK are willing to
relinquish ownership of their nuclear weapons program and that the United
States is willing to allow continued sanctions or risk executing military force
with or without international support (Griffiths & O’Callaghan, p.
280-282).  For the sake of analysis, the
Weinberger and more recent doctrines governing the use of force is used to
analyze tangibles with respect to the application of force necessary to
accomplish these objectives (see Figure 1 historical guideline governing when
and how military force were used).  With
respect to security policy and our analysis governing the application of force
and power projection are categorized