Maybe that wouldn’t happen. Maybe responsible leaders would see the looming abyss and halt in time. Maybe. However, that is not the most likely reaction. What risks are Americans prepared to take? The result would not be “just” the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans. It could be the destruction of America as we know it.
For what should we accept such risks? European countries that, after 70 years of NATO membership and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, still believe their security is America’s responsibility? Japan, which, had it spent a measly 2 percent of gross domestic product on its military over the last decade, would possess a navy strong enough to protect the homeland, Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, and surrounding waters? South Korea, well able to defend itself, possessing 50 times the economic strength and twice the population of the North? And Taiwan, which has lagged badly in its own defense efforts, preferring to rely on Washington?
The situation will become infinitely more dangerous when North Korea perfects its nuclear deterrent. Estimates of Pyongyang’s current nuclear arsenal are inexact, but the North Koreans likely possess sufficient fissile material for 45–55 weapons. Alas, that’s just today. Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un recently announced plans for an “exponential increase” in the North’s nuclear arsenal. The Asan Institute for Policy Studies and RAND Corporation have warned that North Korea could possess between 151 and 242 weapons by 2027, making Pyongyang a dangerous secondary nuclear power, well capable of destroying America. Equally disturbing, noted Asan/RAND, is that the North likely will possess “several dozen intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and hundreds of theater missiles for delivering the nuclear weapons.”
Kim is not suicidal and won’t launch a first strike on the U.S. However, he could respond to Washington’s entry into a Korean War II by threatening to strike the American homeland. Imagine a reprise of Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s 1950 march toward the Yalu River, met this time not by China’s entry but by the use of tactical nukes backed by a threat to destroy cities across the U.S.
This illustrates the potential high cost of extended deterrence. Washington officials endlessly repeat the claim that allies are a force multiplier. In theory that could be the case, but not when supposed friends act as shameless international leeches, long-term defense dependents that treat the military as a form of international welfare. Paying to defend European states that in turn invest in generous social benefits for their peoples is a bizarre form of international wealth redistribution.
Add to that the much-increased risk of nuclear war and the bargain looks a lot worse. China, North Korea, and Russia are all malign powers. None, however, is suicidal. All have developed and expanded nuclear arsenals to deter America. Thankfully, none of Washington’s disputes with them are worth nuclear war. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the trio would go to war with the U.S. — other than over one of America’s many defense dependents. The simplest step to improve this nation’s security might be to end extended deterrence.
Despite the hopes of abolitionists, nuclear weapons are not going to disappear. Pandora’s box has been opened, and there is no way to press nuclear knowledge, along with the weapons, back into it. The best Washington can do is restrict their use to the defense of America. And step out of the way if friendly democratic powers in Asia or Europe decide to develop their own.
Ultimately, the problem is the profoundly messy world, not the addled Biden administration.