Then and Now

North Korea's latest military attack on South Korea yesterday and its disclosure of building a uranium enrichment facility continues the tyrannical regime's efforts to extract concessions from the United States and South Korea.

The South Korea responded by saying it would take "stern measures" if attacked again.

Attacked again? But yesterday's attack was the "again" - after sinking the South Korean warship this past spring that killed 46 South Korean sailors.

In a similar vein of wanting to keep tensions to a minimum, the Obama administration initially said it wasn't deploying additional military forces to the region, citing our existing forces in South Korea, Japan, and Guam.

It is instructive to review our response to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 to see how far we've come in accepting threatening behavior today and attacks on us or our allies.

After the United States discovered that the Soviet Union had deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba, we imposed a quarantine on Cuba - a naval blockade in all but the name.

Vast military forces began to pour into our military bases in Florida and the Gulf coast as we prepared for a possible invasion of Cuba.

Most ominously, our nuclear-armed bombers in the Strategic Air Command greatly increased their air patrols and carried out attack runs aimed at the Soviet Union - each time pulling back before carrying out the attack but intending to intimidate the Soviets.

And the intimidation worked. Because despite the threat of looming war, which typically leads nations to at least prepare for war by deploying its forces accordingly, the Soviet Union didn't move a muscle. After starting the crisis with the deployment of its missiles, it then became terrified with America's overwhelming response and military superiority in the region and in nuclear weapons - so scared it didn't even prepare for war.

48 years ago, we responded to military threats by preparing for the worst, and in doing so, deterred war and obtained a better political settlement.

Today, we and our allies are the ones who are scared of preparing for war, and in so doing, increase the risk of war and of obtaining a worse political settlement.

Our enemies observe this, and plan accordingly. North Korea has had great success in pushing past previous "lines in the sand", only to find we don't really mean it and will appease them with concessions to avoid future provocations. Then North Korea repeats the cycle, crossing new lines in the sand and obtaining new concessions.

Will Barack Obama be up to the challenge to stop this dangerous pattern, that both Bill Clinton and George Bush engaged in?

Who Needs Missile Defense Anyway?

Barack Obama's defense budget cuts missile defense spending, at the very time Iran and North Korea are making progress on developing ballistic missiles.

Astounding, but true.

And why would they do this?

Because they believe, in the spirit of arms control, that by renouncing defensive capabilities we can make our enemies less nervous and reduce their weapons development.

Instead, Iran and North Korea will be emboldened to develop their missiles if they believe less defenses exist to shoot them down. If we had robust defensive systems, or at least they perceived we did, they would worry that their massive investment in missile development would be wasted.

Of course, the administration has also moved the defensive systems we have to Hawaii to protect it in case North Korea launched missiles towards us - the same systems that so many in the administration advocated against when developed under George Bush.

So much for the new "realism" in our foreign and defense policies.

Defending America

The United States is moving missile defense systems to Hawaii, as news reports indicate North Korea may be planning a ballistic missile launch toward the islands.

In a different age, when a nation carried out a military attack against another, a severe response (usually war) was the result.

We have been "dumbing down deviancy" for a long time on the international stage, such that attacks against America have not resulted in a vigorous response by us. Recall in 1993 when George H.W. Bush visited Kuwait, Iraqi agents attempted to assassinate him but failed.

Our response? We lobbed some cruise missiles at Iraq without much impact. With such ineffectual responses to acts of war, we should not be surprised when other nations learn the lesson that they don't pay a fearful price for attacking, or attempting to attack, us.

If North Korea does launch a missile toward Hawaii, we should respond vigorously. One place to start is to board their ships on the high seas that we suspect of shipping weapons. Or by striking back at the site of their missile launch.

A Choice

North Korea's detonation of a nuclear device poses one of those "tests" that were much discussed during the presidential campaign.

The basic choice is: does Obama seek ineffectual UN resolutions and sanctions, or does he add real teeth to such efforts by, for example, imposing restrictions on North Korea's ability to conduct international financial transactions.

Bush did this in 2005 and it caused immense pain for the North Korean dictatorship: access to hard currency is critical to the regime to allow key military and political leaders to enjoy an opulent lifestyle in an impoverished land.

Obama would be wise to reinstate this policy and/or others like it that would impose serious difficulties for the regime.

Will he?

Overvaluing North Korea's Strength

The failure of North Korea's missile launch this weekend to enter space after apparently breaking up during its flight represents an ongoing fact about that nations nuclear capabilities: it consistently fails in efforts to demonstrate viable ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities.

Previous missile launches also failed, either exploding shortly after takeoff or breaking up in flight.

The monitoring stations that tracked its nuclear test a few years ago suggest either a lack of an explosion or a very small one that didn't work properly.

This is of course good news, because it means North Korea poses less of a threat than otherwise. But it also means that we should not take actions that damage America's interests in order to thwart North Korea's WMD ambitions.

We have consistently overvalued "doing something" about North Korea, from Bill Clinton's 1994 deal to George Bush's strenuous push in the past couple years of his presidency to negotiate a deal with the tyrannical regime.

In these deals and negotiations, North Korea has gotten fuel and maintained access to the international economy in return for its threats and tests.

And now it is Barack Obama's turn, who is also overvaluing the North Korean threat. Obama announced he wants to reduce significantly America's nuclear arsenal and prevent development of replacement or new weapons as a way to gain international support for non-proliferation efforts.

Amongst other problems, we need to build new nuclear weapons to replace an aging stockpile. Since nuclear material declines due to radioactive decay, eventually nuclear weapons need to be replaced to maintain their deterrent value.

Obama not only isn't doing anything to rejuvenate our nuclear arsenal, he is proposing to make it harder to do so.

Hostages

North Korea has captured two American journalists near its border with China and has charged them with espionage.

Don't expect the dictatorial regime to release the hostages without compensation in the form of U.S. forbearance in shooting down the North Korean missile launch (which we decided not to shoot down), diplomatic concessions, or a "goodwill" gesture to demonstrate their "peaceful" nature.