Deterring North Korea is a tough job, but someone has to do it. A better earth penetrating nuclear weapon might help.
In the past 18 months, North Korea sank a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, and bombarded Yeonpyeong Island in South Korea. Together, these two attacks killed 50 South Koreans. Moreover, it seems like further provocations might be on the way. These brazen acts threaten the credibility of US security commitments in Northeast Asia and have led to calls in South Korea for the United States to base nuclear weapons there and in Japan for building an independent nuclear deterrent. One Japanese academic has even posed the question, ‘Did deterrence against North Korea fail in 2010?’
Japanese and South Korean strategists have long worried that North Korea views its small nuclear deterrent as a shield. They argue that from behind this shield, and with the protection afforded by his hardened and deeply buried bunkers, a risk-taking Kim Jong-il believes he can launch limited offensive military operations against his neighbours with impunity. Strategic stability, our Asian allies argued during the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, isn’t the same thing as regional security. On the contrary, a stable ‘balance of terror’ may embolden Pyongyang to continue attacks like the ones against the Cheonan and Yeonpyeong.
In response to North Korea's provocations, the United States and South Korea have agreed upon a series of measures to provide effective conventional military responses to North Korean provocations. Although such conventional retaliatory options are necessary, they aren’t sufficient. The United States must also find ways to make Kim significantly less confident in the protection he is provided by his elaborate tunnelling campaign. In particular, the United States must find a way to make him worry about the thing he most values: himself.
Getting at Kim means putting at risk North Korea’s growing number of hard and deeply buried targets. North Korea has sought to preserve its leadership and other valued assets, such as its nuclear and missile forces, by constructing underground facilities ranging from relatively shallow ‘cut and cover’ facilities to complexes buried beneath hundreds of meters of hard rock. Although most of these facilities can be threatened with conventional earth penetrators, a few may be too deep for conventional options, especially those where Kim himself might plan to hide. For the near future, only nuclear weapons could hold such targets at risk.
Yet the current earth penetrating warhead in the United States nuclear arsenal, the B61-11, is ill-suited for certain North Korean targets. The United States has long had an official requirement for a hard rock penetrator, but this requirement has been unmet since the Clinton administration – rightly in our view – decided to retire the aging B53 penetrator warhead because of safety and reliability concerns. The Clinton administration developed the B61-11 to replace the B53, but this newer warhead was designed to penetrate frozen tundra, like that found in Russia, and not hard rock like that found in North Korea.
Today, however, we don’t have to choose between safety and meeting reasonable, existing military requirements to hold at risk targets in hard rock. This is because the United States could meet the military requirements previously met by the B53 by modifying an existing warhead, the B83. (The National Nuclear Security Administration had planned to begin looking at B83 lifetime extension options soon, but it now appears this has been unnecessarily deferred to the mid-2020s.) Specifically, this military requirement could be met by simply changing the external casing of the warhead, providing better attitude control, and confirming that the configuration of internal components would survive the rapid deceleration accompanying penetration into a few meters of hard rock. As a first step, we would recommend that Sandia National Laboratories conduct a ‘sled test’ of a B83 (using a test assembly with no nuclear material) to assess the ruggedness of the non-nuclear components in a penetrator mode.
Photo Credit: Uniphoto Press
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
John Chan
This article seems written by people on the ecstasy.
If a buffer state is allowed to be attacked, then why does a nation need a buffer state? Would USA allow Canada to be attacked without violent response? In history the only time a buffer state can be attacked is when the nation behind the buffer state is so weak and it is going to be attacked next. Buffer state is the battlefield where the rivals settle scores, which one is going to dominate and which one is going to be perished. The authors insisted attacking NK would not raise response from China and Russia, I don’t know how to describe their assessment, idiotic, hubris or ignorant?
Cheonan incident was an USA’s creation, that’s why SK won’t allow anybody to check the wreckage of Cheonan by the order of USA. Lee Myung-bak finally discovered he was fooled by USA and SK military, now he is trying to make up with NK for blaming NK wrongly. Yet the authors continue to troll Cheonan as proof of NK’s bad behaviour, such straight face lie from USA is disappointing and disgusting.
The only conclusion one can draw from this article is the writers’ insanity is at the same level of Joseph Goebbels, they are playing other peoples’ lives without conscience.
jared
Is that how China & North Korea intend to wage war? Deny objective truth?
“Joint Civilian-Military Investigation”. A ship blowing up is not a creation of the USA. Such speculation is conspiracy theory and has no credible basis. By supporting and defending such a murderous, aggressive regime you are playing with other peoples’ lives without conscience.
Oh…and Canada doesn’t threaten to turn Seoul into a “Sea of flames”, conduct assassinations, blow up warships, or shell Islands with a civilian population. Your parallel’s are just getting better and better.
Semaj
The fact that all the investigators are USA stooges and did not include any from the BRIC countries automatically meant that their report is highly suspicious.
The simple question is why were non of the BRIC nations included?
We are know why, don’t we?…..because it is cooked up!
This USA engineered incident has a lot to do with the Okinawa request for the USA to remove their military base from their island.
It was a red flag incident with the aim to raise the level of concern with the Japanese who was pressuring the USA to move their base.
John Chan
@jared:
It seems you only read The Diplomat and nothing else on the internet, there are many articles showed proof that Cheonan was an USA’s creation. Would you say Wikileaks intends to wage war, because it tells something that are not to the liking of USA even though they are truth?
Objective truth is what Chinese bloggers are seeking here.
jared
It comes down to who you listen to. I choose to listen to engineers, PhDs, and experts in their relative fields. You choose to listen to bloggers who misinterpret diplomatic leaks. Science is science, and North Korea sank a warship.
Even if it was a fabrication (which it’s clearly not), that doesn’t condone North Korea for it’s heinous acts against it’s own citizens, it’s constant threats to the rest of the world, and it’s multiple assassination attempts just to name a few.
Brad
The Chenoen a U.S plotted incident? John Chan I truely feel sorry for you, whatever you went through to have thoughts like that must have been really devastating. My condolences to the people you know in real life that have to deal with your deranged thoughts and actions.
Sir Mixxalot
“Deterring North Korea is a tough job, but someone has to do it. A better earth penetrating nuclear weapon might help. ”
This in “The Diplomat”?
Did the Onion folks hack your website?
I expected better from Mr. Lewis…
Clint Sharpe
Really? NK will not be deterred by B61-11 and the GBU57 and the US needs new capabilities? Jeffrey Lewis has been drinking some off kool-aid since his minimum deterrence days. The argument presented here is so flawed I scarcely know where to begin: mixing conventional and nuclear deterrence is where I would start…Jeffrey say Hi to Senator Kyl and John Bolton from me!
yang tsup
china will support n.k if war break out.. time for u.s to disintegrate both countries..
Quintillian
Why is there no mention of the GBU57 massive ordnance penetrator? Is it outmoded already or unsuitable for some reason?
Min Goo Lee
Is the author serious? If so, what kind of warped, Cold War fantasy is he living in? First of all, any nuclear development on the part of South Korea or Japan cannot be considered a form of deterrence; instead, the North will perceive it as a massive provocation. This is even more so when taking into account that with North’s ballistic missile capabilities less developed than the tactical nukes that may be placed in South Korea or Japan in the scenario that the US does decide to extend its nuclear umbrella, in that there will be a heightened risk of escalation. The North Korean regime may consist of an enclave of insane, paranoid old men, but it is not stupid by any means. No one should assume that the Cheonan, Yeonpyeong-do, and the North’s revelation of secret meetings with South Korean officials, had nothing in the way of a grand strategic thinking. When faced with the possibility of a bomb based in South Korea, they will retaliate to this existential threat with conventional attacks in the mould of the Yeonpyeong-do artillery strikes, which may be large enough in scale to incur some kind of situational development, yet small enough to escape an all-out war and the subsequent nuclear wrath. Kim Jong-il and his clique know that, in reality, no one has the stomach for a war with North Korea; not Japan, not South Korea, and certainly not the United States. After all, isn’t this why the nuclear option is even being floated about? In a conventional conflict with the North, the US will, again, be facing a form of insurgency guerilla warfare, except that the Korean People’s Army will be inexhaustible in manpower and much, much better trained than Middle East jihadists. Once stuck in a war with North Korea, the US will most certainly win. On the other hand, it will be faced with a nation-building obligation that will make Iraq look like an episode of Grand Designs. The US knows that conventional warfare isn’t an option, hence if it places nuclear bombs in the region, it would be trying to recreate its very own slice of the Cold War in the region by applying the concept of deterrence, which, frankly, is a concept both outmoded and incredibly dangerous. It is also a school of thought that is completely counter-productive, since the world has already seen that the Sunshine Policy pursued by the Kim and Roh administrations in South Korea, and helped along by the Clinton administration in the US, did indeed lead to a dramatic decrease in tension and much further development in terms of substantive negotiations, as well as symbolical developments such as the meetings arranged for families separated by the Korean War, which are of considerable importance to public perception of inter-Korean relations. The current Lee administration has sought to reverse the trend of positive engagement, instead taking a carrot-and-stick approach that has been met with mixed success. In all fairness, however, the recent developments regarding the North’s reaching out to Russia and its willingness to return to six-party talks are a glimmer of hope. Although positive developments like these have often been sullied with abrupt provocations, I believe there is cause for cautious optimism; there always is, and always should be. I respect the author for his obvious expertise in the area, which I cannot claim to match in any way, but in this day and age, there’s just no need to stop worrying and love the bomb.
@Yang Zi – I disagree. You would be deeply mistaken to think that Kim doesn’t feel his life is at risk at present. Why do you think he’s even built all these underground bunkers? This man scores higher on the paranoia scale than Fidel Castro. Also, do you think it would be appropriate for the US to even be seen as having public discussions regarding the possibility of assassinating Kim Jong-il, especially when targeted killings have become a hotbed of controversy? South Korea has already had its own misadventures in that area, and it is almost certainly inconceivable that it will take such risks again in the future. I mean this with no intention of offence, but please, foreign policy, especially where North Korea is concerned, cannot be treated like a round of Call of Duty.
AlexC
I fail to see how a deep penetration nuke is anymore of a deterrent. The fact is that the weapon is of no value unless KJI uses nuclear weapons first. In which case the current conventional and nuclear capability of the U.S. is more than enough to ensure his demise.
If you really want to throw KJI for a loop, have some Chinese corporations open up some facilities in Seoul and have major assets there. Now that’s deterrence.
Lil
We must ask what are north koreas motives and should war break out what is chinas stance.
Charlie
@yang zi
Very true.
yang zi
the author brings up the key point, that is you have to threaten Kim’s life and his sons.
but the solution is overkill. a timely bombing while he is out somewhere is a better strategy. you don’t have to do it, just plan and talk about it will change him.
Brad
Yang zi, while true, that would only be if the U.S/ SK were looking to start the conflict. I do not consider KJI to be a very smart person, but I know he is not stupid enough to cause trouble and not huddle down in a bunker somewhere after. By the time the decision is made to respond to something North Korea does, Kim Jong-Il is already hiding somewhere in a bunker. Your idea is more of an “assination” rather than retaliation.
I believe this article is spot on.