April 17, 2017 | By Cécile Shea

Unilateral Action in North Korea

Cecile Shea explains the consequences of unilateral American military action in North Korea.

 

"There are a number of risks involved in the U.S. taking unilateral action in North Korea There is the possibility that the North Koreans would rain artillery shells down on Seoul. They could destroy Seoul in a couple of hours without using any nuclear weapons, just conventional weapons. There's a risk to Japan in terms of sabotage, in terms of submarine attacks, in terms of sleeper agents, in the country committing horrific attacks. But really the most sensitive area is China. If China believes there are U.S. forces moving into North Korea, that the U.S. is planning to somehow invade North Korea, they will get very, very nervous. Because they absolutely, positively, cannot abide the U.S. military being in North Korea when North Korea has a very long border with China. So that is by far the most sensitive issue for the United States. It is that ensuring that if we do, if President Trump does decide to take some action against the North, that the Chinese are not going to react very very badly and perhaps increase tensions in the region."

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.

Archive

| By Laura Rosenberger, Jacob Helberg, Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Making Cyberspace Safe for Democracy

The Alliance for Security Democracy’s Laura Rosenberger and Stanford University’s Jacob Helberg join Deep Dish to discuss digital interference, misinformation, and data privacy within the lens of geopolitics. 


| By Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Scott Sagan, Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Nuclear Threats 75 Years After Hiroshima

Seventy-five years after Hiroshima, former deputy secretary of energy Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall and Stanford University’s Scott Sagan join Deep Dish to examine the threat of nuclear weapons today.


| By Mira Rapp-Hooper, Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Why Allies are Key for US Security Today

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Mira Rapp-Hooper joins Deep Dish to explain why the alliance system is still essential for America’s global leadership – but must be remade to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 




| By Adam Segal, Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Who’s Winning the US-China Tech War?

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Adam Segal joins Deep Dish to explain the battles between China and the US over products like Huawei and TikTok, their role in US foreign policy, and why US allies are choosing sides. 


| By Judd Devermont, Neil Munshi, Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Mali’s Instability Threatens the Sahel

This week on Deep Dish, the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Judd Devermont and the Financial Times’ Neil Munshi explain why Mali’s instability is a threat to Africa’s Sahel region — soon to be the West’s largest conflict zone.






| By Catherine Belton, Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: How Putin Holds Power Over Russia

Investigative reporter Catherine Belton joins Deep Dish to examine the people that surround Russia’s enigmatic leader – and the financial ties to the West that makes the Kremlin’s dominance possible.