Should North Korea choose the path to becoming a responsible member of the community of nations, we are willing to provide assistance, together with the international community.
-- South Korean President Park Geun-hye
Any policy may be deemed supportable if sufficient resources are allocated and the required risks are accepted. This analysis examines North Korean proliferation of nuclear and ballistic missile technology (N&BMT) and whether U.S. government (USG) policy options of containment, destruction of capabilities without regime change, or regime change translate into suitable, feasible, acceptable, and effective strategies. Through the ends, ways, and means strategy formulation framework, this paper identifies commitments, resources, and risks for each option and assesses their relative supportability with a view towards achieving the United States’ military strategic end and thus its political end state.
The ways and means available for each policy option are generally similar; however, primacy and intensity among them varies between options at the discretion of policy makers. USG ways to achieve its ends include diplomacy, economic policy and sanctions, alliances, military force, the use of international organizations, and various departments and offices of the USG’s Executive Branch including the Departments of Defense and Treasury. Means include international inspections of shipping entering and exiting the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), enforcement of economic sanctions against nations trading with the DPRK, continued six party talks, and the active interdiction of materials which could advance the DPRK’s N&BMT. They also include U.S., Republic of Korea (ROK), and Japane...
... middle of paper ...
...1.
LTC John G. Krenson “On Strategy: Integration of DIME in the Twenty-first Century,” U.S. Army War College, (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, February 12, 2012), 3. Online at: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA561308 (accessed February 01, 2014).
Bennett, 21-24, 37-39, 43-47, 282-284.
GEN Raymond T. Odierno, “CSA Lays Out Strategic Priorities for Uncertain Future,” Email to the U.S. Army, October 16, 2013. online at: http://www.army.mil/article/113256/CSA_lays_out_strategic_priorities_ for_uncertain_future/ (accessed February 01, 2014).
James F.Miskel, “National Interests: Grand Purposes or Catchphrases?” Naval War College Review, vol. LV, no. 4 (Autumn 2002): 96-104. Available at: http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/5f4d8569-622a-4fa1-be15-fa43a6afd18f/National-Interests--Grand-Purposes-or-Catchphrases.aspx (accessed February 01, 2014).
The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief analysis of the United States Army’s organizational structure and its culture and how these two elements impact its workers, associates and affiliates. This paper will first examine the Army’s history, development and structure to highlight the origins of the Army’s culture. Secondly, a brief history of the Army’s organizational development will be followed by a close examination of its philosophy and supporting beliefs. Lastly, this paper will discuss the role of the Army’s leadership, their response to critical issues and the organizational structure of the Army. An analysis of the army’s top leaders will help the reader to understand the Army culture more thoroughly in the context of the Army’s organizational structure. More specifically this section of the paper will examine the Army leadership’s response to the current geo-political environment and other related issues. In conclusion, this paper hopes to highlight the Army’s overall functioning from an organizational standpoint and emphasize that idea that the Army is like a functional corporation. This will be accomplished by addressing various key questions throughout this text.
LM06, Strategic Planning Student Guide. (2013). Maxwell-Gunter AFB. Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education (AETC).
In today’s operational environments, the U.S. Army is facing a range of problems and mission sets that are arguably more complex than previously encountered. Forces face an array of demands that encompass geo-political, social, cultural, and military factors that interact in unpredictable ways. The inherent complexity of today’s operations has underscored the need for the Army to expand beyond its traditional approach to operational planning. In March 2010 in FM 5-0: The Operations
General Milley spoke about the need for the US Army to be flexible on the battlefield of the future. ADRP 3-0
To meet future challenges and opportunities the Department of Defense (DOD) must decide how to adjust the armed forces structure in an austere economic environment. Based on current strategic direction and fiscal constraints, the general force structure and capabilities necessary to rebalance Joint Force 2020 is a smaller but fully integrated joint military organization. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) emphasizes US military power will evolve and remain modern, capable, and ready while accepting some increased risk through force reductions. Rebalancing will require innovative approaches and solutions to protect the homeland, build global security, project power, and win decisively with a leaner organization.
China and North Korea are strong supporting allies; they are trading partners. The Chinese back the North Koreans in the Korean War (1950-1953). North Korea is traders’ of fuel, food and arms with China. The Chinese’s’ helps the North Korean political leaders’ example; Kim Jung-un’s, with offering him diplomatic protection against other powers. The North Korean’s were the main supporters of Kim Jung-un’s regime; the Chinese in the past had opposed to harsh international sanction on North Korea, and they wanted North Korean’s to collapse; that their influx refuges would share the eight hundred-mile border. Unfortunately after the nuclear test from Pyongyang’s in February 2013 launched, the China was more skeptical about North Korean’s. The nuclear testing in North Korean’s had Beijing threatened. The first nuclear test had launched in 2006; another in 2009 and this has destroyed the North Korean’s relationship with Beijing, as they were apart of the Six Party Talks. The nuclear test was the main concerned to China and Beijing; they aimed to denuclearizing the North Koreans nuclear test. In 2013 the people executed Kim Jong-un’s uncle and close advisor; this had destroyed the relationship with Beijing; which has helped the Chinese relationship with Beijing. China has maintained the peace between the six-nations, and served North Korea economically, politically and has denuclearizing the nuclear program in North Korea.
Relations between North and South Korea have seen a spectrum of phases. From a once unified kingdom, to being under colonial rule, to the division created after WWII, the Koreas have endured all different types of stresses that have resulted in two very different and often hostile nations toeing the line of war. In this literature review, we will see that scholars have argued about various situations and factors that could result in an unknown future, including one that could potentially lead to nuclear attacks in regards of effectiveness of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). We will look at the scholarship regarding the history that has shaped the Asian region, particularly the Korean peninsula, and what is happening now and why. Also, we are going to evaluate whether the NPT is effective or not and what that means for security implications in the Asian region and the world.
The 2015 National Security Strategy (NSS), the 2015 National Defense Strategy (NDS), and the Army Operating Concept (AOC) collectively agree that the United States cannot solve strategic problems alone. All of these documents discuss, in their opening paragraphs, the importance
Trubowitz, Peter. Defining the National Interest: Conflict and Change in American Foreign Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.
方玥雯[Fang Yue Wen] (2009). 北韓核武研發與東北亞安全：2002-2007. [The North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons and the Security in Northeast Asia: 2002-2007] in台灣[Taiwan]: 國立政治大學[National Cheungchi University] Retrieved 18 July, 2013 from http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37029
Leaders today need to have an appreciation for the operation process, understand a situation, envision a desired future, and to lay out an approach that will achieve that future (Flynn & Schrankel, 2013). Plans need to be created that can be modified to changes in any factors considered. However, plans should not be dependent on specific information being precise or that require things to go exactly according to schedule. Instead, the staff NCO should be flexible where they can and always be prepared for the unexpected. Today’s military members are fighting an unconventional war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy constantly changes their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP’s) to counter the United States technological advances, making planning very difficult for leaders. There are multiple tools at a staff NCO’s disposal to try to anticipate an outcome of a current operation, but also assist with the development of concepts in follow-on missions. The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is just one tool a staff NCO can utilize. In order to stay ahead of the enemy, create effective plans and orders, it is critical for a staff NCO to assist the commander, and understand that the MDMP and planning are essential in defeating the enemy and conserving the fighting force.
Since the end of the Korean War, the United States has enacted policies to isolate and undermine the Kim Dynasty in North Korea. A key development took place in the past several decades where North Korea broke away from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop their own nuclear weapons and while lacking launch capabilities, they have been successful in their development. During this process, the United States took active policies to deter the North Koreans in pursuit of their goals. It is easy to assume that the United States took this stance in order to maintain a military edge in the region. But under closer examination, this neo-realist perspective does not explain why the United States pursued this policy. In reality, North Korea to this day does not pose a significant military threat, even with limited nuclear capabilities. A constructivist perspective is more able to explain US policy in this instance because it does not focus on sheer militaristic power. It takes into consideration the state's identities which drives their interests. The identities of the US and North Korea and the interactions between them drove both nations to the point of acquiring and deterring nuclear use.
Kim, Yongho and Yi, Yurim “Security Dilemmas and Signaling during the North Korean Nuclear Standoff”, Asian Perspective, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2005, pp. 73-97
Since its origin in 1948, North Korea has been isolated and heavily armed, with hostile relations with South Korea and Western countries. It has developed a capability to produce short- and medium-range missiles, chemical weapons, and possibly biological and nuclear weapons. In December 2002, Pyongyang lifted the freeze on its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program and expelled IAEA inspectors who had been monitoring the freeze under the Agreed Framework of October 1994. As the Bush administration was arguing its case at the United Nations for disarming Iraq, the world has been hit with alarming news of a more menacing threat: North Korea has an advanced nuclear weapons program that, U.S. officials believe, has already produced one or two nuclear bombs. As the most recent standoff with North Korea over nuclear missile-testing approaches the decompression point, the United States needs to own up to a central truth: The region of Northeast Asia will never be fully secure until the communist dictatorship of North Korea passes from the scene. After threatening to test a new, long-range missile, Pyongyang says it is willing to negotiate with "the hostile nations" opposing it. But whether the North will actually forgo its test launch is anyone's guess. North Korea first became embroiled with nuclear politics during the Korean War. Although nuclear weapons were never used in Korea, American political leaders and military commanders threatened to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean War on terms favorable to the United States. In 1958, the United States deployed nuclear weapons to South Korea for the first time, and the weapons remained there until President George Bush ordered their withdrawal in 1991. North Korean government stateme...
...The only way for the U.S to get any type of peaceful outcome from North Korea is to push for a regime change. However, these tactics would definitely lead to war and in this case I believe that the cost of war definitely outweigh the benefits. Also you have to be mindful of the other actors involved who would have something to lose besides the two involved in war, such as China and South Korea. China would lose a trade partner and would have a large flow of refugees trying to enter their country (as well as the neighboring countries) and South Korea (a U.S ally) would lose lives (soldier and possibly civilians) and as well as the damage to property. The best choice the U.S has at the moment to avoid total destruction, losing lives, and the monetary cost would be to continue to peacefully bargain with North Korea and use as little force as possible to achieve peace.