A tense period in 2017 arised when the US and North Korean leaders exchanged insults and threats as latter carried out a series of missile and nuclear tests. US President Trump called Kim “rocket man” and warned that the U.S. would “totally destroy North Korea” if it had to defend itself or its allies.

In 2018, North Korea announced that it would suspend nuclear and missile testing, and shut down the site where its six previous nuclear tests were carried out. A meeting between the two leaders was held at Singapore. The recent Two-day meeting between leaders ended abruptly without a deal on denuclearisation.

• Balance of Power:
  • The theory in international relations suggests that national security is enhanced when military capability is distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others.
  • If one state becomes much stronger than others, the theory predicts that it will take advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbours, thereby providing an incentive for those threatened to unite in a defensive coalition.
  • Some realists maintain that this would be more stable as aggression would appear unattractive and would be averted if there was equilibrium of power between the rival coalitions.
• Balance of Terror:
  • The possession of credible nuclear capability by both sides created fear and the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) produced deterrence that none of the parties ever attempted to use its nuclear weapons against the other.
  • Balance of Terror provided the world with a very precious gift, the gift of peace, security and international stability. It acts as a deterrent against usage of nuclear weapons.
  • With the possession of nuclear weapons by several nations today’ the challenge of national security becomes very precarious in the present globalized world.

Nuclear Power: Balance of Terror or terror?

• balance of terror is similar to balance of power in that both policies are aimed at increasing the capability and consequently the security of a state by creating deterrence and the fear of attack in the mind of the adversar
• BoP and BoT policies are different in that while the former relies on conventional weapons and alliances, the latter is solely based on the nuclear strategy.
• The balance of terror is quite distinct from the balance of power. All major powers have the wherewithal to obtain a second-strike capability. Unless a state attains nuclear primacy, the balance of terror is remarkably egalitarian.
• Example: USA may grow a hundred times as powerful as North Korea but the balance of terror will hold regardless. This will not prevent the relationship from becoming ever more asymmetric. North Korea will not be able to deter unilateral USA actions that violate its sovereignty.
• However, the control of the nuclear power in a nation imperatively decides whether it acts as a balance of terror or terror itself.
• In the scenario of USA and NorthKorea, both are headed by reactive Presidents who may take decisions to use the nuclear weapons leading to global damage.

Most recent status of relations between USA and North Korea

• North Korea-US relations are hostile till date that developed primarily during the Korean War. The two nations are separated by the Pacific Ocean. Since the Korean War, US has maintained a strong military presence in South Korea.
• North Korea warned it faced a food shortfall of around 1.4 million tonnes this year, highlighting the importance that lifting the economic sanctions would have on the country.
• In the most recent talks, the American president said Kim wanted all sanctions on North Korea lifted, but didn’t offer sufficient dismantling of the country’s nuclear program in exchange.
• However, A statement from a North Korean official after the summit said the North wanted only “partial” relief from sanctions in exchange for dismantling “all the nuclear material production facilities” at the country’s main nuclear site at Yongbyon.

North Korea’s Nuclear complex and its impact on India

• India has had longstanding diplomatic ties with North Korea and even under pressure from the United States, it refused to reduce its diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang.
• India has been North Korea’s second largest trading partner after China, bilateral trade came down to around $130 million in 2016-17 from around $209 million in 2014-15.
• India considers the nuclear proliferation in North Korea as a threat to its “own national security”. A stable and peaceful Korean peninsula is in India’s interest.
• New Delhi holds China and Pakistan—both nuclear power nations—responsible for the rise of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and wants the linkages between North Korea and China and Pakistan to be probed by the international community.
• The matter of deep concern is that DPRK has acted in violation of its international commitments which goes against the objective of the denuclearization of Korean peninsula.

Conclusion:

Diplomatic solutions are the best solution any day instead of this continued “frozen war” involving both show of words and missile tests comes up. Also, China which supplies a lot of different supplies and aid to DPRK and is also its largest trading partner should take some steps which help towards controlling these tests of the totalitarian North Korea.