What kind of civilization have we developed when two mentally unstable national leaders, in an escalating confrontation with each other, threaten one another — and the world — with nuclear war?
That question arises as a potentially violent showdown emerges between Kim Jong Un of North Korea and Donald Trump of the United States.
In recent years, the North Korean government has produced about 10 nuclear weapons and has been making them increasingly operational through improvements in its missile technology. The U.S. government first developed nuclear weapons in 1945, when it employed them to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S. currently possesses 6,800 of them, mostly deployed on missiles, submarines and bombers.
According to the North Korean government, its nuclear weapons are necessary to defend itself against the United States. Similarly, the U.S. government argues that its nuclear weapons are necessary to defend itself against countries like North Korea.
What is particularly chilling about the current confrontation is that Kim and Trump do not appear deterred at all. Quite the contrary, they brazenly threaten nuclear war in provocative fashion.
Responding Tuesday to North Korean threats, Trump publicly warned that North Korea “will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” Later that day, North Korea’s state media announced that its government was considering a strategy of striking the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam with mid- to long-range nuclear missiles.
And Trump had more to say Thursday. “If anything, maybe that statement wasn’t tough enough,” he told reporters.
This kind of reckless and potentially suicidal behavior is like a game of “chicken,” which achieved notoriety in the 1950s. In the film “Rebel Without a Cause,” two rebellious, antisocial male teenagers (or juvenile delinquents, as they were known at the time) drove jalopies at top speed toward a cliff. Whoever jumped out of the cars first was revealed as “chicken” (a coward).
A more popular variant of the game involved two teenagers driving their cars at high speed toward one another, with the first to swerve out of the way drawing the derisive label.
With news of the game spreading, Bertrand Russell, the great mathematician and philosopher, suggested in 1959 that the two sides in the Cold War were engaged in an even crazier version: nuclear “chicken.” He wrote: “As played by irresponsible boys, this game is considered decadent and immoral, though only the lives of the players are risked.”
But the game became “incredibly dangerous” and “absurd” when it was played by government officials “who risk not only their own lives but those of many hundreds of millions of human beings.” Russell warned that “the moment will come when neither side can face the derisive cry of ‘chicken!’ from the other side.” When that moment arrived, “the statesmen of both sides will plunge the world into destruction.”
It was a fair enough warning, and only several years later, during the Cuban missile crisis, the game of nuclear “chicken” played by Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy could have resulted in a disastrous nuclear war. At the last minute, both men backed off — or, perhaps we should say, swerved to avoid a head-on collision — and the crisis was resolved peacefully.
In the current situation, there’s plenty of room for compromise between the U.S. and North Korean governments. The Pyongyang regime has offered to negotiate and has shown particular interest in a peace treaty ending the Korean War of the 1950s and U.S. military exercises near its borders. Above all, it seems anxious to avoid regime change by the United States.
The U.S. government, in turn, has long been anxious to halt the North Korean nuclear program and defend South Korea against attack from the north. Reasonable governments should be able to settle this dispute short of nuclear war.
But are the two governments headed by reasonable men?
Lawrence Wittner is a professor of history emeritus at SUNY/Albany. He is the author of “Confronting the Bomb.”
History News Network
Send letters to: email@example.com.