Readers offer their ideas: Pursue negotiations, a military response, a mutual assured destruction policy or Chinese leverage.<\/b>
\nTo the Editor:
Re \u201c The Way Forward on North Korea \u201d (editorial, July 5) :
North Korea\u2019s successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach Alaska has reduced to ashes the United States policy of the last three presidents. We have tried turning on the screws, joint military exercises, sanctions and relying on China, and this finely tuned strategy has failed.
Talking to Kim Jong-un\u2019s government is, and has long been, the only reasonable solution. Otherwise, the options are narrow: continuation of an outdated policy or war.
ROBERT CAMBRIA, NEW YORK
The writer is former coordinator of the Committee for a New Korea Policy.
To the Editor:
This editorial rightly points out that relying on China and sanctions have not worked with regard to North Korea. But diplomatic measures simply will not work.
North Korea has continuously refined and improved its nuclear program. The Agreed Framework signed in 1994 merely froze the North\u2019s plutonium program. In 2002, we discovered evidence that the North had been advancing a separate highly enriched uranium program all along. The idea that engaging with the North this time will lead to a better result is, to me, the definition of insanity. It\u2019s time to take military action and rid North Korea of all its nuclear capabilities. The alternative, doing nothing, is far more dangerous.
DANIEL S. SMITH
NORTHVILLE, MICH.
To the Editor:
Re \u201c North Korea Crosses a Line, but U. S. Has Few Options \u201d (news analysis, front page, July 5) :
To date, no expert in geostrategic policy has devised a surefire way to thwart North Korea from single-mindedly developing its nuclear program, all the way to an intercontinental capability. The same putative \u201csolutions\u201d get recycled: negotiations, economic sanctions, rhetorical bluster, pressure by China and Russia, United Nations intervention. Alas, none of these or other measures have checked the regime; denuclearization likely won\u2019 t happen.
Perhaps returning to a former realpolitik is called for: a variant of the Cold War\u2019s mutual assured destruction. That worked for about half a century to sober the Soviet Union, deterring capricious leaders. It\u2019s the same risk that keeps other nations of the nuclear-armed club from dueling with one another. A similarly unambiguous existential risk \u2014 in the presence of overwhelming asymmetry between the United States and North Korean nuclear arsenals, and despite an unpredictable regime \u2014 may give North Korea equal pause.
The more so if North Korea\u2019s real purpose in coveting nuclear arms \u2014 and \u201cclub\u201d membership \u2014 is not actually to use them against the United States or our allies, but to preserve its leadership, while increasing clout on the global stage.
KEITH TIDMAN, BETHESDA, MD.
To the Editor:
The solution to North Korea lies in forcing China to choose between it and the worldwide economy. Short of starting a war, the United States does not have sufficient leverage to force North Korea to dispense with nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles. However, regardless of its leadership\u2019s claim, China does have that ability.
An American president could defang North Korea simply by persuading our allies not only to embargo North Korea, but also to stop trading with any nation that continues that trade. Unfortunately, by tearing up the Trans-Pacific Partnership and putting NATO\u2019s future at risk, President Trump has already forfeited the leadership position and the political capital that an American president would need to accomplish this.
DANIEL BRONHEIM
PRINCETON, N. J.<\/p>\n