Gwynne Dyer: Faith that sanity will prevail

Disturbing news: A man at Seoul Train Station, in South Korea's capital, walks by a TV screen showing a local news programme reporting North Korea's missile firing on Wednesday.Photo/AP

"AMERICAN bastards would be not very happy with this gift sent on the July 4 anniversary," said North Korean leader Kim Jong-un about his country's first successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on Wednesday.

And, indeed, Americans are not happy about it, although it would be overstating the case to say that panic is sweeping the United States at the news that North Korea's ICBMs can now reach America.

One reason for the lack of public panic is that Alaska is not a central concern for most Americans, and Alaska is the only part of the United States that North Korea's Hwasong-14 missile can actually reach.

Another reason is that the US authorities insist that North Korea's nuclear weapons are too big and heavy to fit on its ICBMs (it's not clear whether they have actual intelligence that confirms this, or are just whistling in the dark).

And a third reason might be that Americans are secretly embarrassed by the sheer hypocrisy of their own government's position in this affair.

Well, no, not really -- the vast majority of Americans are blissfully unaware that there is any hypocrisy involved in demanding that North Korea refrain from getting what the United States has had for the past 72 years. So is the US Government.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was being entirely sincere when he said North Korea's ICBM test "represents a new escalation of the threat to the United States, our allies and partners, the region, and the world". Wrong -- but entirely sincere.

He is obviously aware that the United States has had nuclear weapons since 1945, and has even dropped them on Asian cities. He knows that his country has had ICBMs since the 1950s, and still has hundreds ready to launch on short notice. How is the American posture different from the one that North Korea aspires to?

Two differences, really.

One is that the United States has at least 100 times as many nuclear weapons as North Korea, and delivery vehicles at least two technological generations further down the road.

Gwynne Dyer

Another is that the United States has a clearly stated policy that says it might use nuclear weapons first in a conflict. Weirdly, this just makes American ICBMs sound more dangerous than North Korea's.

But that's not really true. The United States used its first nuclear weapons as soon as it got them in 1945 but, despite all the wars it has waged in the 72 years since then, it has never used them again.

Nuclear weapons are so terrifying that they actually force the people who possess them to think seriously about the consequences of using them.

North Korea will probably have ICBMs that can reach big American cities in three to five years, if it keeps up the current pace of development and testing.

That would buy North Korea a limited degree of safety from an American nuclear attack, because one or more of its missiles might survive a US first strike and be able to carry out a "revenge from the grave". That is how nuclear deterrence works, at least in theory.

But even full-range nuclear-tipped ICBMs would not give the North Korean regime the ability to launch a nuclear attack on America (or Japan, or South Korea) without being exterminated in an immediate, massive nuclear counter-strike.

So you can probably trust the North Korean regime not to do anything so terminally stupid -- unless people like Kim Jong-un are literally crazy.

There is no evidence that the North Koreans really are crazy. In the 64 years since the end of the Korean War, they have never risked a war, and they are extremely unlikely to do so now.

And while there is a rather erratic leader in Washington at the moment, there are probably enough grown-ups around him to avoid any fatal mistakes on the American side either.

So North Korea will probably get its nuclear deterrent in the end, and we will all learn to live with it -- like we learned to live with mutual US-Russian nuclear deterrence, mutual US-Chinese nuclear deterrence, and mutual Indian-Pakistani nuclear deterrence.

Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.