Paper
James M. Acton, Ankit Panda
{
"authors": [
"James M. Acton"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie China"
],
"collections": [
"China’s Foreign Relations",
"U.S. Nuclear Policy",
"Korean Peninsula"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"East Asia",
"South Korea",
"North Korea"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Security",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Will North Korea Strike?
North Korea has issued new threats against South Korea and has demanded an apology for protests in the South.
Published on Apr 16, 2013
Source: CTV News
North Korea has issued new threats against South Korea and has demanded an apology for recent protests in the South. Carnegie's James Acton spoke to CTV News about the latest developments.
"Anytime one country threatens another country with the use of nuclear weapons, which North Korea has done, you have to take those threats seriously," Acton pointed out, adding, "that said, do not think that North Korea or Kim Jong-un is about to wake up tomorrow morning and use a nuclear weapon against the United States."
Acton said that he is more worried about an accident, even at sea, that escalates into the use of nuclear weapons. "I think that there are a number of factors going on here," said Acton, "the first point to make is that the truth is that we don't know what is going on inside North Korea, it is widely regarded as being one of the toughest intelligence targets in the world."
"That said," Acton added, "some of what is going on in North Korea is presumably about the young, inexperienced leader, Kim Jong-un, asserting himself amongst his miiltary and perhaps his own population."
On China's position, Acton said that nothing new has come out of Secretary Kerry's visit to China. "If there is a shift in Chinese policy, I wouldn't expect to see much publicly, in general I would expect China to do its diplomacy quietly, behind the scenes," concluded Acton.
About the Author
James M. Acton
Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program
Acton holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Nuclear Weapons and the Future of American Power
- The Latest Iran Deal Ignores the Lessons of the PastCommentary
James M. Acton
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Letter from the Editor: Europe Takes Two Steps Forward But One Step BackCommentary
As we close out another season of Strategic Europe, it is worth taking stock of the deep shifts underway.
Rym Momtaz
- Assessing Information Ecosystems: How Governments Can Get Ahead of Hybrid ThreatsPaper
The hybrid warfare landscape is evolving rapidly, leaving policymakers without clear strategies. To better inform their work in addressing emerging challenges, governments must dig deeper into the underlying dynamics at play.
Raluca Csernatoni, Alicia Wanless
- Why Europe Must Take Charge of its Russia Diplomacy NowCommentary
Trump is distracted and Ukraine wants Europe to step up. The continent’s leaders must find their voice and assert it in talks with Russia.
Alissa de Carbonnel
- Why Russia Could Escalate Hybrid Warfare Against EuropeCommentary
Mounting economic strain and battlefield losses will not necessarily make the Kremlin less dangerous. They could instead push Moscow toward a more aggressive hybrid campaign designed to test NATO’s Eastern flank, exploit allied hesitation, and fracture European resolve.
Maksym Beznosiuk
- Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?Commentary
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
