We’re stuck with North Korea for the long haul

Steve Bannon was right.

Before leaving his job as a strategic adviser to President Donald Trump on Aug. 18, Bannon said in a defiant interview that “there’s no military solution [to North Korea]. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes … there’s no military solution here, they got us.”

After North Korea fired a missile over Japan on Aug. 28 — arguably, an act of war — Trump said in a statement that “all options are on the table.” But all options are not on the table. In fact, there may be only one way forward on the Korean standoff, with investors having no choice but to live with the nerve-wracking risks.

Trump wants North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to believe the United States is willing to launch a preemptive military strike to halt or destroy North Korea’s nuclear program, which most likely consists of several nuclear devices and missiles that will soon be able to carry those weapons to much of the United States. It’s prudent for Trump to send that message to Kim since he’d be tying his own hands and limiting his negotiating power by saying otherwise.

But as Bannon said, a military option is implausible, for one obvious reason: The bloodshed would be horrifying. Any shooting war would allow North Korea plenty of time to lob thousands of artillery shells at Seoul before the United States and its allies are able to eliminate the threat. It’s also now possible Kim could launch a nuke at Japan, the U.S. territory of Guam or even the continental United States before American bombs shut him down. The death toll would be so large no commander-in-chief would order such action, and if he or she did, the Pentagon would probably find a way not to carry out the order.

China has more leverage over North Korea than any other nation, but as Trump is learning, China has reasons to keep Kim in power and use him as a counterweight to America’s presence in South Korea. Trump can still lean harder on China and threaten sanctions there, but China is a huge U.S. trading partner and what hurts China would hurt American interests, too.

Finally, there is covert action, including the possible assassination of Kim. That could include cyber warfare that sabotages North Korean weaponry. But North Korea seems as impervious to covert action as anyplace, and Kim’s personal security is so rigorous that hardly anybody knows where he is at any given moment. So while it’s possible Kim could be assassinated — by internal factions or foreign interests — that possibility seems remote.

That leaves one likely outcome: simply tolerating North Korea as it is and doing whatever is necessary to contain the threat it poses. “Deterrence is the most likely outcome,” says Sue Mi Terry of the consulting firm Bower Group Asia, who was a former senior analyst on North Korea at the CIA. “Trump will never say that, but we are living with a nuclear North Korea, just as we live with a nuclear Russia and a nuclear China. It’s only whether we want to admit that or not.”