Here is what a Professor John Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago has to say about the possibility of North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons:
There’s no way North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons because they have no reason to believe the United States will implement any denuclearization deal between them, John Mearsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago well known for his realist views on international politics, said Tuesday.
“North Korea is not going to give up its nuclear weapons and China will not push North Koreans to do so. The reason is that in international politics, you could never trust anybody because you cannot be certain of what their intentions are,” the professor said in a lecture hosted by the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies in Seoul.
“There’s no way North Koreans can trust the U.S. — they give up their nuclear weapons because the U.S. might welsh on the deal,” the professor said, referring to the U.S.’ unsuccessful denuclearization deals with former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Iran. “If you were North Koreans, would you trust Donald Trump? Would you trust any American presidents?
“I can’t think of a country that needs nuclear weapons more than North Koreans because you all know that the U.S. is into a regime change. Donald Trump has been talking about a regime change in North Korea,” Mearsheimer said.
“Give up their nuclear weapons? I don’t think so, especially as security competition heats up in East Asia. You wanna hang on to those weapons.” [Yonhap]
I think an important distinction to draw here is that the nuclear weapons were likely not developed to protect the North Korean government from an American regime change attempt. North Korea’s conventional weapons have been able to prevent any regime change on the peninsula despite assassination attempts on ROK presidents, shooting down of a US aircraft, kidnappings, terrorist bombings, artillery shellings, etc. These past incidents would have led to a regime change war in most other areas in the world, but not with North Korea because of the cost of civilian casualties on Seoul.
If Muammar Gaddafi had the ability to kill millions of people in Rome for example with conventional weapons, his overthrow by international forces would have never happened. Unlike Gaddafi and other dictators that have been overthrown, geography has aided the North Koreans by having a huge metropolitan area within striking distance of their conventional artillery, they don’t need nukes to threaten Seoul, they do need them to threaten the United States.
The Kim regime’s nuclear weapons were likely developed to threaten US cities which then increases their bargaining position during negotiations. This is what appears to be happening now. I would say that at best North Korea may sign an agreement that stops development of new nuclear weapons, but lets them keep a few on hand. What I think the US would have more success on is having them scrap their ICBM program. Without an ICBM North Korea cannot threaten US cities.
Such an agreement would still leave the Kim regime a few nuclear weapons to protect them not from the US, but from any Chinese regime change attempts. There has long been a distrust of the Chinese by the Kim regime that stretches back to the Korean War. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance policy against any Chinese adventurism against North Korea. The nuclear weapons also gives them an advantage over their South Korean rivals that they can continue to use as leverage during future provocation cycles and negotiations. So ultimately I agree with Professor Mearsheimer that North Korea is not going to give up their nuclear weapons, just for different reasons.
