“In the past periods of temporary normalization of relations, the two Koreas separately and jointly tried to promote denuclearization initiatives. Many people across the globe have mistakenly thought about denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula as only pertaining to nuclear disarmament of North Korea. But what about U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea [withdrawn in 1991], the inclusion of nuclear weapons in joint exercises, and the nuclear umbrella guarantee extended to South Korea by the U.S. ever since the Korean War? A nation that enjoys (or suffers from) such nuclear-umbrella guarantees does not qualify as “non-nuclear.” From this perspective, South Korea has long been nuclear, and it was the U.S. that first made the Korean peninsula nuclear.”
Publications
Reality Check on North Korea. How can the U.S. stop this march to war with North Korea? Open our eyes.
by Charles Knight, U.S.News & World Report, 20 February 2018.
“North Korea is most likely to agree to verifiable arms limitations if there is a credible path for them to significantly improve their national security, end sanctions and achieve international political normalcy, including ultimately diplomatic recognition from the U.S.
“This is a rare moment in international relations when the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea have a common interest in limiting the further development of North Korea’s nuclear force. Every reasonable avenue should be explored for making common cause to prevent war while also achieving a realistic degree of limitations on North Korea’s nuclear and missile arms.”
8 Key findings regarding the Korea nuclear arms crisis from recent discussions with experts in China, Russia and Korea
by Charles Knight, Center for International Policy, 02 February 2018. ➪ read full post PDF
Most interlocutors thought that there is almost no chance that the presently stringent sanctions can force the DPRK to agree to disarm. The Chinese and the Russians generally believe that the maximal concession that sanctions can win from the DPRK is an agreement to freeze their warhead and missile development — particularly inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) development — in return for some combination of confidence-building measures, security guarantees, and progress toward political normalization. The North Koreans will not give up the nuclear weapons they already have… at least not until there is permanent peace on the peninsula and the US is no longer understood to be an enemy.
Win-Win Steps to Prevent a New Korean War
“[T]he basis of regional cooperation that can make North Korean denuclearization possible… is the interest shared by the United States and China in a stable peaceful Korean Peninsula and in halting and then reversing North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. With the stakes for millions of people in the region so extraordinarily high, our leaders and our diplomats must be prepared to work with keen will and open minds to identify the paths to peace and mutual security – and then leaders must boldly walk them.”
Choosing war & decline … or not
by Charles Knight, Huffington Post, 03 February 2016 HTML
“A cold war framework for our relations with China, Russia, and any other powers that might eventually align with them will almost certainly result in the addition of $200 to 300 billion in annual U.S. security expenditures. It would also very significantly divert the energies of Americans from many social and environmental goals. The U.S. will end up deferring domestic investments needed to sustain its economic strength.”
Afghan Army Now Ready … to lose to the Taliban
➪ read the full post HTML
by Charles Knight, Lobe Log, 19 September 2015.
A review of the well-informed and insightful study by M. Chris Mason, The Strategic Lessons Unlearned from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan: Why the Afghan National Security Forces will not hold, and the implications for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan, Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, June 2015.
The most serious deficit of the Afghan National Security Forces…is its lack of motivation in comparison to the Taliban. One of the primary lessons unlearned from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan is that soldiers in the armies we create, train, and equip are simply not willing to fight and die for weak, corrupt, illegitimate governments.
~ M. Chris Mason
A New Cold War: a costly, unnecessary, and dangerous construct
➪ PDF Presentation by Charles Knight on a panel sponsored by the Economists for Peace and Security at the Allied Social Sciences Association conference in Boston, MA, 04 January 2015. Others on the panel included: James Carroll, Richard Kaufman, Robert Skidelsky, Allen Sinai, and Stephen Walt.
Not a common global home, but a fine mess
➪ HTML transcript
➪ Audio immediately below
Something in the Air: ‘Isolationism,’ Defense Spending, and the US Public Mood
➪ PDF ➪ HTML ➪ PDF executive summary ➪ HTML executive summary
Is “neo-isolationism” captivating the American public? Or is interventionism back? Will the public continue to support reductions in defense spending?
The report offers a comprehensive and critical analysis of current and historical US public opinion polls on global engagement, military intervention, and defense spending. Significant fluctuation in public sentiments is evident. So is an enduring divide between elite opinion and the general public. The report assesses these in light of changes in US policy, strategic conditions, and the economy. It also examines the effect of partisan political dynamics on public debate and opinion. Seven tables and graphs.
The US “Asia Pivot” and “Air-Sea Battle” Concept: Toward Conflict with China?
Will China come to pose a peer military threat to the United States? The Obama administration’s 2012 Strategic Defense Review and the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) turn on this eventuality. Both the so-called “Asia pivot” and the evolving Air-Sea Battle (ASB) operational concept are meant to preclude it. But they may serve to precipitate it, instead.
US Policy on Syria: War or Diplomacy?
Kerry for Keeping Option to Use Ground Forces ‘In the Event Syria Imploded’
Defense Sense – Fiscal Year 2014 Update: Options for National Security Savings
Military Intervention in Syria? — American People Show Greater Wisdom Than Washington
Three Leadership Steps for Peace in Korea
Obama Getting Ready to Reduce Nukes: A Step in the Right Direction
Striking a New Deal for Defense
President Obama Must Prepare for the Sequester Squeeze Play
Should the United States increase or decrease its spending for defense?
(HTML version) Federation of American Scientists, 15 November 2012. Carl Conetta, Charles Knight, and Ethan Rosenkranz of the Project on Defense Alternatives; Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); and Christopher Preble of the CATO Institute debate whether the U.S. should increase or decrease its spending for defense.
Reasonable Defense: A Sustainable Approach to Securing the Nation
by Carl Conetta, PDA Briefing Report #21, 14 November 2012. 9 tables. The appendix provides an additional 18 tables and charts addressing personnel, force structure, and budgets.
➪ PDF ➪ summary PDF ➪ appendix of tables and charts PDF.
Argues for a new balance among the various instruments of national power reflecting today’s strategic conditions. Taking a realistic view of security needs, the report advocates a military 20% smaller than today’s. It advances a “discriminate defense” strategy that would focus the military on cost-effective missions and save $550 billion more than official plans over the next decade.
Rebalancing Our National Security: The Benefits of Implementing a Unified Security Budget
A Smarter Way to Trim the Pentagon Budget
(HTML version) by Charles Knight, Time Battleland, 24 August 2012. The Reasonable Defense plan demonstrates how carefully conceived changes to the Pentagon budget can be consistent with economic recovery and also provide ample military capacity to protect America and our core commitments abroad.