Making Sense - Sam Harris - July 21, 2017


#88 — Must We Accept a Nuclear North Korea?


Episode Stats

Length

27 minutes

Words per Minute

149.63477

Word Count

4,056

Sentence Count

191

Hate Speech Sentences

11


Summary

Mark Bowden is the author of 13 books, including the No. 1 New York Times bestseller, Black Hawk Down. He reported at the Philadelphia Inquirer for 20 years, and now writes for the Atlantic and Vanity Fair, primarily. He s also a writer-in-residence at the University of Delaware, and his most recent book is Hue, 1968, a Turning Point for the American War in Vietnam. And as you ll hear, Mark and I get very deep into the topic of North Korea, a topic that came out in the Atlantic a few weeks ago, but in this podcast, we essentially walk through the logic of that article, and you ll know more about why we haven t solved the North Korea crisis, though it s been a crisis for decades. And now I bring you Mark Bowden, who is here with me to talk about it. Sam Harris Founder and Editor-In-Chief of Making Sense: The Making Sense Podcast Director and Producer of the Ken Burns Documentary Executive Director of the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts Producer and Editor of The Dark Art of Interrogation Author of the White House Correspondent s Notebook, and a host of other writing projects, including a book, a podcast and a podcast, and is a frequent guest on the radio show, . He is also a regular contributor to The New York Magazine and the Los Angeles Evening Standard, and a frequent contributor to the Hollywood Reporter, and the Hollywood A.V. Club, and he is a host on the podcast, , and he also hosts a show on the show, The Good Fight, The Badger, and The Good Hustle, and The Badging, and Other Things, and among other things. , and he s a good friend of the Good Hustling, and so much more! Join us at Making Sense on social media Subscribe to Making Sense? Learn more about him on Insta: in the Badger and Good Hustler, The Good Thing, Good Things, Badie, and So Much Good, Good, and Good, Bad, and He s Good at That's Good by Good by So Much More, and You Can Say That, Too Much Good by That's Not That at That, Good And So Much So, Too Good by He s Great, Good At That, That s Good And He s Gotta Have It Like That by Good And That s Not That, And He Says It's Good And They Say That And That's That, He s Not Gotta Say That by That And He Can Say It, Too Gotta Be That, So Much Like That, and That s Also That's Gotta Hear That, Not That That, or That s That, Really Like That That's Also That, This Is That, And That Says That s So Good, Too It's That's Right, Too He s Just That, Right, That's It, That Sells It, And That Really Does That, Like That's Really, That Really, Really, Too, And They Don t Have It, He Sells That, But That s Really That, Or That's Just That s Truly That, No Squeep Like That And They Do That, Geeeeeeeeee He s So Squeeee, Too Like That?


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast.
00:00:08.820 This is Sam Harris.
00:00:10.880 Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you are not currently on our subscriber
00:00:14.680 feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation.
00:00:18.440 In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at
00:00:22.720 samharris.org.
00:00:24.140 There you'll find our private RSS feed to add to your favorite podcatcher, along with
00:00:28.360 other subscriber-only content.
00:00:30.540 We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support
00:00:34.640 of our subscribers.
00:00:35.900 So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.
00:00:46.580 Today I'm speaking with Mark Bowden.
00:00:49.680 Mark is the author of 13 books, including the number one New York Times bestseller, Black
00:00:54.500 Hawk Down.
00:00:55.040 He reported at the Philadelphia Inquirer for 20 years and now writes for the Atlantic
00:01:00.680 and Vanity Fair, primarily.
00:01:03.760 He's also a writer-in-residence at the University of Delaware.
00:01:07.700 And his most recent book is Hue, 1968, A Turning Point for the American War in Vietnam.
00:01:15.520 And as you'll hear, Mark and I get very deep into the topic of North Korea.
00:01:20.880 He wrote this wonderful article, though a fairly harrowing one, about just how difficult and
00:01:28.940 dangerous and intractable our stalemate with North Korea is.
00:01:34.880 This came out in the Atlantic a few weeks ago.
00:01:37.260 It might still be in the current issue of the magazine.
00:01:40.100 But in this podcast, we essentially walk through the logic of that article, and you will know
00:01:48.140 more about why we haven't solved the North Korea crisis, though it's been a crisis for
00:01:54.380 decades.
00:01:56.040 And now I bring you Mark Bowden.
00:01:59.100 I am here with Mark Bowden.
00:02:07.000 Mark, thanks for coming on the podcast.
00:02:09.180 Well, thanks for inviting me, Sam.
00:02:10.900 Well, I've been a fan of yours for a long time.
00:02:14.260 I think I mostly see you in the Atlantic.
00:02:17.360 Do you publish regularly somewhere else as a journalist?
00:02:20.740 Mostly in the Atlantic.
00:02:21.660 I do occasionally write for Vanity Fair and also for Sports Illustrated now and then.
00:02:27.540 Well, I have missed you in Sports Illustrated, I must say.
00:02:29.740 That's more about me than about the rest of the world.
00:02:32.860 I think many people will be familiar with your book, Black Hawk Down, which became a film.
00:02:38.140 But perhaps you can describe your career as a journalist and as a writer thus far.
00:02:42.640 What have you tended to focus on?
00:02:45.120 Well, for about 20 years, I was a newspaper reporter at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
00:02:49.840 And there I covered just about everything imaginable from science to, you know, foreign
00:02:55.440 assignments to transportation in Philadelphia to politics to cops.
00:03:00.360 But gradually, the overarching direction of my career was always to do longer stories and
00:03:09.040 stories that took more time to report and investigate.
00:03:13.620 So I kind of graduated from daily newspaper stories to Sunday stories to Sunday magazines.
00:03:19.840 And then to now to books and magazine articles.
00:03:27.880 Were you involved with the film version of Black Hawk Down?
00:03:30.720 Did you write the screenplay or?
00:03:32.340 I wrote the original draft of that screenplay, which I think they very wisely threw away.
00:03:37.200 And then they hired a wonderful screenwriter named Ken Nolan, who adapted it.
00:03:42.260 Although I continued to work with Ken and I worked closely with Jerry Bruckheimer and Ridley Scott
00:03:48.180 throughout that whole wonderful experience and very happy with the way the film turned out.
00:03:55.180 Nice.
00:03:55.340 And now you just released a book on the Vietnam War, right?
00:03:58.660 Which I haven't seen, but I think I just read a review of in the New York Times book review.
00:04:03.880 Is that right?
00:04:04.240 Correct.
00:04:04.980 It's called Hue 1968, and it tells the story of the Battle of Hue in Vietnam during the
00:04:12.780 Tet Offensive.
00:04:14.500 Ken Burns is releasing a big documentary on Vietnam in a couple of months, I think in September.
00:04:20.660 He's going to be on the podcast.
00:04:21.700 I might have to do my homework by reading your book.
00:04:24.240 I was at the screening of Ken Burns held a premiere in New York a few weeks ago, and I was lucky
00:04:31.540 enough to get a ticket.
00:04:33.100 And I've gotten to know the folks who worked on that project over the years that I was
00:04:38.480 working on my Hue book.
00:04:40.620 That would actually be a good event for you to do.
00:04:43.100 You and Ken could be in dialogue somewhere and reawaken a public conversation about Vietnam.
00:04:48.660 It seems like the moment has arrived.
00:04:50.360 Well, we'll see.
00:04:51.860 I think there might be some things like that in the works.
00:04:54.920 I want to talk about one other piece briefly that you wrote, which you wrote a piece in
00:05:00.200 The Atlantic in 2003 on torture titled The Dark Art of Interrogation, where you came to more
00:05:08.440 or less the same position I did in my first book with respect to the ethics of it.
00:05:13.740 And I hadn't read your piece until much later, and I've since recommended it to many people.
00:05:19.820 Did you get much criticism for that article?
00:05:22.700 Because I've encountered more or less nothing but pain for even touching the topic.
00:05:27.920 What was your experience like?
00:05:30.300 You know, I did get a good deal of criticism, but none of it very intelligent, actually.
00:05:35.460 Most of the criticism, to my way of thinking, came from people who either hadn't read the essay or hadn't understood the argument that I was making.
00:05:46.980 I think probably the main sticking point was that I argue that whether or not to torture or coerce someone is a moral decision.
00:05:58.240 And a lot of people seem to cling to the idea that it's simply a pragmatic decision because torture never works under any circumstances, which I don't believe is true.
00:06:11.540 So I think just by virtue of the fact that I'm willing to say that I think torture is occasionally an effective way of getting information, that, of course, doesn't mean you ought to do it.
00:06:22.880 But that was enough to trigger a lot of criticism.
00:06:25.800 Yeah, yeah.
00:06:28.160 And your position that it should be illegal, but that we should recognize that there are situations where even good people would be tempted, understandably, to break the law.
00:06:39.320 And that if you can't imagine such situations, you're actually not trying hard enough.
00:06:46.480 That's a very novel argument, and it's one that I agree with.
00:06:49.600 But I think I will spare us both a lot of pain by declining to talk about this topic anymore on this podcast.
00:06:56.700 All right.
00:06:57.420 We can move on to far more cheerful topics like North Korea.
00:07:00.520 Yeah.
00:07:00.840 And I also say that the ethical implication of everything you and I have said on this topic is also shared by the, and this is something I've said before, but that great handbook of evil, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
00:07:16.400 If you look up torture in that reference work, which really is one of the best reference works in philosophy, you find a very clear argument for the same position.
00:07:28.780 So if you think we are Torquemada, just, you can group us with Stanford as well.
00:07:35.500 Well, it's nice to be in good company like that.
00:07:37.940 Yeah.
00:07:38.940 So North Korea, you wrote this piece, I think it's still in the current issue of The Atlantic, and the title is How to Deal with North Korea.
00:07:48.360 There are no good options, but some are worse than others, and this is as stifling a piece as you would expect, given how we're essentially standing in front of four doors and none of them lead anywhere we want to go.
00:08:05.660 And I want us to walk through this pretty systematically, because it stands a chance of being the most consequential foreign policy issue of the present and the indefinite future.
00:08:15.900 First, how did you go about reporting on this?
00:08:18.780 Well, I thought it best to seek out people who have either worked on the North Korea issue in the military or in the White House or in the State Department, and who have spent years wrestling with what to do about North Korea.
00:08:36.780 And in some cases, you know, in the cases of some of the military commanders, have had to actually prepare for the various options.
00:08:44.820 And pick their brains, ask them, you know, because we have a president who sort of plays to the lowest common denominator.
00:08:53.560 And I thought there was a real fear with some of the things that he was saying that he would kind of build a level or a groundswell of support for trying to attack North Korea or to pressure it, at least militarily.
00:09:11.760 And I wanted to try to throw some cold water on the simplistic thinking there and actually talk to people who had wrestled with this issue and lay out what, in fact, the options were.
00:09:25.440 Well, remind people about how we got here.
00:09:27.460 So how did North Korea become this blank space on the map?
00:09:32.280 I mean, the images at night tell so much of the story of South Korea, which is just totally illuminated, like a 21st century society.
00:09:40.980 And the North is just this sea of blackness outside of Pyongyang.
00:09:45.960 So what is going on north of the DMZ?
00:09:48.760 Well, you know, that country, North Korea, which was created after World War II, when Kim Il-sung was the Korean leader who helped with the Chinese to evict Japan, ended up in control in North Korea.
00:10:09.720 And he established certainly one of the most bizarre regimes of modern times.
00:10:15.160 It's really kind of a throwback to 17th century imperial state in Europe, where you have a hereditary dynasty with a whole mythology around Kim Il-sung and since then his son and now his grandson,
00:10:32.600 who are purported to be, you know, sort of divine, divinely selected leaders of the Korean people, their whole raison d'etre is to enable the Kim family to remain in power and to benefit from that position.
00:10:51.680 And so they've, you know, built a very draconian, totalitarian state that focuses most of its resources on building up its military and in the last 20 or 30 years to developing nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and missile systems that, you know, that we've now seen are capable of potentially reaching Alaska and very soon will be capable of reaching the United States mainland.
00:11:19.960 And I think that that effort has been so all-consuming and costly that it has drained North Korea of nearly every other option.
00:11:30.360 And it's been through long periods of very near starvation where, you know, it's estimated that millions of people starved to death in the 1990s.
00:11:40.040 Those conditions have eased somewhat out of necessity.
00:11:42.360 I think the regime has allowed the black market to flourish a little bit, which, you know, people are eating anyway there.
00:11:51.120 But there's very little else going on outside of the capital city of Pyongyang, which is kind of their, the Kim family showcase.
00:11:59.100 As you point out, this is almost a religious cult.
00:12:03.540 I mean, it's not otherworldly the way normal religious cults are, but it's clearly a personality cult that attributes magical powers to the dear leaders.
00:12:13.960 I mean, these are almost the most confused people on earth in terms of how they view their place in the world.
00:12:19.380 As Christopher Hitchens used to say, this is a nation of racist dwarves.
00:12:23.840 They're like three inches shorter than the South Koreans, and yet they think they're a master race.
00:12:29.600 And I got to imagine that the spell has been breaking for some people somewhere in the society over, you know, over the recent decades.
00:12:37.620 But apparently they have thought that our, the food aid they see coming from us is just like an awestruck offering to the genius of their dear leader by the West.
00:12:48.580 And I think of them as kind of like a cargo cult armed with nuclear weapons.
00:12:53.840 Do we have any sense of what percentage of North Korean society believes the mythology?
00:13:01.220 We don't have a good sense of that because there's not a lot of interaction between the Western world and North Korea.
00:13:09.680 The journalists who go there, you know, are given Potemkin village tours.
00:13:13.940 I have spoken to a few who have done a longer term, a little wider reporting, and their sense of it is that most North Koreans are very cynical about the government, the way people are about governments everywhere, but that they don't dare say what they think or speak out against it.
00:13:32.740 I mean, the one thing we haven't mentioned is that North Korea is very much a gulag state in that they have millions of people in prison for the slightest of offenses.
00:13:42.120 And, you know, we've even failing to clap loudly enough at a public appearance of the dear leader can get you executed or thrown in jail.
00:13:50.960 So, you know, whatever North Koreans think, they're smart enough to keep it mostly to themselves.
00:13:58.460 It seems to be the most successfully engineered Orwellian experiment the Earth has ever seen.
00:14:06.060 I mean, just in terms of its isolation and the totality of the totalitarian control and just the level of informing against family members.
00:14:16.180 And it's just have you seen that the book, The Cleanest Race?
00:14:20.380 Yes, I have. That's a Myers book, right?
00:14:23.140 Yeah. Yeah. That's, you know, which really does lay out the racist underpinnings of their of their, you know, philosophy and the bizarre nature, as you described, of their quasi religious worship of their dear leader.
00:14:39.060 I realize the news has moved on a little bit since you published your article, even just a couple of weeks ago, because that was right before this seemingly successful ICBM test.
00:14:50.680 How big a problem is North Korea at this point for the rest of the world?
00:14:54.880 And how would you rank order it in terms of our concerns for our own well-being and the well-being of all the other implicated societies?
00:15:03.300 Well, I think that it's far and away the largest national security concern of the United States.
00:15:10.360 Everybody, I think largely because of media, you know, has this outsized fear of terrorist attack by Islamist fundamentalists, which is sort of a hangover from 9-11, which was 16 years ago.
00:15:24.080 So I think that, you know, the threat of terror attacks will be with us always.
00:15:28.720 But North Korea poses a threat on a completely different scale.
00:15:33.480 They have weapons that could kill millions of people.
00:15:36.940 Right now, they're, you know, the primary threat they pose is to South Korea and to Japan.
00:15:42.260 But as their reach extends with ICBMs, they, the United States is also potentially a target.
00:15:50.420 And while they don't have the kind of arsenal to pose an existential threat to the United States, I do think that the prospect of a nuclear weapon being exploded over Los Angeles or any other American city is a pretty terrifying prospect.
00:16:09.220 And one that, frankly, as this article goes on to explain, there's very little we can do to prevent shortage of deterrence.
00:16:19.820 The implication of their recent missile test is that people agree that they can probably reach Alaska and Hawaii now, but not quite Los Angeles or the rest of the United States.
00:16:31.480 But that should be coming in pretty short order.
00:16:34.920 And then you are talking about there really is no word to describe how crazy and irresponsible the statements are of the regime, whatever you think their actual motivations are and whatever you think their level of suicidality could be.
00:16:50.080 But we have a completely maniacal regime, which in what's the outside estimate, a few years, five years should be able to land a nuke on a city like Los Angeles or San Francisco?
00:17:04.040 When I wrote the piece, which is just a few months ago, the estimate was three or four years.
00:17:08.500 But this most recent ICBM launch, successful one, came much earlier than anticipated.
00:17:14.900 So my guess is that we could probably even dial back the three and four years.
00:17:19.460 It might be even closer than that.
00:17:22.480 So in your article, you talk about four possible responses to the problem and they all suck.
00:17:29.120 So let's move through these.
00:17:33.180 First, just tell me briefly, what are the four?
00:17:36.440 And then we can just run through them.
00:17:39.360 Well, the first would be an all-out attack, what I call prevention, which would essentially crush the Kim regime, would destroy its military, wipe out its arsenals, and essentially, you know, reduce North Korea to a stateless humanitarian zone.
00:17:59.120 The second I call turning up the screws, and that would be applying pressure through some form of military attack or embargo that would really hurt North Korea, but would be short of an all-out attack.
00:18:14.020 And that would seek to essentially prove to Kim Jong-un that we mean business and hopefully get him to recalculate his plans and back away.
00:18:28.280 The third option is decapitation, and that would involve targeting Kim himself or maybe Kim and a few of the key people around him, probably to assassinate them or possibly, I guess, even less likely to arrest them.
00:18:45.380 And thereby sort of take off the head of that state and hope that something more reasonable would follow.
00:18:56.040 And the last option, which may be the hardest to swallow, but which I think is probably inevitable, is acceptance, which is recognizing that nuclear technology, missile technology, is old stuff.
00:19:11.460 It's been around for more than a half century.
00:19:14.140 Lots of people know how to do it.
00:19:16.240 And North Korea is eventually going to figure these things out and going to have these weapons.
00:19:20.680 The paragraph in your article I want to read, which is kind of central to why the first three options seem to be more or less unthinkable, and it's not necessarily what everyone would expect.
00:19:36.900 It's not that the North Koreans already have nukes and then they can nuke South Korea or Japan or one of our allies.
00:19:46.800 Even their conventional arms makes this situation seemingly totally intractable from a military point of view.
00:19:55.980 And so this is your text.
00:19:58.220 For years, North Korea has had extensive batteries of conventional artillery, an estimated 8,000 big guns just north of the demilitarized zone, the DMZ, which is less than 40 miles from Seoul, South Korea's capital, a metropolitan area of more than 25 million people.
00:20:14.180 One high-ranking U.S. military officer who commanded forces in the Korean theater, now retired, told me he heard estimates that if a grid were laid across Seoul, dividing it into three-square-foot blocks, these guns could, within hours, pepper every single one of them.
00:20:30.900 This ability to rain ruin on the city is a potent existential threat to South Korea's largest population center, its government, and its economic anchor.
00:20:39.060 Shells could also deliver chemical and biological weapons.
00:20:42.660 That's the end of your text there.
00:20:44.120 So the thing that makes any kind of military response, however much of a surprise attack we could muster, so impractical, is that it's like within minutes, the moment anything starts happening, they can just annihilate Seoul with their completely conventional artillery.
00:21:06.320 And obviously, if you had evacuated millions of people from Seoul, you'd be tipping your hand as to what's happening.
00:21:13.340 Is this really the issue, that there's just no way for us to knock out his capacity to harm Seoul quickly enough so as to make any kind of prevention or decapitation or turning the screws approach practical?
00:21:27.480 Yes, yeah, that's the main reason why the United States hasn't done something like this a long time ago.
00:21:36.000 When Richard Nixon was president, the North Koreans shot down an American warplane and killed, I believe it was 31 American service members on board.
00:21:45.380 Nixon was not known to be a timid Seoul when it came to the use of military force.
00:21:50.500 And he chose not to counterattack North Korea or to punish them militarily for doing that.
00:21:57.640 And that was back in, what, the early 1970s when this capability was already in place to attack Seoul.
00:22:04.780 So the capability of North Korea to punish or to inflict death and ruin on South Korea has gone up and up and up and up.
00:22:14.040 And I think it's even a little cynical and probably sadly correct that Kim and his regime calculate that this would possibly not be enough of a deterrent for the United States.
00:22:27.500 Because after all, those are just South Koreans living in Seoul for the most part.
00:22:32.540 And so in order to have the level of security that he feels he needs, the ability to attack the United States mainland has, you know, been their great quest in the last 20 or 30 years.
00:22:46.300 So, you know, the stakes have gone up so high at this point that I think for any sane person, the only policy priority ought to be to prevent conflict from breaking out.
00:22:59.080 Well, let's take this, the prevention case first.
00:23:02.900 This is the all-out attack that attempts to prevent anything, even a single shell emerging from North Korea headed toward the South.
00:23:13.600 In your reporting on this topic, did you encounter any serious person with a good reputation in the military or policy circles who thinks that we should just attack North Korea all out and roll the dice with a prevention strategy?
00:23:30.020 No, I didn't.
00:23:31.300 Although some of the people I spoke to said there are people who hold that opinion and who have voiced it at the Pentagon, but I don't believe that at the highest levels that it would be something seriously considered.
00:23:46.780 And this is because to do anything like that is synonymous with, what, a minimum of some hundreds of thousands of deaths in Seoul or a minimum of a million?
00:24:04.000 I mean, what are the estimates?
00:24:06.500 Well, a minimum, I would say, yeah, would probably be hundreds of thousands.
00:24:11.100 And that's a very optimistic minimum.
00:24:13.700 You know, if North Korea was, you know, felt it was under all-out attack, the chances of it doing nothing but launching conventional shells at Seoul and at American bases in South Korea is fairly small.
00:24:30.120 I think that the far more likely totals would be millions.
00:24:35.400 So this is one problem with the second and third options.
00:24:38.880 Well, so let's take the second option first, turning the screws, remind our listeners what that is and why it's problematic to consider.
00:24:49.180 Okay, but first, if I could, Sam, I'd like to go back to the first option.
00:24:52.020 Sure, sure.
00:24:52.740 If we assume, and I think it's everyone I've talked to agrees, who knows anything about the actual weapons involved, that it's unrealistic, fantastical is a word I heard used, that we were completely successful.
00:25:06.500 We were able to attack North Korea and destroy all of its capability without them getting off a single shot, without being able to kill a single American or South Korean.
00:25:17.420 We would then be left with a totally stateless North Korea, which would create one of the greatest humanitarian crises in modern times, would flood China with millions of refugees, would flood South Korea with millions of refugees,
00:25:36.360 and would leave the United States with the responsibility of essentially moving in and trying to govern a North Korea that would have, because it's a very rugged terrain, pockets of resistance, likely throughout that country, also very likely possessing nuclear material, chemical and biological weapons.
00:25:58.180 A situation that would make our occupation of Iraq seem like taking your kids for a walk to the local playground, by comparison.
00:26:07.180 So there is no way, either through, you know, an attack that would, you know, result in only a few chemical weapons exploding, to an all-out success that no calculation of this works to our benefit.
00:26:20.740 Yeah, I'm really glad you made that point, because the best case scenario is so good.
00:26:28.180 If you'd like to continue listening to this conversation, you'll need to subscribe at SamHarris.org.
00:26:33.500 Once you do, you'll get access to all full-length episodes of the Making Sense podcast, along with other subscriber-only content, including bonus episodes and AMAs, and the conversations I've been having on the Waking Up app.
00:26:45.700 The Making Sense podcast is ad-free and relies entirely on listener support, and you can subscribe now at SamHarris.org.
00:26:58.180 Thank you.
00:27:05.520 Thank you.