IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/intare/v23y2020i2p194-209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The US-North Korean asymmetrical security dilemma: Past the point of nuclear no return?

Author

Listed:
  • Erwin Tan
  • Jae Jeok Park

Abstract

The bulk of literature on the security dilemma has examined the phenomenon within the context of rivalry between great powers of roughly equal strength (for instance, the United States-Soviet nuclear arms race). Yet no study has examined the implications of power asymmetry between a strong power and a weak one when they are facing the security dilemma in their interaction. This manuscript shall examine how the asymmetry of interaction in the United States-North Korean security dilemma has presented repeated obstacles for the United States in seeking the denuclearization of North Korea. The asymmetry of their rivalry has significant implications for how Washington and Pyongyang view one another in their interaction. This asymmetry has created challenges for Washington as well as Pyongyang, as illustrated through this empirical case study’s analysis of how successive United States White House administrations since 1993 have responded to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. In this regard, it is possible the asymmetry of their interaction has become so deeply internalized that North Korea is, effectively, past a “point of no return†insofar as its nuclear program is concerned.

Suggested Citation

  • Erwin Tan & Jae Jeok Park, 2020. "The US-North Korean asymmetrical security dilemma: Past the point of nuclear no return?," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 23(2), pages 194-209, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:23:y:2020:i:2:p:194-209
    DOI: 10.1177/2233865920918508
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2233865920918508
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2233865920918508?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Powell, Robert, 1988. "Nuclear Brinkmanship with Two-Sided Incomplete Information," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(1), pages 155-178, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Teng, Jimmy, 2012. "Solving Two Sided Incomplete Information Games with Bayesian Iterative Conjectures Approach," MPRA Paper 40061, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 12 Jul 2012.
    2. Kyle Beardsley & Victor Asal, 2009. "Nuclear Weapons as Shields," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(3), pages 235-255, July.
    3. Ryan J. Vander Wielen, 2013. "Why conference committees? A theory of conference use in structuring bicameral agreement," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 3-35, January.
    4. Keisuke Iida, 1993. "When and How Do Domestic Constraints Matter?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 403-426, September.
    5. Lisa J. Carlson, 1995. "A Theory of Escalation And International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, September.
    6. Konstantin Sonin, 2008. "A Theory of Brinkmanship, Conflicts, and Commitments," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 163-183, May.
    7. Smith, Celina & Nordqvist, Mattias & De Massis, Alfredo & Miller, Danny, 2021. "When so much is at stake: Understanding organizational brinkmanship in family business," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(4).
    8. Keisuke Nakao, 2022. "Denial and punishment in war," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(2), pages 166-179, March.
    9. R. Harrison Wagner, 1992. "Rationality and Misperception in Deterrence Theory," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(2), pages 115-141, April.
    10. Hugh Ward, 1990. "Three Men in a Boat, Two Must Row," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 371-400, September.
    11. Austen-Smith, David & Banks, Jeffrey S., 2002. "Costly signaling and cheap talk in models of political influence," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 263-280, June.
    12. Nakao, Keisuke, 2019. "Moving Forward vs. Inflicting Costs in a Random-Walk Model of War," MPRA Paper 96071, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Michael D. McGinnis, 1992. "Deterrence Theory Discussion: I," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(4), pages 443-457, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:intare:v:23:y:2020:i:2:p:194-209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.hufs.ac.kr/user/hufsenglish/re_1.jsp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.