Deterrence isn’t that complicated. It requires establishing the credible threat of force. What’s our deterrence level? This bad.

The White House warned that any “nuclear attack by North Korea against the United States or its allies is unacceptable and will result in the end of the Kim regime.”

“The United States reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to provide extended deterrence to the ROK, backed by the full range of U.S. capabilities including nuclear,” the statement said.

I’m glad that Biden has staked out the bold position that nuking America is “unacceptable”.

The correct formulation here is that it will result in North Korea turning into a sea of glass, not that it will “result in the end of the Kim regime” which suggests that we’ll begin imposing some more sanctions and maybe get around to possibly invading and then spending 20 years trying to win the hearts and minds of the extended Kim family.

The statement is a longwinded way of saying that in the event of a Nork nuclear strike on South Korea, we’ll possibly be willing to nuke them.

Possibly.

After a whole lot of decades of worthless negotiating with the Norks, we have limited deterrence because we blew our credibility a long time ago. Would we actually get into a nuclear exchange with the Norks to defend South Korea? Probably not. Much like our defense of Taiwan, our deterrence lacks credibility. It doesn’t help that we keep “negotiating” with whatever Kim won the genetic and firing squad lottery and getting taken for a ride.

We’ve been negotiating so well that we’re now telling the Norks that if they nuke us, they’ll be in big trouble. That’s not a position of strength, it’s weakness.