This afternoon I ran into a former student and we ended up discussing, of all things, the Cuban Missile Crisis. I mentioned that I love talking about the incident in class because it's fun (and terrifying) to speculate on the series of events that could have resulted had things gone differently (USSR installs missiles in Cuba, US imposes blockade, USSR runs blockade, US invades Cuba, USSR attacks Berlin, NATO attacks USSR using nuclear weapons, USSR retaliates with nuclear weapons, game over). Then, when I got home, I read
this column, which speculates on the possible outcomes of North Korea's nuclear test today (a new arms race as North Korea builds nukes, Japan and South Korea build nukes in response, China reinvigorates its nuclear program to counter those two, India builds more to counter China, Pakistan builds more to counter India, and the US is in the novel position of watching a new Cold War bloom from the sidelines).
I don't want to push the analogy too far (right now; I just might push it too far in another entry), but it will be interesting to see how the Bush administration's response compares to President Kennedy's response in 1962. JFK was not blameless in starting the Missile Crisis; the installation of nuclear missiles in Turkey precipitated the crisis. But he solved it in a way that did not result in the end of the world. President Bush's refusal to negotiate with the North Koreans has arguably precipitated the current crisis. How will this one get resolved? How much thought and logic will go into it?
I wonder how the domino labeled "US invades North Korea" would affect the chain of events listed above. I guess it depends on where in the chain it is inserted...