This threat has several severe consequences. The EMP has a destructive power similar in magnitude to that of an atomic bomb. The higher the detonation altitude, the more destructive it is. An EMP attack acts over a wide area up to hundreds of miles. Consequences of an EMP can include long lasting power outages in houses and health care facilities and damage to properties, including cars and stores. Sensors, monitors and other electronics that restart power after an outage would also be wiped out. The radioactive waves in an EMP can also kill up to millions of people, depending on its size. The radiation would also severely increase cancer cases.

“The biggest danger would be shorting out of the power grid, especially on the East Coast. Imagine a situation where large sections of the U.S. had no power. Imagine New York or Washington, D.C. with no power for just a week. The implications would be hard to fathom. The casualty rates would be off the charts,” said Harry Kazianis, Director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest.

Despite the possible threat, little efforts have been made to address the issue. The federal government did not implement any recommendations to prevent power outages the EMP would cause. They also claimed that securing the power grid is not one of their current priorities. On the other hand Richard Schoeberl, a terrorism analyst, believes that an EMP attack is a possible threat that requires immediate action.

“Most of our East Coast grid has a lot of older equipment that could be vulnerable. We should work quickly to make the necessary upgrades to ensure North Korea can’t catch us by surprise,” Kazianis added.

“We are highly vulnerable to such an attack. Considering that if North Koreans are able to pack enough destructive power into such a nuclear device they could fry countless electrical grids and equipment. If they use a big enough device, the damage could be beyond belief,” said Schoeberl.

Photo courtesy of matti.frisk / Flickr.

Landmark policies and actions Obama supported and created include the Syrian red line, the support of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem and diplomatic agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump’s major foreign policy moves include the proliferation of military and nuclear arsenals, support of a single-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and general isolationism.

In Syria, Obama famously declared that the U.S. would enforce a “red line” with regard to chemical weapons in Syria. He said that if Bashar Assad, Syria’s President, used chemical weapons, the U.S. would respond with military action. The red line was a hardline threat to Syria, but when Assad used chemical weapons on his rebel forces, the U.S. did not respond with swift military action.

At the end of his presidency, Obama reiterated the need for a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in which both states maintain peace and claims to their land. Trump is open to supporting a one-state solution to the conflict. In support of this position, Trump has advocated moving the U.S. Embassy from Israel to Jerusalem.

Further, Obama was supportive of civilian control of the military. His cabinet was largely diplomats, political scientists and academics. In contrast, Trump has filled his cabinet with current and former military personnel. This move effectively increased the power and funding of the military.

Trump has promoted isolationist policies such as withdrawing from international agreements, like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Both moves were controversial, and Trump used them to emphasize his nationalist agenda that attempts to protect American jobs and people by avoiding “unfair” international deals.

Generally, Trump is very nationalistic and isolationist, pushing a “protect America” agenda. He focuses on internal policy in order to promote national strength and increase international power. Obama, on the other hand, was diplomatic and more in favor of working with other nations on peaceful ground. Trump couples his domestic focus with a competitive outlook on foreign affairs and international cooperation.

The policies are similar on the issues of decreasing North Korean aggression, combatting China in the South China Sea and responding to countries threatening nuclear war.

Additionally, Trump and Obama both resist China’s increasing status as a world power and specifically oppose Chinese action in the South China Sea. China has claimed power and ignored agreed to restrictions in the area. It has even created man-made islands for artillery bases. Trump is more vocal about his opposition to China. However, his foreign policy approach to China does not differ significantly from Obama’s.

Finally, both Trump and Obama refuse to negotiate or talk with countries that threaten nuclear war. For instance, both presidents present a hardline to North Korea that essentially states that North Korea must give up its nuclear arsenal before the U.S. will open talks. Obama favored economic sanctions and international cooperation in order to deter North Korea, and Trump has favored increasing the U.S. nuclear arsenal for deterrence. Trump used more vitriolic and aggressive language in reference to North Korea, yet he, again, has not altered the U.S.’s fundamental approach to the situation.

Photo Courtesy of ABC News.

The President tweeted Oct. 7 that diplomacy with North Korea in the past 25 years “hasn’t worked,” keeping in line with his aggressive and non-amicable statements concerning the nation over the past few months.

In contrast, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted that diplomacy be attempted with North Korea “until the first bomb drops,” and claimed that the President agreed that this is the best course of action despite his public statements.

However, there has been much controversy surrounding Tillerson’s standing in the White House, especially concerning Tillerson’s relationship to Trump. Allegations of Tillerson calling Trump a “moron” and Trump’s public stance on North Korea demonstrate a rift between the two, one that could cause trouble for the nation’s affairs. It is rumored that Tillerson’s termination is forthcoming and that he is likely to be replaced by either Haley or CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

The ambiguous governmental responses to North Korea confuse what a diplomatic or more aggressive road may mean. A path of diplomacy would undoubtedly entail negotiations between the two countries, but neither has taken significant steps to create a dialogue. Moreover, Trump’s frequent inflammatory remarks about the situation, such as his referral to North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong Un as “Little Rocket Man,” undercut Tillerson and other officials’ efforts to foster a diplomatic link to the rogue nation.

In a recent statement to CNN, North Korean officials said that the state was not interested in diplomacy with the U.S. until they develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that  can reach the U.S. east coast. It is important to note that North Korea is not eliminating diplomacy with the U.S. from their agenda. Rather, according to North Korean officials, the country wants to affirm its nuclear potency and establish “a reliable defensive and offensive capability to counter any aggression from the United States.”

Photo Courtesy of CNN.

“The policy of strategic patience has ended,” said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during a speech in South Korea.

Tillerson’s message, which was given on Easter Sunday, stated that military tactics would be used only if U.S. or South Korean forces were directly threatened. However, many have seen veiled threats in his ideology that a “new approach” needs to be taken to North Korean politics, and a Navy strike group was already ordered into the area in early April.

Currently, though, the main source of strategy with North Korea continues to hinge on Chinese forces, who have been known to cooperate with both sides of the issue. This supposed conflict of interest has led many, such as President Donald Trump and Tillerson himself, to decry the country’s inaction. Therefore, even as military action still appears to be a last resort, 300,000 U.S. and South Korean forces continue to participate in military drills that have become ever more accommodating to the possibility of North Korean attack. Additionally, the United States has also used economic sanctions and cyber-attacks to combat North Korean missile efforts.

As relations grow ever more unpredictable by the day, new options continue to be developed within Washington. However, figures such as Trump and Tillerson have made it clear that, whatever the course may be, it will be a direct battle between the United States and North Korea, with little intermediary assistance from other countries such as China.

Photo courtesy of Fox News.