The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

A naval blockade is just what we need to contain North Korea

Getty Images

President Trump wrapped up a successful tour of Southeast Asia while the United States Navy flexed its military might with three aircraft carrier battle groups off the North Korean Peninsula, an unprecedented display. Yet, despite diplomatic and military projections of United States power, international sanctions and international condemnation, Kim Jung Un’s North Korean regime continues to develop nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States and our Pacific allies.

The Trump administration seemingly has only two potential responses, both of them bad. Option one is direct kinetic military action to halt Kim’s development of nuclear capabilities. The second is to learn to live with a nuclear-armed despotic regime.

However, a third option with significant historical precedent is available: a physical Naval blockade of North Korea.

{mosads}Like sanctions, blockades are designed to slowly choke the recalcitrant nation to submission. Unlike sanctions, a blockade provides the capability to monitor, intercept and enforce restrictions on what can go in and out of the target nation while providing a powerful psychological and diplomatic instrument. A naval blockade in the Sea of Japan and the Yellow Sea would prevent the DPRK from obtaining essential raw materials and equipment, including refined petroleum and military spares. A naval blockade also serves to choke export income from the lucrative coal and iron exports the regime needs to keep the lights on.


Critics would argue the U.S. Navy is stretched too thin and not up to the task. This year there have been two fatal collisions and two non-fatal accidents in the Pacific involving US Navy destroyers and commercial cargo ships. The subsequent inquiry found that the operational tempo of PACOM elements was too high and that senior leadership within the surface warfare community is lacking.

To this end, it should not be the responsibility of the United States to act unilaterally, nor of the Navy to carry the entire weight of a proposed blockade of North Korea. U.S. allies in the region would support the initiative of a U.S. navy led blockade. Key players in this effort would be Japan and Australia, with support likely from Singapore, South Korea, India, Taiwan and potentially NATO forces.

The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) boasts the fifth most powerful navy in the world with one of the largest economic exclusion zones to patrol. While the JMSDF has no aircraft carriers, their destroyers and frigates are modern and equipped with the Aegis combat system. Recently, the JMSDF began deploying air assets aboard its Hyūga-class destroyer.

Australia, another island nation in the Pacific, is the only country to have supported the United States in every military conflict since World War One. The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) has been deployed in concert with the Navy as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to patrol the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf since the beginning. The navy is built for coastal operations, with shallow water diesel-electric submarines, helicopter landing ships, and frigates. I served with the RAN during an early 2000s blockade of illegal alien vessels. It proved a tremendously effective “reverse blockade” of the Australian coast.

The Naval blockade is not a new concept, and historically has enjoyed significant success. Arguably the most noteworthy action of the modern era was the 1962 US blockade of Cuba, which effectively ended Soviet attempts to establish missile bases on the Caribbean island.

One of the most effective blockades in history was the British Royal Navy blockade of the First French Empire during the Napoleonic war. Britain was able to keep its shipping lanes open, and effectively cut off crucial supplies to Napoleon’s armies, ultimately winning the war.

Kim is likely not a student of “Rule Britannia,” and will not willingly abandon his nuclear weapons program. Kim deems his nuclear capability as essential to maintain the requisite fear and funds to stay alive and remain in power. Seen in this light, Trump’s threat at the U.N. to destroy North Korea was a prescient tactic. If Kim actually fears for his life, believes his hold on power and his lifestyle are in peril, he could be forced to pivot away from nuclear weaponization. Contrariwise, the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and millions of South Koreans are endangered, which may prompt Kim to assume Trump is bluffing.

While it remains unlikely North Korea would launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the U.S., can we and our allies accept a North Korea armed with nuclear weapons? To compound this dilemma, North Korea has a wretched history of selling military technologies to rouge states and nonstate actors who would deploy them willingly. A nuclear-armed North Korea is simply not an acceptable option. Short of direct military action, a multi-national naval blockade of North Korea is not only palatable; it may be the only alternative.

Gregory Keeley is a retired lieutenant commander with service in both the United States Navy and the Royal Australian Navy. He is a veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan and the Pacific. LCDR Keeley also served as senior advisor to a vice chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, Rep. Jim Saxton (R-Pa.), and to a chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.).

Tags blockade Ed Royce Greg Keeley International relations Kim Jong Un Law of the sea Military North Korea Royal Navy United States Navy

Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

More National Security News

See All
See all Hill.TV See all Video

Most Popular

Load more


See all Video