Coronavirus Can Survive Longer on Surfaces In High Humidity and Low Temperatures Another update as we try to nail down the science on this evil virus. by Ethen Kim Lieser

How long droplets with the novel coronavirus last on surfaces depends on the temperature and humidity level, according to a new study published in the journal Physics of Fluids.

The World Health Organization has said that “COVID-19 is spread through respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks. People can also be infected by touching a contaminated surface and then their eyes, mouth or nose.”

As these microscopic droplets can sometimes settle on surfaces, a team of researchers tried to find out how long it took the droplets to dry out—and killing the contagion inside. The longer it takes to dry out, the higher the chance that someone else could get infected.

“The outdoor weather … determines the duration of drying of respiratory droplets deposited on surfaces,” the study’s co-author Rajneesh Bhardwaj, of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, told Reuters.

“The drying time is linked to the survival of the coronavirus inside the droplets. This may not be the sole factor but definitely the outdoor weather matters ... and our study provides some evidence for this fact.”

The team compared the average drying time of droplets in six different cities with wide-ranging temperatures and humidity levels. The scientists eventually concluded that environments with higher temperatures and lower humidity are able to dry out the droplets quicker.

A study in April also found a similar link between the virus’ lifespan and temperature. At 39 degrees Fahrenheit, the virus survived for two weeks in a test tube, but when the temperature was raised to 99 degrees Fahrenheit, the virus only lasted one day.

For example, New York City had a daily rate of new infections that was 35 times higher than in Singapore. The drying time for droplets in NYC was about a minute, while it was nearly two minutes in the Southeast Asian city-state.

Although rare, a person can get infected by the coronavirus if they touch a surface or object that has the virus on it, and then touch their mouth, nose or eyes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that it “does not spread easily” that way.

“Our study suggests that surfaces such as smartphone screens and wood need to be cleaned more often than glass and steel surfaces, because droplets form blob-like shapes on the former surfaces and the droplets evaporate slowly on such surfaces, thereby increasing the survival of the coronavirus,” Bhardwaj said.

A recent study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, discovered that COVID-19 was detectable for up to 24 hours on cardboard and 72 hours on plastic and stainless steel.

Fact: Globalization Really Started 1,000 Years Ago When Viking ships touched down on the Canadian island of Newfoundland around the year 1000, the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean were connected for the first time. by Valerie Hansen

Viking ships touched down on the Canadian island of Newfoundland around the year 1000, at what is now the archaeological site known as L'Anse aux Meadows.

For the first time, the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean were connected.

When the Vikings landed, the indigenous people immediately started to trade with them. The Vikings describe this initial encounter in “Eirik’s Saga,” an oral epic written down after 1264 about the Norse voyages across the North Atlantic from Greenland to today’s Canada.

The locals brought animal pelts to trade, and in exchange, the Vikings offered lengths of red-dyed woolen cloth. As their supply of cloth began to run short, the Vikings cut the cloth into smaller and smaller pieces, some just as wide as a person’s finger, but the locals wanted the cloth so much that they continued to offer the same number of pelts in trade.

All over the world at this time, the allure of novel goods led to 1,000 years of trade and interactions among people from different places, in what is now known as globalization. They are the subject of my recent book “The Year 1000: When Explorers Connected the World – and Globalization Began.”

The rapid spread of the coronavirus and the resulting social and economic shutdown around the globe have changed everyone’s understanding of the dangers of globalization, including mine. A society that can get only certain necessary items from a trade partner is vulnerable as a result of that dependence. In the past, there were built-in limits in global trade that prevented earlier societies from becoming totally reliant on outside goods. Those limits no longer exist today.

A worldwide network of pathways

About 10 years after their arrival at L'Anse aux Meadows, the Vikings abandoned their settlement, most likely because of conflicts with the local inhabitants. But they continued to sail to Canada to get lumber to bring back to Greenland and Iceland, where trees were scarce.

Similar encounters around the world took place when Muslim traders and missionaries went from the Middle East to West Africa around 1000, when speakers of Malayo-Polynesian languages sailed from the Malay peninsula west to Madagascar, settling there by 1000, and across the Pacific to Hawaii and Easter Island between 1025 and 1290. A whole new system of maritime and overland routes opened up as a result of these expeditions. In the year 1000, an object or message could travel all the way around the world for the first time.

In the year 1000, of course, there was no electricity or steam power, but mass production was still possible.

In China’s Fujian province, dragon kilns, which stretched over 300 feet up the sides of hills, were fueled by wood, coke or coal. Producing between 10,000 and 30,000 vessels in a single firing, these kilns employed hundreds, possibly thousands, of craftsmen, who worked full-time.

Individual potters crafted vases, bottles, bowls and plates on their potter’s wheels and then fired them to higher temperatures than any other kilns in the world. The glazed pots were the iPhones of their day, goods desired by everyone because they were both beautiful and easy to clean.

Archaeologists have excavated Chinese wares in coastal ports in Kenya, Tanzania and Comoros along the world’s most heavily traveled sea route at the time, which connected East Africa, the Middle East and China.

Complete dominance of foreign markets was impossible

Chinese ceramics were among the the most highly coveted trade goods of their day, but Chinese potters never succeeded in dominating foreign markets in the way that modern exporters can.

Two important factors prevented them from doing so. First, even though Chinese kilns could produce thousands of pots in a single firing, production was not sufficiently high to flood the markets of other countries. Second, ship transport in the past was much less reliable than modern transport today.

Historically, ships could be blown off course during storms or sink when they ran into rocks. The uncertainties of transport limited the amount of goods reaching foreign ports. My research has revealed that China’s export ceramics never overwhelmed local manufacturers, who copied Chinese jars and pots.

For instance, archaeologists digging in the modern city of Shush in Iran excavated local knockoffs of Chinese pots. The imitations were ingenious, but inferior. Because they had been fired at much lower temperatures, they were much more fragile than Chinese pots, and the glazes are not smooth. Despite their defects, local copies have surfaced at archaeological sites alongside imported vessels from China at multiple Indian Ocean ports, showing that local manufacturers were able to innovate and hang onto market share. Even if the supply of Chinese ceramics was cut off, local consumers could obtain the goods they needed.

When supply lines have been cut off in the past, people have managed to find new sources of the goods they desired. The clearest examples were during World War I and World War II. When it became impossible to import something from enemy powers – and this could happen overnight – ingenious merchants located new supplies or created an equivalent such as synthetic rubber or the ersatz teas Germans blended from herbs when they could not access real tea.

Today, the vast capacity of cargo planes and modern ships means that they can supply a community with entirely imported goods and eliminate all local production. The coronavirus pandemic has made Americans realize how dependent they are on foreign countries for key goods.

In 2018, for example, a confidential U.S. Department of Commerce study concluded China supplied 97% of all the antibiotics Americans consumed. Ceramics aren’t as important to people’s health as antibiotics, but modern imports of all kinds can overwhelm local manufacturers today in a way that was not possible in the past.

That’s the challenge for the future: figuring out how to tame globalization so that local producers can survive alongside manufacturing superpowers. The past gives us reason to be optimistic: When supply lines have been cut off, people have managed to come up with alternative sources.

5 Reasons Why You Should Think Twice Before Attacking An Aircraft Carrier Large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are the signature expression of American military power. by Loren B. Thompson

Here's What You Need To Remember: The bottom line on aircraft carrier survivability is that only a handful of countries can credibly pose a threat to America's most valuable warships, and short of using nuclear weapons none of those is likely to sink one.  Although the Navy has changed it tactics to deal with the proliferation of fast anti-ship missiles and the growing military power of China in the Western Pacific, large-deck aircraft carriers remain among the most secure and useful combat systems in America's arsenal.

Large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are the signature expression of American military power.  No other combat system available to U.S. warfighters comes close to delivering so much offensive punch for months at a time without requiring land bases near the action.  As a result, the ten carriers in the current fleet are in continuous demand from regional commanders -- so much so that extended overseas combat tours are becoming the norm.

Nobody really doubts the utility of large-deck carriers.  There's nothing else like them, and the United States is the only nation that operates a fleet big enough to keep three or more carriers continuously deployed at all times.  However, two issues have come up over and over again since the Cold War ended that have led at least some observers to question why carriers are the centerpiece of America's naval fleet.  One concern is that they cost too much.  The other is that they are vulnerable to attack.

The cost issue is a canard.  It only costs a fraction of one-percent of the federal budget to build, operate and sustain all of the Navy's carriers -- and nobody has offered a credible alternative for accomplishing U.S. military objectives in their absence.  Critics say carriers are more expensive than they seem because an accurate accounting would include the cost of their escort vessels, but the truth of the matter is that the Navy would need a lot more of those warships if it had to fight conflicts without carriers.

The vulnerability issue is harder to address because putting 5,000 sailors and six dozen high-performance aircraft on a $10 billion warship creates what military experts refer to as a very "lucrative" target.  Taking one out would be a big achievement for America's enemies, and a big setback for America's military.  However, the likelihood of any adversary actually achieving that without using nuclear weapons is pretty close to zero.  It isn't going to happen, and here are five big reasons why.

Large-deck carriers are fast and resilient:

Nimitz-class carriers of the type that dominate the current fleet, like the Ford-class carriers that will replace them, are the biggest warships ever built.  They have 25 decks standing 250 feet in height, and displace 100,000 tons of water.  With hundreds of watertight compartments and thousands of tons of armor, no conventional torpedo or mine is likely to cause serious damage.  And because carriers are constantly moving when deployed at up to 35 miles per hour -- fast enough to outrun submarines -- finding and tracking them is difficult.  Within 30 minutes after a sighting by enemies, the area within which a carrier might be operating has grown to 700 square miles; after 90 minutes, it has expanded to 6,000 square miles.

Carrier defenses are formidable:

U.S. aircraft carriers are equipped with extensive active and passive defenses for defeating threats such as low-flying cruise missiles and hostile submarines.  These include an array of high-performance sensors, radar-guided missiles and 20 mm Gatling guns that shoot 50 rounds per second.  The carrier air wing of 60+ aircraft includes a squadron of early-warning radar planes that can detect approaching threats (including radar periscopes) over vast distances and helicopters equipped for anti-submarine, anti-surface and counter-mine warfare.  All of the carrier's defensive sensors and weapons are netted together through an on-board command center for coordinated action against adversaries.

Carriers do not operate alone:

Carriers typically deploy as part of a "carrier strike group" that includes multiple guided-missile warships equipped with the Aegis combat system.  Aegis is the most advanced air and missile defense system in the world, capable of defeating every potential overhead threat including ballistic missiles.  It is linked to other offensive and defensive systems on board U.S. surface combatants that can defeat submarines, surface ships and floating mines, or attack enemy sensors needed to guide attacking missiles.  In combination with the carrier air wing, these warships can quickly degrade enemy systems used to track the strike group.  Carrier strike groups often include one or more stealthy attack subs capable of defeating undersea and surface threats.

Navy tactics maximize survivability:

Although U.S. aircraft carriers are protected by the most potent, multi-layered defensive shield ever conceived, they do not take chances when deployed near potential adversaries.  Their operational tactics have evolved to minimize risk while still delivering the offensive punch that is their main reason for existing.  For instance, a carrier will generally not operate in areas where mines might have been laid until the area has been thoroughly cleared.  It will tend to stay in the open ocean rather than entering confined areas where approaching threats are hard to sort out from other local traffic.  It will keep moving to complicate the targeting challenge for enemies.  It will also use links to other joint assets from the seabed to low-earth orbit to achieve detailed situational awareness.

New technology is bolstering carrier defense:

Although there has been much speculation about emerging threats to aircraft carriers, the Navy invests heavily in new offensive and defensive technologies aimed at countering such dangers.  The most important advance of recent years has been the netting together of all naval assets in an area so that sensors and weapons can be used to maximum effect.  Initiatives like the Naval Integrated Fire Control - Counter Air program link together every available combat system in a seamless, fast-reacting defensive screen that few adversaries can penetrate.  Numerous other advances are being introduced, from the penetrating recon capabilities of stealthy fighters to shipboard jamming systems to advanced obscurants that confuse the guidance systems of homing missiles.

The bottom line on aircraft carrier survivability is that only a handful of countries can credibly pose a threat to America's most valuable warships, and short of using nuclear weapons none of those is likely to sink one.  Although the Navy has changed it tactics to deal with the proliferation of fast anti-ship missiles and the growing military power of China in the Western Pacific, large-deck aircraft carriers remain among the most secure and useful combat systems in America's arsenal.  With the unlimited range and flexibility afforded by nuclear propulsion, there are few places they can't go to enforce U.S. interests.  And at the rate the Navy is investing in new warfighting technologies, that is likely to remain true for many decades to come.

The U.S. Navy's Electromagnetic Railgun Will Fire Supersonic Ammo The next-generation hypervelocity projectile — a supersonic shell capable of striking targets up to 100 nautical miles away at speeds approaching Mach 6. by Jeff Schogol

The need to deal with supersonic threats may be here sooner than expected, especially from the so-called "great power competition" that the Pentagon sees as the greatest threat to U.S. national security: In December, photos appeared to show the China's electromagentic railgun — and, presumably, its own arsenal of supersonic HVPs — ready to rule the high seas.

The U.S. Navy quietly test-fired 20 supersonic projectiles originally intended for the service's futuristic electromagnetic railgun from the conventional deck guns during an international military exercise at sea last summer, according to a new report from the U.S. Naval Institute, signaling a potentially significant boost in the Navy's surface warfare capabilities amid challenges from competitors like China.

Unnamed Navy officials told USNI News that the USS Dewey fired off 20 of the next-generation hypervelocity projectile — a supersonic shell capable of striking targets up to 100 nautical miles away at speeds approaching Mach 6. Originally developed as ammunition for the Office of Naval Research's vaunted electromagnetic railgun system, the Dewey used its Mk 45 five-inch deck guns during the 2018 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise to test out the speedy new round.

U.S. defense officials had previously announced its intent to test-fire the HVP shells developed for ONR by BAE Systems in January 2018, the report signals a major step forward for a critical news capability for the U.S. surface fleet.

In 2016, officials in the Pentagon's Strategic Capabilities Office began shifting Big Navy's directed energy priorities towards simply proliferating the HVP to conventional powder weapons like the Army's 155mm howitzer rather than relying on the increasingly expensive and complicated railgun system.

Indeed, BAE's contract with ONR and SCO states the intended applications of the HVP to "the Navy 5-Inch; Navy, Marine Corps, and Army 155-mm systems; and future electromagnetic (EM) railguns."

But rather than see action as an offensive weapon, it's more likely those Mk 45-fired HVPs will largely help supplement existing missile defense capabilities for surface vessels, if only for cost purposes. As USNI News noted, the standard Evolved Seasparrow Missile or Rolling Airframe Missile cost several million dollars apiece. By contrast, the Navy's PEO Integrated Warfare Systems office put the cost of an HVP around $85,000, as HVP program manager Vincent Sabio stated in January 2017.

"We need to be able to address (all) types of threats: subsonic, supersonic; sea-skimming, land-hugging; coming in from above and dropping down on top of us," Sabio said at the time. "There are many different trajectories that we need to be able to deal with that we… cannot deal with effectively today."

The need to deal with supersonic threats may be here sooner than expected, especially from the so-called "great power competition" that the Pentagon sees as the greatest threat to U.S. national security: In December, photos appeared to show the China's electromagentic railgun — and, presumably, its own arsenal of supersonic HVPs — ready to rule the high seas.

Black Americans' True Plight Is Not Systemic Police Brutality While it might not be popular to say in the wake of the recent social disorder, the true plight of black people has little or nothing to do with the police or what has been called “systemic racism.” Instead, we need to look at the responsibilities of those running our big cities by Walter E. Williams

While it might not be popular to say in the wake of the recent social disorder, the true plight of black people has little or nothing to do with the police or what has been called “systemic racism.” Instead, we need to look at the responsibilities of those running our big cities.

Some of the most dangerous big cities are St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore, Oakland, Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta, Birmingham, Newark, Buffalo, and Philadelphia. The most common characteristic of these cities is that, for decades, all of them have been run by liberal Democrats.

Some cities—such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark, and Philadelphia—haven’t elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. On top of this, in many of these cities, blacks are mayors, often they dominate city councils, and they are chiefs of police and superintendents of schools.

In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black.

As of 2019, there is far greater representation in some areas—52 House members are black. Nine black Americans have served in the Senate, including Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts, Carol Moseley Braun and Barack Obama of Illinois, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Kamala Harris of California. In recent times, there have been three black state governors.

The bottom line is that today’s black Americans have significant political power at all levels of government. Yet, what has that meant for a large segment of the black population?

Democratic-controlled cities have the poorest-quality public education despite their large, and growing, school budgets.

Consider Baltimore, Maryland. In 2016, in 13 of Baltimore’s 39 high schools, not a single student scored proficient on the state’s math exam. In six other high schools, only 1% tested proficient in math. Only 15% of Baltimore students passed the state’s English test.

That same year in Philadelphia only 19% of eighth-graders scored proficient in math, and 16% were proficient in reading. In Detroit, only 4% of its eighth-graders scored proficient in math, and 7% were proficient in reading. It’s the same story of academic disaster in other cities run by Democrats.

Violent crime and poor education is not the only problem for Democratic-controlled cities. Because of high crime, poor schools, and a less pleasant environment, cities are losing their economic base and their most productive people in droves.

When World War II ended, the population of Washington, D.C., was about 800,000; today, it’s about 700,000. In 1950, Baltimore’s population was almost 950,000; today, it’s around 590,000. Detroit’s 1950 population was close to 1.85 million; today, it’s down to 673,000. The population of Camden, New Jersey, in 1950 was nearly 125,000; today it has fallen to 74,000. St. Louis’ 1950 population was more than 856,000; today, it’s less than 294,000.

A similar story of population decline can be found in most of our formerly large and prosperous cities. In some cities, the population decline since 1950 is well over 50%, and that includes Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.

Academic liberals, civil rights advocates, and others blamed the exodus on racism—”white flight” to the suburbs to avoid blacks. But blacks have been fleeing some cities at higher rates than whites. The five cities whose suburbs have the fastest-growing black populations are Miami, Dallas, Washington, Houston, and Atlanta.

It turns out that blacks, like whites, want better and safer schools for their kids and don’t like to be mugged or have their property vandalized. And like white people, if they have the means, black people cannot wait to leave troubled cities.

White liberals and black politicians focus most of their attention on what the police do, but how relevant is that to the overall tragedy?

According to Statista, this year, 172 whites and 88 blacks have died at the hands of police. To put police shootings in a bit of perspective, in Chicago alone in 2020 there have been 1,260 shootings and 256 homicides with blacks being the primary victims. That comes to one shooting victim every three hours and one homicide victim every 15 hours. Three people in Chicago have been killed by police.

If one is truly concerned about black deaths, shootings by police should figure way down on one’s list—which is not to excuse bad behavior by some police officers.

What Happened to Drew Brees Should Worry All Americans If you defend America’s history, philosophy, and culture–or, God forbid, her flag–you must apologize. And, if Drew Brees is any indicator, your wife must also apologize, and your second cousin once removed. by Ben Shapiro

With the death of George Floyd—a heinous atrocity virtually every American decries—unity should have prevailed.

Americans hate police brutality; Americans care about black lives; Americans despise looting and rioting; Americans want to protect citizens but preserve the ability of the police to stop crime.

Instead, the country seems to be falling apart. That’s because of the utterly chaotic political and media response to the Floyd tragedy: a response that demands agreement but, most of all, requires compliance. You must kneel.

You must kneel because you cannot understand. You simply cannot. If you have to ask for a definition of systemic privilege, we are told, it’s because your white privilege has blinded you to reality. If you point out that not all inequality is inequity, we are told, it is because your latent racism is leeching into your worldview.

If you defend America’s history, philosophy, and culture—or, God forbid, her flag—you must apologize. And, if Drew Brees is any indicator, your wife must also apologize, and your second cousin once removed.

You may not understand what is being demanded of you. You may see the wave of conflicting messages emanating from the press and wonder just what you’re supposed to do. But the chaos is the point. You are supposed to be confused. Confusion is a political weapon. Clarity is a shield.

If our media and political class can prevent clarity, they can prevent unity; if they can obscure, they can demand acquiescence.

Thus, we hear messages that are obviously in direct conflict with one another. And, we are told, our inability to square those messages means that we must listen to the woke priesthood that can untangle these Gordian knots.

Thus, we hear that silence is violence, that being non-racist simply isn’t enough, and you must actively fight racism. But we also hear that speech is violence, that if you oppose policies the political left supports, your words are a form of violence and you must be silenced. The only safe path, therefore, is parroting the messages of those initiated in the religion of wokeness.

Thus, we hear that individuals ought not be held responsible for the sins of those in their racial group, and that’s why it’s so wrong for police to engage in profiling. But we also hear that white Americans bear full responsibility for the sins of both modern racists and historic racists, and ought to atone on behalf of their race and their country. And if you refuse, you must be considered racist.

Thus, we hear that the police are the greatest threat to black Americans, and that’s why they must be defunded. But we also hear that police absence, a product of racism, created the conditions that originally led to higher crime rates in black communities. We can, therefore, blame the police for crime whether they’re present or absent in minority communities.

Thus, we hear that the rioting and looting were exaggerated by the media, or that they were largely the product of white Antifa members. But we also hear that rioting and looting are the justified outgrowth of centuries of black rage. You cannot, therefore, oppose rioting and looting too strenuously, lest you be labeled a racist.

Thus, we hear that COVID-19 is so extraordinarily dangerous that anti-lockdown protesters were endangering the lives of other Americans; in fact, they were racist, since COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority communities. But we also hear that protesting racism is so extraordinarily important that we can freely ignore all restrictions surrounding COVID-19—and, indeed, that we have an obligation to do so. 

Thus, we hear that journalists ought to be treated with the utmost respect because they are doing a difficult job and pursuing facts and the truth; and that harsh words spoken about journalists reflect underlying unease about freedom of the press. But we also hear that journalists are actually activists and thus have a duty not to be objective; op-ed editors should be fired for the sin of green-lighting pieces opposed by woke staffers.

In the end, our republic runs only so long as we’re able to hold some semblance of logical conversation with one another. But the republic isn’t running.

Instead, we are battered with logically incoherent nonsense, a variety of messages that carry only one consistent bottom line: Shut up. Believe. Repeat.

The chaos of the moment isn’t a bug; it’s a feature. And the more confused we are, the less we can possibly hold together, despite the fact that nearly all Americans agree on the most important issues.

Why South Korea Needs to Reorganize Its Priorities for North Korea The Moon administration can only achieve the peace it so desperately desires by finally confronting the Kim regime for its hostile actions – rather than being intimidated by the likes of Kim Yo Jong. by Matthew Ha

Human scum little short of wild animals who betrayed their own homeland are engrossed in such unbecoming acts to imitate men. They are sure to be called mongrel dogs as they bark . . . where they should not.”

That is what Kim Yo-jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, said last week in a burst of anger. The target of her invective: North Korean defectors who had sent thousands of anti-Pyongyang leaflets from South Korea into the North via giant balloons.

In response, South Korea’s government is considering a legal ban on sending the leaflets. Seoul should reconsider. If South Korean president Moon Jae-in imposes the ban, then Seoul will walk straight into a trap set by North Korea, which seeks to deliberately provoke South Korea in order to gain concessions, particularly with respect to nuclear weapons and missiles.

The Moon administration’s rationale for the leaflet ban is that it will prevent further deterioration in bilateral relations with the North. Specifically, the Kim regime has threatened to withdraw from a comprehensive military agreement and abolish an inter-Korean liaison office unless Seoul takes action on the leaflet issue.

Seoul’s reasoning, however, is flawed for two reasons.

First, forbidding this activity infringes upon freedom of speech and expression. This concession surrenders a critical civil right, ultimately undermining South Korea’s democratic values.

Second, there is no guarantee this ban will improve Seoul’s relations with Pyongyang. In fact, the recent history of North Korea’s acts of hostility and coercion under Kim suggests otherwise.

Even after Kim signed onto several pledges with the United States and South Korea to denuclearize and improve relations, North Korea’s aggression continued. For instance, only weeks after the April 2018 first inter-Korean summit, South Korea began investigating North Korean cyber-attacks against civilian, government, and military targets.

Since 2019, North Korea’s military has also conducted a historically high number of missile and multiple-rocket launcher weapons tests and rehabilitated ballistic missile facilities that it had agreed to dismantle. Earlier this May, North Korea’s Central Military Commission publicly declared that it will be “further increasing the nuclear war deterrence of the country.”

Most of Pyongyang’s provocations violate the non-hostility and denuclearization pledges found in the comprehensive military agreement of 2018, the Panmunjom Declaration of 2018, the Singapore Joint Statement of 2018, and the 1953 Armistice Agreement.

Yet the Moon administration overlooked these provocations and instead chose to devote its efforts to starting numerous inter-Korean projects in order to strengthen cross-border economic cooperation and cultural exchange. The Moon administration hopes these inter-Korean cooperation projects will open a pathway for establishing peace on the peninsula.

For instance, Seoul’s leadership seeks to revise the South-North Exchange and Cooperation Act to enable North Korean companies to do business in the South. Other potential projects include a joint research project to inscribe the demilitarized zone (DMZ) as a UNESCO World Heritage Site as well as an inter-Korean rail construction project that began last year.

Despite North Korea repeatedly reneging on its signed commitments, in his 2020 New Year’s Day speech, Moon naively still suggested, “if South and North Korea identify realistic ways to implement projects . . . it will not only lead to international cooperation but also provide a big boost to the resumption of inter-Korean tourism.”

Unfortunately, for Moon, North Korean regime continues to reject all of South Korea’s offers for dialogue.

In reference to the politburo meeting this month, the Korean Central News Agency, a major North Korean state media outlet, quoted senior officials saying Pyongyang will treat South Korea as an “enemy” and that the politburo “reached a conclusion that there is no need to sit face to face with the South Korean authorities, and there is no issue to discuss with them, as they have aroused our dismay.”

In the past, the North Korean government did participate in various South Korean proposed projects, such as the Kaesong Industrial Complex or Mount Kumgang Resort. However, Pyongyang’s leadership sought significant control over these projects to maximize economic benefits for the regime.

The Kim regime also rejected more open engagement with the South because it presented long-term risks to regime stability. After all, a critical tool undergirding North Korean regime stability is a comprehensive information and influence activities (IIA) campaign to control the population’s ideological thinking.

As analyst Martyn Williams explains, the Propaganda and Agitation Department specifically “operates a pervasive control network” throughout the regime to ensure that both North Korean news media content and government messaging will “always deliver the same news with the same perspective.” Simultaneously, North Korea’s domestic security agencies enforce harsh penalties for smuggling, distributing, and viewing foreign media.

Pyongyang’s IIA campaigns focus on three key messages: enhancing the Kim family regime’s reputation, countering U.S. and outside influence on the Korean peninsula, and undermining the legitimacy of the South Korean government.

From the Kim regime’s perspective, the open and free engagement between South Korean businesses and organizations would likely undermine the validity of Northern propaganda narratives regarding South Korea’s illegitimacy. Cross-border projects and people-to-people exchange could also lead the North to open up to more foreign media and influence infiltration, thereby threatening the regime’s ideological influence in the country.

South Korea has avoided confronting North Korea for having more control over these engagements because Seoul feared that pressuring Pyongyang on such terms would only incite tensions and thereby set back the reconciliation process

In reality, the Moon administration’s broader North Korea strategy focusing on incentives while overlooking the Kim regime’s provocations helps advance Pyongyang’s strategic interests. North Korea employs military and diplomatic provocations to extort benefits from its adversaries such as sanctions relief and de facto recognition of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state.

The Moon administration should, therefore, reconsider not only the recent ban on anti-North Korean propaganda leaflets but also its overall North Korea strategy. Seoul should employ a coordinated political warfare strategy that incorporates all elements of power—diplomatic, military, economic, and informational—to persuade the Kim family regime that retaining nuclear weapons will bring more harm than good.

For this strategy to be effective, the Moon administration must also resolve issues negatively affecting its alliance with the United States. The most immediately pressing issue for the alliance is the negotiation of the Special Measures Agreement to decide burden-sharing costs for the U.S. troop presence in Korea. The failure to complete this negotiation could result in a worst-case scenario of U.S. troop withdrawals from South Korea, which could embolden more hostile North Korean military activity.

Furthermore, for South Korea, the most critical element for an effective North Korea strategy is to ensure a robust U.S.-South Korea alliance. This decades-long security partnership has served as the lynchpin for relative peace on the Korean peninsula, as the U.S. military footprint in South Korea has deterred North Korea from engaging in a full-scale conflict since the Korean War.

While this new approach certainly brings the risk of heightening tensions on the peninsula, continuing the Moon administration’s current strategy present the long-term risk of providing the North Korean regime more time to perfect its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. The Moon administration can only achieve the peace it so desperately desires by finally confronting the Kim regime for its hostile actions – rather than being intimidated by the likes of Kim Yo Jong.