I believe that utilizing other means of power against North Korea would be an effective foreign policy choice, except for immediate retaliation. Given that North Korea has amassed cyber capabilities and attacked the U.S. with quick cyber-attacks, strategies must be implemented to mitigate this behavior. These strategies take various forms, such as establishing a plan for cyber warfare, carrying out cyber law, and establishing cybercrime warnings. After these strategies, retaliation would be one of the last to consider if none of the others are effective.

First, introducing a solidified cybersecurity plan around cyber warfare would be a good foreign policy choice because it better defines the rights and wrongs of cyber warfare and clears potential confusion that may cause countries to have different conceptions of cyber warfare. This, in turn, will reduce the possible excuse of countries having different ideas of cyber compared to others and hold them more accountable to an established standard.

Next, action should be taken to enforce cyber law when it is shown that there is some form of international misconduct. Implementing laws to account for international cybercrime, such as North Korea’s fast cyber-attacks on countries and the cryptocurrency industry, will restrict their frequency and reachability.

After cyber law has been enforced, significant warnings should be given to countries that were involved. This will act as an additional consequence of participating in cybercrimes after having cyber law applied. It will also be an effective deterrent for countries in the future that may consider committing cybercrime for the country’s gain.

However, while retaliation will be a possible strategy in managing North Korea’s cyber-attacks, it should remain the last possible option due to how it could escalate into larger issues as opposed to de-escalating attacks. For example, if the U.S. were to retaliate with force against North Korea, that conflict could escalate and involve other allies, expanding the issue significantly.

In conclusion, there are means of foreign policy to handle North Korea’s situation without retaliation. A unified plan can clarify cyber war engagement as well as define cybercrimes. Implementing cyber law, when possible, mitigates cybercrimes. Warnings to countries about attacks will also be an effective deterrent. Even though retaliation can change conflict, it doesn’t fully address the issue nor account for the future. Instead, it only tackles immediate response, which is why other strategies can be a good utilization of foreign policy to tackle government-level issues.