That do advances in access to clean food, water and quality health care have in common? Plastic wraps and containers. But today there is a new cri de coeur against “single use plastics.” For some environmentalists, the product is “Enemy Number 1.” Consumers are accustomed to having a wide variety of food choices that are geographically impossible to produce in a single community. Obviously, most of that food is not grown locally. Cue the need for disposable plastic. Access to clean water similarly depends on plastic. Although some only consider disposable plastic water bottles to be useful when traveling or going on a hike, the products are lifesaving in many areas of the country where drinking water has been compromised. The federal government has 18 million bottles of purified water stored around the country for residents where necessary. It’s the same in health care. Single-use plastics help prevent the spread of infection and disease. When products like surgical gloves, IV tubes and syringes are made of disposable plastics, concerns around sterilization largely disappear. It’s evident plastics play an essential role in keeping Americans safe and healthy. However, this column is not a defense of every current plastic application. In fact, we need to find better ways to mitigate the amount of plastic that is either not of a quality to be recycled or can be easily substituted with functional material. To borrow an Orwellian concept, all plastics may be equal, but some are more equal than others. While we could develop several ranking systems to judge single-use plastic products - considering need versus convenience, recycling ease and available substitutes.

There are a lucky few who take on the conventional wisdom of the time and then live long enough to see their skeptics and critics admit they were wrong. Most of the American Founders were so fortunate. F. A. Hayek, the great 20th century economist/philosopher, was another lucky one. Hayek spent his life arguing for a civil society while being perhaps the most learned critic of socialism/communism. When his best-selling and most famous book, “The Road to Serfdom,” was published in 1944, he was ridiculed by the establishment for arguing that socialism ultimately leads to oppression, stagnation and finally collapse, because of its internal contradictions. By the 1970s, many began to realize that Hayek indeed had been right, and he was awarded a Nobel Prize. By the time he died in 1992, he had been totally vindicated, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the return to market-based economies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. The modern-day environmental movement has many parallels with the rise and fall of socialism/communism in the 20th century. Serious people were concerned about the growing air and water pollution, and demanded change. Now, the air and water are cleaner than they were before colonial times - when everyone had a wood burning, smoky fireplace, and streams and rivers were used as sewers. The constructive need for action to clean up the environment morphed into a movement that made more and more radical demands (many of which made no scientific or economic sense), coupled with outlandish predictions.

North Korea’s economy is also suffering greatly from Mr. Trump’s sanctions. Last year, its trade shrank by 80% and even Kim Jong-un had to admit failure, the first such admission since his grandfather took power. Months ago, Mr. Trump rejected Mr. Kim’s offer to close his nation’s nearly-useless nuclear complex at Yongbyon in exchange for sanctions relief. Mr. Kim is most likely to raise the stakes for Mr. Biden by testing his missiles, which he claims are able to reach the United States, or by detonating another nuclear test. Previously, the Kim regime labeled Mr. Biden a “rabid dog,” but now promises diplomacy, but his only goal is sanctions relief. Mr. Biden wants to show strength through diplomacy. Mr. Kim’s ploy ― especially if it begins with a nuclear or missile test and ends with a promise to cease those actions ― may enable Mr. Biden to claim he faced down Mr. Kim and still claim a success that amounts to appeasement. Our most important allies presume, from Mr. Biden’s record and his campaign promises, that he will embrace the neglect of our defense capabilities and that of our allies as he, and former President Obama, did consistently. The South Koreans, for example, are very worried. In the face of Mr. Kim’s and China’s patterns of aggression ― and the weakness it expects from Mr. Biden ― South Korea is reportedly examining how it could protect itself instead of relying on us, as it has for more than 50 years. Mr. Biden will begin charting his administration’s course in the near future. It is impossible to be optimistic that he will pass the tests our allies and enemies will soon pose.

Our NATO allies - who don’t want to pay for their own defense - are waiting in confidence that Mr. Biden will reverse Mr. Trump’s policy demanding that they invest in defense. NATO’s growing weakness may render it a nullity under Mr. Biden. Most new presidents are tested by a foreign policy crisis in their first few months in office and Mr. Biden will be no exception. George W. Bush was tested on April 1, 2001, by the Chinese who forced a U.S. Navy reconnaissance aircraft down and held the crew captive briefly. Some presidents test our enemies from the moment of their inauguration. Iran’s terrorist regime let our hostages go rather than risk what Ronald Reagan might do. Mr. Biden is neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Reagan. By his campaign promises, such as his pledge to rejoin former President Obama’s awful nuclear weapons deal with Iran other nations - particularly China and Russia - expect him to take a weaker approach to them as well. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in the days following the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, said “We are not insisting nor in a hurry for the deal. But what is logical is our demand [that] is the lifting of the sanctions. These brutal sanctions must be lifted immediately.” This is Iran’s opening gambit with Mr. Biden. Iran won’t start a war or perpetrate a big terrorist attack until it sees what conditions, if any, he attaches to rejoining former president Obama’s enormously dangerous nuclear weapons deal with it. By reentering the agreement without preconditions - Mr. Biden’s most likely action - Iran would be relieved of the Trump sanctions that have rendered its economy a shambles and enable its quick recovery.

President Joe Biden began the first 100 days of his administration. Pundits often talk about the “first hundred days” of a presidency in idyllic terms and, for Mr. Biden, the media will try to manufacture that image for him regardless of what happens. But the days won’t be all rainbows and unicorns for Mr. Biden because it will be a period of danger and risk. Our enemies are lining up to challenge him and our allies are eager to see how soft he will be on ally and enemy alike. Mr. Biden is likely to be more influenced by his advisers than was President Trump. Mr. Biden’s national security team is largely comprised of people who have been his trusted advisers for many years such as Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan. They will help him pave the way for his multilateralism which will be reflected in increasing reliance on the U.N. and weakened alliances such as NATO. He will also be greatly influenced by political outside liberal special interest groups like “J Street,” and by liberal think tanks such as the Center for New American Security, which Mr. Blinken co-founded. J Street, a Jewish group that purportedly supports Israel, regularly supports positions antithetical to its national security. It is now pushing Mr. Biden to re-engage with the Palestinians, who Mr. Trump’s “Abraham Accords” proved irrelevant to Middle East peace. As our alliances with Japan and Germany, and our friendly relations with Vietnam prove, neither alliances nor enmities are permanent. Alliances have to evolve to reflect changes in global politics and power or they wither and die.

This is the North Korea we continue to deal with, hoping to convince its leadership that dismantling its nuclear weapons and facilities and halting its ballistic missile, will provide the North with security assurances, a peace treaty ending the Korean War, economic development assistance and a path to normal relations with the United States. To date, we haven’t been successful, although we had periods of temporary success, in 1994 with the Agreed Framework, in September 2005 with the Six Party Talks Joint Statement and the June 2018 Singapore Summit Joint Statement. What we learned from this history of talks and fleeting successes is that North Korea currently is not prepared to dismantle its nuclear weapons and facilities. This could change, which is why we continue to negotiate with the North, in search of a peaceful resolution of issues, knowing that conflict on the Korean Peninsula would result in catastrophic losses. But what should be clear is that the North will not agree to dismantle all of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs prior to receiving security assurances and the lifting of sanctions, on an action-for-action basis. The 2019 Hanoi Summit failed exactly on these issues. Kim Jong-un said he was prepared to halt activities at its Yongbyon nuclear facility in return for the lifting of sanctions imposed after 2016. When Mr. Kim was told that he had to include all of the North’s nuclear facilities, in addition to its ballistic missile and chemical and biological programs, Mr. Kim refused, bringing the Hanoi Summit to an abrupt end. Past efforts have failed to resolve an issue that has become more of a threat, thus requiring greater creativity and leadership, working even more closely with our allies and partners.

Over the last few months, North Korea refrained from conducting another nuclear test and launching a ballistic missile, but it continued to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons, while continuing to upgrade its submarine fleet. Much attention correctly has focused on the North’s nuclear and missile programs, but their chemical and biological programs reportedly are still operational, as witnessed by the 2017 assassination of Kim Jong-nam, the older brother of Kim Jong-un, using VX nerve agent at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Also of concern is North Korea’s history of human rights abuses, with estimates of more than 100,000 people in political detention camps throughout the country. North Korea continues to support its military programs and the lifestyle of its elites through a continued aggressive illicit activities program. Previously, the North sold ballistic missiles to rogue regimes like Libya, Syria and Iran, while also providing the Assad regime in Syria with nuclear materials and assisted with the construction of a nuclear reactor in Al Kibar that, just prior to going operational, was destroyed by Israel in 2007. The North’s criminal cyber programs, most evident in 2014 with its attack on Sony Pictures, and its ongoing extensive and sophisticated attacks on banks and cryptocurrency facilities, is a principal source of its illicitly acquired revenue. Previously, it was North Korea’s sophisticated counterfeiting operations that enriched its leadership, starting with the counterfeiting of the U.S. $100 bill and its industrial scale counterfeiting of cigarettes and pharmaceuticals.

North Korea wants to be accepted as a nuclear weapons state, a goal it’s pursued for the last 26 years of failed negotiations. Eventually, the leadership in Pyongyang thinks it’ll accomplish this goal, despite the U.S. and others demanding complete denuclearization. But despite our efforts, North Korea has progressed exponentially with its nuclear and missile programs, defying international sanctions. North Korea is playing the long game, convinced we’ll eventually cave, as we did with Pakistan, and accept them as a nuclear weapons state, which would be a monumental strategic mistake. North Korea with nuclear weapons would be a nuclear proliferation threat to the region, with other countries, like South Korea and Japan, seeking their own nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes, despite U.S. extended nuclear deterrence assurances. Also, the possibility that a rogue state or terrorist organization will get its hands on a nuclear weapon or fissile material for a dirty bomb would become more of a reality. Consider some of the facts. North Korea now has an arsenal of nuclear weapons, reportedly between 20 and 60, using plutonium and highly enriched uranium, from fissile material produced at a number of undeclared sites in the North. These nuclear weapons reportedly can be mated to a fleet of ballistic missiles, ranging from short- and mid-range Scud and Nodong missiles capable of targeting Seoul and Tokyo, to intercontinental ballistic missiles (Hwasong 14 and 15) capable of reaching the whole of the United States. North Korea continues to upgrade its submarine-launched ballistic missiles, while maintaining its conventional long-range artillery deployments in the Kaesong Heights area north of the DMZ, targeting Seoul, with a population of 10 million.

America is racing the rest of the world to deploy Fifth Generation (5G) wireless technology first, and government shouldn’t get in the way of companies’ abilities to work together and innovate to produce the best possible mobile broadband networks for Americans. Just like smart phones connecting people across the world drove the Fourth Generation of Wireless technologies, new products and industries are driving companies forward in the race to deploy Fifth Generation Wireless networks. With 5G there are gains from innovation as simple as faster speeds and more capacity for in-home entertainment, to life-changing services like telemedicine and connected cars. Going beyond in-home broadband and business customers, we cannot realize the Internet of Things, IoT without the infrastructure and technology that 5G provides. The IoT includes devices, vehicles, home appliances and other items embedded with electronics, software, and sensors, etc., plus the connections that allow them to communicate. These new Internet “users” will require the high-speed mobile connections with low latency that only 5G technology can deliver. Deployment of 5G networks across America will happen; it is only a matter of when. In order to stay competitive and provide the best services, one way to get there is through the combination of T-Mobile and Sprint into the New T-Mobile. To get to a future where the mobile network lets us travel hands-free behind the wheel, connects our refrigerators with grocery stores to order more milk and allows farmers to reduce pesticide use, it’s going to cost the mobile-phone companies, chipmakers, device manufacturers and software developers about $200 billion a year in research and capital spending for the next five to 10 years.

There is a world food surplus. The reason that anyone goes hungry is a problem of distribution, not production. The people who have saved billions of lives are the mechanical engineers who designed and built the amazing machines that plant, tend and harvest our crops; the plant and animal geneticists who have modified seeds to give us much higher yielding and more nutritious food plants and farm animals; and the chemists who developed fertilizers and pesticides, all of whom eliminated famines and greatly reduced the cost of food. Last year, the average American farmer produced enough food to feed 166 people, up from 26 in 1960, and perhaps three to five people in 1800. There is no reason to expect the rate of technological advance to slow down. What this means is that agricultural productivity will continue to increase with farmers using robots to maintain the fields and harvest the crops as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides become better and more precise in their application. All of this means food will continue to become less expensive and better. The rate of progress in the medical sciences will continue to accelerate with more cures for diseases, such as cancers and other problems, and even reversing aging. What is holding back progress is the ignorance of the population, due to educational bureaucracy often more interested in indoctrination than real education, and the political class that feed off that ignorance. In time, it will become clear that locking down most of the population that was at little risk from COVID-19 (those under 65 with few serious conditions) was far more costly in terms of lives lost, and incomes and freedoms destroyed, than beneficial.