American strike on North Korea would be catastrophic | Washington Post

0
Monday February 26, 2018 - 21:44:02 in Maqaallo by nur yare
  • Visits: 155
  • (Rating 0.0/5 Stars) Total Votes: 0
  • 0 0
  • Share via Social Media

    American strike on North Korea would be catastrophic | Washington Post

    Share on Twitter Share on facebook Share on Digg Share on Stumbleupon Share on Delicious Share on Google Plus

Pyongyang must be asked to completely denuclearise as part of a long-term strategy but a US attack would be both reckless and risky

In response to worries that it is planning a "bloody nose” strike on North Korea, the Trump administration has been offering an odd reassurance. Any attack on the regime of Kim Jong Un would not be limited, officials and surrogates are saying, but enormous and overwhelming. That, of course, is not reassuring at all: A massive attack on North Korea would be massively stupid.

The White House calls reports that President Donald Trump is considering a small-scale North Korea military option exaggerated. The administration understands that there is no guarantee Kim won’t respond with his full military might — a nightmare scenario. But embedded in every denial is a consistent pledge that Trump will not accept North Korea achieving the capability to strike the United States with a nuclear-tipped intercontinental missile — a clear red line.

 

 

That means the military option Trump is actually considering foremost is one that would be huge, complex and devastating. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Senator James E. Risch said he was told the conflict would be brief and would cause "mass casualties the likes of which the planet has never seen.”

On Friday, Trump himself warned that if North Korea doesn’t buckle under sanctions, he would move to "Phase 2.”

"Phase 2 may be a very rough thing, may be very unfortunate for the world,” he said. "It we can make a deal, it will be a great thing, and if we can’t, something will have to happen.” Nobody truly knows what Trump will do when the intelligence community tells him that Kim can strike Washington. Trump’s two main foreign-policy instincts are to avoid starting wars and to reject for-mer president Barack Obama’s practice of allowing dangerous threats to fester. Those instincts clash when dealing with North Korea. Trump is "frustrated” with the situation, senior officials said, and believes the military threat must be credible to work. He also believes he has the authority to order a strike at any time. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, whom Trump reportedly is considering to replace H.R. McMaster as national security adviser, supports preventive war through a massive strike, if sanctions fail. During an appearance last week at the Daniel Morgan Graduate School of National Security, he said the US would have to simultaneously destroy all known North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile sites, submarine bases, and artillery, mortar and missile instalments along the North’s border with South Korea.

Humanitarian consequences

The Kim regime would soon collapse, Bolton predicted, which would then require the deployment of American and South Korean troops inside North Korea to secure the nuclear sites. China could, in advance, be offered a chance to participate, to protect its interests and minimise the adverse effects, Bolton said. He acknowledged that we can’t be sure of where Kim is hiding all his weapons and that there would be massive humanitarian consequences. But he calculated that the risks of Kim threatening the world with nuclear weapons or selling them to others outweigh the potential costs.

But a true accounting of those costs would also include the likelihood that the US-South Korea alliance would be shattered, along with the regional stability the United States spent 70 years trying to build. The global economy would be thrown into disarray; America would be on the hook for untold billions in reconstruction and refugee assistance. China would then move to replace the US as the responsible regional leader.

"The big strategic objective in the region is to be able to be more competitive with a rising China. If we have a war with North Korea, we throw everything away,” said Patrick Cronin, senior adviser at the Centre for a New American Security.

Trump’s coming decision is not a binary choice between war and accepting a nuclear North Korea. A middle option would be to first follow the South Korean government’s lead to exhaust every diplomatic avenue. If that fails, we turn to the plan of the South’s conservative opposition: deterrence, containment and escalation.

The US, Japan and South Korea should recognise that Pyongyang has already altered the regional strategic balance through its acquisition of nuclear weapons, and they should set about returning the balance to our favour with a new military build-up and a trilateral military alliance. That would get Beijing’s attention more than any sanctions, although more of those couldn’t hurt. Then, the US government should drastically increase investment in strategies that mitigate North Korea’s danger externally and challenge its legitimacy internally — including proliferation security, maritime interdiction, cyber-offence and information penetration. The US must still insist that North Korea completely denuclearise. But it needs a long-term strategy to make it happen, not a reckless and catastrophic war.

— Washington Post




Leave a comment

  Tip

  Tip

  Tip

  Tip

  Tip