Professor John Delury from Yonsei University begins his opinion piece in the Washington Post by bringing up the old “Fireball Seoul™” scenario after any US strike on North Korea’s nuclear and missile program:
John Delury
President Trump’s missile strike on Syria won plaudits from commentators on the left and right, with some of the enthusiasm spilling over into the debate about a “military solution” when it comes to North Korea. The comparison, like much of the administration’s rhetoric about Korea, is dangerously misleading. There is no way to hit North Korea without being hit back harder. There is no military means to “preempt” its capabilities — nuclear and otherwise — with a “surgical” strike. Any use of force to degrade its weapons program would start a war, the costs of which would be staggering.
Maybe in the era of America First, we don’t care about death and destruction being visited on the 10 million people who live in Seoul, within North Korean artillery and short-range missile range.
First of all I am not advocating for a limited strike right now when there are other options still yet to be used. However, a limited strike like we saw in Syria that perhaps targets North Korea’s submarine base in Sinpo where they are developing submarine launched ballistic missiles in violation of United Nations resolution does not necessarily mean the Kim regime will destroy Seoul in response.
The first thing the Kim regime cares about is maintaining their power. Launching a massive artillery barrage on Seoul or destroying Incheon International Airport will cause a regime change war in response that they know they cannot win. The Fireball Seoul™ scenario only comes in to play if the Kim regime feels the intent of the strike is to remove the regime. There has been no talk of a strike to remove the regime, just talk of limit strikes against Kim’s nuclear and weapons programs.
Regardless here is what Professor Delury says the Trump administration should do:
Instead, the prudent move would be to open direct talks with Pyongyang that start by negotiating a freeze on the fissile-material production cycle, return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and moratorium on testing nuclear devices and long-range ballistic missiles (including satellite launches). In return, the United States should at least entertain Pyongyang’s standing request for suspension of joint military exercises with South Korea. Kim may be willing to accept something less, such as an adjustment in scale. Or he may be open to a different kind of trade — initiating talks to convert the 1953 Armistice Agreement into a proper peace treaty to end the Korean War, for example. The only way to probe these options is to get to the table. With two months of large-scale exercises coming to a close, now is a good time to do so. [Washington Post]
You can read more at the link, but Professor Delury goes on to claim that Kim Jong-un ultimately wants economic development and actually calls him the “developmental dictator”. Unfortunately he provides no evidence to support this claim.
Anyway that is besides the point, the reason the Kim regime has been persistent about seeking a peace treaty with the US is because it would then call into question the continued existence of the US-ROK alliance. The North Koreans have tried for decades to drive a wedge between the ROK and the US and a peace treaty is one way they try and do this. It is the same rationale of why they try to get joint US-ROK military exercises cancelled, to drive a wedge between the US and the ROK.
The Kim regime knows that any chance of reunification on North Korean terms is dependent on separating the US from the ROK and ultimately the withdrawal of the US military from South Korea. Without the US military backing South Korea then Professor Delury’s Fireball Seoul™ scenario becomes much more real.
