"Lost his mind" is correct. If the U.S. were to launch an unprovoked preventive war against Son'gun Korea, the U.S. would be relegated to the status of a pariah state. https://t.co/FuxzIgCG5y
Here is what ROK Drop favorite Bruce Klingner says should happen after the conclusion of the Winter Olympics:
Kim Yo Jong, sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s nominal head of state Kim Yong Nam, Thomas Bach, President of the International Olympic Committee, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in watch an Olympic hockey game in Gangneung, South Korea on Feb. 10, 2018. (Felipe Dana / Associated Press)
Seoul worries that Washington won’t risk Los Angeles for Seoul, but that it would trade Seoul for Los Angeles. Concern is so acute in South Korea, in fact, that Moon thought it necessary to declare: “There cannot be any military action on the Korean Peninsula without a prior consent of the Republic of Korea.”
All this fear could lead to discord between the United States and South Korea, something that in turn could be exploitable by Pyongyang. The North’s participation in the Winter Olympics, which highlighted common Korean themes, is part of Kim’s campaign to drive a wedge between the allies.
If it plays a high-stakes game of brinkmanship, the United States will paint itself into a corner. By defining the completion of North Korea’s ICBM program as an intolerable and strike-inducing event, the Trump administration would be drawing a red line it is not necessarily prepared to hold.
Eventually, every poker player must deliver on their bet, or be revealed as a bluffer. If the United States comes out looking like a bluffer, American credibility will be gravely eroded.
We are now closer to a war on the Korean Peninsula than at any point since 1994. The Trump administration should avoid both a premature return to negotiations and a reckless preventive attack. Instead, it should respond to the growing threat by seriously pursuing its policy of “maximum pressure.” [LA Times]
You can read more at the link, but I think it is arguable that all the talk of a preemptive strike is part of the “maximum pressure” strategy. The US government is putting everyone on notice that if maximum pressure does not work because other countries are not complying than the preemptive strike is an option that will be used instead.
The Korean left wing newspaper of choice, the Hankyoreh is extremely concerned about a US pre-emptive strike on North Korea:
According to Cha’s Washington Post piece, some ultra-hardliners have argued that the risk of endangering the lives of the 230,000 Americans living in South Korea if the bloody nose strategy escalates is worth taking in terms of “long-term interests” and the “safety of Americans living in the continental US.” The fates of 50 million South Koreans don’t even warrant a mention.The reason hardline voices have gotten so much louder in the White House lately has much to do with the discussions occurring between South and North Korea for the Pyeongchang Olympics. It appears to be an attempt to stop a climate of reconciliation from forming on the peninsula.
Given their lack of faith in denuclearization, they seem to believe the North Korean nuclear program will become irreversible if reconciliation occurs at a time of intensifying sanctions. Meanwhile, the Russia scandal is raising the possibility that Trump not only faces a difficult road to re-election but could end up impeached. Depending on how the mid-term elections in November turn out, he could find himself a lame duck.
This raises the troubling question of whether he might consider a strike against North Korea as a way out of his domestic political crisis. Indeed, White House National Security Council senior director for Asian affairs Matthew Pottinger reportedly said in a recent closed-door meeting with US experts on Korean Peninsula issues that a limited strike on the North might help in the midterm elections. [Hankoryeh]
It seems to me the logic of this article does not add up. If a pre-emptive strike leads to a bloody war with millions of people dead that will not help President Trump in the mid-term elections. However, if the pre-emptive strike is successful that will help in the mid-term elections. It almost seems like the Korean left is more concerned that the pre-emptive strategy could work thus boosting President Trump’s political chances, than doing anything to stop North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons.
Considering the tough rhetoric coming from President Trump I think the Kim regime is probably right to be concerned about a possible US military strike:
North Korea appears to have reached out to South Korea after being “spooked” by U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of a military strike, a former CIA official said Monday.
North Korea’s willingness to hold talks with South Korea about its participation in the PyeongChang Winter Olympics was driven in part by Trump’s tough rhetoric, according to Jung Pak, former portfolio manager at the CIA’s East Asia and Pacific Mission Center.
“North Korea is spooked, or at least takes the Trump administration’s threats about military strikes seriously enough that it warranted some sort of outreach,” Pak said at a forum. “And this outreach on this Olympics is (at) no cost. They just show up, right? So I think there is an element, a sign of vulnerability that the North Koreans are feeling about what the Trump administration might do.”
Trump has said the U.S. may have no choice but to “totally destroy” North Korea over its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Last year, the communist regime carried out numerous tests in pursuit of a nuclear-tipped missile capable of striking the mainland U.S.
Pak, currently the SK-Korea Foundation chair in Korea studies at the Brookings Institution, said both South and North Korea are concerned about the possibility of a military conflict on the peninsula. [Yonhap]
Here is what strategist Edward Luttwak has to say about conducting a military strike against North Korea:
Edward Luttwak
One mistaken reason to avoid attacking North Korea is the fear of direct retaliation. The U.S. intelligence community has reportedly claimed that North Korea already has ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads that can reach as far as the United States. But this is almost certainly an exaggeration, or rather an anticipation of a future that could still be averted by prompt action. The first North Korean nuclear device that could potentially be miniaturized into a warhead for a long-range ballistic missile was tested on September 3, 2017, while its first full-scale ICBM was only tested on November 28, 2017. If the North Koreans have managed to complete the full-scale engineering development and initial production of operational ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads in the short time since then — and on their tiny total budget — then their mastery of science and engineering would be entirely unprecedented and utterly phenomenal. It is altogether more likely that they have yet to match warheads and missiles into an operational weapon.
It’s true that North Korea could retaliate for any attack by using its conventional rocket artillery against the South Korean capital of Seoul and its surroundings, where almost 20 million inhabitants live within 35 miles of the armistice line. U.S. military officers have cited the fear of a “sea of fire” to justify inaction. But this vulnerability should not paralyze U.S. policy for one simple reason: It is very largely self-inflicted.
When then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter decided to withdraw all U.S. Army troops from South Korea 40 years ago (ultimately a division was left behind), the defense advisors brought in to help — including myself — urged the Korean government to move its ministries and bureaucrats well away from the country’s northern border and to give strong relocation incentives to private companies. South Korea was also told to mandate proper shelters, as in Zurich for example, where every new building must have its own (under bombardment, casualties increase dramatically if people leave their homes to seek shelter). In recent years, moreover, South Korea has had the option of importing, at moderate cost, Iron Dome batteries, which are produced by both Israel and the United States, that would be capable of intercepting 95 percent of North Korean rockets headed to inhabited structures.
But over these past four decades, South Korean governments have done practically nothing along these lines. The 3,257 officially listed “shelters” in the Seoul area are nothing more than underground shopping malls, subway stations, and hotel parking lots without any stocks of food or water, medical kits or gas masks. As for importing Iron Dome batteries, the South Koreans have preferred to spend their money on developing a bomber aimed at Japan. [Foreign Policy]
You can read more at the link, but he believes that possible retaliation against Seoul should not influence US decision making because it is a problem caused by ROK governmental irresponsibility over the decades.
That is what this retired Naval Captain is advocating for in his article published on the US Naval Institute website:
Limited strikes should be targeted carefully and focused on North Korea’s specific provocation. A good start would be to take out the next North Korean intercontinental test missile on its launch pad. Before making such a preemptive strike, however, careful consultation with allies, particularly South Korea and Japan, would be essential. Controlling escalation would require the adept execution of sound tactical and strategic plans that had already been established.
In the wake of such strikes, Kim likely would feel compelled to act. If rational, he would respond in ways that would not promote a wider war. Especially because this is an unknown factor, it would be wise to prepare for cyber and maritime aggressions similar to his more serious provocations in 2010. Such planning would dovetail with the development of sound preplanned responses to increase the odds of U.S. military success at this “escalate to deescalate” strategy. The nature of North Korea’s reaction to military strikes—rational or irrational—would shape U.S. and its allies’ policies to protect their citizens. [US Naval Institute]
You can read more at the link, but I to am skeptical of the claim that Seoul will be destroyed if a limited strike is conducted against the Kim regime. Kim knows if he attacks Seoul then a regime change war would be justified to remove him from power. A limited military response in response to a preemptive strike would allow Kim to save face while not triggering a regime change war.
I tend to think that if for example his nuclear and ICBM facilities are targeted he would respond by targeting the bases where the bombers came from with ballistic missiles such as Andersen AFB on Guam or US military facilities in Japan. I also think ballistic missile and even terrorism attacks against US bases in South Korea or Japan are a possibility.
I also think the ROK will not support a preemptive strike and will publicly make that known in an effort to not have military retaliation occur against South Korea.
So what does everyone else think? Is it time to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea? If so what do people think the response would be?
Here is the latest expert, Michael Green from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to weight in with his opinion on what to do with North Korea:
Michael Green
A preventive military strike by the United States would not remove all of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, a renowned American expert on the North Korean issue has said, while proposing economic sanctions as the most viable tool to end North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
“A preventive military strike would not destroy all of North Korea’s capabilities. It would risk a wider war that would inflame South Korea and Japan and potentially cause millions of casualties,” Michael Green, vice president for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said last week in Washington, D.C. in his meeting with South Korean journalists.
Previously, he served as a senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council under former U.S. President George W. Bush.
“It would also threaten the U.S. because North Korea has an ability even without ballistic missiles to transfer nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, so a preventive military strike would not get all of North Korea’s nuclear capabilities and would risk an unacceptable war,” Green noted.
Diplomatic negotiations with Pyongyang would also not warrant resolution of North Korea’s nuclear problem, given the country’s track record of breaking previous agreements, he said.
“We shouldn’t end sanctions or military exercises in order to have dialogue with Pyongyang because then we will prove there’s no cost to North Korea for the path it’s on,” Green said, suggesting that the U.S. build “infrastructure of sustained consequence” for North Korea to facilitate diplomacy work with the regime. “We now have to restore deterrence and restore credibility if we have any chance in medium to long run diplomacy.”
Getting China to exert its influence in North Korea is crucial in the long run, he also highlighted. [Yonhap]
You can read more at the link, but basically what he is advocating for is arguably what prior administrations have done and all it has lead to is the slow motion acquisition of North Korean nuclear weapons that will soon be mounted on ICBMs pointed at the US.
Here is the latest opinion on what to do about North Korea:
U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., listens to testimony at a House Committee on Armed Services hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on on , Sept. 7, 2017. Hunter said Thursday, Sept. 21, that the United States should preemptively strike North Korea.
Rep. Duncan Hunter said that the United States needs to launch a preemptive strike against North Korea in order to prevent the rogue nation from harming the U.S. first.
“You could assume, right now, that we have a nuclear missile aimed at the United States, and here in San Diego. Why would they not aim here, at Hawaii, Guam, our major naval bases?” Hunter, a California Republican, said during an appearance on San Diego’s KUSI television station Thursday.
“The question is, do you wait for one of those? Or, two? Do you pre-emptively strike them? And that’s what the president has to wrestle with. I would pre-emptively strike them. You could call it declaring war, call it whatever you want,” Hunter continued. [Stars & Stripes]
