Complex? Unclear; certainly no invasion would be attempted. Unlike Saddam Hussein, North Korea does have weapons of mass destruction. Even ignoring nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-un has sarin and other chemical weapons and the means to deliver them to the suburbs of Seoul. With 1.1 million soldiers, he has the 4th largest standing army in the world. Invasion would not be an option.
Instead of complexity, I see a path of simplicity. Trump would Tweet insults and bellicose threats at North Korea, hoping to provoke Kim. He doesn’t care about Korea, but wants an on-going distraction from his domestic jerkery. Putin would be goading Trump and Kim along (maintaining a sober face and keeping it subtle, but cackling whenever he’s alone). Bannon would be so excited he’d need to stock up on diapers. Trump would be goaded into small provocative acts, perhaps impounding funds or seizing vessels. When Kim is finally riled enough to act militarily, Trump would act out his teenage daydreams and respond with strong force.
Because of Kim’s military power and the vulnerability of South Korea, prompt and powerful attack from air and sea would be indicated. With cruise missiles costing millions of dollars each, use of conventional explosives like TNT in the warheads would not be cost-effective; something far more devastating would be indicated.
After this strike, nation-building wouldn’t be an issue. The world would focus only on emergency medical aid and the crudest necessities of even a barbarian life-style. Troop movements in either direction across the Korean border would be unlikely — radioactivity levels would be too high. The scenario I’ve outlined would have been too silly to write down a year ago, and even now may not to come to pass. I’m optimistic enough to hope that the chance of something like this in the next 4 years is less than 30%.
In reading signals from different admins you also have to factor in perception and pre-conceptions particularly in the media. I don’t recall when the Obama administration ever said military force was off the table as an option against North Korea. In fact I’m sure they never did, nor should they have. But it was widely and I believe accurately perceived that Obama was determined not to get involved in any new war, to a fault. And on NK specifically, nobody was expecting Obama to do anything but punt the problem to the next admin (like Bush did, to be fair).
In Trump’s case there’s at least some idea that he might be ‘stronger’ or ‘reckless’, depending whose perception. So it gets treated differently. And it is in fact more of an unknown what he will do.
But North Korea is not an imaginary problem. It’s not in any way speculative they want nuclear capability, they have it already. Nor very speculative that they want to perfect nuclear ICBM capability v the US. They say so, and laughing them off as too primitive to ever do it is getting less realistic all the time. The last three admins have done nothing much, but the reckoning is probably coming in the 2017-2025 period. It will either be OK, NK has a credible direct nuclear attack capability v the US, and we’ll live with that and deter it like other countries which can strike the US with nukes, or no it’s too dangerous for that particular regime to have that capability and won’t live with it. Trump just happens to be president for at least the first part of that period. This is not some issue ‘of his’.
The problem is that Kim Jong-un makes Trump look like the adult in the room. The latter’s sabre rattling could spire out of control into a very brief, but very devastating war.
It wouldn’t so much be a land more as a prolonged occupation after the North Korean regime implodes. The aftermath won’t me like German Reunification at all.
Bannon wants to confront Islam and the Godless Chinese. Maybe creating a flood of refugees into China is a way to soften them up. Otherwise, I don’t see why he’d go for it.
The principal threat from North Korea is the line of artillery along the 38th parallel. Provoking North Korea then allowing it to initiate conflict, with an artillery barrage on the South, is not a smart strategy.
Any attack on North Korea has to begin by destroying the artillery installations along the 38th parallel. The war is likely to take the form of the UK attack on Egypt rather than our invasion of Iraq. Eliminate the artillery, air force and missile sites and use drones to pick off key personnel.
The problem is - what would the administration do next? Invade and occupy North Korea? That might help Trump’s employment problem, but it would put a dent in his budget.
Trump’s approval is steadily falling. There is no obvious way to stop it. Trump needs a war.
Anyone in the know about the practical realities on the ground is not confident they can destroy the embedded artillery.
Certainly it can be degraded. But that’s talking about reducing it by, WAG, a third over 12 hours and 2/3rds over 48. Which is not at all the same as reducing it by 100% at a stroke.
At the opening US move it’s almost certain the NK side is going respond full force. Which still results in widespread destruction in SK even if we get lucky and catch them flat-footed.
The frontier is 160 miles long, with about 2/3rds of it close enough to major SK population centers to matter in the opening hours. A carpet bombing of the relevant real estate with nukes at couple-mile intervals is just barely within the US technical capacity. And would utterly trash SK & Japan with the ensuing fallout.
In all, any thought by the US that they can decapitate or defang the NK mostly painlessly before NK causes great damage is crazy talk.
The sad reality is that wars in or about small, densely populated, and heavily armed countries result in society-collapse levels of death and destruction. And in a matter of hours or days, not years. This is *definitely *a game where the only way to win is not to play.
Like the OP, I think Trump’s a fucking psycho unfit to command a chauffeur. But unlike the OP, I recognize that Trump’s not the point. I have enough faith in the rest of the institutions and particularly the DoD that his toys will be taken away before his eventual tantrum gets out of hand.
Suddenly notice that a long standing problem(which he doesn’t really care about, and may be complicit in) has potential for political exploitation (such as illegal immigration from the South);
Start wildly exaggerating the concerns, while at the same time claiming with no factual support, that everyone who led before, has refused to act;
Propose an extreme and expensive “solution” which can’t possible be carried out;
Posture and preen in the tumult of public and international outcry that follows, while actually doing nothing;
Wait and watch for any incidental action, or even just wait until someone more rational reassesses the “danger” and says it’s not at bad as Trump previously said;
Declare that he has “solved” the problem through sheer force of personal will and cleverness.
“Discover” an NEW, long-standing concern that has political potential, and go back to step 1.
I’m not a military expert of any kind. I accept your arguments about the practical impossibly of quickly knocking out the DPRK’s artillery, as long as it stays conventional. Trump seems to think that nukes are just bigger bombs, and he has openly wondered why we can’t just use them. He has stated that we need more nukes, and his recent budget proposals call for IIRC another billion dollars for nukes. He also famously stated that we need to expand our nuclear arsenal until the world “comes to its senses regarding nukes.”
So here is an opportunity for Trump to show the world what terrible fate befalls those who defy us and pursue nukes. “You want nukes, do you? We’ll show you some fucking nukes!”
I don’t share your confidence in the moderating influence of the DoD. Mattis seems like a sensible guy. He will be missed.
[I still think our next war will be with Iran. I think this latest crisis with the DPRK will probably pass. But I’ve been wrong so often and so badly in the past couple years, that now I just spend my days remembering Kurt Vonnegut’s words of wisdom: “Anything that can be done will be done, so hunker down.”]
The South also has massive artillery installations along the 160 mile border. This is an entrenched force that knows every inch of the enemies territory. The guy who fires first has the advantage.
The world is not ready for carpet bombing with nuclear weapons. At the DMZ, North Korea is facing 21st century ordnance with WW2 weapons and strategy. Cluster bombs are cheaper and more effective than nuclear. In the forested hills of central Korea incendiaries can initiate fire storms. Cruise missiles can take out ammunition dumps. The concentration of targets along a single line is ideal for attack. Something like the distance from San Jose to Sacramento CA. The North could not sustain a meaningful response for more than a few minutes.
Artillery is notoriously ineffective and the NK artillery is targeted at military installations along the DMZ. There would be civilian casualties, but not massive devastation.
The correctness of my argument is not the issue. The point is: an argument can be made that will appeal to a CIC who wants to attack, and who is unable to perceive consequences.
Because the “they” in your question is one person. When he’s not busy threatening everybody with total destruction he’s busy killing off his own relatives.
Agree that from a professional geopolitical perspective it’s a coin flip whether Iran or NK is the next truly yuuge crisis.
The personal psycho-dynamics strongly favor Trump and Kim getting into an escalatory spiral. By comparison to Kim, the current and plausible future leadership of Iran are quite sensible and status quo.
The wild card is that Bannon is a frothing anti-Muslim. And may well be the actual “brains” driving this presidency. Plus the US is already actively involved in a shooting war in the region. Which lowers the depth of the water in the Rubicon so to speak.
As you & HST say, hunkering down is not crazy talk.
@Crane. Yes, that will be the argument of the shoot first crowd. Not highly based in reality, but it may still carry the day.
I don’t know how I’d feel about this. If the NK regime could be replaced w/o them firing WMD at Japan or South Korea, in the long run it would be a good thing IMO. They have the worst human rights on earth and are a major proliferator of WMD and missile technology. They have tried to help Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Syria and probably other countries develop nuclear weapons.
I know a lot of people look at what happened in Iraq, but would that happen in North Korea? North Korea is culturally homogenous, so there will not be various ethnic, racial and religious groups fighting a civil war like you had in Iraq. Maybe I just sound naive though like a lot of people did in the lead up to the Iraq war.
Yes, also the US could so a surprise first strike with Stealth B-2 bombers and cruise missiles, then follow that up with wave after wave of B-52’s. Yes the North has artillery in bunkers but the US has bunker buster bombs and also, how many of the Artillery crews are really going to stay manning their positions under continuous bombardment?
IMO, the threat to Seoul from the norths artillery has always been exaggerated. The major obstacles to a US first strike are really about getting China to at least stay out of it even if they complain and second the wild card of NK’s Nukes.
Is that entirely so? There are a lot of senior personnel in the military and the party who may well be as invested in the system as the Kim family. And the South Koreans may not be that keen on taking on responsibility for integrating the north into a single state.
I think lil’ Kimmy 3.0 has put to bed any speculation that he isn’t fully in charge at this point. Hell, he’s had several of the general staff (at least one of who was a relative…uncle I think) executed in spectacular ways (one by anti-aircraft gun IIRC).
As for reunification, last I heard the younger South Korean’s aren’t too keen but the older generation still would be willing to try.
You keep trying to pound this square peg into a round hole. And like many others here, I just don’t see it.
Even among it’s supporters, Obama’s foreign policy was pretty weak. So the new administration sees North Korea, now a nuclear power increasing refining missiles with the intent on being able to launch nuclear weapons into South Korea, Japan and ultimately, the United States.
So what should the Trump administration do? Say the only think on the table is too look at NK cross eyed, or mouth a stern “tsk, tsk?”
I think this administration is just trying to re-set foreign policy with a rouge nation with ambition to threaten the United States with nuclear weapons. Why wouldn’t you want him to put them on notice that this isn’t something US is going to push back on?
I see no evidence that he’s trying to manufacture a war. And you need much more than you’ve shown, which is little more than a dislike for Trump.
