By Kim Rahn
It seems the United States thinks a precision strike against North Korea is one of its serious options, despite concerns about catastrophic results it might trigger, as the Donald Trump administration withdrew its nominee for ambassador to Seoul who opposed the idea.
Victor Cha, a senior adviser and Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post Wednesday that a strike against the Kim Jong-un regime would only delay its nuclear and missile programs but could not prevent them.
Cha’s contribution was posted on the same day it was reported the Trump administration recently withdrew the nomination of Cha for the ambassadorial position, a rare decision because the South Korean government already approved the nomination.
By quoting U.S. government sources, the Washington Post reported the withdrawal came after Cha disagreed with National Security Council officials over their consideration of a limited strike on Pyongyang, which is the so-called “bloody nose” strategy.
Indeed, Cha expressed concerns about the strategy in the article titled “Giving North Korea a ‘bloody nose’ carries a huge risk to Americans,” partially hinting that the disagreement was the reason for the withdrawal of his nomination.
“(About the North’s threats,) the answer is not, as some Trump administration officials have suggested, a preventive military strike,” he wrote, noting there are 230,000 Americans in South Korea.
“Some may argue that U.S. casualties and even a wider war on the Korean Peninsula are risks worth taking, given what is at stake. But a strike (even a large one) would only delay North Korea’s missile-building and nuclear programs, which are buried in deep, unknown places impenetrable to bunker-busting bombs. A strike also would not stem the threat of proliferation but rather exacerbate it, turning what might be a North Korean moneymaking endeavor into a vengeful effort intended to equip other bad actors against us.”
Cha suggested enhanced and sustained pressure on the North as an alternative coercive strategy. “This strategy is likely to deliver the same potential benefits as a limited strike, along with other advantages, without the self-destructive costs.”