Rhetoric won't trigger war
By Tong Kim
.jpg?w=728)
Belligerent rhetoric from Pyongyang and Washington has peaked to a dangerous state of psychological warfare, not to the breaking point of war. Reacting to U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning of “fire and fury,” North Korea announced its plan to launch four Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missiles by mid-August toward waters near Guam where B-1B bombers are based.
Pyongyang’s plan, albeit subject to final approval by its leader Kim Jong-un, was unusually specific in terms of the type and number of missiles to be fired, and their timing, flight trajectory and target points. The plan poses the most serious threat to the U.S. so far, if it was not another round of bluffing that should be interpreted with a grain of salt.
On August 8, Trump made an extemporaneous comment, if North Korea keeps threatening the United States, “they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” Trump also warned that North Korea could be wiped out by the U.S. nuclear arsenal “now far stronger and more powerful than ever before,” adding “Hopefully, we will never have to use this power.”
On Aug 10, Trump doubled down on his threat, “Maybe it (the fire and fury warning) was not tough enough.” He would seek to de-nuke the world, arguing that “nuclear” is the greatest threat in the world. Pyongyang had said in a new statement that the U.S. "would suffer a shameful defeat and final doom" if it "persists in extreme military adventure, sanctions and pressure.”
It appears neither side is going to stand down from escalating rhetoric. Without discussing the details of military options, Trump said, if Kim Jong-un “does something in Guam, it will be an event the likes of which nobody has seen before.” If the escalation is only an exchange of bluffing, and both sides are convinced it is not intended for translation into action, there will be no war.
The “fire and fury” warning could in theory turn out as Trump’s final option. Korean President Moon Jae-in made clear his position against war to Trump in a telephone call on Aug. 7. Moon’s position will not matter until, and unless, the U.S. seeks Seoul’s concurrence to military options on the North.
On Aug. 1, Senator Lindsey Graham said on NBC’s “Today Show” that Trump “told me to my face if there is going to be a war to stop them, it will be over there. If thousands will die, they will die over there. They are not going to die here.” The Republican Senator said military options are “inevitable.” Trump did not contradict Graham. If true, it would be harmful to the U.S. alliance with South Korea.
Defense Secretary James Mattis struck a similar tone to Trump’s warning, saying that North Korea “should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.”On Aug. 10, Mattis said he had military options available for the commander-in-chief. He also said war with North Korea would be “catastrophic” and a war that fundamentally we would not want.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the President told North Korea of his resolve to protect the U.S. and its allies “in language that Kim Jong-un understands.” On Aug. 1, Tillerson said the U.S. does not seek regime change or an accelerated Korean unification, or an excuse to send troops north of the 38th parallel. “We are not your enemy.”
On Aug. 5, White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster mentioned “a preventive war” instead of “a preventive strike” as an option to resolve the North Korean threat. CIA director Mike Pompeo insinuated earlier at an Aspen Forum that his agency was developing an option to remove Kim Jong-un.
North Korea has been one of the most urgent security challenges for the Trump administration, as Pyongyang keeps advancing its nuclear development as seen in two recent ICBM tests, proving a capability of reaching the homeland of the United States. This was followed by reports of the latest intelligence assessments that North Korea has miniaturized a nuclear warhead.
While the threat of war with North Korea was dominating Washington news cycles, there was a question of whether the Trump administration was speaking with one voice. Trump’s inconsistent tweets and his often-confusing statements entailed a lot of criticism as imprudent or even reckless.
No country wants to go to war or is ready for war at this point. Rhetoric alone will not trigger war but it can trigger a miscalculation. What’s your take?
Tong Kim is a Washington correspondent and columnist for The Korea Times. He is also a fellow at the Institute of Korean-American Studies. He can be contacted at tong.kim8@yahoo.com.