By Oh Young-jin
The United States has talked about many types of strikes to deal with North Korea's nuclear and missile programs.
A preventive strike is aimed at blocking the North from acquiring capabilities to develop nuclear-tipped intercontinental missiles (ICBMs). A pre-emptive strike is to hit the North first before it fires its missiles or shows other signs of imminent attack.
A surgical strike is to take out a military target by inflicting minimum collateral damage such as civilian casualties.
Say, the United States tries to take out an intercontinental ballistic missile sitting on a launch pad in Sunan Airport in Pyongyang.
In this case, the U.S. strike would be a preventive strike because its aim would be to block the North from clearing the final hurdles to perfecting an ICBM such as miniaturization of payload, or reentry technology acquisition. But if the functioning ICBM targets San Francisco or Los Angeles, it would be a preemptive strike, for its purpose is to beat the North for a first hit.
Then, if the strike, either preventive or pre-emptive, sets its sights on the missile and the airport, it would qualify as a surgical strike.
Now, a new lexicon is entering the U.S. chocolate box of options ― very limited strike.
First, the new idea differs from a pre-emptive strike because it doesn't necessarily have as a goal beating the other side to the fire button. Rather, it is close to being a preventive strike because of its purpose of keeping the other side from gaining a certain attack capability. In many aspects, it is identified with a surgical strike because of the limited scale of damage it seeks to inflict.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, the need for it has been compelling.
U.S. President Donald Trump has been engaged in a war of words with the North's leader Kim Jong-un. Their tit-for-tat has gone up so much that there is little rhetorical room for any stronger threats. Trump already vowed to destroy the North totally or threatened to rain "fire and fury" on the comparatively small Kim dynasty "that the world has never seen before" or dubbed the U.S. restraint from using military options as "the calm before the storm."
The theory goes: If Trump doesn't take action, he would show what he really is ― an emperor without any clothes. So the U.S. needs something to cover up Trump's nakedness.
Here is how this very limited strike could take place.
The USS Pueblo has been moored along the Potong River in Pyongyang as a "victory" museum since 2013. The North commandeered the U.S. spy ship in 1968 near North Korean waters with one sailor killed and the remaining 82 released later.
The U.S. would fire a standoff missile outside the North's territory or use a stealth bomber to destroy the moored boat. The attack would be conducted in the dead of night so there would be few casualties. If everything goes as planned, it would send the North a strong warning that can scare it to suspend or halt its ICBM and nuclear development programs. It also would help Trump save face.
The reason why this option may look more attractive than others is that it can minimize the chance of the North counterattacking and thereby reducing the possibility of total war. Taking out missile sites or nuclear test areas would be an act of war, making the North react and leading to war. But bombing or hitting sparsely populated areas would not be taken as seriously and could dissuade Kim Jong-un from striking back in the internecine clash.
The U.S. Navy regards the Pueblo as one of its commissioned vessels and U.S. property that was taken by the North. So from a legal point of view, blowing it up could be no violation of international law. Or so it may think.
But if a missile or a plane is used, it would violate the North's airspace. Also it can't be ruled out that people would get killed.
Perhaps more significant is the reaction of Kim Jong-un.
Kim terrorizes his nation ― killing or purging anybody, high or low, for the slightest hint of disrespect. To Kim, ICBMs and nukes are as much a tool for going head-to-head with the United States, as they are for keeping his people on their toes. So if he lets any such provocation go without being answered in kind, it would raise questions about his reign of terror and invite a rebellion or assassination.
The U.S. could think that the North's retaliation could be prevented through an overwhelming show of force, having the strike followed by the amassing of strategic assets near the Korean Peninsula ― for example, three aircraft carriers, a couple of nuclear-powered submarines and a fleet of B1B and B2 bombers ready to go.
Now, the ball could be in the U.S. court. What if the North proceeded to mount a limited strike of its own in some remote areas such as the Yeongpyeong or Maegnyeong islands in the West Sea near the North Korean border? Would the U.S. stand down its massive forces?
The chances are that the U.S. has raised this idea of very limited strike with Seoul. No wonder if the Moon Jae-in government vehemently rejected it. Perhaps, President Moon openly said "over my dead body" a couple of months ago because the U.S. pushed for it.
Oh Young-jin (foolsdie5@ktimes.com and foolsdie@gmail.com) is The Korea Times' chief editorial writer.
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
A preventive strike is aimed at blocking the North from acquiring capabilities to develop nuclear-tipped intercontinental missiles (ICBMs). A pre-emptive strike is to hit the North first before it fires its missiles or shows other signs of imminent attack.
A surgical strike is to take out a military target by inflicting minimum collateral damage such as civilian casualties.
Say, the United States tries to take out an intercontinental ballistic missile sitting on a launch pad in Sunan Airport in Pyongyang.
In this case, the U.S. strike would be a preventive strike because its aim would be to block the North from clearing the final hurdles to perfecting an ICBM such as miniaturization of payload, or reentry technology acquisition. But if the functioning ICBM targets San Francisco or Los Angeles, it would be a preemptive strike, for its purpose is to beat the North for a first hit.
Then, if the strike, either preventive or pre-emptive, sets its sights on the missile and the airport, it would qualify as a surgical strike.
Now, a new lexicon is entering the U.S. chocolate box of options ― very limited strike.
First, the new idea differs from a pre-emptive strike because it doesn't necessarily have as a goal beating the other side to the fire button. Rather, it is close to being a preventive strike because of its purpose of keeping the other side from gaining a certain attack capability. In many aspects, it is identified with a surgical strike because of the limited scale of damage it seeks to inflict.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, the need for it has been compelling.
U.S. President Donald Trump has been engaged in a war of words with the North's leader Kim Jong-un. Their tit-for-tat has gone up so much that there is little rhetorical room for any stronger threats. Trump already vowed to destroy the North totally or threatened to rain "fire and fury" on the comparatively small Kim dynasty "that the world has never seen before" or dubbed the U.S. restraint from using military options as "the calm before the storm."
The theory goes: If Trump doesn't take action, he would show what he really is ― an emperor without any clothes. So the U.S. needs something to cover up Trump's nakedness.
Here is how this very limited strike could take place.
The USS Pueblo has been moored along the Potong River in Pyongyang as a "victory" museum since 2013. The North commandeered the U.S. spy ship in 1968 near North Korean waters with one sailor killed and the remaining 82 released later.
The U.S. would fire a standoff missile outside the North's territory or use a stealth bomber to destroy the moored boat. The attack would be conducted in the dead of night so there would be few casualties. If everything goes as planned, it would send the North a strong warning that can scare it to suspend or halt its ICBM and nuclear development programs. It also would help Trump save face.
The reason why this option may look more attractive than others is that it can minimize the chance of the North counterattacking and thereby reducing the possibility of total war. Taking out missile sites or nuclear test areas would be an act of war, making the North react and leading to war. But bombing or hitting sparsely populated areas would not be taken as seriously and could dissuade Kim Jong-un from striking back in the internecine clash.
The U.S. Navy regards the Pueblo as one of its commissioned vessels and U.S. property that was taken by the North. So from a legal point of view, blowing it up could be no violation of international law. Or so it may think.
But if a missile or a plane is used, it would violate the North's airspace. Also it can't be ruled out that people would get killed.
Perhaps more significant is the reaction of Kim Jong-un.
Kim terrorizes his nation ― killing or purging anybody, high or low, for the slightest hint of disrespect. To Kim, ICBMs and nukes are as much a tool for going head-to-head with the United States, as they are for keeping his people on their toes. So if he lets any such provocation go without being answered in kind, it would raise questions about his reign of terror and invite a rebellion or assassination.
The U.S. could think that the North's retaliation could be prevented through an overwhelming show of force, having the strike followed by the amassing of strategic assets near the Korean Peninsula ― for example, three aircraft carriers, a couple of nuclear-powered submarines and a fleet of B1B and B2 bombers ready to go.
Now, the ball could be in the U.S. court. What if the North proceeded to mount a limited strike of its own in some remote areas such as the Yeongpyeong or Maegnyeong islands in the West Sea near the North Korean border? Would the U.S. stand down its massive forces?
The chances are that the U.S. has raised this idea of very limited strike with Seoul. No wonder if the Moon Jae-in government vehemently rejected it. Perhaps, President Moon openly said "over my dead body" a couple of months ago because the U.S. pushed for it.
Oh Young-jin (foolsdie5@ktimes.com and foolsdie@gmail.com) is The Korea Times' chief editorial writer.
