We Must Go to War With North Korea and Iran if Necessary

White House Dossier ^ | 4/19/17 | Keith Koffler

[nathanbedford]

I am afraid I cannot share the attitude of the two of you concerning initiating a preemptive war against North Korea and Iran. My trepidation increases manifold when contemplating a war against North Korea.

As I said in an earlier reply, Iran is the easier target, the far less risky target because they do not yet have a nuke, and, over time, the far greater threat. North Korea is a much more difficult target, it is far more risky because they do have a nuke and they are in a position with conventional artillery to bombard Seoul causing a near Holocaust, and North Korea is not as dangerous a long-term adversary.

Geography has made Iran a potentially more dangerous enemy because of its ability to choke off the supply of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, its vast reserves of oil, and it is worldwide attachment to Islam, albeit to the minority sect of Shiite Islam. The geography of North Korea is quite different. It, of course, can threaten South Korea and Japan but that does not turn the Muslim world against us and it does not affect the world supply of oil. On the other hand, if we precipitate a nuclear exchange with North Korea which touches Japan, the immediate economic and domestic consequences for the United States would be catastrophic.

The Islamic connection also means that Iran is potentially a far more dangerous enemy because it is ultimate goal is the imposition of sharia on the whole world. This is a spiritual commitment which is unshakable. North Korea's ultimate goal is the imposition of its rule over South Korea. If it has geographical ambitions beyond the peninsula, it bumps up against China and one would expect China to be very vigorous in defending its sovereignty. Hence, even though China has been a treacherous ally in our efforts to contain North Korea, when real Chinese existential interests are at stake, one can expect the Chinese to be ruthless. Finally, the North Korea regime is so unstable, so insane even, that one could have a reasonable expectation that it will disintegrate, or end in a coup or somehow implode before North Korea becomes a threat to the American continent. While Hope is not a policy, it is not unreasonable to believe that if Korea were to become such a threat to the United States before it implodes it will surely have become a threat to China before that.

Islam has about 1 1/2 billion adherents all of whom are potential fanatical enemies of Western civilization while there are very few North Koreans who for the most part are impoverished. While there are about 1 1/2 billion Chinese, there is no reason to believe that China will become the poodle of North Korea and no reason to believe that there is a burning desire among the Chinese to bless the world with Marxism, their ambitions appear to be nationalistic rather than Marxist. In furthering their nationalist ambitions the Chinese will unquestionably be an extremely formidable adversary, but not necessarily one that seeks domination beyond commercial domination.

Finally, the North Korea regime is crazier than the mullahs of Iran. So we have Iranian mullahs without the bomb who are not as certifiable as the North Koreans with the bomb. The relative danger poised in an immediate conflict by these two nations is clear to distinguish. Longer-term, after Iran gets the bomb, the situation is reversed.

I have long advocated that the United States must do what is necessary to prevent Iran getting the bomb but, in contrast, I recognize the extreme downside of attempting to de-nuke Korea.

[justa-hairyape]

Russia wont let you attack Iran right now. They have a mutually assurred defense pact. Similar to NATO.

[Chainmail]

Trepidation is not a viable choice. We either accept a manic, violent and fully ICBM-with-nukes North Korea and the devastating future that portends or we do what we can to eliminate it now.

We have options at this point short of direct invasion:

Pressure on the UN, China, and Russia to get NK to comply with international law.

Or

Increased and hopefully shattering sanctions to bring that country to its knees

Or

precision nonnuclear attacks against nuclear research, storage, and support facilities (such weapons exist) plus decapitating NK leadership.

Sitting still and kvetching only guarantees something much worse, soon.

[sargon]

But there is no more immediacy in the Korea or Iran threats today than there has been for years and it is quite conceivable that the situation will continue as is for years to come. Meanwhile, the fiscal situation creeps ever closer to becoming irredeemable.

I disagree. As soon as North Korea becomes capable of reliably delivering nuclear-aremd (or EMP-armed) missles to our homeland, the "immediacy" become profoundly increased, IMHO.

It seems eminently logical to me that the longer we wait to deal with an unstable North Korea—a Noerth Korea who is continuing to develop its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems—the risk will continue to incrementally ratchet upwards.

At what point such ratcheting suddenly becomes intolerable immediacy I can't say, but I'm increasingly getting the sense that delay could easily entail greater risk, versus trying to address the issue now.

My suspicion is that President Trump doesn't want this issue hanging over the head of the US, and indeed is probablyl of the opinion that this issue, like so many others which have been procrastinated about, should have been addressed long ago.

I tend to sympathize with that sentiment...

[nathanbedford]

We have options at this point short of direct invasion:

We are fully agreed on this point and we must exhaust every one of them before resorting to military action which has a high probability of resulting in atomic war. I remind you that in an earlier post you said:

I was a Nuclear Weapons Employment Officer and was involved in several live nuclear tests, so I know what the issues really are - so it's much more than worrying about risking your IRA.

To which I replied:

"No argument from me on this score. And I have never said in an either-or situation that we do nothing. However, I do not share your view that we should bomb North Korea except in the very last extreme, the risks are simply too high. " You offered another policy:

Pressure on the UN, China, and Russia to get NK to comply with international law.

Been there, done that. For all the reasons I expressed in my previous replies these remedies have failed. But that does not mean it should not be tried again. Perhaps Trump has a different card to play with the Chinese. Perhaps he has threatened the Chinese, or perhaps he has offered the Chinese trade advantages (contrary to his campaign posture) which might induce them to actually apply real pressure. A second recommendation of yours should also be attempted:

Increased and hopefully shattering sanctions to bring that country to its knees

Again, been there done that but it appears that this time perhaps the Chinese are actually implementing real sanctions. We must wait and see. But waiting and seeing is not dithering as you suggest. Your final suggestion is one which should raise the hairs on the back of every man's neck:

precision nonnuclear attacks against nuclear research, storage, and support facilities (such weapons exist) plus decapitating NK leadership.

There is a huge difference between co-existing with the nuclear power and poking one with a stick. While the Iranians have a worldview that compels them to make war on the West, the leaders of Korea are thugs who might be animated by ambitions for the all of the Korean Peninsula but hardly entertain visions of converting the whole world to communism. Kim Jong Un's main motivation is personal survival. If you initiate "precision attacks" to decapitate him he is very likely to feel that he has nothing more to lose and unleash his atomic arsenal. That arsenal cannot by way of missiles reach the United States, but atomic bombs placed in freighters of third-party nations can be exploded in many American ports. In any event, a rat in a trap will fight and one must expect the North Koreans to unleash a devastating reign of artillery on the tens of millions of people who live in Seoul, even if atomic retaliation is averted.

Sitting still and kvetching only guarantees something much worse, soon.

As I said no one advocates a policy of dither. But rushing off to military action against an atomic power which has done little more than bluster is a precipitous policy courting atomic war. Of all of the reasons I have expressed in my preceding replies concerning the dangers of atomic war in Korea, the difficulties of identifying the targets and taking them out, the downside risk to the Korean Peninsula and our troops in Korea, you have made no substantial reply except a sense of urgency when there is no immediate threat.

You have not responded to the observation that the Chinese have no more long-term interest in abiding an out of control nuclear North Korea than we do, indeed they are even more incentivized to neutralize such a dangerous neighbor then we are. Their interests are not the same, the Koreans do not speak "Mandarin" as suggested, their ethnicities are very different, there antipathy one to another is real and historic.

Consider the run-up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the effect sanctions imposed without military strikes aimed to "decapitate" the Emperor had on precipitating a strike against us by the Japanese. Consider how dangerous it is to us when these decisions are made by an adversary which is closed as were the Japanese in 1941 and as the Koreans certainly are now. Do not suppose that the equation that makes sense to us as Westerners even computes for the North Koreans, it did not for the Japanese. One thing is very clear, their instinct to survive is no less than the instinct which abided in the Japanese high command. We must find a way to de-nuke North Korea without blowing it up. We have plenty of time to do that, when all else fails.

Before we beat the drums of war, let us exhaust all possibilities you have so sagely recommended and let us not accuse ourselves in the meantime of "Sitting still and kvetching."

[sargon]

Before we beat the drums of war, let us exhaust all possibilities you have so sagely recommended and let us not accuse ourselves in the meantime of "Sitting still and kvetching."

Absolutely. I'm hoping that President Trump is able to solve the North Korea issue diplomatically. What an achievement it would be!

If Obama had really wanted to build a lasting foreign policy legacy, North Korea and Israel would have been good focal points. Instead, he just turned the entire Mideast into a zone of chaos, and punted the North Korea issue to the next administration.

I think President Trump is going to surprise a lot of people with his foreign policy initiatives and successes. Winning at home often is often facilitated by first winning abroad...

[nathanbedford]

I think President Trump is going to surprise a lot of people with his foreign policy initiatives and successes. Winning at home often is often facilitated by first winning abroad...

One can hope. But for Trump as opposed to, say, Obama the difficulties and risks are far greater. Obama was shielded from the consequences of his domestic and foreign policy errors by a sycophantic press. But even under these favorable atmospherics, Obama was far more likely to escape criticism and losses in the polls because his policy was essentially one of dither. He simply would not risk being called to account. No matter where the issue, (except apparently in Libya) Obama's policy was disengagement or passive aggressive hostility against, for example, Israel. He rode this policy with the support of the press and with stratospheric approval ratings.

Trump now undertakes a parlous assignment in both Iran and now in North Korea while disadvantaged terribly in the favorability ratings, having achieved victory only in the electoral college, opposed vehemently by worldwide as well as national press, and having set a very high standard to actually achieve results (tired of winning yet?), where the options are ugly and the downside is perhaps even uglier. I cannot even begin to describe the degree of antipathy against Trump here in Germany. It is difficult every day to defend him against a combination of simmering anti-Americanism and resolute hatred of Donald Trump. The irony is I do that virtually every day abroad while being attacked at home for being a Trump hater. The people in Europe think I am a a redneck ignoramus and the people in America think I am a mindless never-Trumper. It appears that the prophet is without honor everywhere including his own land.

Just because we recognize the pitfalls in trying to safeguard America against twin threats, does not mean that as patriots we do not support our president, to the contrary I for one recognize his courage in staking his reputation as he addresses these problems. I have always said I would support Trump when he is right and oppose him when he is wrong. So far on these issues he is right.

[nathanbedford]

greenlight from China to strike nuke facilities but note Chinese recognize cost of retaliation to Seoul.

[Chainmail]

Well, I can't believe I have had the good fortune to have an extended discussion with the esteemed NathanBedford!

Here's why I believe that we have a shorter window of action with North Korea:

1. They have over the intervening years successfully achieved a functional fission weapon of a yield approximately that of the Hiroshima weapon. We should have stopped this while they were still getting failures but we had less than effective leadership here during those years. The North Koreans are working on Fusion weapons now: do we wait until they reach megaton capabilities?

.The North Koreans are working very rapidly on delivery systems to reach the continental US - both land-launched mobile systems and submarine-launched systems and have accelerated development and testing programs. They had one blow up on the pad and everyone breathed a sigh of relief, as though a single failure gave us a reprieve. It doesn't. There is only one reason to develop these capabilities and that is to be able to attack our cities. How much longer should we wait to find out?

3.Last but not least, all of the rogue nations including Pakistan and Iran - are watching Kim ramp things up. Should we just watch with fascination and hope for the best, or should we stop this process while we still can?

We have means available above and beyond that which we can discuss in an unclas environment. I would be in favor of using them to prevent the deaths of millions - wouldn't you?

By the way, the NK long-range artillery is useless except as a "to whom it may concern" terror weapon. The CEP for Kim's long-range guns is probably half a mile or more. We have the means to detect within seconds the exact location of the firing unit and more that enough assets to take each of them out very quickly. They commit suicide by shooting.

[nathanbedford]

Well, I can't believe I have had the good fortune to have an extended discussion with the esteemed NathanBedford!

You just ended it with that remark.

[Chainmail]

You're either excessively sensitive or more likely, you haven't the military experience to respond to my last post.

Pity.

[nathanbedford]

What Would the Second Korean War Look Like?

[LibWhacker]

*Shudder* Those numbers are awful. But I think it is our delay that has made them so.

A full-scale attack on the North in the 70s would have resulted in many deaths, but much fewer than an attack in the 80s or 90s which, in turn, would have resulted in fewer deaths than the ghastly numbers we’re going to see today, if we launch an attack to derail Kim’s nuclear ambitions.

However, here’s the kicker: In keeping with that trend, as ghastly as the numbers will be if we attack now, imo they would be far fewer than they will be if we put off dealing with that lunatic again, say another 10 or 20 years when he will have likely MIRV’d as many hydrogen bombs atop ICBMs as he could possibly want, so as to be able to turn us all into ash, as he’s so fond of predicting.

We cannot afford to play the game with him any longer. We can’t gamble on him having hydrogen bombs and being sane enough not to use them, especially when his whole damned family has given us every indication that the entire line is genetically quite insane.

[nathanbedford]

We cannot afford to play the game with him any longer.

In fact we can afford to play the game with him for years to come until he has reliable ICBMs upon what she can reliably place nuclear weapons. The question is whether we can afford not to continue to play the game. The answer to that has a lot more to do with China than it does with the latest kerfuffle which sent (or not sent) aircraft carriers steaming. It certainly has a lot more to do with China than it has to do with understandable but unhelpful feelings of impatience at home.

There is great hope that Trump has induced China to actually police North Korea either because he has extended China favorable trade inducements, promised not to prosecute Chinese trade cheating, or, best case, because he has convinced China to recognize its own security interests in preventing a rogue North Korea from bringing catastrophe to China as well as the rest of the world.

There are strong indications that China means business this time, it has curbed the importation of Korean coal and canceled airline connecting flights. It has signaled through its propaganda newspaper that it will not go to war to defend North Korea, absent an American invasion, which only includes a strike against Korea's nuclear capacity. This greatly changes the equation in two respects: first, it makes it more likely that Korea will accept some sort of face-saving arrangement that curbs its nuclear program and second, it means that a strike against North Korea's nuclear facilities limits the danger to artillery strikes on Seoul and the civilian population there and to atomic attacks of limited range on the peninsula and at sea but, crucially, no intervention by China.

President Trump has spoken of decapitating the North Korean regime and that is very dangerous because if, as I believe the guiding motivation of that regime is personal survival, it will behave as though it is cornered and has no other options and so is much more likely to retaliate even with atomic bombs. If, on the other hand, it is is well understood that American strikes are limited to nuclear facilities, it is more likely that the war can be contained. It is very difficult to make these calculations with any assurance. The behavior of the Japanese in the war on up to World War II attack on Pearl Harbor is instructive of a failure to understand the motivations and worldview of an adversary. In that case we only imposed economic sanctions, we did not strike at any industrial capacity in the Japanese homeland yet the Japanese high command consider themselves so threatened that they undertook a very high stakes gamble.

Finally, I think we all reflect on the history of the Iraq war and acknowledge that is was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time and not just on its own terms. The quagmire that ensued in that war made it absolutely politically impossible for George Bush to act aggressively against Iran as it undertook its own nuclear program. The war in Iraq cost us Iran.

It would be doubly self-defeating if a war in North Korea cost us Iran a second time because, in the long run, a nuclear Iran is a far more dangerous threat than is a nuclear Korea with whom we have lived for a long time. There is time enough to start a war in North Korea. It seems as though Trump is running a power-play now that he has apparently enlisted China a play which is to be supported as the best opportunity available to us now to protect America's long term interests. If the attempt fails, then bombs away but only after all the relevant potential allies such as Japan are brought fully on board and put some skin in the game.

Finally, the American public must be made to understand the risks which are grave so it would not be amiss to secure a declaration of war. If it is an either or choice, I say the greater risk is Iran. If it is impossible to bring North Korea to reason and if in the years to come they are imminently capable of striking the American homeland, then, yes, we must strike. They are simply not there yet.

[nathanbedford]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/26/north-korea-threat-experts-paint-dark-picture-what-fallout-pre-emptive-strike-may-look-like.html

[LibWhacker]

Pales in comparison to the carnage of a full-scale nuclear attack on the US, a capacity toward which loony Kim is diligently working. We don’t dare let it get to that point.

Whose fault is that? Ours? I don’t think so.

Absent Divine intervention, which is our best hope (so start praying everyone!), I’m afraid we’ll need to launch a surprise first strike, full-scale nuclear attack on North Korea as soon as Kim drops his guard, if he ever does, and try to limit the death and destruction to North Korea as much as possible.

[TomasUSMC]

Its a shame that NK will be able to nuke South Korea and probably Japan....but that is not going to stop us and have us standby while the USA is nuked. South Korea and Japan have had plenty of damn time and have made plenty of damn money over the years to have prepared themselves for this moment.

We are gonna Nuke NK, and a lot more than just nuke them. The neighbors better be ready.

Time to short Samsung, Kia and .....