For those of you who derided the administration for holding a double standard by ignoring the North Korean threat while dealing with Iraq: [/I]US plans total war against Kim By Ian Mather, Diplomatic Correspondent WHILE the White House continues its public war of words with North Korea, a battle plan is already being laid in secret by military strategists at the Pentagon. Until now leader Kim Jong Il’s increasingly flamboyant and frightening game of international brinkmanship has only attracted condemnation from the Bush administration. But behind the scenes, American strategists are now weighing up the option of a pre-emptive military strike against North Korea as the rogue Stalinist state forges ahead with its plans to build a nuclear arsenal - threatening not only a "domino effect" of nuclear proliferation in east Asia but also a strike against the very heart of America. It is a terrifying scenario, with likely casualties running to one million during the first day of an attack on North Korea - most falling victim to the long-range artillery trained on its southern neighbour. Last week, in its most defiant act yet, a North Korean fighter jet crossed the border and played cat-and-mouse with a South Korean aircraft. When the US condemned the incursion, North Korea declared that there could be nuclear war on the Korean peninsula "at any time". The US responded by placing on alert its long-range bombers based on Guam and ordering the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson and its battle group to sail to waters off the Korean Peninsula, fuelling talk of a possible US pre-emptive strike against North Korea’s nuclear facilities. Military analysts predict North Korea’s next move will be a provocative missile test similar to the one carried out in 1998 which demonstrated that it could hit Japan. Only these days, North Korea has an as yet untested missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to California and, according to the CIA, "one or two plutonium-based devices". As Victor Cha, a Korea expert at Washington’s Georgetown University, points out: "North Korea is not just a peninsula security problem for the US anymore. It is a homeland security issue." And one member of the Capitol Hill staff warned: "They [the North Koreans] are the masters of brinkmanship, until they get to the point where they have crossed as yet undeclared lines." Japan has already drawn a line in the sand, saying it would have the legal right to strike first if it were to receive intelligence of a planned missile attack by North Korea. The threat immediately drew condemnation from China and claims that Japan was "using the North Korean crisis to create an atmosphere to rearm". China is resisting pressure from the Americans to exploit its position as North Korea’s leading trading partner and aid donor to persuade Kim to abandon his nuclear weapons programme. China’s main concern is that a collapse of the North Korean economy would have a devastatingly destabilising impact on the region. It also fears a powerful re-unified neighbour. The North Korean threat will dominate meetings this week that US Secretary of State Colin Powell is due to hold in Japan, China and South Korea. He is expected to announce the resumption of some food aid shipments to North Korea. But the gesture will do little to temper Kim’s nuclear ambitions. Rather than being a means to an end, his nuclear arsenal increasingly appears to be an end in itself. Ironically, Powell, the reconstructed dove, had urged a continuation of Bill Clinton’s policy of engagement with Pyongyang when the Bush administration came to power. He was quickly slapped down by the president. Powell was directly involved in the contingency plans drawn up by the US for a war in the Korean peninsula after Pyongyang threatened in 1993 to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These are now having to be drastically revised to take account of its military commitments in the Gulf. The US military assets now being sent to the region could stage air and missile strikes against the nuclear plant at Yongbyon and other sites where the North may have concealed production facilities for, and stockpiles of, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Strikes would also target the production and launching sites of North Korea’s growing ballistic missile programme. But the odds are not good for the US. According to its own estimates, one million casualties could be expected in the first 24 hours of a war. Even though much of North Korea’s hardware is old, its army is nearly a million strong and more than half of its soldiers are deployed within 100 miles of the demilitarised zone with 8,000 artillery pieces. It is estimated that North Korea could fire 300,000 shells an hour on to targets in the south. In addition, it is believed to have about 5,000 tons of chemical and biological agents, including sarin, anthrax, smallpox and the plague. John Pike, executive director of GlobalSecurity.org, a group that tracks military developments, said: "The problem is that you just don’t know what fraction of North Korea’s capabilities would be destroyed in those attacks. " Kim has pledged to respond in kind to any US military move. On Friday, North Korea condemned next month’s joint US-South Korean military exercises as a "nuclear test war" and prelude to military attack. Andrew Kennedy, head of Asia programmes at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said: " There are few good military options available to the Bush administration. North Korea has spent the last 50 years planning for this. The missiles are already in place, and the tunnels are already dug. All they have to do is pull the trigger." Kennedy added: "You have two countries, North Korea and Iraq, one with nuclear weapons and one without, one that is contained and one that is not. Yet you invade the one that has no nuclear weapons and is already contained, and you do a deal and send aid to the other." As Powell arrives in Seoul tomorrow he will have good reason to rue his political master’s decision not to heed the advice he offered two years ago. [/I] http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030223-dprk01.htm If true, this is disturbing. Although, not completely surprising, and I am not sure altogether bad...
i think we have battle plans in place for just about everybody...that's standard operation procedure, particularly with a nation that we stand at odds with. of course, it's real hard to argue for diplomacy with a nation that breaks every treaty it signs.
Does anyone else fear WWIII is upon us?? Bush has made some SERIOUS enemies since coming into office.... I can only hope that peace will resolve some of these things.
I keep picturing those Nostradamus "End of the World" headlines on the National Enquirer type magazines in the checkout lines at HEB.
treeman, interesting read. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I for one feel that the piece actually supports my concerns: that North Korea is a hell of lot more relevant to US security than Iraq. I still think better diplomacy, starting during October, 2001, would have given us much better footing in the world of 2003. I am still at a loss to exactly name what good the "axis of evil" inclusion of North Korea has done us.
North Korea was an enemy before Bush came into office, Drewdog. Bush is just prepared to deal in a more... final manner with them than Clinton was. MadMax: Yes, we've got battle plans developed for pretty much any contingency you could dream up, but it sounds to me like they're refining this one. Making it current. We are also deploying more forces to theater. The bomber and carrier deployments have made the news... An unnamed infantry division is also readying its equipment (this has not made the news yet). I don't know if it has received orders yet, but unlike those units slated or expecting to go to SW Asia, it is not painting its vehicles desert tan.
It's weird. This pretty much sums up what I've thought for a while now. Excellent read, Treeman. Thanks. It's hard not to be dismayed by what appears to be some serious blunders by Bush. He seems to be getting some bad advice. Bush should do something about that.
B-bob: Personally, I think it is highly possible that Kim and Saddam have an understanding... That if one is attacked by us, the other will start some commotion in order to split our forces. Better diplomacy never hurts, but as far as the North Koreans go, "diplomacy" consists primarily of caving into nuclear blackmail demands. The "axis of evil" comment may well have been inflammatory and unnecessary, and, I will concede, counterproductive in hindsight, but it was largely true.
We'll seriously need to get corporate sponsors for this one. Like the AT&T F-16 Fighter or the Gatorate tank.
treeman, Thanks. I think we have some agreement here, for what it's worth, especially about what the word diplomacy means on that particular peninsula. What I'm lamenting is that we might have built a more solid gang of allies and sympathizers. The only point I find odd is any sort of collaboration between those two weirdos though. Perhaps you're right, but Kim has a reputation of speaking with and of trusting exactly nobody. I am far from an expert on North Korea however, and the governments, and their international isolation, appear to have a lot in common.
B-bob: As far as allies v. North Korea goes, that coalition would be far easier to build than the current one WRT Iraq is proving to be. Everyone knows that Kim is a nut, that his regime is belligerent, irrational, and utterly dangerous, and no one - not even the Chinese - wants a nuclear-armed NK regime. Even the French would jump on board that one (since they have no significant economic or political interests with Kim). As far as collaboration goes, we know for a fact that North Korea and Iraq have collaborated on ballistic missile and nuclear technological issues in the past. It would not be a great leap to conclude that since they have the same enemies and largely the same intersts, they may decide to ally in deed as well as in spirit.
This war would make sense. I do have to ponder the question, though, should we be wary of Born Agains holding office? They seem to hold a certain point of view that might hold matters... like the end of the world... in a casual regard. They also seem to be on the side of Team Israel (also for Born Again reasons)... so their actions might be looked upon as unfair by Team Islam. Then again, I'm a coward, so I will always choose to placate the most belligerent team.
This could be a good "out" for Bush. I don't pretend to know what percentage of the world is actually "for" or "against" war with Iraq, but the dissenters are certainly vocal, and Bush is getting hammered right now. He could say, "Fine...you want a few more months of inspections....you got 'em. In the meantime, we're just gonna move all these troops east and take out Kim." A lot could change in a few months, and if at that time it's not politically "favorable" to go to war with Iraq, any number of reasons could be given--or not given--not to go. The only problem is that there is no bluffing this time. If we go to Korea, we have to go to war. But at least he could paint himself out of the corner he's in right now and still save some face.
Pole: I would say that the likelihood that we will go to war with Iraq within the next month to month and a half is about 100%. Bush is not interested in an "out" from the Iraq crisis. We will reluctantly deal with both issues simultanreously if need be, but if we have to (more accurately, are able to) put one on the backburner for a while, it will be North Korea.
The person pulling the strings behind the scenes for Bush with the hardline foreign policy issues is Condoleezza Rice. Rice is a hardliner but she is very intelligent so I hope they will do what's best for America. The "axis of evil" comment may well have been inflammatory and unnecessary, and, I will concede, counterproductive in hindsight, but it was largely true. While I thought the "axis of evil" statement was assinine because it sounded like Bush was giving a speech to people that read on a kindergarden level it's purpose was to plant a seed in everyones mind on what was to come. The inevitablity of a possilble wars with these countries. I think North Korea took it this way to so now they want to be the first one to strike instead of waiting on America to do so. It is a terrifying scenario, with likely casualties running to one million during the first day of an attack on North Korea - most falling victim to the long-range artillery trained on its southern neighbour. One million casualties sounds very excessive for a 24 hour period unless nukes or chemical/biological weapons were involved. That's a real high number IMO but I'm not a military specialist so what the hell do I know.
The Real Shady: The first thing that NK is likely to do before any of its troops even cross the DMZ is throw about 800-1,000 SCUDs and FROGs (a shorter-range ballistic missile) at Seoul. Many of these will likely be tipped with chemical warheads. Alternately, they may nuke Seoul and use the chems on forward-deployed military forces and bases. Either way, Seoul stands to lose quite a few people... Most of the casualties of such a war on our/SK side would likely occur on the first day. I would think that most of their tube artillery would be directed at our/SK troops along the DMZ.
I don't think there is much of a chance that we go to war with Korea. Korea views its military, in my opinion, as a tool to force economic aid. This whole mess is a business negotiation that will end in more aid to North Korea.
But don't you think that North Korea knows that if they use one nuke that the war is going to be over immediatly. They will get vaporized by America if they launched a nuke at anybody.
