When I started this blog I thought I could just focus on the 20th Century but there are now some issues in this century that have connections to the past that are just too important to ignore and a possible reawakening of conflict in Korea is one. We have to remember the Korean War (or UN Police Action) has never officially been ended. All we have is a very tense cease fire.
A fan of my blog has sent me some very interesting info from Popular Mechanics written by
Sharon Weinberger on this issue.
Coming up with war scenarios involving North Korea has become something of a cottage industry among journalists, think tankers and politicians. It's even inspired a contest in Seoul. But there's a reason for the enduring popularity of this type of scenario building: with a standing army of over a million people, a conflict with North Korea has the potential to morph into full-scale war the likes of which hasn't been seen for decades.
Today, there's no shortage of sparks that could ignite a war: a naval clash that escalates out of control, or a new provocation, like an invasion aimed at an island close to the site of this week's artillery barrage against a South Korean island, or perhaps even something new, like a massive North Korean cyber attack against the United States.
The North Koreans' willingness to test the boundaries makes the situation tense. "Their general behavior is to test how serious their adversaries are," says Justin Hastings, an international affairs professor and Asia expert at George Tech's Ivan Allen Collage. "I think, given North Korea's leadership transition, it becomes more problematic precisely because there could be a miscalculation."
If a miscalculation happens, and war breaks out, the United States has a series of "OPLANs," or Operational Plans, that determine how it would respond. For example, if North Korea uses its thousands of pieces of artillery against Seoul, the United States would likely use its significant naval and Air Force assets to strike targets across the length of the DMZ.
Any campaign in North Korea would, early on in the conflict, likely include precision strikes on North Korea's nuclear facilities to ensure Kim Jong Il's regime never has the opportunity to use its small, but threatening nuclear arsenal. That would mean dropping precision weapons on facilities like Yongbyon, the recently revealed uranium enrichment facility, and other known and suspected WMD sites inside North Korea.
In that early stage of the conflict, the United States would likely use its arsenal of advanced precision weaponry, including (if it's ready), the new Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a 30,000-pound weapon that is designed specifically to penetrate and destroy deeply buried targets.
But after that, don't expect a precision-style shock and awe campaign like was seen in the early days of the Iraq invasion, when U.S. air power was able to drop guided weapons on key Iraqi government and military facilities while sparing much of Baghdad's infrastructure.
Back in 2006, in the midst of a another nuclear crisis on the peninsula, Peter Pace, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned that any conflict today with North Korea wouldn't look like what it might have looked had it taken place in the 1990s. It would be "more like a World War II-Korean War campaign," Pace warned.
Why? Because so much of the United States' precision weaponry and platforms are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pace says, leaving the U.S. military with more blunt options, particularly when facing North Korea's unsophisticated, but large, conventional force.
That's one reason why the United States and South Korea are proceeding with caution, experts say. "It would be a brutal, brutal war," says Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation and former chief of CIA's Korea branch.
"Even though instinctively we may want to punish North Korea with a military attack, both Washington and Seoul are facing the same constraints as in March, when North Korea sank a South Korean naval ship and killed 46 sailors," Klingner says. "Even a tactical level retaliatory attack could escalate into an all out conflict." Klingner argues that if Pyongyang doesn't get what it likely wants out of the current provocation—a return to the negotiating table—then it could try something more aggressive.
No comments:
Post a Comment