Why does America want to attack Korea? “on the brink of nuclear war”: foreign media about the escalation between the USA and the DPRK

After sending an American aircraft carrier to the shores of the Korean Peninsula, there was a feeling that the United States was preparing to teach Kim Jong-un the same lesson as Bashar al-Assad.

Indeed, if President Trump has already ordered an attack on a Syrian air base, why shouldn’t he order a strike on North Korean targets?

Conversations that the new leader of the United States may try to put an end to the DPRK's nuclear missile program by force have been going on almost since Trump moved into The White house. But is this really so?

Lenta.ru tried to imagine what the consequences of US aggression against North Korea would be.

Once every two or three years (usually in the spring), the world media begin to actively write about the fact that the Korean Peninsula is “on the brink of war.”

This year was no exception. This time, the reason for such publications was the threatening statements of the Donald Trump administration. Over the past two months, its representatives have hinted that a possible test by North Korea intercontinental missile, capable of reaching US territory, will become the basis for a strike on the DPRK.

Since things seem to be heading towards such a test, the words of American officials sound very convincing.

In addition, the new owner of the White House is considered an emotional person who is not very knowledgeable about international affairs, but at the same time values ​​​​his image as a tough guy who will never bend and will toughly respond to any challenges.

In addition, there is insider information that in the first couple of months after Trump’s election as president, he and his advisers thought about using force to prevent North Korea from becoming the third state after Russia and China capable of launching a nuclear missile strike on the United States. States.

The recent bombing of a Syrian airbase with Tomahawks, as well as the decision to send an aircraft carrier to the shores of the Korean Peninsula, only added arguments to those who predict a strike on the DPRK.

In fact, short consultations with specialists seem to have been enough for the White House to realize the scale of the problems that such a strike would most likely lead to.

So this time the United States is obviously bluffing, using the image of the “unpredictable Trump” that has developed in the world in order to put pressure on the DPRK and force Pyongyang to suspend work on intercontinental missiles or, at least, refuse to test such missiles. Things will not come to war, including because this war is unacceptable for the United States.

Let's imagine for a second: Donald Trump, having learned that the DPRK was preparing to test an intercontinental missile, really decided to use force against Pyongyang. IN real life, it must be emphasized, the probability of this is close to zero.

But purely hypothetically, we can assume that the eccentric US president will succumb to the emotions that the next news broadcast on Fox or a conversation with his daughter Ivanka, excited that her beloved New York is within reach of North Korean missiles, will evoke in him.

If events develop according to this scenario, the United States may limit itself to striking a missile ready for testing or even try to intercept it in the air after launch. Such actions will not cause a serious scandal, but they will not give much effect either: work on long-range missiles in the DPRK will continue, although the failure of tests will somewhat slow down their progress.

A cooler option would be an attempt to use a surprise strike to disable some key facilities of the North Korean nuclear missile complex: weapons production centers, enterprises where missile components are manufactured and assembled, testing centers and warehouses. Although these objects are mostly carefully hidden, usually located underground, and the United States simply does not have information about many of them, such a strike is theoretically possible.

Unlike the first scenario, in this case the DPRK leadership will not have the opportunity to hide from the population the fact of an attack on the country’s territory. Under these conditions, fears of losing face will most likely force Pyongyang to take retaliatory measures.

However, the matter will not be limited to domestic political considerations: the leaders of the DPRK understand that the absence of a tough response to aggression practically guarantees that forceful measures will continue to be used against them from time to time.

Giving reason to doubt one’s resolve on the Korean Peninsula is generally dangerous, because concessions are perceived as a sign of weakness (this applies, by the way, to both sides of the conflict).

What will be the response? Of course, there is a possibility that Pyongyang will limit itself to shelling a few military targets within the range of North Korean artillery.

But such a reaction will turn out to be very asymmetrical: a dozen destroyed dugouts and damaged guns are mere nonsense compared to the many years of paralysis of the nuclear missile program that an American attack will lead to. Therefore, it is much more likely that the capital of South Korea will be chosen as a target for a retaliatory strike.

Greater Seoul, a gigantic metropolitan area home to nearly 25 million people, is located right on the border with the DPRK.

The North Korean army has concentrated opposite Seoul - in fact, on its northern outskirts - a powerful artillery group, which includes approximately 250 high-power guns capable of hitting targets in the northern and central parts Seoul metropolitan area.

These guns are located in fortified positions, and eliminating them is not an easy task. Most likely, upon receiving the order, they will open fire and fire at least several dozen salvos. Even if the target were only military targets, such a shelling of a huge city would inevitably lead to large casualties among the civilian population.

With a high degree of probability, the South Korean leadership will perceive the shelling as a casus belli and will act in accordance with the circumstances: it will deliver a powerful retaliatory strike against the northerners. As a result, the Second Korean War will begin on the peninsula, which will claim tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives.

It is unclear what position China will take in the event of a large-scale conflict. Formally, he is an ally of the DPRK and must enter the war on its side. However, there are many reasons to believe that the PRC will not do this, because the behavior of North Korea, and especially its nuclear program, irritates Beijing incredibly.

Few people in China now want to fight for the DPRK. True, there is no doubt that Beijing will support North Korea indirectly, including by providing it with military assistance - no matter how much the Chinese want to teach Pyongyang a lesson, the desire to teach Washington a lesson is stronger.

Chinese assistance will mean prolongation of the conflict. As a result, even if the war ends in the defeat of Pyongyang, for Washington and Seoul this victory may turn out to be Pyrrhic.

In addition, there is a danger that the DPRK leadership, faced with the prospect of complete defeat (taking into account the balance of forces in the field of conventional weapons, the defeat of the North is the most likely scenario), will decide to use nuclear weapons.

Thus, the United States, having struck in order to stop a hypothetical threat from North Korea, will find itself drawn into a full-fledged military conflict, comparable in scale to the Vietnam War.

At the same time, unlike China, the United States will not be able to avoid participating in the Second Korean War: parts of the American armed forces are already on Korean territory and will most likely become one of the main targets of a North Korean attack. In addition, this conflict, as already mentioned, has some chances of escalating into the nuclear phase.

A major war in Korea will mean a worsening of the economic situation in the United States and, most importantly, significant human losses, which voters in modern developed societies usually do not forgive. The number of war victims will number in the thousands, and this could be very costly for both Trump and his circle.

Even if the Second Korean War ends quickly with a truce, its consequences for Washington will still be sad.

Seoul has lived within the reach of North Korean heavy artillery for almost half a century, but this has not created serious problems for the citizens. Therefore, it will be difficult for them to understand the logic by which the ghostly threat of shelling of US territory forced the Americans to start a conflict that led to the destruction of the capital of South Korea.

The citizens of this state will form the opinion that for them the United States is not so much a guarantor of security as a source of problems. This, in turn, will have an extremely negative impact not only on US-South Korean relations, but also on the entire system of US military alliances as a whole.

A strike on North Korean targets could lead to the collapse of the alliance between Washington and Seoul even if it does not provoke a major war.

However, everything described above is, we emphasize once again, nothing more than theorizing. The American leadership realized that there was a significant difference between Syria and the DPRK and that a strike on Korea was too dangerous.

Therefore, the scenario described above has little chance of coming true. Now the Americans are bluffing, partly taking advantage of Trump's established reputation as an unpredictable president.

For decades, Pyongyang has skillfully played the “unpredictability card,” and now, it seems, it is Washington’s turn.

Andrey Lankov Professor at Kookmin University (Seoul)

Follow us

In the event of a preemptive strike by the Americans, North Korea is capable of firing missiles at their troops in South Korea and Japan

The United States may launch a preemptive strike on North Korea to prevent Pyongyang from conducting further nuclear weapons tests. This information was disseminated by NBC. It was also confirmed by sources in Washington's intelligence services, saying that such a possibility was indeed being considered. What exactly could North Korea's military response be, and could the development of this conflict lead to a serious war?

At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that to inflict fire on South Korean targets, Pyongyang will use a powerful group of artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, which are already deployed near the armistice line separating North and South Korea. It should be borne in mind that the city of Seoul is also in the affected area of ​​these systems. That is, the development of the conflict can be significant. All that remains is to appeal to the common sense of politicians, hoping that this will not happen.

As if to confirm the words of our expert, on Friday afternoon a statement from a representative of the General Staff of the Korean People's Army was distributed through the channels of the Korean Central Telegraph Agency. It says that in the event of aggression from Washington, the DPRK will attack American military bases and the presidential residence in Seoul. US military bases in Osan, Kunsan and Pyeongtaek, as well as the presidential residence of Cheongwadae, are named as targets, which the KPA General Staff threatens to “turn to ashes in a matter of minutes.” As the representative of the General Staff noted, the DPRK's response will include options for a preventive strike on land, sea and from the air. A similar scenario has been worked out more than once by the DPRK army. The last such exercise took place in December 2016. According to the legend of the exercises, artillery strikes were carried out on the border islands of South Korea and Seoul.

As for a possible strike on North Korean nuclear facilities, then - unless, of course, a nuclear war breaks out - this threatens Russia and China with a humanitarian catastrophe. The fact is that with the prevailing wind rose in the region, the radioactive cloud will reach Vladivostok in a couple of hours.

The clouds over North Korea began to gather again at the end of 2016. Pyongyang has frequently launched missiles into the Sea of ​​Japan, increased its stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium fivefold, and demonstrated progress in developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

"Rash actions"

US President Donald Trump has toughened his position on North Korea. In June 2016, he said that he was ready to sit down at the negotiating table with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The future owner of the White House shocked the public with the statement that he could invite the leader of North Korea to visit.

• Aircraft carrier "Carl Vinson"
• Reuters

On April 2, a few days before a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Florida, Trump stressed that Washington could “deal with Pyongyang” without the participation and consent of Beijing. As is known, China is categorically against a forceful solution to the North Korean problem and the strengthening of the US military presence in East Asia.

On April 8, NBC reported that the US National Security Council presented Trump with a set of measures that will help deal with Pyongyang if Beijing and the sanctions regime do not force Kim Jong-un to abandon the development of his nuclear missile program.

The head of the White House was offered to return the atomic bombs taken out 25 years ago to South Korea, kill the North Korean leader and his associates who have access to nuclear weapons, or send special forces into the territory of the DPRK to carry out sabotage at nuclear infrastructure facilities.

On April 9, Reuters and CNN, citing sources, reported that an aircraft carrier group sent to the shores of South Korea received orders to prepare to strike nuclear facilities and military bases of the North.

The head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, Viktor Ozerov, does not exclude that the White House will eventually dare to launch a preventive strike on the DPRK. However, the senator believes that an attempt to solve the problem through military measures will lead to “further rash actions on the part of Pyongyang.”

• Reuters

Ozerov recalled Trump’s recent decision to strike Syria: “US forces attacked the air base of the Syrian Armed Forces under the pretext of a chemical attack in Idlib, despite the fact that Syria signed a treaty on destruction chemical weapons and complied with its terms, and North Korea did not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This could provoke Trump to attack North Korea.”

The forces are not equal

The United States has enormous military capabilities in East Asia, so at any moment it can deal a crushing blow to North Korea. The basis of American power is the Seventh Fleet, land and air forces stationed in Japan and South Korea.

The total number of military personnel (including sailors and marines) is more than 70 thousand people. Without the deployment of additional forces, the United States is capable of launching massive strikes from the sea and air, as well as conducting amphibious operations.

Within a few hours, the United States can bomb North Korea with nuclear weapons by raising long-range aircraft (B-52 Stratofortress, Northrop B-2 Spirit, Rockwell B-1 Lancer) from airfields. In addition, a nuclear strike on the DPRK could be carried out by ships and submarines equipped with ICBMs.

• B-52 Stratofortress
• globallookpress.com
• Sra Erin Babis/ZUMAPRESS.com

Political support military operation Washington and Pyongyang will most likely be pitted against Tokyo and Seoul. Moreover, Japan can pull three aircraft carrier groups to the shores, and South Korea- build on the success of invasion bombing on land.

A powerful military alliance has long been formed against North Korea. In the ranking of the Global Firepower portal, the United States ranks first, Japan is 7th, South Korea is 11th, and the DPRK is only 25th.

Pyongyang cannot win a one-on-one war even with its southern neighbor, but this does not mean that the communist regime is not capable of resisting or will not begin to act proactively, managing to inflict irreparable damage to its opponents before the defeat of its national forces.

Destructive Power

The army of the northerners is equipped with Soviet-Chinese equipment and fancy examples of their own production. The most vulnerable links Armed Forces The DPRK's aviation and tank formations have the highest proportion of obsolete equipment. The North Korean fleet is also unimpressive.

However, Pyongyang has succeeded in creating artillery systems and short- and medium-range missile systems. According to Global Firepower, the northerners have 4,300 units of field artillery (versus 5,374 for the southerners), 2,225 self-propelled guns (versus 1,990), 2,400 multiple launch rocket systems (versus 214).

The colossal destructive power lies in missile forces DPRK. The Communists have hundreds of missile launchers capable of carrying nuclear warheads. North Korean missiles can reach any point on the territory of their southern neighbor and hit enemy ships in the near sea zone, that is, up to 500 miles (up to 900 km).

Formidable weapons are the Nodong-1 (range up to 1.3 thousand km), Hwasong-6 (up to 500 km), Hwasong-5 (up to 300 km) and KN-02 (up to 70 km) missiles. . The disadvantages of these missiles include low accuracy and poor protection against air defense/missile defense systems. It is likely that the United States and South Korea will be able to shoot down most of the missiles fired by the North, but some of them will still reach their target.

In the most vulnerable position is Seoul, which is separated from the border with the DPRK by only 24 km. A metropolis of 10 million people could be destroyed by one massive artillery salvo from the northerners. Saving the South Korean capital is task number one in a hypothetical military conflict. The risk of mass casualties among the population of Seoul and other South Korean cities is too great.

• KCNA/Reuters

Also, the ill-wishers of North Korea are stopped by the unpredictability of the communist government and the fanatical devotion of the people and army to the leader of the state. At the same time, the removal of Kim Jong-un will most likely not relieve Seoul, Tokyo and Washington from their headaches.

Firstly, the image of the deceased young leader will instantly join the pantheon of northerners, becoming a symbol of the uncompromising struggle against imperialism. Secondly, political regime North Korea most likely will not collapse. North Korea is dominated by a totalitarian system, which tends to generate and exalt new leaders relatively easily.

Imminent disaster

The founder of the Military Russia portal, Dmitry Kornev, believes that North Korea is ready to provide worthy resistance in the event of an attack and mobilize a huge army.

“If we talk about the scenario of a large-scale conflict, then after an attack from the United States or its allies, we can expect Pyongyang to invade South Korea, which will most likely be successful. The Northerners have superiority in weapons and numbers of troops. According to various estimates, the size of the DPRK army ranges from 690 thousand to 1.2 million people,” the expert explained to RT.

“However, Pyongyang’s luck will quickly run out. No one will stand up for him. China and Russia will apparently take a neutral position. But the United States will most actively help the southerners. The capabilities of the northerners will be completely undermined by the extremely weak economy of the DPRK, which even in peacetime cannot provide the population with food,” argues Kornev.

In his opinion, Pyongyang faces an inevitable defeat, but the United States will have to attract ground forces. “This will be similar to the air-ground operation that we could see in Afghanistan and Iraq. It won't be an easy walk. It will take about six months to destroy the North Korean troops,” Kornev suggested.

“Surely the northerners will offer fierce resistance, carry out acts of sabotage, and fight for every centimeter of land. These are very motivated soldiers. They will compensate for the lack of material support with mass heroism,” Kornev noted.

• KCNA/Reuters

The expert is deeply convinced that Pyongyang perfectly understands the catastrophic outcome of the war and is not interested in escalating tensions. Kornev explains the constant saber-rattling on the part of the communist regime with the need to satisfy internal demands, as well as the expectation of financial and material assistance in exchange for negotiations.

“I don’t think that the great powers, including the United States, are seriously prepared for an armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula. The risk, instead of a limited operation to overthrow the regime, of getting the bloodiest clash since World War II is too great,” Kornev concluded.

“The likelihood that Washington will look for ways to solve the problem through dialogue, involving countries such as China and Russia, is high. Nevertheless, for America, the condition for dialogue is the nuclear disarmament of the DPRK, while Pyongyang does not accept this condition. Even if the countries concerned manage to bring North Korea to the negotiating table, this may only be a waste of time. And if neither pressure nor dialogue works, the United States could use force—a possibility that cannot be ruled out. Indeed, some US officials are proposing to once again send a carrier strike group to the Korean Peninsula."

“Since the DPRK tested ballistic missiles in April 2017, Russia has consistently argued that its strategy of maintaining favorable relations with Pyongyang and Seoul is more likely to promote a peaceful resolution to the North Korean crisis than Washington’s aggressive stance toward the DPRK.<...>

By acting more assertively and aggressively in international affairs, Russia evokes the memory of its citizens Soviet Union with its status as a superpower that could influence conflicts around the world. From this point of view, Russia's increased attention to North Korea is in many ways akin to its military intervention in Syria and the expansion of its diplomatic presence in Libya and Afghanistan.

Russia wants to be recognized as a world leader not only by Russians, but by the entire international community. And so its position on North Korea is driven by a desire to lead an informal coalition of countries that believe that the United States is trying to overthrow the North Korean regime. Thanks to this role, Russia's claims to the status of a world power and the main international counterweight to the United States would become more justified.

So when China stopped exporting energy to North Korea, Russia filled the vacuum and has since positioned itself as the rogue country's main foreign ally.<...>

In short, Russia wants to be a great power and wants to be seen as such. She wants to lead countries that resist Western power and influence. By ignoring the UN position and supporting North Korea, Russia is strengthening this status at home and abroad.

Moscow’s alliance with North Korea is likely to strengthen in the near future.”

Sabah, Türkiye

“The question is what kind of war it will be, nuclear or conventional. In 1950, the United States was already at war with the DPRK.<...>The only country on globe, which has experience in the field of nuclear war, is America. The wounds inflicted by the American atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still bleeding. But both Trump and Kim Jong Un talk about using nuclear weapons as if they never happened. As if next week North Korea will actually drop atomic bombs on the island of Guam, and Trump will drop atomic bombs on North Korea.”

The Beijing News, China

“Another reason for the escalation of the conflict on the Korean Peninsula lies in the arrival of a new US president. Since Trump entered the White House, he has already used military force twice, striking Syria and Afghanistan and causing other countries in the region to tremble in fear. By using weapons, Trump, one might say, killed several birds with one stone. First, he switched attention from domestic political disputes in a different direction. Secondly, he established his authority in the international arena. Thirdly, the strikes served the function of intimidation, because cruise missiles and the high-explosive “mother of all bombs” launched into Syria under the pretext of Assad’s use of chemical weapons could also be used against the DPRK.

Compared to Obama's "strategic patience," Trump's current policy toward North Korea leads to the old path of "forcing change."

Aftenposten, Norway

“What do Trump’s words mean: is this just talk or are we really on the brink of a nuclear war? This was the top question in the US this week. Journalists, security experts and members of Congress have spent days trying to make sense of Trump's threats and tweets. At the same time, the White House and some members of the government are making contradictory statements.

Some of the president's staff are hinting to American media that Trump's statements should be taken seriously, but not literally. This fits into a pattern of behavior that we have seen throughout the seven months of his presidency.

But in the conflict over North Korea, Trump's unorthodox communication style poses a big test for the administration."

Middle East panorama, Lebanon

“We must pay tribute to the leader of North Korea, who, like a mountain, resisted America, did not kneel before it, but, on the contrary, even threatened to launch a nuclear strike against it and its colonies in Asia, especially Japan and South Korea.

The American ships changed their position and took up positions to intimidate North Korea. As soon as the DPRK leader responds to these actions with missile tests and a show of military force, the threats immediately cease. If the Americans attack a country, they immediately see the “red eyes” of the leader of North Korea, its people and army and immediately begin to retreat and ask for peace. Moreover, Donald Trump asked for a meeting with Kim Jong-un. All these facts speak of the defeat of the US President, his worship, submission and dependence on the leader of North Korea, as well as the desire to come to agreement and peace with this great leader.

When will the day come when Arab rulers become like the leader of North Korea?”

The Guardian, UK

“It doesn’t happen every day that the UN Security Council adopts a resolution unanimously. But this is exactly what happened during the approval of resolution 2371, which provides for tough sanctions against North Korea, including a ban on the sale of coal, iron and lead.

As a result, we have an example of how the international system should work, which Lately it happens so rarely. The vote could also be seen as something of a diplomatic triumph for the Trump administration.

The resolution was a direct response to North Korean missile tests that brought the United States within range for the first time. America is not great at organizing international support for its own interests, and even less so when it comes to the UN, but this time it has succeeded.”

The Conversation, Australia

“Game theory is applicable to the analysis of conflict and cooperation in competitive environments. According to it, a joint result is possible when the game is repeated indefinitely, there are few players, and information about the game is known to all participants.

But if the game is played once or repeated a finite number of times, if it involves a large number of players and each of them has no idea about the other’s strategy, then each gives preference to the result “oriented towards himself.” In this case, each player chooses the best solution individually. As a result, the end result for each of them is acceptable, but not ideal.

What is happening on the Korean Peninsula is more reminiscent of this scenario. Solving the problem of the DPRK's nuclear missile program with the help of a preemptive strike is not the easiest and hardly best option, and the main players are likely to pursue their own interests.

The root of the problem is that North Korea has announced its intention to retaliate against any military action. This could result in a humanitarian disaster, since the capital of South Korea, Seoul, is only 60 km from the border. In addition, the main blow in this case could fall on the contingent of American troops numbering 28,500 people based in South Korea.

Any counterattack from North Korea would trigger a retaliatory strike from the south and could lead to war on the Korean Peninsula. Or, if the US and South Korea do not respond, it will be a serious humiliation for these countries.

For now, the only winner in this game is Kim Jong-un.”

Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan

“The United States and the DPRK are exchanging tough statements that do not exclude war. The result of aggressive statements can be an aggravation of tension and the emergence of an unpredictable situation.

The primary source of the problem is the DPRK. In July, it launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) twice. Putting into service nuclear missiles, within the radius of which the territory of the United States will be located, is becoming more and more real.<...>

Trump’s warnings to the DPRK are also troubling: it is better not to threaten the United States anymore. Otherwise, you will have to face anger and fire that the world has never seen before. The President rarely uses language that suggests the possibility of a nuclear strike.

They can be perceived as a red line, upon crossing which the United States will take military action if the DPRK conducts another nuclear test and launches a ballistic missile.”