The strategy is risky and relies on Kim Jong Un correctly interpreting the attack as a limited strike, rather than the opening of the second Korean War.
As North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs make leaps and bounds in advancement, the most powerful military on earth has sat just a few dozen miles away with little they could do about it — but that may be about to change.
Multiple reports out of the White House indicate an internal debate over a hot topic: Whether or not to strike North Korea.
Both The Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal have reported that President Donald Trump’s administration is weighing a “ bloody nose “ strike to batter and humiliate North Korea as it illegally advances its weapons programs. The strategy calls for a limited strike on North Korea in response to some provocation, like a missile or nuclear test.
The news that the Trump administration is seriously considering a strike has rattled international observers and experts on North Korea, as any attack on North Korea runs the enormous risk of starting an all out war.
If the US strikes North Korea, it then places its trust in the country’s leader Kim Jong Un not to retaliate massively against South Korea or Japan. As North Korea demonstrates an ever-increasing nuclear capability, the prospect only becomes more dangerous.
But a cowed North Korea would lose enormous standing internationally and domestically, as putting the fear of repeated punishment in the belligerent country that has for decades killed US and South Korean citizens with impunity.
Unlike the US‘ April 7 strike on a Syrian airbase in response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons, the US couldn’t just pull up a guided-missile destroyer to North Korea’s coast and let 59 cruise missiles rip.
„C ruise missiles give a fair bit of warning,“ Justin Bronk, an expert in combat airpower at the Royal United Services Institute told Business Insider. Bronk pointed out that the missiles fly at subsonic speeds and that „North Korea is fairly careful to monitor their waters.“
Using manned aircraft for an airstrike would require the US to attack North Korean air defenses, according to Bronk, or risk ending up with a “ nightmare scenario where you have an aircraft down in North Korea and then you have to rescue or have them, or they’re paraded around and probably executed.“
„I wouldn’t say there are any good options,“ Bronk said, but the „least risky one is trying to intercept a missile.“
Bronk calls the US attempting to shoot down a North Korean missile launch a „potentially unsustainable challenge.“
„It’s a financially impossible position to keep pace with very cheap launches with very high-end missile interceptors,“ Bronk said.
The US would need a constant presence of ballistic missile defense platforms gathered off North Korea’s coast. Keeping ships there would strain an already thin US Navy Pacific fleet and cost billions.
Then comes the more glaring question: Can the US even shoot down a North Korean missile launch? Even if the US had ships or even aircraft in place, shooting down a North Korean missile represents a truly dubious prospect.
In theory, the US could stop a North Korean launch, at tremendous cost, but if they miss even a single shot, the party leaving the encounter with a bloody nose would be the US.
If North Korea manages to evade a US intercept test, it grants them a „huge prestige value and a massive prestige loss for the US,“ according to Bronk.
Even with the best weapons systems in the world and the finest military, the US faces real danger in attempting to bloody North Korea’s nose, as its unpredictable dictator may decide that he can’t tolerate the humiliation associated with being beaten by his sworn enemy.
NOW WATCH: A Navy SEAL explains why you should end a shower with cold water
See Also:
DON’T MISS: North Korea and South Korea met in the ‚truce village‘ of Panmunjom — these extraordinary photos show what it’s like
