Virtually every military option to halt Kim Jong Un\u2019s nuclear ambitions \u2014 even the most limited \u201csurgical strike\u201d \u2014 risks sparking warfare that could cause staggering casualties within hours.<\/b>
\nThat remains a major constraint on the Trump administration\u2019s response even as North Korea\u2019s leader, Kim Jong Un, approaches his goal of a nuclear arsenal capable of striking the United States. On Tuesday, the North appeared to cross a new threshold, testing a weapon that it described as an intercontinental ballistic missile and that analysts said could potentially hit Alaska.
Over the years, as it does for potential crises around the world, the Pentagon has drafted and refined multiple war plans, including an enormous retaliatory invasion and limited pre-emptive attacks, and it holds annual military exercises with South Korean forces based on them.
But the military options are more grim than ever.
Even the most limited strike risks staggering casualties, because North Korea could retaliate with the thousands of artillery pieces it has positioned along its border with the South. Though the arsenal is of limited range and could be destroyed in days, the U. S. defence secretary, Jim Mattis, recently warned that if North Korea used it, it \u201cwould be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people\u2019s lifetimes.\u201d
Beyond that, there is no historical precedent for a military attack aimed at destroying a country\u2019s nuclear arsenal.
The last time the United States is known to have seriously considered attacking the North was in 1994, more than a decade before its first nuclear test. The defence secretary at the time, William J. Perry, asked the Pentagon to prepare plans for a \u201csurgical strike\u201d on a nuclear reactor, but he backed off after concluding it would set off warfare that could leave hundreds of thousands dead.
The stakes are even higher now. U. S. officials believe North Korea has built as many as a dozen nuclear bombs \u2014 perhaps many more \u2014 and can mount them on missiles capable of hitting much of Japan and South Korea.
Earlier in his term, Trump tried to change the dynamics of the crisis by forcing the North and its main economic benefactor, China, to reconsider Washington\u2019s willingness to start a war. He spoke bluntly about the possibility of a \u201cmajor, major conflict\u201d on the Korean Peninsula, ordered warships into nearby waters and vowed to \u201csolve\u201d the nuclear problem.
But Trump has backed off considerably in recent weeks, emphasizing efforts to pressure China to rein in Kim with sanctions instead.
After all, a pre-emptive U. S. attack would very likely fail to wipe out North Korea\u2019s arsenal, because some of the North\u2019s facilities are deep in mountain caves or underground and many of its missiles are hidden on mobile launchers.
The North has warned that it would immediately retaliate by launching nuclear missiles. But predicting how Kim would actually respond to a limited attack is an exercise in strategic game theory, with many analysts arguing that he would refrain from immediately going nuclear or using his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons to avoid provoking a nuclear response from the United States.
But anticipating what the North might do with its conventional weapons in the opening hours and days after a U. S. attack is like trying to describe a \u201cvery complex game of three-dimensional chess in terms of tic-tac-toe, \u201d said Anthony H. Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The problem, Cordesman said, is that there are many ways and reasons for each side to escalate the fighting once it begins.
Stopping it would be much more difficult.
North and South Korea, separated by the world\u2019s most heavily armed border, have had more than half a century to prepare for a resumption of the war that was suspended in 1953. While the North\u2019s weaponry is less advanced, the South suffers a distinct geographical disadvantage: Nearly half its population lives within 80 kilometres of the Demilitarized Zone, including the 10 million people in Seoul, its capital.
\u201cYou have this massive agglomeration of everything that is important in South Korea \u2014 government, business and the huge population \u2014 and all of it is in this gigantic megalopolis that starts 30 miles (48 kilometres) from the border and ends 70 miles from the border, \u201d said Robert E. Kelly, a professor of political science at Pusan National University in South Korea. \u201cIn terms of national security, it\u2019s just nuts.\u201d
North Korea has positioned as many as 8,000 artillery cannons and rocket launchers on its side of the Demilitarized Zone, analysts say, an arsenal capable of raining up to 300,000 rounds on the South in the first hour of a counterattack. That means it can inflict tremendous damage without resorting to weapons of mass destruction.
Kim could order a limited response, by hitting a base near the Demilitarized Zone, for example, and then pausing before doing more. But most analysts expect the North would escalate quickly if attacked, to inflict as much damage as possible in case the United States and South Korea were preparing an invasion.
\u201cNorth Korea knows it is the end game and will not go down without a fight, \u201d said Jeffrey W. Hornung of the RAND Corp., adding: \u201cI think it is going to be a barrage.\u201d
The North has often threatened to turn Seoul into a \u201csea of fire, \u201d but the vast majority of its artillery has a range of five to 10 kilometres and cannot reach the city, analysts say.
The North has deployed at least three systems, though, that can reach the Seoul metropolitan area: Koksan 170 millimetre guns and 240 millimetre multiple-rocket launchers capable of hitting the northern suburbs and parts of the city, and 300 millimetre multiple-rocket launchers, which may be able to hit targets beyond Seoul.
How much damage an initial attack would inflict depends on how many are used and on how much of the ordnance explodes. In 2010, North Korean forces fired about 170 shells at an island in the South, killing two civilians and two soldiers. Analysts later concluded that about 25 per cent of the North\u2019s shells failed to detonate.
The North could compound the damage by also firing ballistic missiles at Seoul. But Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., a North Korea expert at AllSource Analysis, a defence intelligence consultancy, said it was more likely to use missiles to target military installations, including U. S. bases in Japan.
The Defense
U. S. and South Korean forces could be put on alert and bracing for retaliation before any attempt to knock out North Korea\u2019s nuclear program. But there is little they can do to defend Seoul against a barrage of artillery.
The South can intercept some ballistic missiles, with the recently installed Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, as well as Patriot and Hawk systems. But it does not have anything like Israel\u2019s Iron Dome that can destroy incoming artillery shells and rockets, which fly at lower altitudes.
Instead, South Korean and American troops would employ traditional \u201ccounterbattery\u201d tactics \u2014 using radar and other techniques to determine the location of the North\u2019s guns when they are moved out of their bunkers and fired, and then using rockets and airstrikes to knock them out.
David Maxwell, associate director for the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and a veteran of five tours in South Korea with the U. S. army, said the Pentagon was constantly upgrading its counterbattery capabilities. But he added, \u201cThere is no silver bullet solution that can defeat North Korean fire before they inflict significant damage on Seoul and South Korea.\u201d
What makes the situation so dangerous is how easy it would be for either side to take action that leads the other to conclude an all-out war is imminent and escalate the battle. The United States and South Korea could hit targets besides artillery, including supply lines and communication facilities, for example. The North could send tanks and troops across the border and drop special forces into the South\u2019s ports.
Especially perilous would be any hint that the United States and South Korea were preparing a \u201cdecapitation\u201d strike against the North Korean leadership, which could lead a desperate Kim to turn to nuclear or biochemical weapons.
All things considered, analysts say, it could take American and South Korean forces three to four days to overwhelm North Korea\u2019s artillery.
How much damage North Korea inflicts in that time depends in part on South Korea\u2019s ability to get people to safety quickly. As more of the North\u2019s guns are destroyed and people take cover, the casualty rate would fall with each hour.
The Nautilus Institute study projects 60,000 fatalities in the first full day of a surprise artillery attack on military targets around Seoul, the majority in the first three hours. Casualty estimates for an attack on the civilian population are much higher, with some studies projecting more than 300,000 dead in the opening days.
The Seoul metropolitan government says there are nearly 3,300 bomb shelters in the city, enough to accommodate all 10 million of its residents. In Gyeonggi province, which surrounds the capital like a doughnut, the provincial government counts about 3,700 shelters. Many train stations in the region double as shelters, and most large buildings have underground parking garages where people fleeing artillery attacks can seek cover.
But critics say local authorities are unprepared for the chaos an artillery attack would cause and that the public is nonchalant about the prospect of war.
Few people keep stockpiles of food and water, for example, and while the government has indicated it may buy about 1.8 million gas masks for use in the event of a chemical attack, that would not be nearly enough to protect the population.
\u201cFor the first 72 hours, \u201d said Nam Kyung-pil, governor of Gyeonggi province, \u201ceach individual will have to save their own lives or be prepared by themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n