US attack options for North Korea threaten carnage

DESPITE the US President’s threats to North Korea, launching an effective attack is far more difficult than it may appear.

The US has a huge arsenal and nuclear bombs capable of annihilating the country, but the North could kill thousands of South Koreans in nearby Seoul before the US could neutralise it.

Part of the problem is knowing where to hit. North Korea is about twice the size of Tasmania and 80% of it is mountainous.

If the US is to launch a pre-emptive strike it will need to know the location of Kim Jong-un’s nuclear sites – and it’s not clear it does.

North Korea expert Brad Glosserman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the US told News Corp earlier this year he didn’t think America knew where the warheads and missiles were.

“The idea that we can intimidate the North Koreans strikes me as being a bit of a stretch,” he said.

Any conflict would also likely result in huge casualties – one reason diplomacy is seen as the preferred option.

“We always have military options, but they’re very ugly,” retired US Army general and CNN military analyst Mark Hertling said.

North Korea keeps a huge weapons stockpile in range of the South Korean capital and could unleash an attack on its citizens in retaliation for a US strike, potentially killing tens of thousands of people, if not more.

Analysts believe the US may need weeks or months to get in extra troops and equipment including bombers and stealth fighters to support such an attack.

A defence and foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute in the US, Eric Gomez, agreed destroying North Korea’s nuclear forces with a pre-emptive attack would be very difficult.

“The strike would have to locate and destroy most of North Korea’s long-range missiles to protect US forces in the Asia Pacific and the US homeland from attack,” Mr Gomez said.

“If the United States also wanted to defend its allies, it would have to destroy as many shorter range systems as possible, which would further complicate the strike.”

He said the destruction of the North’s nuclear capability would mean targeting the facilities that made nuclear material and missiles, plus leadership locations.

“The United States might be able to pull it off, but I wouldn’t give the plan a high chance of success,” he said.

North Korea has mobile launchers that can hide and move around the country in tunnels. Its missiles use solid fuel, so they can be set up and fired quickly, making them harder to destroy before launching.

“The problem is that just one nuclear weapon can cause so much damage,” Mr Gomez said.

“Getting a few missiles is possible, getting all of them or enough of them to have full confidence in US missile defence to take care of the rest would be harder.”

North Korea has been observed moving what appears to be an intercontinental ballistic missile towards its west coast, South Korea’s Asia Business Daily reported yesterday, citing an unidentified intelligence source.

We always have military options, but they’re very ugly.

— Mark Hertling