Daily Mirror (Northern Ireland)
WORLD ON BRINK: WHAT
This means an all-out attack on North Korea’s military targets in the most effectively co-ordinated air, land and sea assault the Us-led coalition has launched since the Second World War.
They must hit Kim’s underground nuclear installations with bunkerbuster bombs while dealing with the
North Korean army’s 10,000 artillery sites.
Hundreds of cruise missiles would be fired in quick succession by US and possibly British submarines off the coast, with warships also The slow and methodical strangulation of North Korea’s military presents a solution that minimises casualties.
Barrages would be limited and there would be confusing special forces covert operations.
The aim is to wear down the North Korean regime, gradually forcing it to quit by destroying supplies and sapping its will.
However, the problem with this plan is the Pyongyang’s reaction would be unpredictable. The rogue nation could unleash a deadly missile attack at any time.
This kind of air and sea operation would only work if the US military is confident it is able to shoot down any missiles that NORTH Korea despot Kim Jong-un risked nuclear war with threats to attack a US base on Pacific island Guam. The rogue state is also feared to be close to fitting warheads to intercontinental missiles, putting America itself in range. And US ally South Korea, in a stand-off with the North since 1953, is on alert. A British expert said: “Both sides would unleash hell. The toll could be millions.” Writer Mark Bowden analysed options for tackling North Korea in mag The Atlantic. Here are four... and their consequences. the dictator. They could be supplied with food to ensure that the regime does not starve them further – while blaming their plight on coalition sanctions.
This method would probably leave Kim in power but force him to ditch his nuclear bid.
As the coalition chips away at his forces and his infrastructure he may use this as leverage to show his population how “evil” the West is. This would shore up his support and could be problematic – as it was when the coalition was eating away at Saddam Hussein’s military capability.
ON KOREAN TENSION