Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Pentagon assesses threats to secure North Korea nukes

- DAN LAMOTHE AND CAROL MORELLO

The only way to locate and secure all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons sites “with complete certainty” is through an invasion of U.S. ground forces, and in the event of conflict, Pyongyang could use biological and chemical weapons, the Pentagon told lawmakers in a new, blunt assessment of what war on the Korean Peninsula might look like.

The Pentagon, in a letter to lawmakers, said that a full discussion of U.S. capabiliti­es to “counter North Korea’s ability to respond with a nuclear weapon and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons located in deeply buried, undergroun­d facilities” is best suited for a classified briefing.

The letter also said that Pentagon leaders “assess that North Korea may consider the use of biological weapons” and that the country “has a long-standing chemical weapons program with the capability to produce nerve, blister, blood and choking agents.”

The Pentagon repeated that a detailed discussion of how the United States would respond to the threat could not be discussed in public.

The letter was written by Rear Adm. Michael Dumont, the vice director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff, in response to a request for informatio­n from two House members about “expected casualty assessment­s in a conflict with North Korea,” including for civilians and U.S. and allied forces in South Korea, Japan and Guam.

“A decision to attack or invade another country will have ramificati­ons for our troops and taxpayers, as well as the region, for decades,” Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., wrote to the Pentagon. “We have not heard detailed analysis of expected U.S. or allied force casualties, expected civilian casualties, what plans exist for the aftermath of a strike — including continuity of the South Korean Government.”

The Pentagon said that calculatin­g “best- or worst-case casualty scenarios” was challengin­g and would depend on the “nature, intensity and duration” of a North Korean attack; how much warning civilians would have to get to the thousands of shelters in South Korea; and the ability of U.S. and South Korean forces to respond to North Korean artillery, rockets and ballistic missiles with their own retaliator­y barrage and airstrikes.

The letter noted that Seoul, the South Korean capital, is a densely populated area with 25 million residents.

Any operation to pursue North Korean nuclear weapons would likely be spearheade­d by U.S. Special Operations troops. Last year, President Barack Obama and then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter gave U.S. Special Operations Command a new, leading role coordinati­ng the Pentagon’s effort to counter weapons of mass destructio­n. The command did not receive any new legal authoritie­s for the mission but gained influence in how the military responds to such threats.

Elite U.S. forces have long trained to respond in the case of a so-called “loose nuke” in the hands of terrorists. But senior officials said Special Operations Command is increasing­ly focused on North Korea.

Dumont said the military backs the current U.S. strategy on North Korea, which is led by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and focuses on ratcheting up economic and diplomatic pressure as the primary effort to get North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to stop developing nuclear weapons. Tillerson, Defense Secretary James Mattis and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., have emphasized that during trips to Seoul this year.

Mattis and other Pentagon leaders have often cited the grave threat faced by Seoul, but the military much less frequently draws attention to its plans for an undergroun­d hunt for nuclear weapons.

Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman, said that Dumont and other Pentagon officials had no additional comment about the letter.

A statement by 16 lawmakers, released simultaneo­usly with the Pentagon letter, urged Trump to stop making “provocativ­e statements” that impede diplomatic efforts and risk the lives of U.S. troops.

The Pentagon’s “assessment underscore­s what we’ve known all along: There are no good military options for North Korea,” said the statement, organized by Lieu and Gallego and signed by 14 other members of Congress who are veterans, all but one of them Democrats.

In a telephone interview, Lieu said that the intent of asking the Pentagon for informatio­n was to spell out the cataclysmi­c consequenc­es of war with North Korea and the aftermath.

“It’s important for people to understand what a war with a nuclear power would look like,” said Lieu, citing estimates of 300,000 dead in the first few days alone. More than 100,000 Americans are potentiall­y at risk.

Gallego said that he wanted informatio­n because of what he sees as a cavalier attitude in the White House about military action in North Korea. The idea that a ground invasion would be needed to secure nuclear weapons is eye-opening, he said, and raises the possibilit­y of the U.S. military losing thousands of troops.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States