‘Bloody nose’ might be the less risky option

The USA TODAY Editorial Board argues that a U.S. “bloody nose” (i.e., a very limited military strike on North Korea) could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths if Pyongyang retaliates against South Korea.

The board is correct highlighting that risk, but a limited military strike, or the credible threat of one, to block North Korea from perfecting nucleararmed ICBMs capable of striking U.S. targets must be weighed against what could happen if North Korea develops such an intercontinental ballistic missile capability.

Here there are no final black-andwhite answers. Nevertheless, this debate hinges on the likely use of such an ICBM capability by North Korea. If, as many believe, Kim Jong Un simply seeks “insurance” to deter a U.S. attack on his country, then a “bloody nose” makes no sense and is certainly not worth a conflagration in South Korea were he to retaliate there against a U.S. strike.

But what if North Korea is serious about its long-standing drive to con- quer South Korea, which the U.S. is committed to protect? That drive is etched into the North’s constitution and its people’s psyche, and was attempted in 1950 by Kim’s grandfather, with millions killed. The ability to strike the U.S. essentially rules out our coming to South Korea’s assistance.

Now Kim is deterred from using his powerful conventional forces and tactical nukes to blackmail or invade South Korea by a U.S. nuclear response. That goes away once he can strike the United States. To put it crudely, would we sacrifice Washington to save Seoul?

If the U.S. cannot block this capability, sooner or later we will have to decide between two options: withdraw from our 70-year Pacific security system leaving South Korea and Japan to their fate, or defend South Korea but thereby risk a nuclear holocaust on our nation.

Couching the issue that way makes a “bloody nose” strike potentially the less risky option.