What would happen if US and North Korea really went to war?
Watches the (rather frightening) scenarios being played out at an event in London
Hypothetical: the US state department updates its travel warning on its website at 2am Korean time and tells its 140,000 citizens in South Korea to leave the region.
Underneath a red danger shield icon emblazoned with an “X”, Washington says: “Due to the serious and mounting risk of conflict on the Korean Peninsula, the secretary of state restricted the use of US passports to travel into or through or residence in South Korea, effective immediately.”
The regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un reacts in a way that leads to all-out war.
This was one fictional scenario in which a North Korean conflict was triggered, raised yesterday in a report discussed at the Royal United Service Institute in London’s Whitehall.
The end of former president Barack Obama’s policy of strategic patience has coincided with a dramatic upgrade in North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities, resulting in a shift in the possibility of war, the institute’s report said.
“War is now a real possibility. With North Korea making rapid progress in its missile and nuclear programmes, time is not on diplomacy’s side,” the report said.
“Donald Trump and his senior officials have said America will not tolerate a North Korean threat to its territory and citizens and that ‘classical deterrence theory’ is not applicable.”
Addressing the United Nations last week, Mr Trump taunted the North Korean leader as the “rocket man on a suicide mission”. North Korean representatives said the president’s speech was a declaration of war and threatened to shoot down US planes patrolling in the region.
The security think tank in London reported that fighting could be avoided but the implications of a conflict can now be foreseen and examined.
“The escalation we are seeing is such that war in this case is more likely than any of the other scenarios we talk about, such as the US and China in the South China Sea,” said the study’s author, Prof Malcolm Chalmers, the institute’s deputy director-general.
“Clearly there is nervousness. The greater unpredictability of President Trump clearly has many urging that the US does not take a pre-emptive strike.”
The travel advice scenario rests on Kim Jong-un’s regime being bombarded with warnings of a pre-emptive attack after a series of abnormal measures had taken place, such as sending infantry reinforcements to South Korea.
A stand-off in which the US moves naval, missile batteries and troops to north-east Asia would leave all sides ready for battle and suspicious of new developments. Even a travel warning could be taken by Pyongyang as a signal of a US pre-emptive strike and lead North Korea to decide to be the first to attack. A US forces exercise last June practised for such a removal of American civilians from South Korea.
In the circumstances North Korea is likely to launch artillery and rocket strikes across the demilitarised zone. In response the US would authorise devastating air strikes and a cyberwar offensive.
Pyongyang could follow with a campaign of infiltration into South Korea to disrupt the enemies behind the line. Massive use of chemical and possibly nuclear weapons would accompany the North’s ground attack.
The implications of war are bleak for the Korean nations and the rest of the region.
“Within the first few weeks, there could be hundreds of thousands of casualties in both North and South Korea, including the deaths of thousands of US military personnel and civilians,” Prof Chalmers said.
“If China also gets involved militarily or if nuclear weapons are used it could be a lot worse. International trade and investment would suffer as economic activity slumped in one of the globe’s most productive regions.”
The report listed a variety of ways that the conflict could begin, mainly relating to a North Korea action that triggers a response from the US.
“North Korea could strike first if it believed the US were moving towards a surprise attack, or a US attack might be triggered by North Korean test missiles hitting the ocean near Guam or California,” the report said.
Even the golden-bullet scenario, in which the finger of the North Korea leader is removed from the nuclear button, is unlikely to ease the threat to the US.
“The North Korean command and control for nuclear weapons won’t want any launches without the express order from the leader, but will have made provision for an attack if the leadership is destroyed,” the report said.
Given that America’s allies, including Japan and South Korea, would have just hours to decide to join an attack or signal opposition, Prof Chalmers said friendly countries should be warning Washington to reject plans for a pre-emptive strike.
Greater unpredictability of President Trump clearly has many urging that the US does not take a pre-emptive strike PROF MALCOLM CHALMERS Royal United Service Institute report