Two men playing blind man’s bluff on a cliff edge (and why we must pray for the wisdom of Trump’s generals)

The rhetoric is biblical: North Korea ‘ will be met with fire, fury and frankly power like the world has never seen’.

Donald Trump sought to win headlines — and succeeded.

The U.S. President raises the spectre of war with a nucleararmed tyranny, albeit an almost destitute one, led by a ruler as unpredictable as himself.

In South Korea, 10 million people live within range of Kim Jong-un’s heavy guns, and they can scarcely be blamed for being terrified.

The question in everyone’s minds, including, critically, that of China’s President Xi Jinping, must be: is Trump serious? It is only prudent to assume that he is.

Last weekend, I met a senior American military figure, who said — before Trump spoke of ‘fire and fury’ — that if North Korea does not abandon its nuclear testing, the U.S. will take action to halt it.

Nuclear

he added: ‘ We should not worry so much about the risks to the South Korean population: they have enough shelters there for everybody.’

This seemed cold comfort to the rest of the world: the only certainty being that if North Korea starts hurling shells at its southern neighbour in response to American action, that the 51 million people in South Korea will be able to take refuge underground.

None of us can feel confident about avoiding bloody consequences if the U.S. takes action at a time of growing evidence that North Korea’s scientists have miniaturised a nuclear warhead to fit on a missile that could reach American cities such as Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago.

Some of Kim’s underground nuclear weapons facilities would almost certainly require American bunker- busting bombs to take them out.

In fairness to Trump, no American president could easily coexist with a brutal dictatorship now in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which it constantly threatens to use against America.

If Kim Jong-un proves able to sustain his rule because he is protected by nuclear weapons, as Libya’s Gaddafi and Iraq’s Saddam hussein were not, the message goes out to the world’s other tyrants that ownership of atomic bombs provides the only reliable insurance against the West.

China has behaved deplorably by refusing to move against its tiny neighbour. President Xi fears any action could lead to reunification of the Koreas and U.S. forces on China’s border with North Korea.

Yet if these considerations explain American frustration and, indeed, anger, few even among Washington’s allies believe that they justify a resort to war, without further attempts at diplomacy.

The technical experts believe there is still time for this. It is unlikely North Korea’s ballistic missiles are yet operational.

A recent book by Graham Allison, a respected American political scientist, examined whether an armed showdown between China, a rising great power, and the U.S. — a declining one — is inevitable.

he concluded that the risk is real, especially given the North Korean threat, and Trump in the White house. he convincingly argues that war can only be avoided if America acknowledges that it will have to give way to China on important and, indeed, painful issues, to get its own way on others.

Progress in persuading — or frankly bribing — China to do something about North Korea demands a deal: this could involve concessions about limits to American military support for independent Taiwan; acquiescing at least in part to Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea; and offering guarantees about the future demilitarisation of a unified Korea that will pacify Beijing.

Such horse-trading would be bitter fare to U.S. conservatives. But why should the Chinese oblige Washington unless they get something back? Trump, as a lifelong dealer, should understand that.

The only certainty is that America can no longer get its own way about everything. China will have to be allowed to win some concessions, however ugly the pay-offs appear.

But neither we nor the Chinese know whether Trump is prepared to allow more time for diplomacy. he obviously has no idea about how to conduct international relations. But, crucially, is he willing to allow others to do so?

Only last week, the United Nations belatedly voted for new sanctions against North Korea. At the very least, time should be given to see if China and Russia — its key trading partner — do their bit to make these sanctions stick.

Many hopes are pinned on Trump’s National Security Adviser, Lt Gen h. R. McMaster, and his Defence Secretary, James Mattis, both intelligent, sane men.

Reckless

But everyone around Trump is driven to distraction by his refusal to heed advice and his reckless national policy lunges. every day he drives a coach and horses through the first rule of foreign policy: say what you mean, mean what you say.

Professor Sir Michael howard, our wisest strategy guru, said to me yesterday with grim satisfaction: ‘I told you so.’ he was referring to the fact that some months ago he expressed fears that Trump needs a war to divert attention from his bunglings at home.

Who will care about the investigation of the White house’s Russian links if U.S. aircraft are attacking North Korean nuclear facilities, Seoul is under bombardment and China’s armed forces are on first-degree alert? Patriotic Americans (and most Americans think of themselves as patriotic) will rally to their president if he is leading a crusade against North Korea.

U. S. public opinion has always been uncomfortable about committing ground troops abroad, but much more sympathetic to the use of naval and air power.

None of us, including Trump and Kim Jong-un, knows what will happen next, because the two are playing blind man’s buff on a cliff edge. No option looks good. If the U.S. President, having threatened military action in bloodcurdling terms, fails to follow through, it becomes less likely that in future his words will be taken seriously, by Kim Jong-un or anyone else.

Slaughter

But if he strikes from the air at North Korea’s nuclear facilities, it is likely its leader will retaliate against the South.

If that happened, the U.S. would have to deploy all of its air power very quickly, to wreck Kim Jong-un’s bombardment capability. The regime would then almost certainly collapse, plunging North Korea into chaos.

Most of the world would blame the U.S. for triggering events that created mass slaughter, rather than removing Kim Jong-un, dead or alive.

China’s subsequent actions would be anyone’s guess.

Those of us who strive to be optimists take comfort in the fact that in such situations, the worst often does not happen; that cautious counsels may yet prevail; China may yet intervene to disarm North Korea, as it should have done years ago.

But it is a frightening spectacle, to behold the U.S. threatening war, led by a man who is unstable even to the point of derangement.

In the weeks and months ahead, the stability and strength of the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers may be tested to the limit.

We should pray nightly for the welfare of military men such as McMaster, Mattis and other people of reason, because they share in government with others who could precipitate a historic tragedy.