Will America attack North Korea? The real reason North Korea might go to war. Parade in North Korea on the anniversary of the end of the Korean War
After sending an American aircraft carrier to the shores of the Korean Peninsula, there was a feeling that the United States was preparing to teach Kim Jong-un the same lesson as Bashar al-Assad.
Indeed, if President Trump has already ordered an attack on a Syrian air base, why shouldn't he order an attack on North Korean targets?
Talk that the new leader of the United States may try to end the DPRK's nuclear missile program by force has been going on almost since Trump's arrival in the White House. But is it really so?
Lenta.ru tried to imagine what the consequences of US aggression against North Korea would be.
Once every two or three years (usually in spring), the world media begin to write actively that the Korean Peninsula "is on the brink of war."
This year was no exception. This time, the reason for such publications was the threatening statements of the Donald Trump administration. Over the past two months, its representatives have been hinting that a possible test by North Korea of an intercontinental missile capable of reaching US territory will become the basis for a strike on the DPRK.
Since things seem to be moving towards such a test, the words of American officials sound very convincing.
In addition, the new owner of the White House is considered an emotional person, not too versed in international affairs, but at the same time appreciating his image of a tough man who will never bend and will respond harshly to any challenges.
In addition, there is insider information that in the first couple of months after Trump was elected president, he himself and his advisers were thinking about how to prevent North Korea by force from becoming the third state after Russia and China capable of launching a nuclear missile strike on the United States. States.
The recent bombing of a Syrian air base by Tomahawks, as well as the decision to send an aircraft carrier to the coast of the Korean Peninsula, only added arguments to those who predict a strike on the DPRK.
In fact, short consultations with specialists seem to have been enough for the White House to realize the scale of the problems that such a strike is likely to lead to.
So this time, the US is obviously bluffing, using the image of the “unpredictable Trump” that has developed in the world in order to put pressure on the DPRK and force Pyongyang to suspend work on intercontinental missiles, or at least refuse to test such missiles. Things will not come to a war, including because this war is unacceptable for the United States.
Let's imagine for a second: Donald Trump, having learned that the DPRK is preparing to test an intercontinental missile, really decided to use force against Pyongyang. In real life, it must be emphasized, the probability of this is close to zero.
But purely hypothetically, one can assume that the eccentric US president will succumb to the emotions that the next Fox newscast will cause him or the conversation with his daughter Ivanka, excited that her beloved New York was within range of North Korean missiles.
If events develop according to this scenario, the United States may limit itself to striking a missile ready for testing, or even try to intercept it in the air after launch. Such actions will not cause a serious scandal, but they will not give a special effect either: work on long-range missiles in the DPRK will continue, although the failure of the tests will somewhat slow down their progress.
A cooler option would be an attempt to disable some of the key facilities of the North Korean nuclear missile complex with a surprise strike: weapons production centers, enterprises that manufacture missile components and assemble them, test centers and warehouses. Although these facilities are mostly heavily hidden, usually located underground, and many of them the United States simply does not have information about, such a strike is theoretically possible.
Unlike the first scenario, in this case the leadership of the DPRK will not be able to hide from the population the fact of a strike on the territory of the country. Under these conditions, the fear of losing face will most likely force Pyongyang to take retaliatory measures.
However, the matter will not be limited to domestic political considerations: the leaders of the DPRK understand that the absence of a tough reaction to aggression practically guarantees that forceful measures will be used against them from time to time in the future.
Giving reason to doubt one's resolve on the Korean Peninsula is generally dangerous, because concessions are perceived as a sign of weakness (this applies, by the way, to both sides of the conflict).
What will be the response? Of course, there is a possibility that Pyongyang will limit itself to shelling a few military installations that are within range of North Korean artillery.
But such a reaction will turn out to be very asymmetric: a dozen destroyed dugouts and damaged guns is sheer nonsense compared to the many years of paralysis of the nuclear missile program that the American attack will lead to. Therefore, it is much more likely that the capital of South Korea will be chosen as the target for a retaliation strike.
Greater Seoul, a giant agglomeration of nearly 25 million people, is located right on the border with North Korea.
The North Korean army has concentrated in front of Seoul - in fact, on its northern outskirts - a powerful artillery group, which includes about 250 high-powered guns capable of hitting targets in the northern and central parts of the Seoul agglomeration.
These guns are in fortified positions, and their elimination is not an easy task. Most likely, having received an order, they will open fire and fire at least a few dozen volleys. Even if only military targets are the target, such shelling of a huge city will inevitably lead to heavy losses among the civilian population.
With a high degree of probability, the leadership of South Korea will perceive the shelling as a casus belli and will act according to the circumstances: it will inflict a powerful retaliatory blow on the northerners. As a result, the Second Korean War will begin on the peninsula, which will claim tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives.
It is not clear what position China will take in the event of a large-scale conflict. Formally, he is an ally of the DPRK and must enter the war on its side. However, there are many reasons to believe that the PRC will not do this, because the behavior of North Korea, and especially its nuclear program, irritates Beijing incredibly.
Few people in China want to fight for the DPRK now. True, there is no doubt that Beijing will support North Korea indirectly, including by providing it with military assistance - no matter how much the Chinese want to teach Pyongyang a lesson, the desire to teach Washington a lesson is stronger.
Chinese aid will mean prolonging the conflict. As a result, even if the war ends with the defeat of Pyongyang, for Washington and Seoul this victory may turn out to be a pyrrhic one.
In addition, there is a danger that the leadership of the DPRK, faced with the prospect of complete defeat (taking into account the balance of forces in the field of conventional weapons, the defeat of the North is the most likely scenario), will decide to use nuclear weapons.
Thus, the United States, having struck in order to stop the hypothetical threat from North Korea, will find itself embroiled in a full-fledged military conflict comparable in scale to the Vietnam War.
At the same time, unlike China, the United States will not be able to evade participation in the Second Korean War: parts of the American armed forces are already in Korea and are likely to become one of the main targets of a North Korean attack. In addition, this conflict, as already mentioned, has some chances of developing into a nuclear phase.
A major war in Korea will mean a worsening of the economic situation in the US and, most importantly, noticeable human losses, which in modern developed societies, voters usually do not forgive. The number of victims of the war will go into the thousands, and this can be very costly for both Trump and his entourage.
Even if the Second Korean War quickly ends with a truce, its consequences for Washington will still be sad.
Seoul has been living within the reach of North Korean heavy artillery for almost half a century, but this has not created serious problems for the citizens. Therefore, it will be difficult for them to understand the logic by which the illusory threat of shelling of US territory forced the Americans to unleash a conflict that led to the destruction of the capital of South Korea.
The citizens of this state will form an opinion: the United States for them is not so much a guarantor of security as a source of problems. This, in turn, will have an extremely negative impact not only on US-South Korean relations, but also on the entire system of US military alliances as a whole.
A strike on North Korean facilities could lead to the collapse of the alliance between Washington and Seoul even if it does not provoke a major war.
However, everything described above is, we emphasize once again, nothing more than theorizing. The American leadership realized that there was a considerable difference between Syria and the DPRK and that a strike on Korea was too dangerous.
Therefore, the scenario described above has little chance of being realized. Now Americans are bluffing, partly taking advantage of Trump's established reputation as an unpredictable president.
For decades, Pyongyang has skillfully played the "card of unpredictability", and now, it seems, it's Washington's turn.
Andrey Lankov Professor at Kookmin University (Seoul)
Every spring, the situation escalates near the Korean Peninsula. On April 15, the birthday of the founder of the DPRK, Kim Il Sung, North Koreans traditionally test new weapons (to the outrage of neighboring Japan and the United States behind it). It seems that a little more, and a war will break out - but soon the conflict subsides ... until next year.
However, now, having entered the taste of forceful solutions after the recent missile attack on the Syrian Shayrat airbase, the White House is considering attacking Pyongyang. If he decides to re-test a rocket or detonate a nuclear bomb at an underground test site. At full speed, the US Navy strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Carl Vincent, is moving towards the peninsula. Will East Asia, and the whole world behind it, slide into the Third World War? Let's find out with the experts.
1. What is the essence of the conflict?
Until 1945, Korea was occupied by Japan, but at the end of World War II, the Soviet and American troops liberated the peninsula: we are from the north, they are from the south. The Cold War began almost immediately, and instead of a united Korea, two states were formed: one led by the communists in Pyongyang, the other with capitalists in Seoul. In 1950, the Korean War broke out between them; The North was supported by the USSR and China, and the South - by the USA and their satellites, however, having lost two million people, the parties remained almost within their former borders. Since then, North Korea has remained the most closed country in the world, where the third ruler from the Kim dynasty, 34-year-old Kim Jong-un, is in power. Today, under his leadership, there is the last fully communist regime on earth, which many experts call totalitarian, but thanks to a tough planned economy, this poor republic has managed to achieve notable success in some areas - for example, acquire nuclear weapons and launch its own satellite into space.
America declared North Korea an "Axis of Evil" under President George W. Bush in 2002. And a month ago, current US leader Donald Trump called Kim Jong-un's actions "very bad" and promised to "solve all problems" (the main of which is the unpredictability of the Pyongyang elites, who are constantly blackmailing "despicable capitalists" with their nuclear weapons).
2. Who is for whom?
After the collapse of the USSR, the North Koreans had only one ally left - China, which exported coal from the DPRK and sold its own consumer goods there. Recently, however, even communist Beijing has begun to look askance at its brethren: to have a violent neighbor with nuclear weapons at hand, on whom convictions do not work, is a dubious pleasure. This week, the Celestial Empire blocked the border with the DPRK and deployed a 150,000-strong army to the border areas. For what - experts guess. Either to stop the flow of refugees, or maybe to take part in a ground operation to overthrow the ruling regime in the DPRK. In any case, it is obvious that the United States would have to enlist the support of Beijing before attacking Pyongyang.
However, if the conflict goes into a "hot" phase, perhaps the main victim could be South Korea.
Seoul, with 25 million inhabitants, is located just 40 kilometers from the demilitarized zone separating the two states, says Gleb Ivashentsov, ambassador to South Korea in 2005-2009. - And near Pyongyang, on the border, there is a powerful long-range artillery group. It won't seem like much. The Americans will not destroy all these weapons with one blow. And in South Korea there are still 25 nuclear reactors, nuclear power plants, chemical plants, and other hazardous industries.
3. Why can a conflict go into a hot phase?
Pyongyang cannot hit US territory (it doesn’t have intercontinental missiles yet), but it’s easy to hit American bases in South Korea and Japan, says Konstantin Asmolov, a leading researcher at the Center for Korean Studies at the Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences. - The White House's talk of a "preemptive strike on the bad guys" is based on its grossly misrepresented view that the North Korean regime has been on the brink of collapse for 20 years and is about to fall apart. Thus, Washington naively believes that after such an attack, riots will immediately begin in Pyongyang, smoothly turning into a "democratic revolution." This misconception increases the likelihood of conflict, because if the United States still dares to attack the Kim state, this will lead to a second Korean war with a possible transition to the Third World War, the expert believes.
And the North Korean General Staff has already threatened: "In the event of an economic, political or military provocation, we are ready to launch a preemptive strike against American bases in South Korea and Japan."
4. How will it all end?
Experts identify four options for further developments.
They make noise and disperse.
The current state of affairs suits everyone, - says Associate Professor of St. Petersburg State University, Korean scholar Irina Lantsova. - After decades of economic prosperity, the South Koreans are not ready for an all-out war, fearing the difficulties associated with it. And Trump’s demonstrative actions are aimed primarily at “bringing China into submission” and weakening the “democratic opposition” within America itself. And we have been hearing verbal threats from Pyongyang for more than a year. So, I think that everyone will again make harsh statements - and remain with their own. It is possible that on April 15 the United States will indeed shoot down another North Korean test missile. But that's all!
China will force North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.
Under the influence of China, the DPRK has already “curtailed” its nuclear program more than once, but after some time it resumed it again, putting the “senior comrades” in an awkward position. However, today's Beijing clearly wants to switch to a more active foreign policy, and who knows what Washington promised in return - maybe "close its eyes" to the annexation of Taiwan (Beijing considers this island to be its own, but in 1949, under the cover of the United States, local residents created their own state) ... In any case, the advance to the Sino-Korean border, from where Pyongyang never expected an attack, at once a dozen divisions will become a much more effective argument than all previous verbal assurances.
The US will open fire, but limitedly.
It is possible to destroy Pyongyang's nuclear missile potential by hitting just a dozen objects, - Andrey Sarven, a military expert, believes. - But this is not enough, because it is necessary to exclude a retaliatory strike on South Korean territory. The solution of such a task requires the destruction of many hundreds of well-fortified objects and thousands of heavy weapons. That you can’t put it in a “local strike”. Large-scale missile and bomb attacks are needed here, although I think the United States will be able to do without a ground operation: modern warfare allows this.
The Third World War will begin.
There is no point in discussing the most pessimistic scenario - half a century ago, Chinese leader Mao Zedong predicted the death of one hundred million people in the event of a nuclear war in the region. So it remains to be hoped that all participants in the conflict will receive the maximum political benefit from their demonstrative actions - and the situation will return to its usual course.
MEANWHILE IN TOKYO
Provocation with chemical weapons. Now in North Korea?
The collective West (of which Japan is also a part) likes to repeat old schemes if they have already worked once. On April 13, Prime Minister of the Land of the Rising Sun Shinzo Abe said: "The DPRK may have sarin warheads." At the same time, Tokyo differs markedly in testimony from its main partner, Washington. The latter for a very long time designated only “Kim Jong-un’s nuclear program” as the main threat, and here, therefore, the situation has become even more serious. According to the West, of course.
Because the recent Tomahawk raid on the Syrian Shayrat air base began shortly after the same cries about the presence of chemical weapons - only at that time at official Damascus, which allegedly used poisonous gases against the inhabitants of the Idlib province captured by terrorists. And the Stars and Stripes flew at the heads of the "bad guys" without any international investigation.
Well, the most successful war is when you eliminate your opponent by proxy. What is Japan doing now, setting the Americans against North Korea. The main thing is that the Western allies at a critical moment do not surrender their faithful partner in the same way as Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. In Iraq, the Americans, by the way, did not find any "weapons of mass destruction" (although its alleged presence was the reason for the capture of Baghdad). But during the 10 years of occupation of Iraq, NATO forces lost 5,000 fighters, and after their departure, a monstrous terrorist state arose in the Middle East. So, instead of Tokyo, it is worth seriously considering whether the fight against the “lesser evil” in the person of the DPRK will awaken much more destructive forces.
Prepared by Edward CHESNOKOV
Help "KP": what you need to know about North Korea and its southern neighbor
COMPETENT
If a nuclear charge is used, will it affect Russia?
Retired Colonel Mikhail Timoshenko so assessed the dangers that may arise if, in a possible conflict on the Korean peninsula, one way or another, nuclear weapons are used or an explosion of a nuclear facility occurs.
First, no one has confirmed information about either nuclear facilities in North Korea, or how many nuclear warheads for missiles they have (hardly many). They have about 300 tactical and operational tactical missiles, as is commonly believed, and their maximum range is 300-350 kilometers. These missiles, as far as we know, are not in the mines, but on the surface. If they are assembled, stand "on the table", and the warhead is nuclear, then hitting such a missile is very dangerous - for all neighboring countries. But what is such a warhead based on - based on uranium or plutonium? Plutonium is more high-tech - therefore unlikely. Where are the nuclear facilities for uranium enrichment - in the rocks? If it's deep, bombs like those used in Afghanistan may not penetrate. And you need to look at what the wind rose is now. For even a "local" nuclear explosion, when an equipped missile is hit, 300 kilometers is nothing. It takes several weeks for all the muck to be blown into the upper layers of the atmosphere ...
The situation in Southeast Asia threatens with serious complications. On the eve it became known that the command of the US Navy decided to return to the shores of South Korea a strike group led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Carl Vinson. This detachment of ships only recently defiled off the South Korean coast, after which it headed for Australia, where it intended to make a planned call. However, the group was unexpectedly deployed directly to the sea and returned to areas that it had only recently left. Analysts disagree: either this decision was dictated by the need to support the South Korean authorities against the backdrop of another belligerent statements by the “northern neighbor”, or Donald Trump was so pleased with his recent “Syrian debut” with a raid on the Shayrat airfield that he decided to repeat the same action against the DPRK. However, will this "blitzkrieg" be as harmless to the attacking side - that is the question ... Pyongyang under the gun
The news about the sharp maneuver of the US Navy aircraft carrier group and its return to the coast of South Korea was spread by the South Korean news agency Yonhap. According to him, a group of ships, which, in addition to Carl Vinson, includes two destroyers and a cruiser with guided missiles on board, having already reached Singapore, was given the task of returning to the Korean Peninsula. The South Korean authorities, through the mouth of a representative of the country's Ministry of Defense, noted that this step "reflects the serious attitude of the United States to the situation, and their actions are aimed at strengthening protection in the event of a nuclear test or the launch of ballistic missiles by the DPRK."
In Seoul today they are really afraid of provocations from the northerners. The reason for this is the upcoming celebration of the 105th anniversary of the birth of former North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, celebrated on April 15, as well as the 85th anniversary of the Korean People's Army (celebrated on April 25). In the south of the peninsula, it is suggested that the North Koreans may time a missile and even a nuclear test to coincide with these dates. One such incident was already recorded earlier this month when the Yonhap news agency reported the launch of an unidentified ballistic missile in the direction of the Sea of Japan. True, a little later it became known that this test ended in failure: the rocket got out of control, having overcome only part of the intended trajectory. 
Nevertheless, it was precisely this news from Pyongyang that could move Donald Trump to the decision to send an aircraft carrier group to the Korean coast. In addition, just a few days ago, the head of the White House was presented with a detailed report of the US National Security Council on the evolving situation around the Korean Peninsula. The nuclear program of the DPRK was named among the main threats, and it was no coincidence that this topic was raised during the recent visit to the United States by Chinese leader Xi Jinping. According to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the heads of China and the United States agreed to "strengthen cooperation on the North Korean nuclear program." Apparently, in support of his arguments, the owner of the White House decided to use "naval diplomacy" as well.
intimidation campaign
Veteran of the US Navy - aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" project "Carl Vinson" (year of laying - 1975), mainly serving in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It was from its side that planes took off to bombard Afghanistan and Iraq, from here the security of tankers transporting oil through the Persian Gulf was carried out. A noteworthy fact: it was to Carl Vinson that the body of Osama bin Laden was delivered after the liquidation of the leader of Al-Qaeda (the organization is banned in Russia) in May 2011. From here terrorist number 1 went on his last flight: his body was buried in the waters of the Arabian Sea. 
But can a veteran aircraft carrier easily deal with the Korean nuclear problem? Experts have reasonable doubts about this. For example, the influential American publication National Interest in one of its publications drew attention to the fact that the combat radius of the main US Navy aircraft based on aircraft carriers is only 700 km, while the range of modern anti-ship missiles, including those that can to have the DPRK, many times more - from 1.5 to 3 thousand km. As a result, in order to strike with its air wing, the same "Karl Vinson" will have to enter the enemy's anti-ship missile strike zone, and this is extremely risky.
Russian military expert Oleg Kaptsov is convinced that only pathos remains from the former glory of aircraft carriers. Firstly, there can be no question of any "armada of aircraft" capable of being based on an aircraft carrier. The same "Carl Vinson" can take only a couple of dozen fighter-bombers, and not the most respectable class. Secondly, it is economically unprofitable to use such powerful ships: the cost of building, repairing and operating just one unit exceeds $40 billion. In addition, as other experts emphasize, the dispatch of any aircraft carrier dictates the need to send a group of cover ships along with it. And this strikingly distinguishes him, for example, the Russian "Admiral Kuznetsov", which is completely self-sufficient, as it is equipped with a wide arsenal of means, both defense and attack.
Compulsion to war
In fact, as experts note, the dispatch of aircraft carriers by the Americans to certain points on the planet has only been intimidating in recent years. However, is such a tactic against North Korea justified? A country that has been frightened by everyone for more than half a century, such threats only inflame, warming up the militant mood of both the leadership and ordinary citizens? According to Viktor Ozerov, chairman of the Committee on Defense and Security of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation, sending a strike group of the US Navy to the Korean Peninsula could push the DPRK leadership to rash actions. In addition, according to the Russian senator, the presence of American warships off the coast of Korea is extremely unhelpful, given the need to build a negotiation process with Pyongyang. Politicians are also openly talking about the possible prospect of strikes against the DPRK. After the recent attack on the Shayrat airbase, such a development of events is very realistic, Viktor Ozerov believes. In his opinion, even the fact that North Korea has not signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty can provoke Trump to attack North Korean facilities. As the representative of the Federation Council emphasizes, neither the status of a signatory to the agreement on the destruction of chemical weapons, nor even the destruction of these weapons, did not save Syria from shelling, which was recognized by international experts. What can we say about the DPRK, where such agreements are far away ... 
At the same time, the expert community draws attention to the fact that Pyongyang's steps related to the development of its nuclear program were and are to a large extent retaliatory. According to the head of the RISS Regional Center for Asia-Pacific Studies, Candidate of Political Sciences Andrey Gubin, who refers to information from foreign sources, the DPRK leadership sent a number of targeted signals to Washington, designed to indicate Pyongyang's readiness to freeze its nuclear missile program, to refuse to conduct nuclear tests. devices and ballistic missile launches in exchange for easing the sanctions regime, economic assistance and guarantees of non-aggression from the United States and its allies.
“However, the lack of a response from the American administration did not allow further discussion of these initiatives,” the expert emphasizes. - In fact, the actions of the DPRK to develop its nuclear missile program are an attempt to ensure its own security by military means. I will add that the idea of the United States and its allies conducting a military operation to destroy the nuclear infrastructure of the DPRK is an unfavorable scenario, fraught with irreparable consequences.”
Korean Ricochet
By the way, experts professionally studying the situation on the Korean Peninsula unanimously declare that it is impossible to stop the nuclear program of one country, North Korea, by military means without serious losses for another, South Korea. In particular, as Andrey Lankov, a well-known Russian orientalist, professor, candidate of historical sciences, currently working at Kunming University in Seoul, recalls, the possibility of a military operation against North Korea was seriously discussed in Washington in the early 1990s. However, the plan was then abandoned. “There are good reasons for caution here. For example, the fact that the use of military force to eliminate the North Korean nuclear potential could lead to unpredictable consequences, notes Professor Lankov. - The main problem here is the strategic vulnerability of Seoul - a city with a population of approximately 25 million people, located on the very border of the North and South. 
In response to a possible American strike on nuclear facilities, missile factories, launchers and submarine bases, North Korea may respond by striking targets that it can reach, that is, primarily the Seoul agglomeration. This may lead to a South Korean response, which will result in the beginning of a new Korean war ... "At the same time, as the expert emphasizes, even if it does not come to a war, such a turn of events will cause enormous tension in relations between Seoul and Washington, which are already sometimes are quite complex. “From the point of view of the South Koreans, an American attack on North Korean facilities, which will provoke an attack on Seoul, will be proof that an alliance with the United States is not a guarantee of their country's security, but, on the contrary, a potential threat,” Andrei Lankov notes. - For an ordinary South Korean, the situation will look as if the Americans are solving the security issues of their own country, deliberately sacrificing the security of their South Korean partners and almost using them as human shields. Such a turn of events will inflict a severe blow on the US-South Korean alliance, from which it will probably never recover.” By the way, the expert draws attention to the publication in the January issue of Foreign Affairs (an American US Foreign Relations by Richard Haas, which directly refers to a possible pre-emptive strike on North Korean nuclear facilities. “This article is especially weighty because Richard Haas, who expressed similar views before, is now being considered as a candidate for the post of Deputy Secretary of State in the current US administration,” emphasizes Andrey Lankov. - The election of Trump means that the situation on the Korean Peninsula, which, despite all the bellicose rhetoric of the parties (especially Pyongyang), has remained stable, is now becoming much more dangerous than before. Alas, the possibility of a new Korean war no longer passes through the "department of political fiction."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||
China will intervene if the US attacks North Korea
If North Korea strikes the US first and the Americans retaliate, China will remain neutral. If the US hits North Korea first and tries to change Kim Jong Un's regime, China will intervene. This is reported by the Chinese newspaper The Global Times.
The newspaper points out that Beijing is not in a position to influence Washington and Pyongyang and force them to abandon their militaristic rhetoric. Pyongyang, by its actions, wants to force the Americans to negotiate with it; The United States, in turn, is trying to subjugate North Korea to its influence.
After Pyongyang announced its intention to test new medium-range missiles capable of hitting targets 30-40 km from the American island of Guam, the situation came close to a military scenario.
In Beijing, they cautiously express themselves in the sense that both countries, having no experience of long-term brinkmanship, may unwittingly provoke an armed conflict.
Pyongyang is no less interested than Beijing in a peaceful dialogue with the United States. At the same time, the North Koreans have learned from the sad example of Libya, which abandoned nuclear weapons and fell victim to the Western coalition. For the DPRK, renunciation of nuclear weapons is tantamount to suicide. The US will immediately take advantage of Pyongyang's weakness and unleash a war. Along with testing missile weapons, the DPRK several times came up with peace initiatives, including a proposal to continue negotiations with Washington. However, Washington needs war, not dialogue. Pyongyang's peace initiatives went unheeded.
Earlier, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that his country would support the United States in the event of an attack by the DPRK. Turnbull specified that Australia was within range of North Korean missiles.
Australia, the United States and New Zealand are part of the ANZUS bloc, whose main mission is to prevent the rise of China in the Asia-Pacific region.
Washington and Canberra want to turn the Korean Peninsula into a springboard for putting pressure on China and Russia. A war with Pyongyang would not only deprive Beijing of one of the main trading partners on the peninsula (China and North Korea actively trade with each other), but would also allow the United States and its allies to settle at the very borders of China and Russia.
The United States can take such a step without taking into account the opinion of its South Korean ally, who, like Beijing, is categorically against a military solution to the North Korean issue. It turns out that no one needs a war in Korea, except for Washington and its ANZUS allies.
US secret weapon against Korea: the background of Pyongyang's nuclear tests is revealed
A new round of escalation around North Korea has once again confirmed a regularity, imperceptible to the world press, but extremely important in the US strategy. Each time, according to Klagenwand TV, the escalation occurs in the same season - from April to September, when the harvest takes place in Southeast Asia. The fact that the stable chronology of exacerbations is not accidental is confirmed by more than half a century of military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula.
The current conflict also arose in April, when the US first became suspicious of nuclear missile tests in North Korea. On April 16, the South Korean military reported that Pyongyang attempted to "test the type of an unknown missile" in South Hamgyong Province. Seoul identified the aborted launch as a ballistic missile test. This was also confirmed by the foreign policy adviser to the US government, defining it as a medium-range missile.
However, Reuters, citing US government circles, questioned these estimates, saying that it was not even a long-range missile, but something more powerful. Despite the lack of evidence of nuclear tests, the information stuffing caused a strong reaction. The South Korean government called a meeting of the National Security Council and warned that the missile test threatened peace. And the United States switched to the tactics of open threats.
Recall that then US Vice President Mike Pence said that the "era of strategic deterrence" of North Korea is over and Washington is considering "military options" to stop the danger, including a preemptive strike against Pyongyang. After the re-launch of a ballistic missile in late April, the White House carried out its threats by sending an aircraft carrier escorted by several warships to the shores of the peninsula.
This is the external outline of the growing military escalation in relations between the US and North Korea. However, it became clear only after China intervened in the situation. True, the Western media are silent about this fact, preferring to present Pyongyang as an "unpredictable regime." Nevertheless, even before the start of April launches, Beijing warned the United States against intervening on the Korean Peninsula, foreseeing a negative development of events.
The PRC's proposal was to exchange for a "mutual cessation" of the escalation. Beijing has acted as a guarantor that North Korea will stop its nuclear and missile development. However, in exchange for this, the United States had to abandon joint exercises with South Korea. It's not just that Beijing sees them as a starting point for an attack on North Korea.
The main reason for China's concern is that the American military maneuvers each time begin when most of the population of North Korea is busy sowing in the rice fields. Therefore, US military exercises directly threaten the food security of the entire region. In the 1990s, they were one of the causes of severe famine in this country.
Such sophisticated food blackmail forced Pyongyang to rely on the development of nuclear weapons in order to minimize the involvement of human resources for the country's defense. After all, every time American aircraft carriers cruise along the coast of the Korean Peninsula during the planting and harvest season. If the US were to commit to halting its annual maneuvers, it would allow North Korea to reduce its conventional defense resources without nuclear insurance.
Instead of slandering North Korea at the slightest suspicion of nuclear testing, the Western media would do well to expose the threats to US military policy itself. After all, the Koreans themselves remember very well the extraordinary cruelty with which the American armed forces broke into their country more than half a century ago.
North Korea: Exposing a colossal hoax
Christopher Black is an international criminal law attorney based in Toronto.
He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published Under the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.
In 2003, I was lucky, along with other American lawyers from the National Guild of Lawyers, to visit North Korea, that is, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, to see the country, the socialist system and its people with my own eyes. Upon our return, we released a report titled "Exposing the Colossal Fraud."
At one of our first dinners in Pyongyang, our hospitable host, lawyer Lee Myung Kook, said on behalf of the government and very passionately that the DPRK nuclear deterrence force is necessary in light of US actions in the world and the threat against the DPRK.
He argued, and this was repeated to me at a high-level meeting with officials later, that if the Americans signed a peace treaty and a non-aggression pact with the DPRK, this would delegitimize the American occupation and lead to the unification of Korea. Therefore, there will be no need for atomic weapons.
The vote at the UN for a "police operation" in 1950 was illegal because the USSR was not present at the vote in the Security Council. The quorum required by the Security Council according to the rules is the presence of all delegations, or the session cannot be held. The Americans used the boycott of the USSR Security Council for their own purposes. The Russian boycott was in support of the position of the People's Republic of China that the seat in the Security Council should belong to them, and not to the Kuomintang government. The Americans refused to do so, so Russia refused to sit on the Security Council until there is a legitimate Chinese government there.
The Americans used this opportunity to carry out such a putsch at the UN in order to seize its mechanism for their own interests, agreeing with Britain, France and the Kuomintang to support their actions in Korea by voting in the absence of Russia. The Allies did what was required of them and voted for war against Korea, but the vote was invalid and the "police operation" was not peacekeeping, and is not legal under Part 7 of the UN Charter, since chapter 51 requires that all countries have the right to self-defense against armed attack, and that's what happened to North Korea and that's what they responded to.
But the Americans never cared too much about the rule of law, and at that time, too, because the plan from the very beginning was to conquer and occupy North Korea as a step towards invading Manchuria and Siberia, and were not going to let the law get in the way.
Many in the West have no idea of the extent of the destruction that the Americans and their allies have unleashed on Korea, that Pyongyang has been bombed to dust, that civilians fleeing the carnage have been shot down by American planes. The New York Times claimed at the time that 17,000,000 pounds of napalm had been used in Korea in the first twenty months of the war alone.
The United States dropped more bombs by tonnage on Korea than on Japan in World War II.
The American military poisoned and killed not only the communists, but also their families. At Sinchon, we saw evidence that American soldiers drove 500 civilians into a ditch, doused them with gasoline and set them on fire. We were in a bomb shelter whose walls were still black from the burnt bodies of at least 900 civilians, including women and children, who had tried to hide there during the American raid. American soldiers poured gasoline into the vents and burned them alive. This is the reality of the American occupation of Korea. This is what they are still afraid of and do not want a repetition of this ever, and who can reproach them for this?
But even with such a history, Koreans are ready to open their hearts to former enemies. Major Kim Myung-hwan, who was the senior negotiator in Panmunjeong for the Korean Demilitarized Zone, told us that he dreamed of being a writer, poet, journalist, but, he said sadly, he and his 5 brothers are guarding the Korean Demilitarized Zone because of what happened. with his family. He longs for his family that died in Sinchon - his grandfather was tortured, his grandmother was bayoneted and left for dead. He said, “You see, we have to do this. We must defend ourselves. We are not against the American people. We are against American hostile policy and its attempts to control the whole world and bring misfortune to people.
The view of our delegation is that by maintaining instability in Asia, the US can maintain a massive military presence in the region, isolate China from South and North Korea and Japan, and use it as a weapon against China and Russia. In Japan, the movement to withdraw US military bases from Okinawa continues, and Korean military operations and military maneuvers remain key to US attempts to dominate the region.
The question is not whether the DPRK has nuclear weapons, which they have a legal right to, but whether the United States, which has the ability to deploy nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and deploys a THADD system there that threatens the security of Russia and China, is ready to cooperate. with the DPRK for a peace treaty.
We have seen that the North Koreans want peace and that they do not need nuclear weapons per se if peace is to be made. But the American stance remains bold, aggressive and threatening.
In the era of the US doctrine of "regime change", "preventive war" and US efforts to create miniature atomic bombs, as well as their violation and manipulation of international law, it is not surprising that the DPRK is putting the atomic card on the table. What choice do the Koreans have if the United States threatens them with nuclear war every day, and 2 countries that, logically, should have supported them in the fight against American aggression - Russia and China - join the United States in condemning the Koreans for striving to obtain the only weapon that can prevent such an attack?
The reason for this is completely incomprehensible, since the Russians and the Chinese themselves have nuclear weapons, and they created them as a deterrent against a United States attack - just like North Korea is doing now. Some of their government statements indicate that they fear they are out of control and that if North Korea's defensive moves provoke a US attack, they fear they will be attacked as well.
You can understand this concern. But it begs the question why they cannot support the DPRK's right to self-defense and increase pressure on the Americans to conclude a peace treaty, a non-aggression agreement and withdraw their nuclear and military forces from the Korean Peninsula.
But the greatest tragedy is the apparent inability of the American people to think for themselves, in the midst of constant deceit, and to demand that their leaders exhaust all avenues for dialogue and peacebuilding before even considering aggression on the Korean Peninsula.
The fundamental basis of North Korean policy is the achievement of a non-aggression pact and a peace treaty with the United States. The North Koreans have repeatedly stated that they do not want to attack anyone, offend anyone, or fight anyone. But they have seen what happened in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many other countries and they have no intention of waiting for the same to happen to them. It is clear that they will actively defend themselves against any US invasion and that this nation is capable of surviving a long, difficult struggle.
Elsewhere on the DMZ, we met a colonel who adjusted his binoculars so we could see the wall between North and South. We were able to see the concrete wall built on the south side, in violation of the armistice agreements. Major described such a permanent structure as "a disgrace to the Korean people who are of the same blood". The loudspeaker blared incessantly with propaganda and music from the speakers on the south side. The annoying noise continues for 22 hours a day, he said. Suddenly, in another surreal moment, the bunker's loudspeakers began to play the William Tell Overture, better known in America as The Theme from The Lone Ranger.
The Colonel urged us to help people see what is really going on in the DPRK instead of basing their opinion on disinformation. He told us, "We know that, like us, peace-loving people in America have children, parents, and families." We told him about our mission to return with a message of peace, and that we hope someday to return and walk freely with him over these beautiful hills. He paused and then said, "I also think it's possible."
So while the people of the DPRK hope for peace and security, the United States and its puppet regime in the southern part of the Korean Peninsula are preparing for war, over the next 3 months, participating in the largest war game ever held there, using aircraft carriers armed with nuclear weapons submarines and stealth bombers, aircraft and a large number of troops, artillery and armored vehicles.
The propaganda campaign has been carried to a dangerous level in the media, with accusations that the North allegedly "killed a relative of the DPRK leader in Malaysia", although there is no evidence of this and no motive for the North to do so. The only ones who can benefit from this assassination are the Americans, and their controlled media is using it to whip up hysteria about the North, to the point of accusing the KNDA of "possessing chemical weapons of mass destruction"!
Yes, friends, they think that we were all born yesterday and that we have not yet learned anything about the nature of the American leadership and the nature of their propaganda. Is it any wonder that the North Koreans fear that any day these military "games" could turn into a real thing, that these "games" are just a front to attack while at the same time creating an atmosphere of terror for the Korean people?
You can tell a lot about the real nature of the DPRK, about its people and socio-economic system, about its culture. But there isn't enough room for that. I hope that more and more people will be able to visit this country themselves - as our group - and experience for themselves what we have experienced. Instead, I will end my article with a concluding paragraph from the joint report made upon my return from the DPRK, and I hope that people will take it in, think about it, and act in such a way as to realize his call for peace.
The people of the world need to be told the full story of Korea and the role of our government in driving imbalance and conflict. Lawyers, community groups, peace activists and everyone on the planet must take action to prevent the US government from successfully developing a propaganda campaign in support of its aggression against North Korea. The American people are being deceived tremendously. But this time too much is at stake to tolerate such deceit.
Our peaceful delegation learned from the DPRK a significant part of the truth, which is of great importance in international relations. It's about how increased contact, greater communication, negotiation followed by promises made and a deep commitment to peace can save the world - literally - from a bleak nuclear future. Experience and truth will free us from the threat of war. Our trip to North Korea, this report and our project are our efforts to free the American people from the shackles of lies.
Research by Canadian lawyer Christopher Black
The clouds over North Korea began to thicken again since the end of 2016. Pyongyang has frequently launched missiles into the Sea of Japan, increased its stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium five-fold, and has demonstrated success in developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
"Reckless Actions"
US President Donald Trump has toughened his stance on North Korea. In June 2016, he said that he was ready to sit down at the negotiating table with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The future owner of the White House shocked the public with a statement that he could invite the leader of North Korea to visit.
- Aircraft carrier Carl Vinson
- Reuters
On April 2, a few days before meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Florida, Trump stressed that Washington could "deal with Pyongyang" without the participation and consent of Beijing. As is known, China categorically opposes a military solution to the North Korean problem and the strengthening of the US military presence in East Asia.
On April 8, NBC reported that the US National Security Council presented Trump with a set of measures that would help deal with Pyongyang if Beijing and the sanctions regime did not force Kim Jong-un to abandon the development of the nuclear missile program.
The head of the White House was offered to return the atomic bombs removed 25 years ago to South Korea, kill the North Korean leader and his entourage who have access to nuclear weapons, or throw special forces into the territory of the DPRK, which will carry out sabotage at nuclear infrastructure facilities.
On April 9, Reuters and CNN, citing sources, reported that an aircraft carrier group sent to the coast of South Korea had received an order to prepare to strike at nuclear facilities and military bases of the northerners.
The head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, Viktor Ozerov, does not rule out that the White House will ultimately dare to launch a preventive strike against the DPRK. However, the senator believes that an attempt to solve the problem by military means will lead to "further rash actions on the part of Pyongyang."
- Reuters
Ozerov recalled Trump’s recent decision to strike Syria: “US forces attacked the air base of the Syrian Armed Forces under the pretext of a chemical attack in Idlib, despite the fact that Syria signed a chemical weapons destruction treaty and complied with its terms, and North Korea did not sign a non-proliferation treaty nuclear weapons. This could provoke Trump to attack the DPRK.”
Forces are not equal
The United States has colossal military capabilities in East Asia, so that at any moment they can strike a crushing blow against North Korea. The backbone of American power is the Seventh Fleet, a land and air force stationed in Japan and South Korea.
The total number of military personnel (including sailors and marines) is more than 70 thousand people. Without the deployment of additional forces, the United States is capable of delivering massive air and sea strikes, as well as conducting amphibious operations.
Within a few hours, the United States can bomb North Korea with nuclear weapons, raising long-range aircraft from airfields (B-52 Stratofortress, Northrop B-2 Spirit, Rockwell B-1 Lancer). In addition, a nuclear strike against the DPRK can be delivered by ships and submarines equipped with ICBMs.
- B-52 Stratofortress
- globallookpress.com
- Sra Erin Babis/ZUMAPRESS.com
Tokyo and Seoul will certainly provide political support for Washington's military operation against Pyongyang. Moreover, Japan can pull three aircraft carrier groups to the coast, and South Korea can build on the success of the bombing by invading land.
A powerful military alliance has long been formed against North Korea. In the ranking of the Global Firepower portal, the United States ranks first, Japan is 7th, South Korea is 11th, and the DPRK is only 25th.
Pyongyang cannot win a one-on-one war even with its southern neighbor, but this does not mean that the communist regime is not capable of resisting or will not start acting ahead of the curve, having managed to inflict irreparable damage to opponents before defeating its national forces.
Destructive power
The army of the northerners is equipped with Soviet-Chinese equipment and bizarre examples of their own production. The most vulnerable units of the DPRK Armed Forces are aviation and tank formations, where the proportion of obsolete equipment is highest. Nor is the North Korean navy impressive.
However, Pyongyang has succeeded in creating artillery systems and missile systems of short and medium range. According to Global Firepower, the northerners have 4,300 field artillery units (versus 5,374 southerners), 2,225 self-propelled guns (versus 1990), and 2,400 multiple launch rocket systems (versus 214).
Colossal destructive power lies in the missile forces of the DPRK. The communists have hundreds of launchers with missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. North Korean missiles can reach any point on the territory of the southern neighbor and hit enemy ships in the near sea zone, that is, up to 500 miles (up to 900 km).
Formidable weapons are the Rodong-1 missiles (range up to 1.3 thousand km), Hwasong-6 (up to 500 km), Hwasong-5 (up to 300 km) and KN-02 (up to 70 km) . The disadvantages of these missiles include low accuracy and poor protection against air defense / missile defense systems. It is likely that the United States and South Korea will be able to shoot down most of the missiles fired by the northerners, but some of them will still reach the target.
In the most vulnerable position is Seoul, which is only 24 km from the border with the DPRK. A metropolis of 10 million can be destroyed by a single massive Northern artillery barrage. Saving the South Korean capital is the number one task in a hypothetical military conflict. The risk of mass casualties among the population of Seoul and other South Korean cities is too great.
- KCNA/Reuters
Also, North Korea's ill-wishers are stopped by the unpredictability of the communist government, the fanatical devotion of the people and the army to the leader of the state. At the same time, the elimination of Kim Jong-un will most likely not save Seoul, Tokyo and Washington from a headache.
Firstly, the image of the deceased young leader will instantly replenish the pantheon of northerners, becoming a symbol of the uncompromising struggle against imperialism. Second, the DPRK's political regime is unlikely to collapse. North Korea is dominated by a totalitarian regime, which tends to generate and glorify new leaders with relative ease.
Imminent disaster
Dmitry Kornev, the founder of the Military Russia portal, believes that North Korea is ready to offer worthy resistance in the event of an attack and mobilize a huge army.
“If we talk about a large-scale conflict scenario, then after an attack by the United States or its allies, Pyongyang can expect an invasion of South Korea, which is likely to be successful. The northerners have superiority in the means of destruction and the number of military personnel. According to various estimates, the size of the DPRK army ranges from 690 thousand to 1.2 million people, ”the expert explained to RT.
“However, luck will quickly turn away from Pyongyang. Nobody will stand up for him. China and Russia are likely to take a neutral stance. But the southerners will be most actively assisted by the United States. The capabilities of the northerners will be completely undermined by the extremely weak economy of the DPRK, which even in peacetime cannot provide the population with food, ”Kornev argues.
In his opinion, Pyongyang expects an imminent defeat, but the United States will have to bring in ground forces. “It will be similar to the air-ground operation that we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. There will be no easy walk. It will take about six months to destroy the North Korean troops, ”Kornev suggested.
“Surely the northerners will put up fierce resistance, they will carry out sabotage actions, fight for every centimeter of land. These are highly motivated soldiers. They will compensate for the lack of material support with mass heroism, ”Kornev noted.
- KCNA/Reuters
The expert is deeply convinced that Pyongyang is well aware of the catastrophic outcome of the war and is not interested in escalating tensions. Kornev explains the constant saber-rattling on the part of the communist regime by the need to satisfy internal demands, as well as counting on financial and material assistance in exchange for negotiations.
“I don’t think that the great powers, including the United States, are seriously ready for an armed clash on the Korean peninsula. The risk is too great instead of a limited operation to overthrow the regime to get the bloodiest clash since the Second World War, ”concluded Kornev.