Print

Excerpt: "As North Korea hints at new military provocations in the coming days, the United States and South Korea have drawn up plans to respond more forcefully than in the recent past."

The US and South Korea draw up plans to respond to a North Korean attack, but in 'a limited way intended to prevent an escalation to broader war.' (photo: unknown)
The US and South Korea draw up plans to respond to a North Korean attack, but in 'a limited way intended to prevent an escalation to broader war.' (photo: unknown)


US Plans 'Proportional Retaliation' for North Korea

By David E. Sanger, Thom Shanker, The New York Times

08 April 13

 

s North Korea hints at new military provocations in the coming days, the United States and South Korea have drawn up plans to respond more forcefully than in the recent past, but in a limited way intended to prevent an escalation to broader war.

Amid the rising tensions, there were still efforts on many fronts on Sunday to limit the possibility of military conflict. In an indirect but clear criticism of China's longtime ally, North Korea, Xi Jinping, China's new president, said in a speech on Sunday that no country in Asia "should be allowed to throw a region and even the whole world into chaos for selfish gain."

A senior adviser to President Obama, Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on the ABC program "This Week," played down the situation as "a pattern of behavior we've seen from the North Koreans many times."

Still, the escalating tensions were underscored Sunday when the commander of American forces on the Korean Peninsula, Gen. James D. Thurman, abruptly canceled a trip to Washington for Congressional testimony and consultations. So did South Korea's top commander.

American officials described the new "counterprovocation" plan as calling for an immediate but proportional "response in kind" - hitting the source of any North Korean attack with similar weapons. For example, if the North Koreans were to shell a South Korean island that had military installations, as has occurred in the past, the plan calls for the South to retaliate quickly with a barrage of artillery of similar intensity.

South Korea's national security director said Sunday that the North this week might launch one of its new missiles. If so, Pentagon officials said they would be ready to calculate its trajectory within seconds and try to shoot it down if it appeared headed toward impact in South Korea, Japan or Guam, an American territory. But they planned to do nothing if it were headed toward open water, even if it went over Japan, as one previous North Korean test did.

The officials doubted that the North's new leader, Kim Jong-un, would risk aiming the missile at the United States or its allies.

Mr. Obama, officials say, has ruled out striking at the missiles while they are on their launchers - when they are easiest to destroy - unless there is evidence they are being fitted with nuclear warheads, which intelligence officials doubt North Korea yet possesses.

The key, then, is how to respond to anticipated North Korean hostilities while preventing the crisis from escalating.

"How we carry out a proportional retaliation without triggering a general conflict, or an assault on Seoul, is the hardest part of the problem," said Gary Samore, who served until recently as Mr. Obama's top nuclear adviser and is now the executive director of Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. "Everyone is aware there are not big margins for error here."

Some of the public language from the South Korean government suggests that Seoul and Washington may not agree on how far any retaliation should go, although the agreement between the two countries guarantees consultation. "Overreaction by South Korea is a real risk - and we're working on that problem," a senior administration official said.

South Korea's new president, Park Geun-hye, a daughter of a famed South Korean dictator from the cold war, has indicated that she might also go after the North's command-and-control centers responsible for the provocation.

In the past, classified addendums to the war plan for the Korean Peninsula have not been publicized. So it is notable that agreement on a new plan was publicly disclosed - both to deter the North and to reassure the population of the South. The nature of the response is critical.

Ordering hostilities short of war in an effort to stage-manage the agenda with Seoul and Washington has been a major part of the playbook used by the past two generations of leaders in the North: rapid escalation of a crisis until the United States and South Korea buy temporary peace with aid or investments.

But some American intelligence officials believe that Mr. Kim may have more to gain from striking out at his enemies - within reason - to bolster his credentials with his military, still deeply suspicious of his youth and inexperience.

The absence of a clear understanding about when and how to use force on the peninsula reflects, in part, the rapid shifts over the past 20 years between hard-line South Korean governments and those advocating a "sunshine policy" of reaching out to the North.

Ms. Park was elected on a platform of reopening the possibility of warmer relations with the government of Mr. Kim, but the rise in tensions has all but eliminated that opportunity, at least for now. Under current agreements, the South Koreans remain in command on the peninsula under normal armistice circumstances, but General Thurman, as the commander of American and United Nations forces, would assume operational control if war broke out. Wartime control is set to transfer to South Korea after 2015.

Ms. Park would be under extraordinary pressure to take action if the North acted out again. When the Cheonan, a South Korean warship, was sunk in March 2010, her predecessor decided not to strike back - and it took months to complete a study that concluded the explosion aboard the ship had been caused by a torpedo shot from a minisubmarine based just over the border in North Korea. Months later, the North shelled a lightly inhabited island in the South - and was met by delayed and ineffective return fire.

"The new agreement defines action down to the tactical level and locks in alliance political consultations at the highest level," an American official said. The official stressed that the South Korean military would take the lead in any response to hostilities from the North short of war.

"North Korea has gotten away with murder - literally - for decades, and the South Korean and American forces have rarely responded with decisive military action," said David S. Maxwell, a retired Army colonel who served five tours in South Korea.

"It's very important to break the cycle of provocation," said Mr. Maxwell, now the associate director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University. "These responses have to be proportional. They have to be delivered decisively, at the time and at the point of provocation."

As part of prescheduled military exercises with South Korea, and to prove America's commitment to regional security, the United States mounted an unusual, highly publicized show of force. It included the decision to use nuclear-capable B-2 bombers, which have a stealthy design to avoid detection, to conduct a mock bombing run in South Korea.

At the same time, the Navy moved two missile defense ships into the area, both of which carry advanced radar and interceptor missiles. A ground-based system with a similar missile defense capability was ordered moved to Guam, two years ahead of schedule, to protect that territory and allow the two ships to patrol waters closer to the Korean Peninsula.

A Pentagon official said Sunday that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had postponed tests of an intercontinental ballistic missile that had been planned for this week, concerned that they might "exacerbate the crisis with North Korea." The tests will be rescheduled.

The additional American military presence is believed to be highly worrisome to Beijing, and it is intended to be. It is an effort to demonstrate to the Chinese that unless they get their ward under control, they will invite exactly the kind of American military presence in northeast Asia that they are hoping will go away.

"There are some who question our long-term staying power in the Asia-Pacific region, especially in a time of spending constraints," one American official said. "So it is important to show our allies that we can still project power in a very meaningful and rapid way."

But seen from a North Korean perspective, the Americans do not stand quite as tall as they once did. After three successive American presidents have said they could not tolerate a nuclear North Korea, they are tolerating it.

Moreover, the South has made North Korean retaliation even easier. New housing developments sprawl north of Seoul, in areas the South Koreans had once planned to keep as a buffer zone - and well within range of more than 10,000 short-range artillery and rocket launchers deployed by the North.

So far, the Obama administration has not tried to interfere with a North Korean long-range missile test, even though the North is prohibited from fielding these weapons by United Nations Security Council resolutions.

But in the days leading up to a 2006 test launching of a North Korean missile, two prominent Democrats, William Perry, a former defense secretary, and Ashton B. Carter, a Harvard professor who is currently the deputy secretary of defense, wrote in The Washington Post that the Bush administration should destroy the missile on the North Korean launching pad.

"Should the United States allow a country openly hostile to it and armed with nuclear weapons to perfect an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear weapons to U.S. soil?" they wrote. "We believe not."

In any event, that missile blew up by itself, about 40 seconds after it was launched.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-1 # MidwestDick 2013-04-08 11:14
n the event of nuclear attack bend over, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye.
 
 
-2 # humanmancalvin 2013-04-08 11:27
You Tube: North Korean hell march.
The singular purpose of mindless N. Korean drones marching in extremely choreographed formation sends shivers down my spine.
N. Korean children, starting in pre-school are taught with graphic images that all Americans are savage & blood thirsty beasts. (Okay, some may be, no argument there, hello G. W. Bush & Dick Cheney & D. Rumsfeld) This bombardment of effective brain washing is broadcast daily, building much hatred against the great evil, Satan America. A ground war in retaliation of N. Korean aggression would be out of the question. As much as I abhor the thought of any country raining death from above on potentially innocent people, it would be the only option to curb further loss of life.
N. Korea scares the shit out of me & I pray that waging any type of war with them be avoided at any cost.
 
 
+12 # Glen 2013-04-08 14:54
Why does North Korea scare the shit out of you, calvin? This year, it is North Korea, last year it was Iran, the year before it was China.

That is what the U.S. does - promote paranoia and fear after provoking a potential "enemy" into a defensive state and then blaming that potential "enemy". It's the ole cowboy ploy: throw them a gun to the ground, and then dare them to pick it up, all the while shooting on the ground around their feet.

Forget North Korea and fight your government in their never ending quest for war.
 
 
+7 # Vermont Grandma 2013-04-08 15:26
Remember how N and S Korea were moving towards reunification not so long ago? & that a unified Korean team marched in the opening ceremonies of the 2000, '04, & '06 Olympics?

In 01/89, Hyundai’s founder, Jung Ju-young, toured North Korea & promoted tourism in Mount Kumgang. In 12/90 the 2 Koreas’ reached an Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Cooperation, & Exchange Between North and South (not implemented over inspection of nuclear facilities). In '94 Jimmy Carter encouraged the 2 Koreas' leaders to resume talks.

In 08/2000, North and South Korea signed the June 15th North-South Joint Declaration, in which both sides made promises to seek out a peaceful reunification with goals of:
settling the standoff situation between the north and the south’s army
6-Party talks to encourage N Korea to give up its nuclear programs & a peaceful resolution of the N Korean nuclear issue during inter-Korean dialogue.
development of inter-Korean relations thru economic cooperation between the 2 Koreas
expanded social & cultural exchanges to develop a sense of national commonality
resolution of the humanitarian issues inc. family separation, & resolution of S Korean POW and abductee issues, & human rights in North Korea as a matter of universal value
S Korean government providing humanitarian aid to N Korea unconditionally & in the spirit of brotherhood towards fellow N Koreans

GWBush soon called N Korea "the axis of evil" & no change today.
 
 
+3 # papabob 2013-04-08 17:25
Where is this highly touted diplomacy now that we really need it?

I don't want to point any fingers, but the actions being taken against North Korea sound exactly like the actions we took 10 years ago re the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And against who? Saddam and the WMD's?

Think about the actions taken by the American president, by the US Congress and by our vaunted media. Then think about what the whole bloody mess cost - American lives, Iraqian lives, Afghanistani lives, not to mention the US and world economies.

Horse crap! I'll believe you when you show me the real reason was oil, and not the WMD's at all.

Isn't the whole idea to solve problems in a peaceable way, not just to show your opponent that you've got bigger toys than he has.

For one, I'm getting tired of this shit.

Get real!
 
 
+1 # Activista 2013-04-08 17:28
And there is liberation of Syria via car bombs killing school children in Damascus.
Relatively decent article in NYT ..
www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/middleeast/syria-explosion-damascus.html?_r=0
.. “This is America, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia! They are funding those people to do those explosions!”