The Forcible Arms Control Against North Korea

Introduction

The Trump administrationhas threatened that it could launch pre-emptive strikes on North Korea as it is relentlesslycarrying out missiletests in 2017. The various intelligence agencies have also envisaged on the basis of satellite images obtained time to time, that North Korea could carry out nuclear weapons test(s), sooner or later. There has been a rise in the frequencyof missile tests by North Korea in the last few years which evidently demonstrate that the efforts of the US to deter North Korea have proved a disappointment. Further, the US has not been able to arrive at any accord with the DPRK regime so as to offset its proliferation efforts. As a result, the US has signalled that option of pre-emptive strikeson North Korea can be exercised with the objective to end its nuclear facilities and to bring forcible arms control in the region. Such a threat by the US has resulted ina counter threat by North Korea to launcha nuclear strike uponUS allies in the region. However, the question here is to what extent does such a pre-emptive attack on North Korea hold political or military significance.

The Concept of Pre-emptive Attacks and its Difference from Preventive Attacks

Foremost, it is important to understand the concept of pre-emptive strikes and when the US could doso in the future. Most often, the concept of pre-emptive attacks and preventive attacks are used interchangeably. The doctrine of pre-emptive attacks appears more in the US strategy doctrines after 9/11 attacks. Pre-emptive attacks are based on the assumption that the adversary is about to attack and it would be better to seize the advantage by striking first. Pre-empting the enemy can make a big difference between victory and defeat and could reduce the amount of danger from the expected conflict. On the other hand, preventive attacks are carried out to reduce or to destroy the capability of the adversary. Preventive attacks are mainly carried out when it is believed that the balance of military capabilities is shifting or is expected to shift in the favour of an adversary. Preventive attacks are carried out in the fear that the opponent has acquired or developed nuclear weapons or some other kind of armaments which will shift the balance in the favour of an adversary. The example of preventive attack is the US led invasion on Iraq in 2003. Here, the US is threatening a pre-emptive attack on North Korea based on the assumption that North Korea is a threat to the US and its allies in near future. It is therefore believed by the US that North Korea will be inclined to attack if left to make its own policies. It is also believed that all the measures to deter North Korea have now failed and there is no way to divert or to change the decision of North Korea from attacking the US or its allies. Such information is based on the assessment of the adversary’s capabilities or through normal course of diplomacy.

Pre-emptive Strikes on North Korea: An Analysis

The threat of pre-emptive attacks on North Korea does not fit into the above mentioned criteria. The rationale is that although North Korea has nuclear and missile capability, it is far from effectively engaging high value targets in the US. There is little or no evidence in  support of the argument that North Korea has developed a guidance system to ensure an accurate strike or has the re-entry technology to bring the ICBMs back down to hit the target. Further, the US has the clear cut capability to carry out the retaliatory attacks on North Korea which will surely prevent any first-strike from North Koreanside. However, North Korea is capable of launching an attack against US allies in the region. North Korea is clearly conscious of the Ballistic Missile Defences (BMD) systems which are being developed and operated in South Korea and Japan with the help of the US. Although, there have been apprehensions regarding the capabilities of BMD systems which are yet to be operational at full scale, it could certainlyneutralise major parts of missileattack of North Korea. BMD also serve to have a psychological impact on North Korea. If BMD systems functionseffectively, anymissile attack by North Korea will not only be dissipated but it will be suicidal for North Korea considering retaliation by the US. Therefore, threat of use of nuclear weapons from North Korean side is nothing but a bluff.

Further, there are numerous military issues associated with  pre-emptive attacks on North Korea’s nuclear facilities. Firstly, it is imperative to note here that pre-emptive strikes are suggested when a state has developed nascent nuclear weapon capability so as to minimize the complexities involved in it. It is well establish fact that North Korea is a nuclear weapon state. The US must ascertain that North Korea does not launches retaliatory strikes in response to the US pre-emptive strike. North Korea holds submarines in its war inventory, though technological advancement ofthese submarines is dubious. Also, North Korea is capable of mobile launcher based missile attacks and the possibility ofhiding missiles for retaliatory strikes cannot be denied.In that case it will be next to impossible for the US to neutralise all the missiles bases of North Korea which are spread all over the country.North Korea’s large artillery installation which may be used to carry out chemical weapons attacks against South Korea is also apotential threat.

Conclusion

Under such circumstances, the US needs to carry out comprehensive strikes  which will not only destroy the nuclear infrastructure but also target North Korea’s command and control structures, key leaders, artillery centres, chemical and biological units, airfield, ports, forward positions and other areas of importance. Such an attack will not be less than the full scale war which will have lot of political and strategic challenges. Secondly, there will be a question of risk of spread of radiological damage in case of pre-emptive strikes. It is still a challenge to carry out pre-emptive strikes on the nuclear facilities while controlling the radiological damages.

Therefore, pre-emptive strikes are not likely to fetch much political and military return. The first strike by the US will also emphasise the importance of having superior nuclear weapons and policy of first use putting disarmament efforts into backyard. It will also complicate the problem of strategic stability in the region as it may promote North Korean leaders to launch pre-emptive strikes on South Korea for survival of its own regime. The threat of pre-emptive attacks given by the US is more to signal China that it should begin high level cooperation with the other countries in the region to end North Korea’s nuclear program. China will not like to have a presence of the US troops or to have the US supported government on its borders. Therefore, the threat of pre-emptive strike threat is more to deter China and to secure its cooperation so as to curb the North Korea’s nuclear weapons.