North Korea planning war with nukes, cyber-attacks? Not likely, but…

Posted by: Phineas on April 18, 2013 at 3:19 pm

**Posted by Phineas

It sounds insane, but is North Korea planning a lightning war to reunify the peninsula and present both Washington and Beijing with a fait accompli? Bill Gertz of the Washington Times (1) reports that US analysts are concerned:

U.S. intelligence officials assessing North Korea’s recent bellicose statements are increasingly concerned that Kim Jong-un could use his limited nuclear arsenal as part of offensive military attack that would be calculated to improve the prospects for reunifying the country rather suffering a collapse of his regime.

According to officials familiar with unclassified assessments, the North Korean leader and his military hampered by economic sanctions and a declining conventional military force remain paranoid about a U.S. military offensive.

Reportedly, the regime in Pyongyang is also worried that the Chinese might be willing to replace the Kim dynasty and its backers with more pliable minions, presumably to remove a problem for their foreign relations, since China wants to be seen as a stable power on the world stage,   not as the allies of a country that regularly threatens regional peace.

But, given the disparity of power between North Korea on the one hand, and the US and its South Korean allies on the other, how would this war be conducted? Gertz, again:

The North Koreans are calling their strategy “the spirit of the offensive.” It calls for decisive, surprise attacks carried out very rapidly.

The strategy also calls for a four-front war against South Korea and the United States involving strategic missiles with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to destroy U.S. and allied military bases. It would launch conventional military strikes through the demilitarized zone and into South Korea. Special operations commandos would mount rear-guard attacks. Cyberwarfare would take down critical infrastructure.

A nuclear strike itself might involve missile strikes, or even special forces with small suitcase-sized “dirty bombs.”

It’s not a scenario I consider very likely, for a couple of reasons. First, as China analyst Gordon Chang points out, while the Chinese government isn’t all that thrilled with their “friends” in Beijing, the military, an increasingly dominant and assertive faction in Chinese politics. Noting reports of increased Chinese military activity near their border with North Korea, Chang argues that it is possible this is in support of the Kim regime, not a warning to it:

Why would Beijing back the world’s most ruthless regime? The answer lies in China’s fraying political system, which is allowing generals and admirals to cement control over policymaking.

Chinese flag officers gained influence last year as feuding civilians sought military support for their bids for promotion as the Communist Party retired Fourth Generation leaders, led by Hu Jintao, and replaced them with the Fifth, under the command of Xi Jinping. The People’s Liberation Army, which may now be the most powerful faction in the Party, has traditionally maintained its pro-Pyongyang views, and it is apparently using its enhanced standing to push Beijing closer to Pyongyang.

The rise of the military has had consequences. For instance, the PLA has sold the North Koreans at least six mobile launchers for their new KN-08 missile, which can hit the U.S. These launchers substantially increase Pyongyang’s ability to wage a nuclear war and are the primary reason the Obama administration decided last month to go ahead with the 14 missile interceptors in Alaska.

Today, in the Chinese capital there are many academics and Foreign Ministry professionals who know that supporting North Korea is not in China’s long-term interest. Yet where it counts — at the top of the political system — there is no consensus to change long-held policies supporting the Kim family regime.

So the “fear of a Chinese coup” theory looks less compelling. (2)

The other reason I don’t find the analysts’ concerns to be cause (yet) for alarm is that, to be blunt, a blitzkrieg-style assault using WMDs is a sure path to suicide for Kim and his cronies. Killing American troops with nuclear weapons, for example, or blowing off a bomb in Seoul, would generate unbearable pressure on Barack Obama to retaliate — there would simply be no way for him to resist. Likewise with the demand to take out the Pyongyang regime once and for all, though Chinese pressure might be enough to stave off conquest and reunification with Seoul, as opposed to regime change.

The problem, of course, is that the North Korean regime and the thinking of Kim Jong-Un is almost a black box to the outside world, its workings a mystery. What if they believe their own propaganda and think they can pull it off? Nations with far more extensive contact with the outside world have badly miscalculated before: just ask Hitler how his declaration of war on the US worked out.

So, while I don’t think the scenario Gertz outlined is anywhere near likely –I assume the North Koreans are obnoxious and obstreperous extortionists, but still rational actors when it comes to their own survival– it is illustrative of the worrisome possibilities that have to be kept in mind, because our window into Pyongyang is so small and opaque.

Footnotes:
(1) Bear in mind that, while Gertz is a solid reporter, the Times is owned by a faction of the virulently anti-North Korean Unification Church. If we’re going to acknowledge the biases of liberal papers like the New York Times, we should also stipulate those for publications generally on our side, too.
(2) It is possible that the Chinese moves are in support of a North Korean attack, but that would mean the most aggressive faction of the military has taken control, and I’ve seen no sign of that. So they may be showing support for Kim, but not that much.

via Real Clear Defense

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 Responses to “North Korea planning war with nukes, cyber-attacks? Not likely, but…”

Comments

  1. Tango says:

    Phineas, a couple of thoughts:

    The “rational actor” notion has often fallen short in the real world – particularly in the last century. The DPRK is one of the most insular nations in the world (today). We believe the Un regime won’t commit suicide by declaring war. Because we WANT to believe it. Alas, we have nothing to back it up. Op-Ed pieces or diatribes spewed by politicians don’t make it so, either.

    Second, the Masters of Bejing are opportunists. The world holds its breath and wrings its hands over the fate of Seoul. Barry Obama alternates between the “nothing to see here” jive and then flips to sending BUFFs from Guam to do a photo op over South Korea. The game changer will be Japan. You watch.

    Third (and nobody much talks about this) -but, what about the miserable wretches in North Korea who’ve been forced to live (and mostly die) in the communist obscenity that is the DPRK since 1953? The country is a mass grave yard, the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since Germany in 1945. When do the 97 percent of the DPRK’s population get liberated? The media narrative mostly seems concerned with maintaining the status-quo, as though that is a desirable outcome. I say that is immoral and shame upon the free nations of the world if that happens AGAIN.

  2. Drew the Infidel says:

    China and Russia both share a northern border with DPRK. Should Lil’ Kim decide to attack South Korea, he will lose. The last thing either China or Russia want is a US-friendly state on their doorstep and/or an influx of destitute North Korean refugees. This especially in view of the way they both lost their gamble when Vietnam decided to chart its own course instead of playing puppet.

    After 60 years of living a Neanderthal hand-to-mouth existence a “rallying of the troops” to the status quo in DPRK is highly unlikely.

  3. Carlos says:

    “…since China wants to be seen as a stable power on the world stage, not as the allies of a country countries that regularly threatens regional peace.”

    There, now it makes more sense, closer to reality.