Here is another article that shows that more people are considering the surgical strike option against North Korea’s nuclear program:
This satellite imagery taken in November 2015 and provided by the U.S. shows the Yeongbyeon nuclear facilities in North Korea. (Yonhap)
Calls for “surgical strikes” against North Korean nuclear facilities have gained ground recently along with calls for more stringent sanctions, despite many observers expressing skepticism that neither South Korea and the United States have the political will to pursue such a military option.
The close allies have both recently floated the idea of a pre-emptive surgical strike on the North’s nuclear facilities after the communist regime conducted its fifth and most powerful nuclear test on Sept. 9.
Seoul’s defense ministry said Thursday the two allies will “have a consultation over a possible pre-emptive strike against North Korea depending on situations in case of an imminent nuclear attack by the North.”
In Washington, officials have revisited the surgical strike option which was considered against North Korea’s Yeongbyeon nuclear facilities under the Bill Clinton administration in 1994. That’s because the North has continued to improve its nuclear and missile capabilities despite international sanctions and condemnation.
Democratic U.S. vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine said Tuesday (U.S. time) he will support pre-emptive strikes against North Korea if it shows signs of launching a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the United States. [Yonhap]
You can read more at the link, but the real question is what does the US and ROK do when North Korea responds to such a strike by launching ballistic missiles and artillery against South Korean population centers?
With HRC talking about shooting down Russian planes in Syria and Kaine talking about starting a nuclear war in East Asia, Trump is sounding better and better…
Jax
9 years ago
In my opinion, the real concern is their SLBM program and not their land-based ICBM program. NK would want the capability for a surprise attack to achieve any combat advantage with its nuclear program. Otherwise, the nuclear program serves no other purpose that to aid regime survival.
Overhead surveillance will easily detect preparations for an ICBM launch. It is far harder to surveil the preparations for a submarine launch. Thus, if NK attempts to send an SLBM submarine to sea, the preemption will consist of tracking and sinking it the moment it reaches international waters.
@Jax, yes the SLBM would definitely by their biggest strategic deterrent if they master the technology which is probably many years down the road. I would say right now the biggest issue are their road-mobile ICBMs. The TD-2s they use for their space program are easy to spot from overhead surveillance due to the time it takes to construct, but road mobile ICBMs or even their Musudans are harder to spot since they can be hidden in bunkers and then driven to a launch site giving little early warning to analysts.
GMD and THAAD can defeat their land ballistic missiles, so the preemptive question involves a willingness to strike before a land-based launch becomes probable (and all the risk that decision entails).
An SLBM launch is all about overcoming defenses with a surprise short flight (ie, The Hunt for Red October problem). If that NK submarine ever goes to sea, then preemption is obvious. And I bet the Japanese Navy would be more than happy to sink it.
With HRC talking about shooting down Russian planes in Syria and Kaine talking about starting a nuclear war in East Asia, Trump is sounding better and better…
In my opinion, the real concern is their SLBM program and not their land-based ICBM program. NK would want the capability for a surprise attack to achieve any combat advantage with its nuclear program. Otherwise, the nuclear program serves no other purpose that to aid regime survival.
Overhead surveillance will easily detect preparations for an ICBM launch. It is far harder to surveil the preparations for a submarine launch. Thus, if NK attempts to send an SLBM submarine to sea, the preemption will consist of tracking and sinking it the moment it reaches international waters.
@Jax, yes the SLBM would definitely by their biggest strategic deterrent if they master the technology which is probably many years down the road. I would say right now the biggest issue are their road-mobile ICBMs. The TD-2s they use for their space program are easy to spot from overhead surveillance due to the time it takes to construct, but road mobile ICBMs or even their Musudans are harder to spot since they can be hidden in bunkers and then driven to a launch site giving little early warning to analysts.
GMD and THAAD can defeat their land ballistic missiles, so the preemptive question involves a willingness to strike before a land-based launch becomes probable (and all the risk that decision entails).
An SLBM launch is all about overcoming defenses with a surprise short flight (ie, The Hunt for Red October problem). If that NK submarine ever goes to sea, then preemption is obvious. And I bet the Japanese Navy would be more than happy to sink it.