U.S. Considers Deploying Nuclear Weapons to South Korea

Matters in the reclusive communist nation of North Korea remain difficult for those of us without access to classified intelligence to assess. And depending on the quality of that intelligence, it is likely difficult for those with access to it such as the president and his security council to clearly assess the danger that North Korea presents.

One thing we can be sure of is that North Korea will continue to present a danger and a challenge to neighboring countries as well as to allies such as the U.S. We can also be relatively sure that China is not going to be much help in reigning in its ally. And a nuclear-armed North with the means to deliver those weapons world-wide might be a risk that those allied against the nation will not accept.

The White House hopes the Chinese will do more to influence Pyongyang through diplomacy and enhanced sanctions. But if that fails, and North Korea continues its development of nuclear weapons, there are other options on the table that would significantly alter U.S. policy.

So what are the choices? Several, and none of them without significant risks.

The first and most controversial course of action under consideration is placing U.S. nuclear weapons in South Korea. The U.S. withdrew all nuclear weapons from South Korea 25 years ago. Bringing back bombs — likely to Osan Air Base, less than 50 miles south of the capital of Seoul — would mark the first overseas nuclear deployment since the end of the Cold War, an unquestionably provocative move.

That would definitely raise the level of tensions. And don’t forget that the U.S. has nuclear ballistic missile submarines wandering around the oceans. Hence the idea that North Korean is not currently within range and easily targeted by U.S. nuclear weapons is false. And there would still be this question of their use.

“I don’t think that [deploying nuclear weapons] is a good idea. I think that it will only inflame the view from Pyongyang,” retired Adm. James Stavridis told NBC News. “I don’t see any upside to it because the idea that we would use a nuclear weapon even against North Korea is highly unlikely.”

Getting rid of the current North Korean leadership is an idea.

Another option is to target and kill North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and other senior leaders in charge of the country’s missiles and nuclear weapons and decision-making.

…

Stavridis, a former NATO commander, said that “decapitation is always a tempting strategy when you’re faced with a highly unpredictable and highly dangerous leader.”

“The question you have to ask yourself,” he said, “is what happens the day after you decapitate? I think that in North Korea, it’s an enormous unknown.”

What comes next would be a huge issue. Given the proof that North Korea is under threat from foreign powers such a decapitation would provide, whomever takes over might be even worse that those in charge now.

A third option is covert action, infiltrating U.S. and South Korean special forces into North Korea to sabotage or take out key infrastructure — for instance, blowing up bridges to block the movement of mobile missiles. The CIA, which would oversee such operations, told NBC News it could offer “no guidance” on this option. But Stavridis said that he felt it was the “best strategy” should the U.S. be forced to take military action. He described such action as: “some combination of special forces with South Korea and cyber.”

That might be the most likely, however the entire problem is exacerbated by the likely response by China to any aggressive moves against the North. Never the less, President Trump has threatened to go it alone.

Trump has already indicated he’s open to unilateral action if China fails to rein in its ally, telling the Financial Times over the weekend, “If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.”

Whatever strategy is chosen, President Trump will have many options placed before him.

The Trump White House, through the National Security Council, asked for blue sky options in early February, a senior official told NBC on background. “Think big,” the official said that the agencies were instructed. Many proposales have already been abandoned, but on the military side, sources say, the three options with the highest impact still constitute the next steps.

“It is absolutely appropriate,” Stavridis said, for all contingencies to be considered. “In fact, it’s mandatory for the Pentagon to present the widest possible array of options. That’s what enables presidents to make the right decisions, when they see all the options on the table in front of them.”

Much of the decision-making will be influenced by the effectiveness of any nuclear weapons and delivery systems the North has at its disposal. Given the nations’s well-publicized efforts to join the “nuclear club,” the decision may not be long in coming.

Source:  NBC News