Agence France Presse October 05, 2006
US military response to North Korean test called unlikely
By Jim Mannion
A North Korean nuclear test is unlikely to bring on a US military response because the risk of an all-out regional conflict far outweighs what air strikes might accomplish, analysts said.
US envoy Christopher Hill hinted at a possible military response when he declared Wednesday: "We are not going to live with a nuclear North Korea. We are not going to accept it."
His comments were the US government's toughest yet since North Korea announced that it intends to conduct its first nuclear test to bolster its deterrent against US threats and sanctions.
But experts consulted here said the United States has no viable military options, and if it did strike North Korea it would invite potentially devastating retaliation against Japan or South Korea.
"What would we attack?" said Robert Einhorn, a former assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation.
Einhorn said the United States suspects North Korea has a uranium enrichment program and enough plutonium for 10 or 11 weapons. But, he said, "We don't have a clue where it is."
"What would we be gaining with a military strike?"
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Pentagon spokesmen have refused to comment on what preparations the US military is taking in anticipation of a North Korean nuclear test.
Japanese news reports said a US WC-135 aircraft equipped to gather and test air samples for signs of a nuclear blast took off from Kadena Air Base in Okinawa on a monitoring mission off North Korea. US military spokesmen would not comment on the report.
The United States has submarines and warships armed with cruise missiles in the Pacific and long-range B-52 bombers in Guam that could be used if President George W. Bush ordered air strikes.
Analysts acknowledge that air strikes are not entirely outside the realm of possibility.
Former defense secretary William Perry and a former top Pentagon strategist, Ashton Carter, called in June for cruise missile strike to stop North Korea from testing a long-range Taepodong-2 missile.
Their idea was ignored and the North Korean missile failed shortly after launch on July 4-5.
But it was the first time that military action was seriously raised as an option after years of fruitless diplomatic efforts to get North Korea to give up its nuclear program.
"This is a far more threatening development than the missile test and so the balance will tilt somewhat in the direction of that argument," said Michael Levi, an expert on the Council on Foreign Relations, in an online question and answer session hosted by the CFR.
"Now, where it balances out is difficult to tell because there are still immense downsides and dangers to any sort of strike," said Levi.
North Korea could inflict massive casualties in Seoul with its 11,000 artillery pieces and large stockpile chemical rounds, experts say.
Although North Korea is not known to have armed missiles with nuclear warheads, some analysts say it should not be ruled out.
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.Org, cites nuclear cooperation between the North Koreans and Pakistanis, and speculates that Pakistan may have tested a North Korean warhead in one of two nuclear tests conducted in 1998.
"North Korea may well have nuclear warheads on top of missiles today," said Bruce Bennett, a North Korea expert at Rand Corporation, a Washington think tank.
"And if we go and start attacking like their nuclear facilities that they are producing plutonium at, they may well decide that their best response is to launch a nuclear missile at Seoul or Tokyo or someplace like that," he said
If Washington were to opt for limited air strikes, it might target the small nuclear reactor at Yongbyon that has been North Korea's sole source of the plutonium so far.
But bombing it would risk creating a large radioactive cloud, Bennett said.
Two larger partially built reactors at Yongbyon and Taechon would be more logical targets if the United States aims to contain North Korea's future plutonium production.
But Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, said a major military response to the kind of nuclear test that other countries have conducted would not be easy to justify.
"And if we did too much the North Koreans could retaliate and this would lead to an escalation. Once things get going, there's no way of knowing where they'll stop," he said.
© Copyright 2006, Agence France Presse
