According to the UK-based Telegraph, the war of words between Donald Trump and North Korean President Kim Jong-un could turn into a confrontation. The United States would draft plans for a “bloody nose” military attack on North Korea.
According to the Telegraph, the purpose of the strike would be to contain the nuclear weapons of the North. This is in light of the fact that the United States has had multiple opportunities to diplomatically contain North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs, but has instead opted for hostile aggression.
The Telegraph reports that the White House has “dramatically” stepped up its preparations for a military solution to the North Korean stalemate, receiving inside information from three “well-placed sources” – two former US officials and a third from the Trump administration .
One of the options involves the United States destroying a launch site before North Korea can conduct another missile test. It would specifically target a stock of weapons.
“The Pentagon is trying to find options that would allow it to hit North Koreans in the nose, get their attention and show that we are serious,” said a former US security official on Telegraph policy.
It is not surprising that the Telegraph report indicates that the Trump administration considered Donald Trump’s strike in Syria in April as an action plan against North Korea. In this context, the movement would not be designed to contain or deter North Korea (such a limited April-inspired strike would be pointless) – it would most likely be aimed at the American domestic population and the community. international.
Whether the media admit it or not, the Trump strike in Syria was a complete joke. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, only 23 of the 59 missiles launched actually touched the Syrian air base in what Russia described as an ineffective strike. In fact, just a day later, the air base was back in action, deploying fighter jets to bomb rebel positions in the Homs countryside.
In addition, the United States actually gave Russia, Syria’s most loyal supporter, a strike notice well before its launch. The Pentagon spokesman, Captain Jeff Davis, said in a statement that the so-called “deconfliction” channel set up by Russia and the United States in Syria was used to reveal the strike to the Russian side. It is inconceivable that Russia has not conveyed this warning to Syria since Russian personnel are on the spot.
All that Trump did in April was to increase his ratings and improve his position in the media for a limited period of time, as well as increase the stock of Raytheon, the maker of the Tomahawk missiles used in the attack. The purpose of the strike would not have been to deter Syria from carrying out chemical weapons attacks, as Trump had ordered it before receiving credible information linking the Syrian government to the infamous chemical attack from Khan Sheikhoun.
A strike against North Korea aimed at causing damage to the country’s army without warning will not be welcomed by a hostile country that has demonstrated that its US personnel are well within its range. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies, wrote on Twitter: “Mobile missiles do not need launch sites, Donald. “Varied its launch sites, making it more difficult for the United States to track and intercept missiles.
Lack of any decent media coverage of this discussion is the little known fact that in October of this year it was reported that China was bombing Guam, a US territory. There is only one inference to be drawn from this conduct – China was sending a direct warning to the United States that its staff would not be safe if a war broke out on the Korean peninsula.
No one disputes that the United States could cause serious damage to North Korea’s infrastructure, but as Business Insider remarked strangely:
“The United States knows what capabilities they have to counter North Korea, but not how North Korea would respond … The bloody scenario comes down to a bet on whether North Korea is ready to enter a total war.” added emphasis]
Rather than take the risk, the United States could consider a more productive diplomatic option to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program, which would not result in a nuclear crisis.