How could the US-Korean War have been avoided?

As tensions on the Korean peninsula rise with the risk of nuclear war, the US can still defuse the situation with reasonable policies.

The risk of war on the Korean Peninsula is growing. With both the United States and North Korea (a country believed to possess nuclear weapons) taking a tough stance, the lives of hundreds of thousands, even millions of Americans, North Koreans/South Koreans and Japanese could be at risk.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (left). Photo: Reuters.

However, American security can be assured without war, if America pursues a reasonable policy.

The root of the problem

The seeds for the current crisis were sown in October 1994. The then-new North Korean government of Kim Jong-il (Kim Jong-il, son of the recently deceased Kim Il-sung) signed the Agreed Framework with the Clinton administration. Under it, North Korea agreed to halt construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being used for a nuclear weapons program, in exchange for US funding for two light-water reactors that could not be used to produce nuclear bomb material. Requests from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were required to inspect North Korea’s implementation of the agreement.

Kim Jong-il initially complied with the agreement. In 1997, he met with representatives from South Korea and the United States, continuing what US Secretary of State Madeline Albright called a “historic process.”

However, it soon became increasingly clear that Pyongyang was secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program and was obstructing IAEA inspectors. President Clinton's patience was also beginning to run out. In March 2000, President Clinton reported to the US Congress that he could no longer certify that North Korea was not violating the Agreed Framework by secretly developing nuclear weapons.

In a speech in 2002, President George W. Bush, with the encouragement of then-Deputy Secretary of State John Bolton, listed North Korea as part of what he called the “axis of evil,” which added to Kim Jong-il’s fears of a US attack.

Based in part on Bush's statement, North Korea formally withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in January 2003 and expelled IAEA inspectors. No longer bound by the NPT and IAEA inspections, leader Kim Jong-il accelerated his secret nuclear weapons development project. In October 2006, North Korea conducted the first of six nuclear tests to date.

In March 2011, President Obama made a decision that has made any diplomatic solution with North Korea difficult. In an effort to prevent what he called a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Libya, President Obama authorized the U.S. military to join other nations in bombing Libyan government forces. Seven months later, leader Muammar Gaddafi was deposed and eventually murdered by a mob.

More than any other event, Gaddafi's death convinced current leader Kim Jong-un that giving up his nuclear weapons would be a death sentence for him.

In December 2003, President Bush negotiated with Gaddafi to end Libya’s nuclear weapons program. At the time, Bush boasted that “Colonel Gaddafi’s commitment, once fulfilled, will make our country safer and the world more peaceful.” Gaddafi’s commitment was fulfilled in 2009.

Yet, just two years later, when Obama became president, Gaddafi was left without nuclear weapons to defend himself, so he was unable to stop the air attack and was killed. This bitter lesson was imprinted in the mind of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un: Do not trust American diplomacy.

US-North Korea nuclear scenarios

President Trump was recently in Asia, discussing the North Korean crisis with leaders of several countries, including South Korea, Japan and China. During his trip to Asia, he declared that “the era of strategic patience is over.”

PresidentTrumpNorth Korea has said it will not allow it to have the ability to attack the US mainland with nuclear weapons. The current North Korean leader has said he will not give up nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Washington says it wants a diplomatic solution, but Pyongyang has signaled it does not trust the US and will not put denuclearization on the table. The result is three possible scenarios:

1- Kim Jong-un keeps his nuclear arsenal and Donald Trump backs down.

2- Mr. Trump's threats put pressure on Mr. Kim to give up his weapons, and he hopes a new US President will not attack him.

3- Mr. Kim retains nuclear weapons, and Mr. Trump carries out his threats of military attack against North Korea.

Given Mr Trump’s personality, the first scenario is unlikely. The second scenario is even more unlikely because Mr Kim is absolutely convinced that the only chance for his regime to survive is to possess a nuclear arsenal that is strong enough to deter the US. So that leaves scenario 3.

US President Trump has repeatedly threatened North Korea. Last month, CIA Director Mike Pompeo hinted that the US could assassinate its rival. However, this idea is just a dream because the chance of success is extremely low.

Devastating consequences and preventive measures

Thae Young-ho, a North Korean diplomat who defected to the West, revealed to the US House Foreign Affairs Committee that if the US carried out any attack on North Korea, its military officers “have been trained to press the [weapons] button without further instructions from the General Command.” According to Thae Young-ho, if North Korea discovered any bombs ormissilesIf any enemy weapon falls on their territory, they will immediately fire artillery and rockets into South Korean territory.

This artillery and rocket attack could take the lives of thousands of South Koreans, American citizens and US military personnel in the northern part of South Korea.

Of course Seoul will not sit idly by, they will retaliate. The situation could then spiral out of control for all sides and become an all-out war.

In the event that leader Kim Jong-un believes his regime is about to be attacked by South Korean ground forces, he is likely to use nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, China has made it clear that if the US attacks with the aim of overthrowing the North Korean government, it will take action to prevent that intention. It is difficult to predict the scale and consequences of a military conflict between the US and China, but such a situation would certainly create dangerous escalating developments.

It is now clear that if President Trump orders a preemptive strike against North Korea, there is no plausible scenario that would improve US interests and security. On the contrary, preemptive action would almost certainly be harmful, even catastrophic, to US interests and security.

But at the last minute, it is not too late for the US President to choose a realistic course of action that can prevent war while protecting America.

Logically, the goal of US foreign and military policy in the region should be first to protect the US mainland, then to prevent loss of US life and property in South Korea and Japan.

These goals can only be achieved by combining deterrence with cooperation with America's allies and propaganda. Using military force first would almost certainly be detrimental to American national security.

US National Security Advisor HR McMaster said his country is running out of time to resolve the crisis on the peninsula.Chosen, implying that a military solution will be needed. However, this approach is not convincing. The issue of time is entirely on the US side. A reasonable, logical, and patient foreign policy will protect the lives of US allies, prevent North Korea from using nuclear weapons, and strengthen US security./.

According to VOV