There’s no limited warfare option when it
comes to open conflict with North Korea. We're talking months of fighting. You're going to see large amounts of artillery,
large amounts of munitions, dropped from aircraft, from B-52s, B-1s, B-2s. You're going to see a shelling of the terrain
on the Korean Peninsula that you only see in the movies, from World War II and the Korean
War. This is a very brutal, very deadly regime. In the event of a military conflict on the
Korean Peninsula, we have a situation where we could potentially be talking about the
second, third, and 11th largest economies in the world, engaged in a military conflict. The scale of fighting will be greater than
anything we've seen around the world since the Korean War, not just on the Korean Peninsula. I think that there is a general misperception
among the American public as well as among many of my colleagues here on the Hill, as
well as, I believe, with the president of the United States, that there's some sort
of limited warfare that can occur with regards to North Korea, that would be a surgical strike
or a “bloody nose” attack that would not result in mass casualties, and that's simply
not true. Given the fact that there is a 1.2 million-man
army, some 6,500 armored vehicles, tanks, some 12,000 artillery pieces, chemical weapons,
some 5,000 tons of chemical weapons, the amount of blood and treasure that will be expended
if war resumes on the Korean Peninsula will be on a scale that we have not seen since
the Korean War, since the cessation of hostilities in 1953. From the very beginning, North Korea would
likely fire chemical weapons, potentially thousands, if not tens of thousands, of rounds. We're talking about 25 million people in Seoul
from all around the world, not just Korean citizens. A possible 100,000 dead within the first few
days and 10,000 the day after that from just a conventional attack. I don't think there needs to be any other
reason to be concerned about this than just that alone. And then the US president, President Trump,
would have to decide how does he respond to that kind of thing? It has been waiting for the right conditions
in the past 65 years. And at some point, when it deems it has the
advantageous position, or when it has no other option, it may very well attack South Korea,
seeking to unify the peninsula under the Northern regime's control, for one single purpose. And that is to ensure the survival of the
Kim family regime. According to our commanders in Korea, they
could fire something in the neighborhood of 500,000 artillery rounds, shells, and rockets
within the first hour, and continue that pace for probably several hours. South Korea would, of course, retaliate, using
their artillery to try to suppress the North Korean artillery fire. And so they would be firing into Pyongyang
just as North Korea would be firing into Seoul, the capital of South Korea. Unfortunately, I believe that North Korea
would be more likely to actually use biological weapons than nuclear weapons. One individual or a couple of individuals
could deliver a strategic-level attack on a city, a densely populated area, and expose
tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, or over a million people to lethal doses of
biological weapons. They are so potent that one or two people
with less than a kilogram, for example, of anthrax, and a sprayer, a backpack sprayer,
could deliver over a million doses, lethal doses, of anthrax and kill tens of thousands
or even over 100,000 people in just one attack. In fact, I think that a military strike will
only reinforce the belief among North Koreans that they need nuclear weapons to make sure
that they maintain their sovereignty and their independence of action. In the historical literature, we talked about
a concept called “use it or lose it.” As soon as we start attacking North Korea
in a way where they could lose their weapons, they will be tempted to use them. So if we want to destroy his nuclear weapons,
he may well start using them so that he can get some utility from them, and that's an
outcome we really don't want. I think most people would say that peaceful
unification of the Korean Peninsula is the preferred way of going about this, but I think
that North Korea’s ambitions are fundamentally at odds with US policy and South Korea’s
policy. What I learned on the ground talking to both
military and civilian leaders is that Kim Jong Un is not someone who is simply going
to disappear. You can't buy him off. He is there to stay, and he is determined
to retaliate in an overwhelming way, with whatever weapons he has at his disposal. We have to understand that trying to take
the humanitarian tack with them isn't going to get us very far. We've got to be prepared to show them strength
for them to respect us. I would argue that we still have quite a bit
of runway to try to shape the way he approaches the nuclear weapons program. I think that sanctions have never been tougher. There are internal stresses in the regime
as the sanctions take hold, and the diplomatic isolation will continue to damage the regime’s
ability to gain hard currency for its weapons programs. Now, I think we owe it to ourselves and to
our allies, and for global peace, to let the maximum pressure work its way on North Korea.
Relevant given Sam's past discussion of North Korea
Nuclear warfare would be so devastating, in so many ways, to so many people and to so many countries, it's the last last last option.
The only way I can think the situation can change is:
1) China will just stop being trading partners with NK. I don't see this happening though.
2) The underground culture in NK will eventually overthrow the government. It's the one that makes the most sense, but it's also the hardest one to envision happening because that is a slow, high-stakes process under a very watchful eye.
3) You simply let NK have their nukes and hope nothing every comes out of it. I see this is as the default option
4) NK accidently blows themselves up, killing much of the regime. This is a hopeful option, but not probabilistic. Not to mention, the aftermath would be very unclear
5) Kim gets overthrown by a leader who's actually not interested in warfare and wants to create peace amongst world leaders and save his citizens.
6) False flag operation that leads us to Nuclear war