North Korea and the Fallacy of Accidental Wars
Image Credit: Flickr - Creative Commons (Yeowatzup)

North Korea and the Fallacy of Accidental Wars

0 Likes
66 comments

Accidental wars rarely happen. Historians have demonstrated that most wars initially deemed “accidental,” (perhaps most notably the First World War), have in actuality resulted from deliberative state policy, even if the circumstances of the war were unplanned.  While war seems discordant, it actually requires a great deal of cooperation and coordination. Fundamentally, two parties have to agree to conduct a war; otherwise, you have either a punitive raid or an armed surrender negotiation.

Consequently, the baseline for evaluating the chances for accidental war on the Korean Peninsula should be judged as quite low.  South Korea, in all likelihood, views the prospect of decisive victory against North Korea as worse than the status quo. The United States has no interest in fighting a war against the DPRK at the moment.  For example, the sinking of the Cheonan was obviously an act of war, but neither the United States nor South Korea were interested in fighting a war on the terms offered. While we know less about the strategic calculus of North Korea, there is little reason to think that North Korea was interested in war, either; it probed South Korean capabilities and resolve, but did not press the issue in ways that could have forced Seoul’s hand.

This said, there are conditions under which the chances for accidental wars increase. If the main parties do not communicate well (or at all) with one another, they may misunderstand messages designed to convey commitment or capability.  Cultural differences can contribute to a lack of appreciation of how a potential foe thinks about the costs and benefits of war.  Domestic conflict invariably complicates foreign policy, as state leaders often act according to a logic that places the dictata of their governing coalitions above foreign policy concerns. Finally, leaders do not have full control over their military organizations; a rogue artillery commander, fighter pilot, or sub skipper can effectively initiate hostilities on their own. All of these conditions can lead to situations in which states commit what they believe is limited force in service of what they believe are limited objectives, but in actuality threatens core interests of the enemy.

The potential for accidental war is highest in conditions where technology and doctrine overwhelmingly favor quick, offensive action, and produce quick, decisive outcomes.  Wars that could de-escalate following a border skirmish and a few artillery duels can escalate beyond control if both sides understand the timing of offensive action to be critical. Arguably, the conditions on the Korean Peninsula currently match this description. Although there’s virtually no scenario in which North Korea could win a war, if allowed to mobilize and launch well prepared, coordinate offensive activities the DPRK could inflict severe damage on the South Korean military and South Korean civilians.

Similarly, a pre-emptive U.S.-ROK assault on the North Korean military, or an attack launched in the very early stages of a North Korean assault, could substantially undercut the power of North Korea’s first punch.

Such an operation would include a wide array of attacks, launched from sea, air, and land platforms, targeting North Korean airfields, communication nodes, and logistic chokepoints.  These attacks would attempt to eliminate North Korean offensive capabilities, especially for direct attacks against the South (and presumably against Japan). The ability of the DPRK to provide any defense against a committed air offensive is in deep question, despite a large air force and an extensive SAM network. North Korea is the war that the U.S. Air Force (USAF) (and to a lesser extent, the U.S. Navy) have been dreaming about fighting since the 1970s, and they remain well prepared to fight it. The last major armored offensive to push forward under a condition of enemy air supremacy was the North Vietnamese Easter Offensive of 1972, which ended in disaster; the North Koreans would operate under considerably greater handicap.

The North Korean nuclear program exacerbates these difficulties.  If the ROK and United States decided to launch a preemptive strike, DPRK nuclear sites would be among their first targets. The ability of U.S. and South Korean intelligence to successfully identify these targets (and to assess their destruction at high levels of confidence) remains highly questionable, but North Korea might nevertheless decide that it needs to use the weapons in some fashion in order to preserve the strategic and political balance. Whether the use of weapons would prevent regime destruction is a different question entirely; the senior military and political leadership may assess the weapons as regime saviors, even if a nuclear detonation would ensure the resolve of South Korea and the U.S. to end the DPRK. 

Daryl Press and Keir Leiber sensibly warn about the potential that attacks against the North Korean leadership cadre might have destabilizing effects.  The U.S. may well refrain from launching attacks directly against the North Korean leadership in order to maintain some rump level of communications, and to give the leadership a potential survival strategy beyond nuclear escalation.  Precedents for not directly attacking the leadership include Libya in 2011 and Serbia in 1999. However, given the close ties between the Kim regime and the senior military leadership, and the identification of the state itself with the Kim clan, there could be considerable temptation to strike.

These dynamics operate on the North Korean side, as well. Senior North Korean military officers are professionals; they surely understand the power of the advanced American and South Korean military establishments, and appreciate that pre-emption could prove disastrous to North Korean military prospects. The appropriate response to concern about catastrophic defeat at the hands of the United States and South Korea would surely be to deescalate the crisis, but DPRK domestic politics may, for the time, preclude that possibility. 

Nevertheless, it is exceedingly difficult to believe that serious military professionals within the DPRK believe in the possibility of victory against the United States. Motivated bias surely matters to decision-making, but just as surely must have some limits.

Thus, if North Korea successfully convinces the U.S. and the ROK that war is inevitable, it is almost irresponsible for the latter not to launch a pre-emptive attack that would disrupt North Korean preparations. Were a war to take place without pre-emption, the political opposition in both countries would take the current leadership to task for failing to take steps to destroy the DPRK’s military at its stepping off points. The political implications of this logic are obviously grim, and it should be clear that neither Seoul nor Washington believes, at this point, that war is inevitable. At the same time, convincing North Korea that war is inevitable could have similar disastrous effects. This is undoubtedly why the United States has responded in slow, measured fashion to North Korean provocations.

Again, few wars happen by accident; most take place because policymakers want them, even if those policymakers operate with poor or incomplete information about the prospects for success. Given the current balance of capabilities on the Korean Peninsula, a full war seems exceedingly unlikely, as none of the combatants stand to benefit.

Still, even the low probability of an accidental war demands some attention from policymakers. Seoul, Washington, and, perhaps most importantly, Beijing should take every possible step to ensure that some form of communication remains between the potential belligerents. The United States must be extremely careful in assessing North Korean moves, even if the DPRK decides to expand its provocations to incidents like the sinking of the Cheonan or the artillery barrage of 2010. 

This does not mean that the U.S. or the ROK should simply accept such attacks as the cost of doing business, but they do need to respond with great care. Finally, the leadership of the DPRK must come to an appreciation of how dangerous a situation it has created for itself, and strongly consider stepping back from the brink before something tragic happens.

Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination, and can be found on twitter at @drfarls.

Comments
66

[...] instance, Pyongyang denied sinking the Cheonan in March 2010, an incident that killed 48 crew members. But a team that recovered debris from the [...]

JohnX
April 15, 2013 at 15:04

Liang1a wrote: "I didn't say NK and SK will be good friends forever once the US left the Korean Peninsula. I said China can maintain peace between the two Koreas. I also said China will be more disposed to put pressure on NK to give up nukes once the threat of American nukes were removed from SK. Whether NK and SK will resolve their animosity and work out a peaceful solution is still to be seen. But certainly with the growing power and influence of China and without the threatening presence of America, China can maintain peace in the region."

 

So why doesn't China do it now then?

 

Why did China not prevent NK from attacking a SK island after the sinking of the Cheonan? Why did the Chinese show no respect to the SK in 2010 and prevent NK from carrying out its threats in 2013?

 

Is it simply, "we will stop conflict between NK and SK when it benefits us and not the SK or the USA?"

 

You say its because the US has the potential to give nukes to SK? They could do that even after they took thier troops from the nation of SK.

 

They wanted to remove thier troops in 2012 and the SK Government didn't want it to happen because of threats by NK.

 

China is its own worst enemy it seems. They support NK because of US troops and (possible) nukes, yet through thier support give reason to SK to not want the US to leave.

 

 

JohnX
April 15, 2013 at 14:50

Liang1a wrote: "I use Wikipedia as a convenient source that is usually accurate and easily accessible to anybody. What's wrong with that?".

 

One of the first things that Lecturers tell you is not to use it because it can be too easily changed and is not checked as facts. You can use it on here but due to the wars between Chinese posters and others on certain topics and the continual changes that occur on so called facts its not reliable and most educated people will not give it any credence.

 

It may be factual on certain topics that are not conflictive, but in most disputed topics it can not be considered acceptable.

Liang1a
April 14, 2013 at 16:38

silence tigger

April 10, 2013 at 4:06 am

 

@observer

Let me clarify your idea:

Asia has to be militarily dominated by the US with its troops stationed in the region, or Asia will turn into chaos with every Asian country developing their own nuclear weapons, and this chaos will spread out the the entire world. Since the same case can be applied to any other continents, therefore, for the survival of the humanity, the whole wolrd must be put under the US military dominance.

————–

This is the fundamental rationale for Pax Americana.  America is the champion of democracy and the motor of world economic development.  No country can develop unless it exports to America.  Except it is all a lie.  American society itself is a cesspool of racism.  American economy is down in the toilet and kept afloat by cheap Chinese consumer goods.  And American consumers get their loans from Chinese deposits of trade surplus dollars.  But still, hey, what the heck.  America is still America.  It is graven in stone that America will always be the greatest savior of mankind.  That is America's manifest destiny.  And anybody who disputes that is by definition a blackguard and terrorist and enemy of mankind.

nick
February 21, 2014 at 09:46

America is a cesspool of racism? compared to where? pretty much all of Europe and Asia is horribly racist. see how they treat black footballers.

fact is, China NEEDS to devalue their currency by buying US treasuries so they can keep exporting and keep those factories going. if the music stops prematurely, there will be mass protests and instability in China. all the people who look the other way on the Communist party will start questioning things once economic development hiccups.

Errol
April 13, 2013 at 03:18

Hold your horses. Isn't the Khmer Rouge a valued junior partner of China? Are you rewriting history here?

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief