30

Every time North Korea tests a rocket or gets closer to building a nuclear bomb, both China and the Western governments release a series of statements about how they're deeply concerned and threatening new sanctions against Pyongyang.

But have there been any official statements indicating a point of no return where an invasion into North Korea would begin? On one hand it is obvious launching rockets into the ocean is not enough to trigger a military operation. On the other hand a theoretical nuclear launch onto the Pacific coast of the US would obviously result in a heavy response. But where exactly is the line North Korea must cross?

pacoverflow
  • 1,249
  • 10
  • 20
JonathanReez
  • 50,757
  • 35
  • 237
  • 435
  • 5
    What do you mean with "gets closer to building a nuclear bomb"? They already built one. –  Aug 01 '17 at 08:07
  • China has very little military presence in the Sea of Japan. IMO at least until China deploys their second or third carrier there, their ground invasion isn't really feasible in a practical way. – user3528438 Aug 01 '17 at 16:50
  • @BЈовић Do we know that? They've created nuclear explosions but that's not the same thing as building a bomb: for example, the world's first thermonuclear explosion was created by a device weighing 73 tonnes, which could hardly be called a "bomb". – David Richerby Aug 01 '17 at 19:38
  • 6
    @user3528438 is 1400Km long border not enough for a feasible ground invasion? Germany was pretty successful invading France/Poland with a way less border. Also Chinese army is incomparably stronger than NK's – Salvador Dali Aug 01 '17 at 23:28
  • @SalvadorDali Once a war breaks out, it won't be a war between NK and China, but China and SK+Japan+US fighting over the control of NK and Russia trying to sabotage both. Foreign intervention is inevitable and will cost a lot of resources and lives to keep out. IMO Chinese decision makers would rather choose to let NK be for another decade or so than giving those countries a chance to further their presence on the peninsula. Placing two carriers in the Sea of Japan would make US/JP/SK's intervention much more costy than now but still, a war is a war. – user3528438 Aug 02 '17 at 04:24
  • @DavidRicherby I am reading on so many places that they do since long time ago, but not enough range. They also got a nuclear program. –  Aug 02 '17 at 05:27
  • 3
    @BЈовић They couldn't have a nuclear anything without a nuclear programme! But I've read many times that North Korea isn't known to have any nuclear weapon, i.e., something small enough to put in a missile. – David Richerby Aug 02 '17 at 08:33
  • Note that the USA is still at war with North Korea while the PRC is an ally of NK. – Martin Schröder Aug 12 '17 at 12:49

2 Answers2

55

But where exactly is the line North Korea must cross?

Line setting is generally acknowledged as a bad idea. For example, Barack Obama set a red line in Syria about chemical weapons. Then they used chemical weapons. And Obama looked like an idiot when he did not respond with military force.

Lines are bad for two reasons. One, they force action if the line is crossed. Two, they let the bad actor step almost to the line without worrying. We will ignore you unless you do such and such is not the best message to send. The bad actor can dance just on the other side of the line, daring you to react. Or if the goal is to get attention, they know that they have to cross the line. Thus setting a line may encourage crossing it under some circumstances.

On one hand it is obvious launching rockets into the ocean is not enough to trigger a military operation.

This is not at all obvious to me. Given that the stated reason for launching rockets into the ocean is to practice for shooting rockets at people, it seems the obvious time for military action to me. If we wait until after he has killed people or sold nuclear technology to terrorists, history will remember any military action as too late.

Brythan
  • 89,627
  • 8
  • 218
  • 324
  • 2
    Could not agree more with your thoughts on red lines. Dancing close to a red line in itself should be seen as grounds for action. We also must not limit our options to military action, like sending in the Marines, although that remains an option. Economic, diplomatic, and military action short of an attack are also options (an example of the latter is drones for spying, which could also of course be used for attacks). Military action also comes in many flavors, from slap-on-the-wrist stuff to outright invasion. – door_number_three Aug 01 '17 at 18:12
  • 15
    I will point out that Obama asked for an authorization of use of military force, and this was rejected by Congress:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_the_Government_of_Syria_to_Respond_to_Use_of_Chemical_Weapons

    You could say that perhaps he should have done this before issuing the "red line" statement, but that's different than "you shouldn't make red lines", so much as "you should only issue red line statements taht you have the legal authority to act on"

     – Zo the Relativist Aug 01 '17 at 20:30
  • "... [T]he stated reason for launching rockets into the ocean is to practice for shooting rockets at people..." Was this from an official North Korea statement? – user151841 Aug 01 '17 at 22:28
  • 5
    " If we wait until after he has killed people or sold nuclear technology to terrorists, history will remember any military action as too late. ", Yup, so let's just kill a lot of people ourselves, so history will remember us as murderers. Fantastic logic! – Imean H Aug 10 '17 at 07:14
  • @JerrySchirmer - ... And the Congress refused to give Obama the permission to use force was EXACTLY to decrease his power and authority, even if it also hurts interests of USA. – Peter M. - stands for Monica Nov 15 '20 at 17:27
18

The National Interest covers the invasion scenario nicely here. It is unlikely, due to the atomic weapons N Korea has, and probably a substantial supply of chemical weapons as well. The heavily populated city of Seoul is very close to the border, and would likely become a target of revenge with very high civilian casualties.

China recently positioned a higher number of troops on the N Korean border, but the purpose appears to be more to stop a mass emigration, than to invade.

Invasion? Doubtless, both the US and China have contingency plans for invading N Korea, but the chances either would actually do it are unlikely.

A more practical and safer scenario would be to kill Kim Jong Un. He has executed or driven off anyone of any real leadership ability in his government, so with his demise, there is no one who could step in and rally the troops to whatever the cause of N Korea might be said to be.

A precision strike is a possibility - Kim is still seen in public on occasion. One idea floated was to offer his military leaders a big bundle of cash and permanent residence in any western nation they choose, if they'd kill him and walk away.

It will be very interesting to see how the major powers handle this situation. When Kim threatens to use nuclear arms, he must be taken seriously. The results of the N Korea issue will have a large bearing on whether other semi-rogue states pursue nuclear arms. If the major powers can take out Kim without an invasion, they can demonstrate that nuclear arms do not protect the person who threatens to use them.

tj1000
  • 10,467
  • 14
  • 40
  • 8
    Seoul is about 40km (25 miles) from North Korea. Indeed, all of mainland South Korea is within about 400km (250mi) of the North. – David Richerby Jul 31 '17 at 18:40
  • 5
    I strongly disagree about the wisdom of attempting to assassinate Kim Jong Un because of the resulting chaos. Potential catastrophic outcomes include someone resuming the war with the south in an attempt to create a crisis severe enough that none dare challenge his control of the north (I recently saw an estimate of 200k civilian deaths for the 1st 12 hours of the war if a surprise attack required attempting to evacuate Seoul under fire), or an accidental shooting war between the US and China (both send special forces into the north to try and secure the nukes, and something goes very wrong). – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Aug 01 '17 at 14:43
  • 1
    @DanNeely Though I generally agree with you, I tend to distrust any kind of Seoul casualty estimates. I've seen them go as high as "at least two million", and as low as "a few thousand maximum even in the case of surprise all out artillery attack". I suspect even the involved militaries don't have much certainty. – mbrig Aug 01 '17 at 16:03
  • 4
    The problem here is that North Korea has little to lose, and South Korea has a sophisticated, wealthy society. With that in mind, I think the goal, and the strategy we have pursued thus far, should be to contain the North and let time do the rest. Should the North attack, they would be completely destroyed right away, but if it comes to that, everyone loses. – door_number_three Aug 01 '17 at 18:37
  • In addition to @DanNeely comment, the issue with assassination is what would happen if it succeeds. As bad as Kim Jong Un is, at least he is only one, relatively well known and certainly he does not seems to be the kind of guy that would throw away his luxurios lifestyle while he still has other options. What happens if after his death a civil war starts and the existing nuclear weapons end in the hand of several, unknown military leaders? What if some end in the hands of a "true believer" who really does not mind dying in retalation if he gets to hit S.Korea/USA? Too many unknowns. – SJuan76 Aug 01 '17 at 20:23
  • Kim Jong Un, like his predecessors, exists as a cult of personality. This is to say that he holds his position due to who he is, not for what he has created, certainly not for what he has done for the people of N Korea. As they say in Africa, the juju dies with the man. Cult leaders like Kim would include Idi Amin, whose nation did not fall apart, nor did it continue his 'policies' upon his departure. Take Kim out, and the chances that someone else will step in and continue his policies are just about zero. Kim has killed a number of his own family, not many left to take his place. – tj1000 Aug 04 '17 at 01:06
  • "Seoul... would likely become a target of revenge with very high civilian casualties." <- WHy would you think that? I mean, I'm squarely against US aggression against NK, but the assumption that NK would nuke Seoul seems questionable. "there is no one who could step in and rally the troops" <- I kind of doubt that. Modern state machinery doesn't really hinge on a single individual. People get rallied plenty by not-Kim-Jung-Un. – einpoklum Sep 09 '20 at 13:04