Limited Strikes On North Korea Would Be An Unlimited Disaster

Mid last year, President Trump ordered a missile strike against an airbase in Syria as an attempt to 'punish' the Syria regime for its use of chemical weapons. The strike itself was successful and did not cause increased escalation in the following weeks and months. Moreover, Trump won praise from the media — something he appears to obsessively crave.

So it is no wonder that over the last few months, there has been considerable talk that the White House might consider a similar strike against North Korea. The idea is that such a “punch in the nose” strategy would be enough to show that the US can punish the country for its continued nuclear development, without escalating the situation to the point of a full-scale war.

This is an idea that appears to be dangerously wrong and based on a misunderstanding both of the North Korean government and indeed the signal such a strike might send.

Luke O'Brien's article for Foreign Policy breaks down these risks and shows how a limited strike might turn into an unlimited disaster. Primarily, he explains how the North Koreans might misinterpret such a strike due to the rudimentary nature of their early warning systems.

Moreover, he shows that even if they interpret that the strike is 'limited' as it is happening, they have no way to accurately predict what happens next, and may feel it is better to respond in a massive way before more of their forces are lost. Finally, O'Brien elaborates on the dangerous assumption that Kim Jung Un is in total control of his armed forces and that in the event of a US strike, he would be the sole one giving orders.