The electronic news world is a colossal hodgepodge of media jumping on anything new and “compelling”. The weekend’s compelling news du jour is Ret. Adm. Mike Mullen‘s comments on the likelihood of nuclear war with North Korea (DPRK). As a retired admiral and chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mullen is a strategic thinker. These days he is very pessimistic of the US finding a peaceful way forward with the DPRK.
Taken alone, this view could be ignored as an outlier. But against a backdrop of other seemingly credible reports, Mullen’s worry could be taken as another indicator of the tempo of concern within much of DC. Consistent with Mullen’s worry is a lengthy 12/14/17 interview with Senator Lindsey Graham written by Uri Friedman at The Atlantic. Graham is an opinion leader on the matter of the DPRK. The article is well written and I must highly recommend it.
The frothy part of this DPRK boil-up is talk of nuclear conflict. The language that I have heard does not distinguish the various scenarios of how a nuclear war would unfold on the Korean Peninsula. One thing that was made clear by Graham in the Atlantic article is that there could be no limited strike on the DPRK. I assume it means defensively or otherwise. Any attack on the North, nuclear or conventional, would have to result in the complete collapse of the Kim regime.
The US military develops and refines war plans in preparation for any contingency. But, I’m curious how the psychological impact of the use of nuclear weapons will play in the various war cabinets of the world. After all, the nuclear-bomb genie has been kept in the bottle since August, 1945. Will a first use on or by the DPRK lower the threshold for other nuclear states?
A nuclear weapon married to a missile is a highly engineered machine that is at the apex of multiple military technologies. Expertise and a minimum of infrastructure in metallurgy, nuclear physics, chemistry, propellants, and delivery vehicle technology is necessary for accurate execution of a strike. For the DPRK to maximize the punch of its limited nuclear armaments, a strike relying on accurate delivery of a nuclear war shot to a remote or hardened target would require their leadership to gamble on layers of unproven or unrefined technology. The Kim regime may be a political malignancy, but they are not stupid.
Suppose the DPRK is able to strike some important targets with its nukes. Surely some in the North’s command know the consequences to follow. Decapitation of its leadership and annihilation of its war making capacity are a certainty.
For the US, the use of a nuclear war shot on the DPRK is not an inevitable result of physics like the apple that fell on Newton’s head. A release from the US nuclear arsenal is a choice and thus psychological in both application and long term consequence. Would a US nuclear response to a nuclear strike- anywhere- by the DPRK make sense for the US in the subsequent post-war world?
The last big war, WWII, started conventional and ended nuclear. Since then, the threat of mutual nuclear conflagration has helped to keep the peace by serving as a deterrence. Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD, is credited, superficially a least, with keeping armed conflict a strictly chemical explosives activity. What happens to the ground under the psychological pedestal supporting MAD when a nation-state uses nuclear weapons thinking it could win a conflict? How would the various national policies on first use change across the world and what do the likely outcomes look like?
There are many issues that follow from conflict with the DPRK. I hope that as much energy is given to the diplomatic scene as the theatre of war.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
Great read and great American in Mike Mullen! But, my take on Sen. Graham is different and he is not the same person that we all knew him from his Presidential running years, who then challenged the current occupant in the WH very effectively, before he ran out of steam. Of late, I see him trying to walk a very fine line in placating Mr. Trump and at times reluctantly criticizing him as if to suggest that he is not going to upset our loony President. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona displayed more spine, I reckon. Coming to the unfolding crisis between DRNK and the USA, I just do not get it who is grown up here? I worry if there is going to be war breakout, because of stupid mistakes from both sides and the margin for such error is just simply too thin. Score one for admirable Mike Mullen and others who got it right!!
Hi-
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree with your assessment of Graham wearing different feathers these days. He does seem to be trying to play nice with Trump. It must be distasteful for him. Who knows what Graham’s game is. Perhaps he thinks he has found a way to get through to POTUS 45. You hang around a circus long enough and eventually you become one of the clowns.
The thrust of my point is that even if the DPRK lofts a nuke or delivers one in a cargo container, I hope that our war plans provide for a proportionate response to any provocation by the DPRK.
It seems unreasonable that a reflexive American all-out nuclear retaliation (raining fire a la Trump) is automatically the most constructive approach on a small state with a miniscule strategic nuclear force. For instance, a ground penetrating burst on their defense/nuclear complex may be enough to steer the conflict in the right direction. Or perhaps an air burst off-shore for effect.
That said, It is hard to believe that Kim will go down while his nuclear arsenal, such as it is, sits on a shelf in a bunker.
Regardless of how a war with the DPRK might play out, how the US responds with it’s nuclear weapons will set the tone for global nuclear strategy far into the future. If the US shows restraint and wisdom with its trigger finger and a focus on the reunification of the Koreas instead of shaming Kim, we could keep the bar set high for future nuclear strategic planning.
Never ending saga by two impetuous, ignorant and immature people will leads us all into abyss! This morning WAPO headline….my-button-is-bigger brinkmanship again spotlights Trump’s fixation on size, and who can disagree with that?
Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
Did you hear that Gaussling? The Senior Republican (read as Grassley-Grhamm) refers Trump-Russia dossier author Mr. Steele for possible criminal charges? What behooves logic is when Mr. Steele found out that the Russian interference was work of art in progress, he reached out to FBI. So, all those republicans are ready to lie just like our President so that he can be protected? Mr. Mueller, please hurry and I am disgusted!!!