In 1950, a combination of ill-judged words in Washington and miscalculation in Pyongyang led to the outbreak of the Korean war. Now, as the world contemplates the prospect that another war might break out on the Korean peninsula, the danger is that governments in the US and North Korea will once again miscalculate — and slide into conflict.
Many historians trace the outbreak of the Korean war to a speech given by Dean Acheson at the National Press Club in Washington in January 1950. The US secretary of state spoke about America’s “defence perimeter” in Asia — and suggested that Korea lay beyond the perimeter. In Pyongyang, the leader of North Korea, Kim Il Sung, took note of the clear implication that the US would not defend South Korea. Five months later his armies poured across the 38th parallel and invaded the South. But Kim had miscalculated. The US did fight. The Korean war cost hundreds of thousands of lives, led to direct fighting between US and Chinese forces — and has never formally ended. To this day, peace in Korea is maintained by an armistice rather than a formal peace treaty.
Where Acheson signalled indifference, President Donald Trump is signalling resolve — vowing that the US will stop North Korea’s nuclear programme and hinting heavily that he is prepared to take pre-emptive military action.
But once again there is a distinct danger that North Korea will lash out unpredictably.
The country’s leader Kim Jong Un, the grandson of Kim Il Sung, has embraced his forebear’s militarism, isolationism and paranoia. If the current Kim concludes that the US is indeed poised to attack his regime, he will be tempted to attack first. His incentive to move fast will only have been increased by stories in the media, that the US’s war plans involve an early attempt to kill the North Korean leadership.
North Korea’s military doctrine, as expressed in recent exercises, envisages the first use of nuclear weapons to ward off defeat or destruction. Jeffrey Lewis, an academic expert, wrote recently in Foreign Policy: “Kim’s strategy depends on using nuclear weapons early — before the United States can kill him or special forces can find his missile units?.?.?.?He has to go first, if he is to go at all.”
Although North Korea has not yet developed a nuclear missile that can hit the west coast of the US, it may well have nuclear-capable missiles that could hit South Korea or Japan. The South Korean capital, Seoul — which is just 35 miles from the North Korean border — is definitely vulnerable to a devastating barrage of conventional artillery. And Japan and South Korea are very worried by North Korea’s chemical weapons.
Mr Trump’s heavy hints that the US is considering an attack on North Korea are designed to put pressure on China to “deliver” its client state on the Korean peninsula. This might work. The Chinese government is openly alarmed by events in North Korea and may pressurise Pyongyang much more heavily. It is also possible that the Kim regime is more intimidated than its outward swagger suggests and could yet freeze its nuclear programme.
But while it is certainly conceivable that the Trump administration’s bellicose strategy could deliver, it is more likely that North Korea will not back down — and that the Trump strategy will therefore fail. In that case, the US president is faced with a dilemma. Does Mr Trump’s “very powerful armada” steam away from the Korean peninsula, with its mission unaccomplished? Can the administration present an intensification of economic sanctions, possibly in conjunction with China, as the very tough action that it has promised?
Mr Trump is capable of shameless switches in rhetoric and policy. So it is certainly possible that he will simply back down on North Korea, or will embrace the status quo as the dramatic change that he has been seeking all along.
However, it is also possible that Mr Trump has convinced himself that a first strike on North Korea is a workable option. Any such conclusion would fly in the face of standard military advice, which holds that it is impossible to “take out” the North Korean nuclear programme with a single wave of attacks and that therefore, following any such assault, South Korea, Japan and US bases in the region, would be exposed to retaliation.
The US military is well aware of the risks entailed by a first strike on North Korea. So it is encouraging to recall that General HR McMaster, Mr Trump’s national security adviser, has written a book lambasting US generals for not giving frank advice to politicians during the Vietnam war.
Set against that is the danger that Mr Trump — after a chaotic start to his presidency — has concluded that military action is the key to the “winning” image that he promised his voters. The president lapped up the bipartisan applause that he got for bombing Syria. He dropped a huge conventional bomb on Afghanistan shortly afterwards and his son, Donald junior, tweeted his exultation — complete with an emoji of a bomb.
There are members of the president’s inner circle who do indeed believe that the Trump administration is seriously contemplating a “first strike” on North Korea. But if Kim Jong Un has drawn the same conclusion — he may reach for the nuclear trigger first.
许多历史学家将朝鲜战争爆发的根源归结于迪安?艾奇逊(Dean Acheson)在华盛顿全国新闻俱乐部(National Press Club)发表的一场讲话。这位时任美国国务卿谈到了美国在亚洲的“防卫圈”，并暗示朝鲜半岛在该防卫圈之外。在平壤，朝鲜领导人金日成(Kim Il Sung)注意到了其明确含义——美国不会保卫韩国。5个月后，他的大军跨过北纬38度线，入侵韩国。但金日成算错了。美国出兵了。朝鲜战争牺牲了数十万条生命，导致美中两国军队直接开战，而且从未正式结束。到目前为止，朝鲜半岛的和平是靠停战，而不是一个正式的和平条约来维持的。
朝鲜现在的领袖、金日成的孙子金正恩(Kim Jong Un)继承了祖辈的军国主义、孤立主义和偏执狂。如果金家当权者认为美国确实准备攻击他的政权，那么他面临的诱惑将是先下手为强。有媒体报道称，美国的战争计划涉及在开战之初就干掉朝鲜领导层，这类报道只会增加他赶紧动手的动机。
正如近期演练所表明的那样，朝鲜军事学说的设想是率先使用核武器以防战败或被摧毁。学术专家杰弗里?路易斯(Jeffrey Lewis)最近在《外交政策》(Foreign Policy)中写道：“金正恩的战略依赖尽早使用核武器——在美国能杀死他，或特种部队可以找到他的导弹部队之前……他不得不先下手，如果他还想下手的话。”