Why does America want to attack Korea. The real reason North Korea might go to war

“The likelihood that Washington will look for ways to solve the problem through dialogue, involving countries such as China and Russia, is great. Nevertheless, for America, the condition for dialogue is the nuclear disarmament of the DPRK, while Pyongyang does not accept this condition. Even if the countries concerned succeed in bringing the DPRK to the negotiating table, it could only be a waste of time. And if neither pressure nor dialogue works, the United States may use force - this possibility cannot be ruled out. Indeed, some U.S. officials are proposing to re-send a carrier strike group to the Korean Peninsula.”

“Since the DPRK conducted ballistic missile tests in April 2017, Russia has consistently stated that its strategy of maintaining favorable relations with Pyongyang and Seoul is more likely to serve a peaceful resolution to the North Korean crisis than Washington’s aggressive stance towards the DPRK.<...>

By acting more assertively and aggressively in international affairs, Russia evokes the memory of its citizens of the Soviet Union, with its status as a superpower that could influence conflicts around the world. From this point of view, Russia's increased attention to North Korea is in many ways akin to its military intervention in Syria and the expansion of its diplomatic presence in Libya and Afghanistan.

Russia wants to be recognized as a world leader not only by Russians, but by the entire international community. And so her stance on North Korea is driven by a desire to lead an informal coalition of countries that believe the United States is trying to overthrow the North Korean regime. Thanks to this role, Russia's claims to the status of a world power and the main international counterbalance to the United States would become more justified.

So when China stopped exporting energy to North Korea, Russia filled the vacuum and has since positioned itself as the main foreign ally of this rogue state.<...>

In short, Russia wants to be a great power and wants to be seen as such. She wants to lead countries that oppose the power and influence of the West. By ignoring the position of the UN and supporting North Korea, Russia is strengthening this status at home and abroad.

Moscow's alliance with North Korea is likely to get stronger in the near future."

Sabah, Turkey

“The question is whether the war will be nuclear or conventional. In 1950, the United States was already at war with the DPRK.<...>The only country on earth that has experience in nuclear warfare is America. The wounds inflicted by the American atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still bleeding. But both Trump and Kim Jong Un talk about the use of nuclear weapons as if it never happened. As if next week, North Korea will really drop atomic bombs on the island of Guam, and Trump will drop on North Korea.”

The Beijing News, China

“Another reason for the escalation of the conflict on the Korean Peninsula lies in the arrival of a new US president. Since Trump entered the White House, he has twice used military force, striking in Syria and Afghanistan and making other countries in the region tremble with fear. Using weapons, Trump, one might say, killed several birds with one stone. First, he turned his attention away from internal political disputes in another direction. Secondly, he established his authority in the international arena. Thirdly, the strikes served as a deterrent, because the cruise missiles and the high-explosive "mother of all bombs" launched against Syria under the pretext of Assad's use of chemical weapons can also be used against the DPRK.

Trump's current policy towards North Korea, compared to Obama's "strategic patience", leads back to the old path of "forcing change."

Aftenposten, Norway

“What do Trump’s words mean: is it just talk or are we really on the brink of a nuclear war? This question was the most important in the US this week. Journalists, security experts, and members of Congress have spent days trying to make sense of Trump's threats and tweets. At the same time, the White House and some members of the government are making conflicting statements.

Some of the president's staff are hinting to the American media that Trump's statements should be taken seriously, but not literally. This fits into the pattern of behavior that we have seen throughout the seven months of his presidency.

But in the conflict over North Korea, Trump's unorthodox communication style means a big test for the administration."

Middle East panorama , Lebanon

“We must pay tribute to the leader of North Korea, who, like a mountain, resisted America, did not kneel before her, but, on the contrary, even threatened to launch a nuclear strike against her and her colonies in Asia, especially Japan and South Korea.

The American ships changed their position and took up such positions in order to intimidate North Korea. As soon as the leader of the DPRK responds to these actions with missile tests and a show of military force, the threats stop immediately. If the Americans attack the country, they immediately see the "red eyes" of the leader of North Korea, its people and army, and immediately begin to retreat and ask for peace. Moreover, Donald Trump asked for a meeting with Kim Jong-un. All these facts speak of the defeat of the US President, his worship, submission and dependence on the leader of North Korea, as well as the desire to come to terms and peace with this great leader.

When will the day come when Arab rulers become like the leader of North Korea?”

The Guardian, UK

“It's not every day that the UN Security Council adopts a resolution unanimously. But that's exactly what happened with the approval of Resolution 2371, which provides for tough sanctions against North Korea, including a ban on the sale of coal, iron and lead.

As a result, we got an example of how the international system should work, which is so rare these days. The vote can also be seen as something of a diplomatic triumph for the Trump administration.

The resolution was a direct response to the North Korean missile test, which brought the United States within reach for the first time. America is not great at organizing international support for its own interests, and even less so when it comes to the UN, but this time it succeeded.

The Conversation, Australia

“Game theory is applicable to the analysis of conflict and cooperation in a competitive environment. According to it, a joint result is possible when the game is repeated indefinitely, there are few players, and information about the game is known to all participants.

But if the game is played once or repeated a finite number of times, if there are a large number of players involved and each of them has no idea about the strategy of the other, then each prefers a result "oriented to himself." In this case, each player chooses the best solution individually. As a result, the end result for each of them is acceptable, but not ideal.

What is happening on the Korean Peninsula is more like this scenario. Solving the problem of North Korea's nuclear missile program with a preemptive strike is not the easiest and hardly the best option, and the main players are likely to pursue their own interests.

The root of the problem is that North Korea has announced its intention to retaliate against any military action. This could turn into a humanitarian catastrophe, because the capital of South Korea, Seoul, is only 60 km from the border. In addition, the main blow in this case may fall on the 28,500 American troops based in South Korea.

Any counterattack from North Korea would trigger a retaliatory strike from the south and could lead to war on the Korean Peninsula. Or, if the US and South Korea do not respond, it will be a serious humiliation for these countries.

So far, the only winner in this game is Kim Jong-un.”

Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan

“The US and North Korea are exchanging tough statements that do not rule out war. The result of aggressive statements can be an exacerbation of tension and the emergence of an unpredictable situation.

The source of the problem is North Korea. In July, it launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) twice. Putting into service nuclear missiles, within the range of which the territory of the United States will be, is becoming more and more real.<...>

Trump's warnings to the DPRK are also worrying: it's better not to threaten the US anymore. Otherwise, you will have to face anger and fire, which the world has not seen before. The President rarely uses expressions that are reminiscent of the possibility of a nuclear strike.

They can be perceived as a red line, at the crossing of which the United States will take military action if the DPRK conducts another nuclear test and launches a ballistic missile.”

The attention of the whole world is riveted to the Pacific region. The DPRK General Staff said it would strike at US bases in Japan and South Korea in the event of aggression. In Washington, in turn, they make it clear that they are not afraid to use force. Not far from the Korean coast, the shock squadron of the American fleet. Analysts are wondering: will the parties have enough common sense? Some fear that something will happen.

On April 15, North Korea will celebrate the "Feast of the Sun", also known as the birthday of Kim Il Sung. And it is possible that the authorities will coincide with this date for something other than the usual festivities. Why is the situation explosive and what does nuclear weapons have to do with it?

The announcer of the North Korean state TV upliftingly assures the nation of the intention to give a severe rebuff to the American aggressor: the strike group of the US Navy, led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Carl Vinson, is approaching the Korean coast. Now it passes west of the Japanese island of Kyushu. Further - the Korea Strait and the Sea of ​​Japan. But the distance already now allows an air strike on the DPRK.

The reason is the information allegedly available to Western intelligence that Pyongyang is preparing nuclear tests and will conduct them allegedly on the birthday of the country's founder Kim Il Sung, that is, April 15th. Even some satellite images are being circulated, again ostensibly proving that everything is ready for explosions. And public opinion in the United States was prepared in advance for the following:

“Several sources have told NBC News that if US intelligence detects preparations for a nuclear test, the White House will, for the first time in history, consider launching a preemptive strike.

This is already very serious. Although so far purely unofficial. Officially, the Pentagon gives comments with the words “always” and “any”, that is, it leaves a specific answer about “here and now”.

“Commanders always consider the full range of defense options in light of any emergency. The US Department of Defense "does not engage in public speculation about possible scenarios," said Dana White, a spokesman for the US Department of Defense.

The head of the department, also avoiding specifics, defines the trend, habitually speaking on behalf of the whole world: Pyongyang must behave well, otherwise it will be very bad for it.

“With regard to North Korea, we are working with our international partners to defuse the situation. One thing is clear: the DPRK must change its behavior. This is the common position of the international community,” said US Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

In all this rhetoric, in fact, there is nothing new. Under all American presidents, Washington has said something similar to Pyongyang. And history knows enough cases of demonstrative sending of warships to the shores of another country - to scare, flex their muscles, pass by so that these shores tremble. Now it's not so much scary as two new moments. First, the calmness of Pyongyang.

Here is the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, Han Song Ryol, without unnecessary emotions, says terrible, in general, things: “We will develop our defense program, including nuclear, until the United States ceases to threaten us. We already have a response ready for even the most dangerous and aggressive US course of action. Countermeasures will not keep you waiting. That is, if they want war, there will be war.”

The second point is the Trump factor. The exemplary and senseless arrogance with which the United States recently launched a strike on a Syrian airfield, a strike that, in a military sense, did almost nothing for them, suggests that Trump is quite capable of moving from words to deeds, and will not wince.

“The Americans are looking for a pretext for a limited strike that would slow down the development of North Korean missile and nuclear programs. If they find such an excuse, or at least they can try to create one. After all, we know from the history of American foreign policy how the US aggression in Vietnam began. They fired on their own destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin in order to find a pretext for starting a war, ”says Alexander Zhebin, head of the Center for Korean Studies at the Institute of the Far East of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

When you really want to find an excuse, it's easy to do. Pyongyang's threats to US allies - why not a pretext? And today he promised, if the provocations continue, to destroy not only the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson itself, not only the American bases in South Korea and Japan, but also, say, the residence of the South Korean president.

Step by step, no matter how it came to the point that tomorrow the world will be in a state of the third world. The efforts of China, which has been playing the role of a kind of buffer between the US and North Korea, may not be enough this time.

The situation in Southeast Asia threatens with serious complications. On the eve it became known that the command of the US Navy decided to return to the shores of South Korea a strike group led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Carl Vinson. This detachment of ships only recently defiled off the South Korean coast, after which it headed for Australia, where it intended to make a planned call. However, the group was unexpectedly deployed directly to the sea and returned to areas that it had only recently left. Analysts disagree: either this decision was dictated by the need to support the South Korean authorities against the backdrop of another belligerent statements by the “northern neighbor”, or Donald Trump was so pleased with his recent “Syrian debut” with a raid on the Shayrat airfield that he decided to repeat the same action against the DPRK. However, will this "blitzkrieg" be as harmless to the attacking side - that is the question ... Pyongyang under the gun
The news about the sharp maneuver of the US Navy aircraft carrier group and its return to the coast of South Korea was spread by the South Korean news agency Yonhap. According to him, a group of ships, which, in addition to Carl Vinson, includes two destroyers and a cruiser with guided missiles on board, having already reached Singapore, was given the task of returning to the Korean Peninsula. The South Korean authorities, through the mouth of a representative of the country's Ministry of Defense, noted that this step "reflects the serious attitude of the United States to the situation, and their actions are aimed at strengthening protection in the event of a nuclear test or the launch of ballistic missiles by the DPRK."
In Seoul today they are really afraid of provocations from the northerners. The reason for this is the upcoming celebration of the 105th anniversary of the birth of former North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, celebrated on April 15, as well as the 85th anniversary of the Korean People's Army (celebrated on April 25). In the south of the peninsula, it is suggested that the North Koreans may time a missile and even a nuclear test to coincide with these dates. One such incident was already recorded earlier this month, when the Yonhap news agency reported the launch of an unidentified ballistic missile in the direction of the Sea of ​​Japan. True, a little later it became known that this test ended in failure: the rocket got out of control, having overcome only part of the intended trajectory.

Nevertheless, it was precisely this news from Pyongyang that could move Donald Trump to the decision to send an aircraft carrier group to the Korean coast. In addition, just a few days ago, the head of the White House was presented with a detailed report of the US National Security Council on the evolving situation around the Korean Peninsula. The nuclear program of the DPRK was named among the main threats, and it was no coincidence that this topic was raised during the recent visit to the United States by Chinese leader Xi Jinping. According to US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the leaders of China and the United States agreed to "strengthen cooperation on the North Korean nuclear program." Apparently, in support of his arguments, the owner of the White House decided to use "naval diplomacy" as well.
intimidation campaign
Veteran of the US Navy - aircraft carrier of the "Nimitz" project "Carl Vinson" (year of laying - 1975), mainly serves in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. It was from its side that planes took off to bombard Afghanistan and Iraq, from here the security of tankers transporting oil through the Persian Gulf was carried out. A noteworthy fact: it was to Carl Vinson that the body of Osama bin Laden was delivered after the liquidation of the leader of Al-Qaeda (the organization is banned in Russia) in May 2011. From here terrorist number 1 went on his last flight: his body was buried in the waters of the Arabian Sea.

But can a veteran aircraft carrier easily deal with the Korean nuclear problem? Experts have reasonable doubts about this. For example, the influential American publication National Interest in one of its publications drew attention to the fact that the combat radius of the main US Navy aircraft based on aircraft carriers is only 700 km, while the range of modern anti-ship missiles, including those that can to have the DPRK, many times more - from 1.5 to 3 thousand km. As a result, in order to strike with its air wing, the same "Karl Vinson" will have to enter the enemy's anti-ship missile strike zone, and this is extremely risky.
Russian military expert Oleg Kaptsov is convinced that only pathos remains from the former glory of aircraft carriers. Firstly, there can be no question of any "armada of aircraft" capable of being based on an aircraft carrier. The same "Carl Vinson" can take only a couple of dozen fighter-bombers, and not the most respectable class. Secondly, it is economically unprofitable to use such powerful ships: the cost of building, repairing and operating just one unit exceeds $40 billion. In addition, as other experts emphasize, the dispatch of any aircraft carrier dictates the need to send a group of cover ships along with it. And this strikingly distinguishes him, for example, the Russian "Admiral Kuznetsov", which is completely self-sufficient, as it is equipped with a wide arsenal of means, both defense and attack.
Compulsion to war

In fact, as experts note, the dispatch of aircraft carrier ships by the Americans to certain points on the planet has only been intimidating in recent years. However, is such a tactic against North Korea justified? A country that has been frightened by everyone for more than half a century, such threats only inflame, warming up the militant mood of both the leadership and ordinary citizens? According to Viktor Ozerov, chairman of the Committee on Defense and Security of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation, sending a US Navy strike group to the Korean Peninsula could push the DPRK leadership to rash actions. In addition, according to the Russian senator, the presence of American warships off the coast of Korea is extremely unhelpful, given the need to build a negotiation process with Pyongyang. Politicians are also openly talking about the possible prospect of strikes against the DPRK. After the recent attack on the Shayrat air base, such a development of events is very realistic, Viktor Ozerov believes. In his opinion, even the fact that North Korea has not signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty can provoke Trump to attack North Korean facilities. As the representative of the Federation Council emphasizes, neither the status of a signatory to the agreement on the destruction of chemical weapons, nor even the destruction of these weapons, did not save Syria from shelling, which was recognized by international experts. What can we say about the DPRK, where such agreements are far away ...
At the same time, the expert community draws attention to the fact that Pyongyang's steps related to the development of its nuclear program were and are to a large extent retaliatory. According to the head of the RISS Regional Center for Asia-Pacific Studies, Candidate of Political Sciences Andrey Gubin, who refers to information from foreign sources, the DPRK leadership sent a number of targeted signals to Washington, designed to indicate Pyongyang's readiness to freeze its nuclear missile program, to refuse to conduct nuclear tests. devices and ballistic missile launches in exchange for easing the sanctions regime, economic assistance and guarantees of non-aggression from the United States and its allies.
“However, the lack of a response from the American administration did not allow further discussion of these initiatives,” the expert emphasizes. - In fact, the actions of the DPRK to develop its nuclear missile program are an attempt to ensure its own security by military means. I will add that the idea of ​​the United States and its allies conducting a military operation to destroy the nuclear infrastructure of the DPRK is an unfavorable scenario, fraught with irreparable consequences.”
Korean Ricochet
By the way, experts professionally studying the situation on the Korean Peninsula unanimously declare that it is impossible to stop the nuclear program of one country, North Korea, by military means without serious losses for another, South Korea. In particular, as Andrey Lankov, a well-known Russian orientalist, professor, candidate of historical sciences, currently working at Kunming University in Seoul, recalls, the possibility of a military operation against North Korea was seriously discussed in Washington in the early 1990s. However, the plan was then abandoned. “There are good reasons for caution here. For example, the fact that the use of military force to eliminate the North Korean nuclear potential could lead to unpredictable consequences, notes Professor Lankov. - The main problem here is the strategic vulnerability of Seoul - a city with a population of approximately 25 million people, located on the very border of the North and South.
In response to a possible American strike on nuclear facilities, missile factories, launchers and submarine bases, North Korea may respond by striking targets that it can reach, that is, primarily the Seoul agglomeration. This may lead to a South Korean response, which will result in the beginning of a new Korean war ... "At the same time, as the expert emphasizes, even if it does not come to a war, such a turn of events will cause enormous tension in relations between Seoul and Washington, which are already sometimes are quite complex. “From the point of view of the South Koreans, an American attack on North Korean facilities, which will provoke an attack on Seoul, will be proof that an alliance with the United States is not a guarantee of their country's security, but, on the contrary, a potential threat,” Andrei Lankov notes. - For an ordinary South Korean, the situation will look as if the Americans are solving the security issues of their own country, deliberately sacrificing the security of their South Korean partners and almost using them as human shields. Such a turn of events will inflict a severe blow on the US-South Korean alliance, from which it will probably never recover.” By the way, the expert draws attention to the publication in the January issue of Foreign Affairs (an American US Foreign Relations by Richard Haas, which directly refers to a possible pre-emptive strike on North Korean nuclear facilities. “This article is especially weighty because Richard Haas, who expressed similar views before, is now being considered as a candidate for the post of Deputy Secretary of State in the current US administration,” emphasizes Andrey Lankov. - The election of Trump means that the situation on the Korean Peninsula, which, despite all the bellicose rhetoric of the parties (especially Pyongyang), has remained stable, is now becoming much more dangerous than before. Alas, the possibility of a new Korean war no longer passes through the "department of political fiction."

The clouds over North Korea began to thicken again since the end of 2016. Pyongyang has frequently launched missiles into the Sea of ​​Japan, increased its stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium five-fold, and has demonstrated success in developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

"Reckless Actions"

US President Donald Trump has toughened his stance on North Korea. In June 2016, he said that he was ready to sit down at the negotiating table with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The future owner of the White House shocked the public with a statement that he could invite the leader of North Korea to visit.

• Aircraft carrier Carl Vinson
• Reuters

On April 2, a few days before meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Florida, Trump stressed that Washington could "deal with Pyongyang" without the participation and consent of Beijing. As is known, China categorically opposes a military solution to the North Korean problem and the strengthening of the US military presence in East Asia.

On April 8, NBC reported that the US National Security Council presented Trump with a set of measures that would help deal with Pyongyang if Beijing and the sanctions regime did not force Kim Jong-un to abandon the development of the nuclear missile program.

The head of the White House was offered to return the atomic bombs removed 25 years ago to South Korea, kill the North Korean leader and his entourage who have access to nuclear weapons, or throw special forces into the territory of the DPRK, which will carry out sabotage at nuclear infrastructure facilities.

On April 9, Reuters and CNN, citing sources, reported that an aircraft carrier group sent to the coast of South Korea had received an order to prepare to strike at nuclear facilities and military bases of the northerners.

The head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, Viktor Ozerov, does not rule out that the White House will ultimately dare to launch a preventive strike against the DPRK. However, the senator believes that an attempt to solve the problem by military measures will lead to "further rash actions on the part of Pyongyang."

• Reuters

Ozerov recalled Trump’s recent decision to strike Syria: “US forces attacked the air base of the Syrian Armed Forces under the pretext of a chemical attack in Idlib, despite the fact that Syria signed a chemical weapons destruction treaty and complied with its terms, and North Korea did not sign a non-proliferation treaty nuclear weapons. This could provoke Trump to attack the DPRK.”

Forces are not equal

The United States has colossal military capabilities in East Asia, so that at any moment they can strike a crushing blow against North Korea. The backbone of American power is the Seventh Fleet, a land and air force stationed in Japan and South Korea.

The total number of military personnel (including sailors and marines) is more than 70 thousand people. Without the deployment of additional forces, the United States is capable of delivering massive air and sea strikes, as well as conducting amphibious operations.

Within a few hours, the United States can bomb North Korea with nuclear weapons, raising long-range aircraft from airfields (B-52 Stratofortress, Northrop B-2 Spirit, Rockwell B-1 Lancer). In addition, a nuclear strike against the DPRK can be delivered by ships and submarines equipped with ICBMs.

• B-52 Stratofortress
• globallookpress.com
• Sra Erin Babis/ZUMAPRESS.com

Tokyo and Seoul will certainly provide political support for Washington's military operation against Pyongyang. Moreover, Japan can pull three aircraft carrier groups to the shores, and South Korea can build on the success of the bombing by invading land.

A powerful military alliance has long been formed against North Korea. In the ranking of the Global Firepower portal, the United States ranks first, Japan is 7th, South Korea is 11th, and the DPRK is only 25th.

Pyongyang cannot win a one-on-one war even with its southern neighbor, but this does not mean that the communist regime is not capable of resisting or will not start acting ahead of the curve, having managed to inflict irreparable damage to opponents before defeating its national forces.

Destructive power

The army of the northerners is equipped with Soviet-Chinese equipment and bizarre examples of their own production. The most vulnerable units of the DPRK Armed Forces are aviation and tank formations, where the proportion of obsolete equipment is highest. Nor is the North Korean navy impressive.

However, Pyongyang has succeeded in creating artillery systems and missile systems of short and medium range. According to Global Firepower, the northerners have 4,300 field artillery units (versus 5,374 southerners), 2,225 self-propelled guns (versus 1990), and 2,400 multiple launch rocket systems (versus 214).

Colossal destructive power lies in the missile forces of the DPRK. The communists have hundreds of launchers with missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. North Korean missiles can reach any point on the territory of the southern neighbor and hit enemy ships in the near sea zone, that is, up to 500 miles (up to 900 km).

Formidable weapons are the Rodong-1 missiles (range up to 1.3 thousand km), Hwasong-6 (up to 500 km), Hwasong-5 (up to 300 km) and KN-02 (up to 70 km) . The disadvantages of these missiles include low accuracy and poor protection against air defense / missile defense systems. It is likely that the United States and South Korea will be able to shoot down most of the missiles fired by the northerners, but some of them will still reach the target.

In the most vulnerable position is Seoul, which is only 24 km from the border with the DPRK. A metropolis of 10 million can be destroyed by a single massive Northern artillery barrage. Saving the South Korean capital is the number one task in a hypothetical military conflict. The risk of mass casualties among the population of Seoul and other South Korean cities is too great.

• KCNA/Reuters

Also, North Korea's ill-wishers are stopped by the unpredictability of the communist government, the fanatical devotion of the people and the army to the leader of the state. At the same time, the elimination of Kim Jong-un will most likely not save Seoul, Tokyo and Washington from a headache.

Firstly, the image of the deceased young leader will instantly replenish the pantheon of northerners, becoming a symbol of the uncompromising struggle against imperialism. Second, the DPRK's political regime is unlikely to collapse. North Korea is dominated by a totalitarian regime, which tends to generate and glorify new leaders with relative ease.

Imminent disaster

Dmitry Kornev, the founder of the Military Russia portal, believes that North Korea is ready to offer worthy resistance in the event of an attack and mobilize a huge army.

“If we talk about a large-scale conflict scenario, then after an attack by the United States or its allies, Pyongyang can expect an invasion of South Korea, which is likely to be successful. The northerners have superiority in the means of destruction and the number of military personnel. According to various estimates, the size of the DPRK army ranges from 690 thousand to 1.2 million people, ”the expert explained to RT.

“However, luck will quickly turn away from Pyongyang. Nobody will stand up for him. China and Russia are likely to take a neutral stance. But the southerners will be most actively assisted by the United States. The capabilities of the northerners will be completely undermined by the extremely weak economy of the DPRK, which even in peacetime cannot provide the population with food, ”Kornev argues.

In his opinion, Pyongyang expects an imminent defeat, but the United States will have to bring in ground forces. “It will be similar to the air-ground operation that we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. There will be no easy walk. It will take about six months to destroy the North Korean troops, ”Kornev suggested.

“Surely the northerners will put up fierce resistance, they will carry out sabotage actions, fight for every centimeter of land. These are highly motivated soldiers. They will compensate for the lack of material support with mass heroism, ”Kornev noted.

• KCNA/Reuters

The expert is deeply convinced that Pyongyang is well aware of the catastrophic outcome of the war and is not interested in escalating tensions. Kornev explains the constant saber-rattling on the part of the communist regime by the need to satisfy internal demands, as well as counting on financial and material assistance in exchange for negotiations.

“I don’t think that the great powers, including the United States, are seriously ready for an armed clash on the Korean peninsula. The risk is too great instead of a limited operation to overthrow the regime to get the bloodiest clash since the Second World War, ”concluded Kornev.

In the event of a preemptive strike by the Americans, the DPRK is capable of launching missiles at their troops in South Korea and Japan

The United States may launch a preemptive strike on North Korea to prevent Pyongyang from conducting further nuclear weapons tests. This information was distributed by the NBC channel. It was also confirmed by sources in Washington's intelligence services, saying that such a possibility is indeed being considered. What exactly can be the military response of the DPRK, and can the development of this conflict lead to a serious war?

At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that in order to inflict fire damage on South Korean targets, Pyongyang will use a powerful grouping of artillery systems and multiple launch rocket systems, which is already deployed today near the ceasefire line separating North and South Korea. It should be borne in mind that the city of Seoul is also in the zone of destruction of these systems. That is, the development of the conflict can be significant. It remains only to appeal to the common sense of politicians, hoping that this will not happen.

As if to confirm the words of our expert, on Friday afternoon a statement was circulated through the channels of the Korean Central News Agency by a representative of the General Staff of the Korean People's Army. It says that in the event of aggression from Washington, the DPRK will attack American military bases and the presidential residence in Seoul. The US military bases in Osan, Kunsan and Pyeongtaek, as well as the presidential residence of Cheong Wa Dae, were named as targets, which the KPA General Staff threatens to "turn to ashes in a matter of minutes." As the representative of the General Staff noted, the DPRK's response will include options for a preventive strike on land, sea and from the air. A similar scenario has already been practiced by the DPRK army more than once. The last such exercise took place in December 2016. According to the legend of the exercises, artillery strikes were carried out on the border islands of South Korea and Seoul.

As for a possible strike against North Korean nuclear facilities, unless, of course, a nuclear war breaks out, this threatens Russia and China with a humanitarian catastrophe. The fact is that with the prevailing wind rose in the region, the radioactive cloud will reach Vladivostok in a couple of hours.