In North Korea, we must pray for peace but prepare for war

Kim Jong-un has tested an ICBM that can reach Alaska. That threshold marks a clear and present danger to the United States. Presidents Trump, Obama and Bush are not to blame for this mess. There was never a good answer to the Korean threat and all three Presidents have been constrained in what they can do. Now options are even more limited. No one wants war but we may have no other choice. The risk of inaction is too great. 

North Korea is years away from being able to strike the Continental United States from land based missiles within their own borders. But they will soon have the capability now to wreak havoc with our way of life. Nuclear tipped ICBMs launched from commercial ships in the Pacific, Atlantic and the Gulf, detonated at high altitudes above the Rockies, the Alleghenies and the Central Mississippi River, could virtually destroy the national electrical grid.

{mosads}This High-Altitude Electro Magnetic Pulse (HEMP) resonates in the Earth[Symbol]s magnetic and electrical fields and may catastrophically damage or destroy unprotected electrical or electronic equipment.    

While the complete effect of HEMP on the electrical grid is open for debate, experts believe that it will be significant. Variable factors such as location of the detonation, burst altitude and weapon yield will dictate the effectiveness of the attack. Critical government and military facilities should be hardened and may survive the attack. Civilian components of the grid are another story.

Retaliation would be swift and portions of North Korea would cease to exist. But at what cost to the United States? If Kim Jong Un thinks that the United States is unwilling or unable to respond, or if he feels he can survive the retaliation, he may take a chance. Should the launching ships escape, it might be impossible to tie the attack to Pyongyang. Kim might also choose to couple a HEMP attack with a decapitation strike on Washington DC to cripple any response.   

Assistance will not take days as with Hurricane Katrina. It will take weeks or months to reach every part of the country. Total recovery will take years. Cities will empty out as the food supplies evaporate to be met by armed citizens in the suburbs and rural areas bracing to protect their resources.

Some form of law enforcement may survive and local governments may be able to coordinate refugee assistance. But that is not guaranteed. Deaths from starvation, illness and firefights could be staggering. In the best of circumstances, the result will be tragic. In some areas, it could be apocalyptic as citizens fight over dwindling supplies.

Proper planning on the local government level may alleviate some of the impact. Stockpiling electrical and electronic components, caching Meals Ready to Eat and quickly seizing control of fuel supplies could mitigate the worst effects. But few if any local governments are preparing.

How do we prevent this horrible scenario from taking place? We must certainly continue diplomacy but as President Trump has indicated, strategic patience has come to an end. Applying sanctions to those companies and countries who trade with North Korea is the next step. The final option is, of course, a military strike.

A Tomahawk strike against North Korea would not penetrate hardened nuclear sites. This would only result in Pyongyang shelling Seoul and causing the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Special operations actions in the unforgiving Korean terrain would be difficult and probably impossible without the assistance of China.

Neutralizing the hardened nuclear sides may be beyond the capability of most, if not all, of our conventional weapons systems. The first use of nuclear weapons is a political non-starter. Additionally, nuclear surface bursts used on hardened sites, would generate radioactive fallout contaminating Japan and possibly China.

Given the effects of the long war on terror and sequestration, the United States is not prepared to fight a conventional second Korean War. Additionally, it is doubtful that sufficient political will exists in the Republic of Korea or the United States to support a preemptive strike against the rogue regime. There may not be enough support to engage in a land war in response to devastating artillery fire against Seoul or even to a North Korean invasion.

President Trump, like his predecessors, is restricted when it comes to dealing effectively with the Korean threat. Yet that is what he must do. The President along with the Congressional leadership of both parties must come together to prepare the country for what could be a bloody war on the Korean peninsula. Distasteful as such a war would be it is better than the alternative of a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP)attack. As well as taking defensive measures, both here and in South Korea, we must build up our conventional land, naval and air forces and exhibit the will to commit them. Should the President be forced into military action, he needs to strike quickly and harshly to destroy North Korean military capability, both conventional and nuclear. Limited military actions will lead to gradual escalation and a prolonged war with heavy casualties.

That is not to say that we should abandon peaceful initiatives and non-military sanctions. We can always hope that the Korean people will overthrow their dictator or that China will act to promote regime change. We should pursue all those avenues. But, while praying for peace, we must prepare for war. This includes an expanded missile defense, an offensive conventional military buildup and an intensive program to harden our civilian electrical grid against HEMP attack. In the end, it may be the threat of overwhelming conventional force and a credible defense that forces a peaceful resolution.

John B. Wells is a retired Navy Commander who served for 22 years as a surface warfare officer. After retirement, he became an attorney practicing military and veterans law. He is Executive Director of the nonprofit Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.