As the debate swirls about North Korea’s latest shows of force:
- Launching a missile over Japan
- Exploding what may be a thermo nuclear weapon of some size bigger than that used against Hiroshima
There is need to consider the next steps for the west and North Korea. Several weeks ago North Korea seemed to be backing down as its rhetoric and actions slowed after the US show of force. And then last week the US and South Korea conducted the military training exercise that the North had been trying to stop. The training included an attack by B-2 bombers and other aircraft against simulated North Korean targets. This was obviously part of the signaling that the US has been doing trying to deter the North Koreans. It obviously didn’t work!
One doubts that UN ambassador Niki Haley’s comments that:”We have kicked the can down the road long enough, there is no more road left.” Or Secretary of Defense Mattis”s comments that the US can annihilate North Korea will have any effect. Another UN declaration condemning North Korea will also not have any effect.
A UN declaration that any country that trades with North Korea will have all of its trade from the other member nations suspended might be tried. The US stopping $600 billion a year of trade with China would be significant, but is not likely. It would harm the US as much as it might harm China. Conversely, it might create the leverage that President Trump has been seeking in negotiating with China about trade in general. Interesting—the short term pain might be worth the long term gain—increased pressure for China to rein in North Korea and a new trade arrangement between the US and China.
On the military front the US is dropping its limits on the weight limit of South Korean missiles—they will be able to carry more powerful warheads. The Japanese are talking g about pre-emptive strikes against North Korea. We haven’t heard a Chinese response to this discussion, yet. (One must remember that the Chinese have said that they would defend North Korea against a US attack, but would not get involved if the North Koreans started a conflict.) Are the Japanese (or the US and South Koreans) trying to provoke the North Koreans to truly step over the line in the sand—whatever it is? What do the North Koreans have to do to provoke the disarming and decapitating attack we talked about in an earlier article?
- Fire missiles near Guam?
- Fire missiles at Japan?
- Take some form of aggressive action towards South Korea?
- Begin the mobilization and readiness enhancement that are necessary on the road to war?
It is interesting to note that there has been no mention of the last bullet above and yet it is the most important indicator that military conflict may be coming. Given the limited transportation and other logistical shortcomings of the North Koreans should they begin mobilizing for war this would be a very critical indicator. One wonders if they could stop the mobilization once it started. (History reminds us that many authors of contended that once the mobilization started before World War I it could not be stopped. “How can I stop if he doesn’t?)
The diplomatic posturing will continue as will the threatening rhetoric, but will there be military signaling by missile launches or other activities that cross that mystical line in the sand. That is what we must look for, anticipate and be fearful of. In the meantime the North Koreans will continue to try and be relevant and considered a true international actor.
The media has gone wild in reaction to North Korea’s announcement of a detailed plan to launch a salvo of ballistic missiles toward Guam, a US territory and major military hub in the Pacific.
The announcement warned that the North is finalizing a plan to fire four of its Hwasong-12 missiles over Japan and into waters around the tiny island. The media hasn’t made the differentiation between the island itself and the waters near the island. The report said the Hwasong-12 rockets would fly over Shimane, Hiroshima and Koichi prefectures in Japan and travel “1,065 seconds before hitting the waters 30 to 40 kilometers away from Guam.” It would be up to Kim Jung-Un whether the move is actually carried out.
If North Korea were to actually carry out its threat and launch missiles into the international waters near Guam it would certainly constitute an escalation of the war of words that have enveloped the Korean Pennisula. Such a missile test would clearly pose a potential threat to a US territory upon launch. This would put the United States in a much more complicated situation than it has been during previous missile launches.
When initially launched how long would it take to determine the impact point and thus if the launch were a test or an actual first shot in a potential conflagration.
It is extremely unlikely North Korea would risk potential annihilation with a pre-emptive attack on US territory. It’s also unclear how reliable North Korea’s missiles would be against such a distant target.
The current escalation of tensions could lead to pressure for the US and Japanese military to try to shoot down the North’s missiles in midflight if they are heading over Japan and towards Guam.
Guam has the airbase from which many of the aircraft that might attack North Korea would be launched. Thus it represents a potential pre-emptive target.
This potential of a pre-emptive strike raises the stakes significantly. Would the US launch on warning of an attack? Would it prefer time to consider options by destroying the missiles before they impact?
The launching of a salvo of four missiles by the North Koreans might be an attempt to make it harder to intercept all of the incoming missiles. Conversely, North Korea is only believed to have 5 launchers for the Hwasong-12 missiles. Why would they use and thus put at risk 4 of their 5 launchers in a test?
The situation is full of risk and miscalculation but it is not as grave as the media madness would suggest.
In previous articles we talked about multi-domain or cross – domain operations. We also talked about the crisis on the Korean peninsula.
As the North Koreans continue their missile launches and the US postures with B1 sorties, ICBM launches and THAAD intercepts speculation continues about what a strike against North Korea would consist of.
The first option would be some form of limited strike to destroy a missile before launch or against the North Korean nuclear facilities. These limited strikes would be escalatory and the great unknown is what the North Korean response would be? Would they play the limited escalation game where existing defenses might be adequate to counter the attack or would their response be massive?
One could always hope for the limited response but must be prepared for the massive one.
The second option would be a preemptive strike. It is the more complex and in fact interesting from a pure strategic analysis perspective.
We said in an earlier post that any armed conflict against North Korea had to have several elements:
- Defenses in place to guard against missile, artillery and ground attacks—protect the hostages that are the people who live in Seoul
- Seek to decapitate North Korea—destroy its leadership or at least deny their communications and eventually lead to regime change and unification
There would appear to be four phases of such a military campaign:
The preparation phase will consist of the detailed planning necessary to surgically, accurately and in a synchronized cross domain approach allocate weapons systems, service component assets, etc. against multiple targets.
The critical and most difficult part of the preparation phase would be the diplomatic efforts to insure that the Chinese and Russians would not interfere with such an operation and would remain mum about its impending nature. Such diplomatic efforts could have two potential outcomes:
1. The desired neutrality of the Chinese and Russians, or
2. Either the deterrence of the North Koreans – they wouldn’t want to provide even a minimal provocation or the desired provocation would occur. Thus the timing of the diplomatic efforts would need to be added to the complex synchronization matrix
A separate diplomatic activity during preparation would be bringing coalition partners into the fold so as to integrate their assets and ensure that they are taking defensive actions while maintaining secrecy. This is a tall order!
One of the critical aspects during the preparation phase is targeting and then weaponeering. One must assume that after 60+ years since the end of the active fighting in the Korean War that a very detailed target data base has been developed and maintained. Weaponeering is the process of assigning weapons based on target damage required to a target. In the weaponeering process where cross domain activities will be critical. Mixed service component weapons will be assigned different targets in a target set or they will be assigned to a specified target to insure the required level of damage. The result will be Joint Integrated Prioritized Target List (JIPTL).
Deployment, having been planned for, during the preparation phase must position the forces to execute their planned missions
Execution must be violent and simultaneously bring all of the resources to bear.
Consolidation will be a time consuming process of unifying the Koreas.
To achieve the above objectives will be difficult. Surprise will be difficult to achieve if the North Koreans can see defenses on alert or offensive forces deploying. The North Koreans cannot be allowed to attack first given the 21 million captives that they hold in Seoul. We are thus talking about a pre-emptive attack or one based upon minimal provocation. Defenses cannot be established overnight. It is taking months to establish the THAAD system in South Korea. Activating counter-fire radar and other defensive sensors would be a sure tip off of preparations for counter fire. Deploying naval and air assets into the theater will take time and cannot be done without the possibility/probability of detection. However, maybe some of this could be obscured as being part of a pre-announced exercise. (Could this be why the North Koreans keep trying to get combined exercises cancelled?)
Thus the key to the deployment phase is to do most of it very slowly (like a build up for an exercise) so that the threat perception is reduced. The actual initial attacks in the execution phase must be huge and use precision efforts based upon the JIPTL—kinetic attacks. Cyber attacks to facilitate the air and missile attacks by spoofing or jamming radars. The use of cross domain fires, such as ground force missiles attacking naval vessels as detected by overhead or sea based sensors. Stealth air craft to deliver disarming munitions on critical missile sites, air bases, communication nodes and artillery positions. Cruise missiles would be used to support all of the other efforts. The targeting must be accurate and wide reaching. Both cyber and kinetic weapons would be used to disrupt critical communications and at least temporarily decapitate the regime leadership. Given the North Korean propensity for tunneling many of these munitions would have to be penetrating munitions or what are called “bunker busters”.
Imagine if you can the simultaneous attack by cyber efforts to deny the North Koreans selected command and control capabilities while precision guided munitions are destroying their navy and air force. Other ground based artillery and missiles are assisting in that effort and are seeking to destroy as much of the North Korean artillery that can range Seoul as possible. Simultaneous with the destruction of the North Korean navy and air force and the attrition of the deployed artillery forces, the artillery near the DMZ and other combat support aircraft would be destroying any attacking forces. All of this would be occurring while the leadership is at least temporarily blind and without communications.
Given the amount of artillery the North Koreans have deployed north of the DMZ all of their artillery cannot be destroyed in this initial decapitating preemptive attack hence the follow on attack will have to be based upon counter fire capabilities. Also with the beginning of the attacks airmobile forces will have to be on strip alert to deploy to counter any North Korean infantry who are coming out of how ever many tunnels they have built under the DMZ.
It is obvious in just considering the complexity of synchronizing these multi-domain combined activities that there needs to be a command and control capability that works across service component lines and nationality lines that is extremely precise while being agile and flexible. We cannot be sure that such a capability currently exists. As mentioned in the article about multi-domain operations the Air Force advocates the use of a Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) to perform this synchronization. This is to suggest that the joint force commander would operate from a CAOC and use its tools plus many more. In building an air tasking order a NATO CAOC has tools that allow the display of the control measures and the flight paths of all of the different types of aircraft planned to support an effort over a 24 hour period—multiple types of missions include offensive, defensive, surveillance air-to air refueling, etc.—very complex synchronization. The software in the alliance command and control system (ACCS) displays all of this in an accelerated manner so that the commander can review the plan and approve it. This capability is a beginning but the other service component contributions to the multi-domain attack need to be included in the integrated synchronized plan. They currently cannot be. In short the ACCS planning tools might provide a start point but they are air only focused. The Joint Force commander needs more for this multi-domain and multi-nation effort.
In conclusion the biggest problem with the concept of multi-domain / multi-nation operations is the lack of synchronizing tools with the precision required to plan and execute an offensive action of the magnitude suggested in this paper
Maybe the first step in multi-domain operations needs to be at the tactical level where there are fewer variables and systems to be considered?
Letter to the editor
Reference Military History article “Hallowed Ground Khe Sanh Vietnam” (http://www.historynet.com/september-2017-table-contents.htm)
As a veteran of the battle of Khe Sanh I need to correct the record and the impression created by Mark D. Van Els in his article about the Battle of Khe Sanh.
The first thing is his understanding of the geography. Khe Sanh was 30 plus kilometers south of the border with North Vietnam and the DMZ. It sat astride route 9 that ran from Laos all the way to the coast. It therefore blocked one of the critical avenues of approach into Quang Tri and Thieu Tinh (Hue) provinces. The map below highlights the strategic position.
Given the location of the combat base it was used for surveillance and other operations into Laos and North Vietnam as the author points out.
As both a youngster growing up in Kansas and later as a cadet I studied intently the battle of Dien Bien Phu and the fate of the French. It was popular to try and compare Khe Sanh and the ill-fated French garrison. I must admit that many of us tried to draw lessons from Dien Bien Phu to try and predict the next activity of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA). The comparisons were of limited utility given the much different nature of the battlefield.
Mark Van Els failed to understand a critical point when it came to the timing of the battle. General Westmoreland and the American chain of command down to and including Colonel David Lounds (the Marine commander of the Khe Sanh Combat Base (KSCB)) knew more than 3 months before the battle that the NVA were coming. As pointed out General Westmoreland wanted a set piece fire power intensive battle and those of us at Khe Sanh were the bait. The reinforcement of KSCB started right before the first shelling and then immediately after it. This is all well documented in my book Expendable Warriors: the Battle of Khe Sanh and the Vietnam War.
The article leads the reader to believe that Khe Sanh was wholly a Marine battle. As an Army District Advisor working with CPT Tinh-a-Nhi the District Chief we brought Army advisors, Bru montagnard and Vietnamese soldiers to the battle. The initial battle around Khe Sanh village resulted in rendering an NVA regiment combat ineffective. These brave soldiers were joined in the fight by Army Special Forces at Lang Vei and Special Forces soldiers at the Combat base itself. These Vietnamese, Bru and Army soldiers contributed significantly to the overall battle.
As to the comment about the attack on Khe Sanh being a feint to draw forces to Khe Sanh, there is the school of thought that says it was a feint. However, I contend that General Giap was attacking the American center of gravity—public opinion. The battles of Tet and Hue were over in several weeks with the NVA and Viet Cong having been defeated everywhere, but Khe Sanh continued as noted for 77 days. The cover of Time Magazine highlighted the “Agony of Khe Sanh”. The agony played in the media on Main Street for over 77 days. General Giap had won.
I believe that we won the battle of Khe Sanh on the battlefield and lost the war on the streets of the United States. This is the critical lesson from Khe Sanh—the link between the battlefields and public opinion.
Thank you for correcting the record.
North Korea on the US Independence Day claimed it successfully test-launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). The missile flew for 40 minutes a total distance of 580 miles and landed in the Sea of Japan. Its altitude is what led some to conclude that it was an ICBM. Others say it may only be a less capable intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM).
Some analysts believe that if this was an ICBM that it marks a potential game-changing development in the ongoing standoff between North Korea and the rest of the world. The potential range of the missile put all of Alaska at risk. Over at least the past two decades North Korea has blustered and threatened its way to concessions. The first coming while Bill Clinton was president.
Whenever North Korea feels that the sanctions are having an effect or it wants more recognition as a member of the nuclear “club” such disturbing tests—missiles or nuclear weapons—are stepped up. The traditional response dating back to the 1990s has been some form of face saving concession by the US and the South Koreans.
This year the “tests” have exceeded in number, and failures, more than at any other time. The new ‘leader” wants acceptance.
The crux of the issue is that North Korea is holding some 20+ million inhabitants of Seoul hostage. Their missiles and dug-in artillery north of the Demilitarized zone can easily range and cause massive destruction and loss of life in Seoul.
This hostage situation makes the development of a non-appeasing strategy much more difficult. In essence what is needed is a strategy whose objective is regime change and eventual unification of the Koreas. (This assumes that South Korea is willing to pay the price to feed, clothe and house the peasants of the North who are continually in almost famine conditions.)
The military components of such a strategy must be disarming, decapitating, and a surprise. Simultaneously defenses must be such that any attack after the initial disarming attack are capable of limiting damage to Japan and South Korea.
Before contemplating such an attack diplomatic efforts are continuing, but is the north paying attention? President Trump has sought China’s assistance and the Chinese have at least played lip service to the request and did turn back North Korean shiploads of coal. (China is North Koreas window for outside goods and the principal consumer of North Korea’s coal.) The China card is a difficult one to play given the areas of disagreement between the US and China (the South China Sea dispute comes to mind.)
Beyond and in addition to additional sanctions (sanctions generally only hurt the people and not the leadership or the military and are thus of limited utility) and pressure from China there are some limited military options which might prove to provide some leverage.
Can the US intercept missile launches from North Korea early (during initial burn and before the missile gains significant altitude)? Such an intercept would deny the North Koreans much needed data on the performance of the missile. Are the North Koreans vulnerable to cyber attacks? Can their media and some basic command and control capabilities be “turned off”?
The point is to show restraint while taking actions to gain leverage.
Let me know what you think we can and should do.
In the next article we will apply the concept of multi-domain operations to some of the opening engagements of a war on the Korean peninsula.
The Army some months back introduced the concept of multi-domain warfare.
What is multi-domain warfare?
The concept envisions the military — every service and every capability across the entire spectrum of capabilities—naval submarines and destroyers unpiloted air vehicles, cyber, artillery and maneuver forces, and of course strategic and tactical air forces— working together to overwhelm the enemy at a defined location and time within the battled space to gain a opportunity to deliver critical attacks against the enemy’s center of gravity. Would come from all domains: land, sea, air, space, cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum. These activities would be synchronized, as mentioned in time and space, to create a window of opportunity for decisive actions.
Where are we going?
Each of the military services seemed to have endorsed the concept in general terms and are now trying to figure out how to make it a reality. How can the Army link its air defense systems with those of the Navy?
The Air Force has suggested a global command and control system based upon its Combined Air Operations Centers (CAOCs). The Air Force sees the CAOCs as the logical center of multi-domain synchronization. The Air Force Chief of Staff has argued that the CAOC is “the one operational level headquarters that actually brings all the components together in a way you can integrate fires and effect.”
This suggestion would seem to have the Air Force CAOC assuming the responsibility of a Joint Force Commander whose job it is to synchronize all of the service component forces that he has been assigned.
This proposal could become the basis of some intense inter-service scuffles in the future.
Nation’s have traditionally tried to make other nations change their political objectives through many means:
- Netwar / Cyber
What will change now that we are in the 21st Century?
- Weapons will be more sophisticated, and maybe less plentiful for the haves
- Weapons will proliferate but be less sophisticated for the have nots
- The nation states may not be the only warriors
- Changing objectives of those not empowered to do so may be more difficult–Leaders may not have decisive authority
- Rational will be irrational
- Socio-Psychological means will be more important
- Will blur in information warfare
- Asymmetries will increase
- No one can challenge the US in late 20th Century forms of warfare
- Enemies will therefore seek asymmetric approaches
- Low tech mass vice high tech limited quantity
- New rules
- Reduce vulnerability to sophisticated weapons
- Netwar / Cyber
- Warfare will be characterized by asymmetries
- Tactical–complex terrain, use of non-combatants, different rules of behavior
- Operational–Deep strikes, target detection vice deception
- Military–homeland attacks–target detection vice deception
- Political–Preparation of the body politic
- Multi-domain—gain local /temporary advantage by exploiting cyber, fires, maneuver, etc. for limited time or location
Modes of Warfare
- Netwar / Cyber
Some mix of each will be the norm rather than the exception—multi-domain
Hands on War
- Opponent states or independent organizations
- Antagonists may be:
- Less technologically sophisticated
- Less vulnerable to technology
- Fought on complex physical and psychological terrain
Hands on War
- Characterized by large numbers of refugees and non-combatants
- Complex terrain–urban sprawl
- Antagonists have different cultural values
- What will they be willing lose–what is center of gravity?
- Different decision process
- Unattractive to Americans–therefore to be expected
- State against state
- Obvious objectives
- A set of rules
- Rational actors
- Decisive authority present
- Superior technology may be key
- More robotic forces employed from afar
- Deception and defense take on added importance
- May go directly to strategic targets
- Different calculus to determine the center of gravity
- Space and information tools more important
Netwar / Cyber Warfare
- Cyberspace is the battlefield–is the opponent vulnerable–are we?
- Much more subtle psychological and infrastructure focus
- When is competition war?
- Where does national security begin and law enforcement end?
- Characterized by extreme ambiguity and opponent identification problems
- Time compressed
- Designing a military to operate in such ambiguity will be difficult
- Developing the warrior spirit for netwar/cyber
Developing doctrine and resultant agility and flexibility to conduct multi-domain operations
- What are the new “rules of war”?