Every spring, the situation escalates near the Korean Peninsula. On April 15, the birthday of the founder of the DPRK, Kim Il Sung, North Koreans traditionally test new weapons (to the outrage of neighboring Japan and the United States behind it). It seems that a little more, and a war will break out - but soon the conflict subsides ... until next year.

However, now, having entered the taste of power decisions after the recent missile attack on the Syrian Shayrat Air Base, the White House is considering attacking Pyongyang. If he decides to re-test a rocket or detonate a nuclear bomb at an underground test site. At full speed, the US Navy strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Carl Vincent, is moving towards the peninsula. Will East Asia, and the whole world behind it, slide into the Third World War? Let's find out with the experts.

1. What is the essence of the conflict?

Until 1945, Korea was occupied by Japan, but at the end of World War II, the Soviet and American troops liberated the peninsula: we are from the north, they are from the south. The Cold War began almost immediately, and instead of a united Korea, two states were formed: one led by the communists in Pyongyang, the other with capitalists in Seoul. In 1950, the Korean War broke out between them; The North was supported by the USSR and China, and the South - by the USA and their satellites, however, having lost two million people, the parties remained almost within their former borders. Since then, North Korea has remained the most closed country in the world, where the third ruler from the Kim dynasty, 34-year-old Kim Jong-un, is in power. Today, under his leadership, there is the last fully communist regime on earth, which many experts call totalitarian, but thanks to a tough planned economy, this poor republic has managed to achieve notable success in some areas - for example, acquire nuclear weapons and launch its own satellite into space.

America declared North Korea an "Axis of Evil" under President George W. Bush in 2002. And a month ago, current US leader Donald Trump called Kim Jong-un's actions "very bad" and promised to "solve all problems" (the main of which is the unpredictability of the Pyongyang elites, who constantly blackmail "despicable capitalists" with their nuclear weapons).

2. Who is for whom?

After the collapse of the USSR, the North Koreans had only one ally left - China, which exported coal from the DPRK and sold its own consumer goods there. Recently, however, even communist Beijing has begun to look askance at its brethren: to have a violent neighbor with nuclear weapons at hand, on whom convictions do not work, is a dubious pleasure. This week, the Celestial Empire blocked the border with the DPRK and deployed a 150,000-strong army to the border areas. For what - experts guess. Either to stop the flow of refugees, or maybe to take part in a ground operation to overthrow the ruling regime in the DPRK. In any case, it is obvious that the United States would have to enlist the support of Beijing before attacking Pyongyang.

However, if the conflict goes into a "hot" phase, perhaps the main victim could be South Korea.

Seoul, with 25 million inhabitants, is located just 40 kilometers from the demilitarized zone separating the two states, says Gleb Ivashentsov, ambassador to South Korea in 2005-2009. - And near Pyongyang, on the border, there is a powerful long-range artillery group. It won't seem like much. The Americans will not destroy all these weapons with one blow. And in South Korea there are still 25 nuclear reactors Nuclear power plants, chemical plants, other hazardous industries.

3. Why can a conflict go into a hot phase?

Pyongyang cannot strike US territory (it doesn’t have intercontinental missiles yet), but it’s easy to hit American bases in South Korea and Japan, believes a leading researcher at the Institute’s Center for Korean Studies Far East RAS Konstantin Asmolov. - The White House's talk of a "preemptive strike on the bad guys" is based on its grossly misrepresented view that the North Korean regime has been on the brink of collapse for 20 years and is about to fall apart. Thus, Washington naively believes that after such an attack, riots will immediately begin in Pyongyang, smoothly turning into a "democratic revolution." This misconception increases the likelihood of conflict, because if the United States still dares to attack the Kim state, this will lead to a second Korean war with a possible transition to the Third World War, the expert believes.

And the North Korean General Staff has already threatened: "In the event of an economic, political or military provocation, we are ready to launch a preemptive strike against American bases in South Korea and Japan."

4. How will it all end?

Experts identify four options further development events.

They make noise and disperse.

The current state of affairs suits everyone, - says Associate Professor of St. Petersburg State University, Korean scholar Irina Lantsova. - After decades of economic prosperity, the South Koreans are not ready for an all-out war, fearing the difficulties associated with it. And Trump's demonstrative actions are aimed primarily at "bringing China into obedience" and weakening the "democratic opposition" within America itself. And we have been hearing verbal threats from Pyongyang for more than a year. So, I think that everyone will again make harsh statements - and remain with their own. It is possible that on April 15 the United States will indeed shoot down another North Korean test missile. But that's all!

China will force North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.

Under the influence of China, the DPRK has already “curtailed” its nuclear program more than once, but after some time it resumed it again, putting the “senior comrades” in an awkward position. However, the current Beijing clearly wants to move to a more active foreign policy, and who knows what Washington promised in return - maybe “close its eyes” to the annexation of Taiwan (Beijing considers this island to be its own, but in 1949, under the cover of the United States, local residents created their own state there) ... In any case, advancement to the Chinese Korean border, from where Pyongyang never expected an attack, a dozen divisions at once will become a much more effective argument than all previous verbal assurances.

The US will open fire, but limitedly.

It is possible to destroy Pyongyang's nuclear missile potential by hitting just a dozen objects, - Andrey Sarven, a military expert, believes. - But this is not enough, because it is necessary to exclude a retaliatory strike on South Korean territory. The solution of such a task requires the destruction of many hundreds of well-fortified objects and thousands of heavy weapons. That you can’t put it in a “local strike”. Large-scale missile and bomb attacks are needed here, although I think the United States will be able to do without a ground operation: modern warfare allows this.

The Third World War will begin.

There is no point in discussing the most pessimistic scenario - even Chinese leader Mao Zedong half a century ago predicted the death of one hundred million people in the event of a nuclear war in the region. So it remains to be hoped that all participants in the conflict will receive the maximum political benefit from their demonstrative actions - and the situation will return to its usual course.

MEANWHILE IN TOKYO

Provocation with chemical weapons. Now in North Korea?

The collective West (of which Japan is also a part) likes to repeat old schemes if they have already worked once. On April 13, Prime Minister of the Land of the Rising Sun Shinzo Abe said: "The DPRK may have sarin warheads." At the same time, Tokyo differs markedly in testimony from its main partner, Washington. The latter for a very long time designated only “Kim Jong-un's nuclear program” as the main threat, and here, therefore, the situation has become even more serious. According to the West, of course.

Because the recent Tomahawk raid on the Syrian Shayrat airbase began shortly after the same cries about the presence of chemical weapons - only at that time at the official Damascus, which allegedly used poisonous gases against the inhabitants of the Idlib province captured by terrorists. And the Stars and Stripes flew at the heads of the "bad guys" without any international investigation.

Well, the most successful war is when you eliminate your opponent by proxy. What is Japan doing now, setting the Americans against North Korea. The main thing is that the Western allies at a critical moment do not surrender their faithful partner in the same way as Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. In Iraq, the Americans, by the way, did not find any "weapons of mass destruction" (although its alleged presence was the reason for the capture of Baghdad). But during the 10 years of occupation of Iraq, NATO forces lost 5,000 fighters, and after their departure, a monstrous terrorist state arose in the Middle East. So, instead of Tokyo, it is worth seriously considering whether the fight against the “lesser evil” in the person of the DPRK will awaken much more destructive forces.

Prepared by Edward CHESNOKOV

Help "KP": what you need to know about North Korea and its southern neighbor

COMPETENT

If a nuclear charge is used, will it affect Russia?

Retired Colonel Mikhail Timoshenko so assessed the dangers that may arise if, in a possible conflict on the Korean peninsula, one way or another, nuclear weapons are used or an explosion of a nuclear facility occurs.

First, no one has confirmed information about either nuclear facilities in North Korea, or how many nuclear warheads for missiles they have (hardly many). They have about 300 tactical and operational tactical missiles, as is commonly believed, and their maximum range is 300-350 kilometers. These missiles, as far as we know, are not in the mines, but on the surface. If they are assembled, stand "on the table", and the warhead is nuclear, then hitting such a missile is very dangerous - for all neighboring countries. But what is such a warhead based on - based on uranium or plutonium? Plutonium is more high-tech - therefore unlikely. Where are the nuclear facilities for uranium enrichment - in the rocks? If it's deep, bombs like those used in Afghanistan may not penetrate. And you need to look at what the wind rose is now. For even a "local" nuclear explosion, when an equipped missile is hit, 300 kilometers is nothing. It takes several weeks for all the muck to be blown into the upper layers of the atmosphere ...

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 US may launch a preemptive strike on North Korea to prevent Pyongyang from conducting further tests nuclear weapons. 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.

After sending an American aircraft carrier to the shores of the Korean Peninsula, there was a feeling that the United States was preparing to teach Kim Jong-un the same lesson as Bashar al-Assad.

Indeed, if President Trump has already ordered an attack on a Syrian air base, why shouldn't he order an attack on North Korean targets?

Talk that the new leader of the United States may try to end the DPRK's nuclear missile program by force has been going on almost since Trump's arrival in the White House. But is it really so?

Lenta.ru tried to imagine what the consequences of US aggression against North Korea would be.

Once every two or three years (usually in spring), the world media begin to write actively that the Korean Peninsula "is on the brink of war."

This year was no exception. This time, the reason for such publications was the threatening statements of the Donald Trump administration. Over the past two months, its representatives have been hinting that a possible test by North Korea of ​​an intercontinental missile capable of reaching US territory will become the basis for a strike on the DPRK.

Since things seem to be moving towards such a test, the words of American officials sound very convincing.

In addition, the new owner of the White House is considered an emotional person, not too versed in international affairs, but at the same time appreciating his image of a tough man who will never bend and will respond harshly to any challenges.

In addition, there is insider information that in the first couple of months after Trump was elected president, he himself and his advisers were thinking about how to prevent North Korea by force from becoming the third state after Russia and China capable of launching a nuclear missile strike on the United States. States.

The recent bombing of a Syrian air base by Tomahawks, as well as the decision to send an aircraft carrier to the coast of the Korean Peninsula, only added arguments to those who predict a strike on the DPRK.

In fact, short consultations with specialists seem to have been enough for the White House to realize the scale of the problems that such a strike is likely to lead to.

So this time, the US is obviously bluffing, using the image of the “unpredictable Trump” that has developed in the world in order to put pressure on the DPRK and force Pyongyang to suspend work on intercontinental missiles, or at least refuse to test such missiles. Things will not come to a war, including because this war is unacceptable for the United States.

Let's imagine for a second: Donald Trump, having learned that the DPRK is preparing to test an intercontinental missile, really decided to use force against Pyongyang. AT real life, it should be emphasized that the probability of this is close to zero.

But purely hypothetically, one can assume that the eccentric US president will succumb to the emotions that the next Fox newscast will cause him or the conversation with his daughter Ivanka, excited that her beloved New York was within range of North Korean missiles.

If events develop according to this scenario, the United States may limit itself to striking a missile ready for testing, or even try to intercept it in the air after launch. Such actions will not cause a serious scandal, but they will not give a special effect either: work on long-range missiles in the DPRK will continue, although the failure of the tests will somewhat slow down their progress.

A cooler option would be an attempt to disable some of the key facilities of the North Korean nuclear missile complex with a surprise strike: weapons production centers, enterprises that manufacture missile components and assemble them, test centers and warehouses. Although these facilities are mostly heavily hidden, usually located underground, and many of them the United States simply does not have information about, such a strike is theoretically possible.

Unlike the first scenario, in this case the leadership of the DPRK will not be able to hide from the population the fact of a strike on the territory of the country. Under these conditions, the fear of losing face will most likely force Pyongyang to take retaliatory measures.

However, the matter will not be limited to domestic political considerations: the leaders of the DPRK understand that the absence of a tough reaction to aggression practically guarantees that forceful measures will be used against them from time to time in the future.

Giving reason to doubt one's resolve on the Korean Peninsula is generally dangerous, because concessions are perceived as a sign of weakness (this applies, by the way, to both sides of the conflict).

What will be the response? Of course, there is a possibility that Pyongyang will limit itself to shelling a few military installations that are within range of North Korean artillery.

But such a reaction will turn out to be very asymmetric: a dozen destroyed dugouts and damaged guns is sheer nonsense compared to the many years of paralysis of the nuclear missile program that the American attack will lead to. Therefore, it is much more likely that the capital of South Korea will be chosen as the target for a retaliation strike.

Greater Seoul, a giant agglomeration of nearly 25 million people, is located right on the border with North Korea.

The North Korean army has concentrated in front of Seoul - in fact, on its northern outskirts - a powerful artillery group, which includes about 250 high-powered guns capable of hitting targets in the northern and central parts of the Seoul agglomeration.

These guns are in fortified positions, and their elimination is not an easy task. Most likely, having received an order, they will open fire and fire at least a few dozen volleys. Even if only military targets are the target, such shelling of a huge city will inevitably lead to heavy losses among the civilian population.

With a high degree of probability, the leadership of South Korea will perceive the shelling as a casus belli and will act according to the circumstances: it will inflict a powerful retaliatory blow on the northerners. As a result, the Second Korean War will begin on the peninsula, which will claim tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives.

It is not clear what position China will take in the event of a large-scale conflict. Formally, he is an ally of the DPRK and must enter the war on its side. However, there are many reasons to believe that the PRC will not do this, because the behavior of North Korea, and especially its nuclear program, irritates Beijing incredibly.

Few people in China want to fight for the DPRK now. True, there is no doubt that Beijing will support North Korea indirectly, including by providing it with military assistance - no matter how much the Chinese want to teach Pyongyang a lesson, the desire to teach Washington a lesson is stronger.

Chinese aid will mean prolonging the conflict. As a result, even if the war ends with the defeat of Pyongyang, for Washington and Seoul this victory may turn out to be a pyrrhic one.

In addition, there is a danger that the leadership of the DPRK, faced with the prospect of complete defeat (taking into account the balance of forces in the field of conventional weapons, the defeat of the North is the most likely scenario), will decide to use nuclear weapons.

Thus, the United States, having struck in order to stop the hypothetical threat from North Korea, will find itself embroiled in a full-fledged military conflict comparable in scale to the Vietnam War.

At the same time, unlike China, the United States will not be able to evade participation in the Second Korean War: parts of the American armed forces are already in Korea and are likely to become one of the main targets of a North Korean attack. In addition, this conflict, as already mentioned, has some chances of developing into a nuclear phase.

A major war in Korea will mean a worsening of the economic situation in the US and, most importantly, noticeable human losses, which in modern developed societies, voters usually do not forgive. The number of victims of the war will go into the thousands, and this can be very costly for both Trump and his entourage.

Even if the Second Korean War quickly ends with a truce, its consequences for Washington will still be sad.

Seoul has been living within the reach of North Korean heavy artillery for almost half a century, but this has not created serious problems for the citizens. Therefore, it will be difficult for them to understand the logic by which the illusory threat of shelling of US territory forced the Americans to unleash a conflict that led to the destruction of the capital of South Korea.

The citizens of this state will form an opinion: the United States for them is not so much a guarantor of security as a source of problems. This, in turn, will have an extremely negative impact not only on US-South Korean relations, but also on the entire system of US military alliances as a whole.

A strike on North Korean facilities could lead to the collapse of the alliance between Washington and Seoul even if it does not provoke a major war.

However, everything described above is, we emphasize once again, nothing more than theorizing. The American leadership realized that there was a considerable difference between Syria and the DPRK and that a strike on Korea was too dangerous.

Therefore, the scenario described above has little chance of being realized. Now Americans are bluffing, partly taking advantage of Trump's established reputation as an unpredictable president.

For decades, Pyongyang has skillfully played the "card of unpredictability", and now, it seems, it's Washington's turn.

Andrey Lankov Professor at Kookmin University (Seoul)

If you listen to today's administration, you will decide that the US is a small, essentially defenseless country threatened by a pack of evil great powers. In the last crisis national security figured huge, covering the entire globe of the North Korean empire. Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats stated on NBC that North Korea"has become a potentially existing threat to the United States." In all likelihood, he already sees Pyongyang-led armored divisions, aircraft carriers, air units and nuclear missiles surrounding the beleaguered country.

In fact, Coates' statement is surprising. Last year, the US GDP was $19 trillion, which is about 650 times that of North Korea. Her income is comparable to that of Portland, Maine, Anchorage, Alaska, El Paso, Texas, or Lexington, Kentucky. The population of the United States is 13 times that of the DPRK.

The US military is several times larger than the North Korean military, spending a hundred times more on them. America sets the technological standard for the world, while Korea's resources have outlived their usefulness. With the latest and most technologically advanced nuclear arsenal and 1,411 warheads in reserve (the largest number was 31,255 about fifty years ago), Washington could instantly reduce the DPRK to ashes. Pyongyang is believed to be in possession of twenty nuclear bombs of dubious quality.

Who is a threat to whom?

Coates is not the only Washington official to run out of the room at the mention of North Korea. Last month, U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis told the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Armed Services that North Korea is "the most pressing and serious threat" to the peace and security of the planet. North Korea's nuclear program is "a clear and immediate danger to everyone," he added.

Gen. Joseph Dunford, a member of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned the Committee, saying North Korea's actions pose a "growing threat to the US and its allies." Indeed, Pyongyang's improvement in long-range missiles "is aimed specifically at threatening our homeland and allies in the Pacific."

The Americans seem to be listening. A recent CNN poll showed that 37% of Americans polled believe North Korea poses a "current" military threat to the US and 67% support sending troops to defend South Korea.

Context

Japanese tiger decided to show fangs

Kim Jong Un defeated Trump

10 Lessons From North Korea's Nuclear Threat

Is peace dawning on the Korean peninsula?

Will Trump bomb North Korea?

The irony is that the latest results are due to the previous call. If North Korea poses a threat to America, it is because America first became a threat to North Korea.

Of course, nothing good can be said about the Kim dynasty, represented by the third generation. The authorities treat their population rudely and frighten their neighbors. Most Americans would be happy to send the current leaders of the DPRK to the dustbin of history.

Unfortunately, the North Korean elites know this. Let's not forget that the US intervened to protect South Korea after the North Korean invasion in 1950 and would have liberated the entire peninsula if China hadn't gotten involved. Then General Douglas MacArthur advocated the use of nuclear weapons. (against both North Korea and China - approx. transl.): This threat was used by the incoming Eisenhower administration to negotiate a truce.

After the agreements reached, the United States hardly signed a truce agreement with South Korea (in fact, the agreement was concluded on behalf of the UN, it was simply signed by American General Mark Wayne Clark; and it was not South Korea that signed it, but North Korea represented by the Commander-in-Chief of the KPA Kim Il Sung. South Korea refused to sign the document - approx. transl.). Over the following years, the US placed a military garrison in South Korea and additional bases such as Okinawa. In addition, the US government brought nuclear weapons to the peninsula, conducted joint military exercises with the Republic of Korea, and sent several units of the navy there, including aircraft carrier cruisers, and strategic bombers. The US insisted that "all cards be on the table", referring to the military action.

As Washington may have wanted, North Korean officials noticed what was happening and did not regard it as a friendly move. Of course, North Korea was dangerous, especially with the military support of the USSR and China. But American military actions posed a clear threat to the DPRK regime.

The US danger deepened towards the end of the Cold War, when first Moscow and then Beijing established diplomatic relations with Seoul. Today's China helps North Korea stay afloat economically, but it would not have backed it in a war with the United States before. North Korea is truly alone in the struggle against its southern neighbor with vast resources and the support of the world's only superpower. Very lonely.

Okay, if Washington was just protecting its allies. However, the Kim regime sees the US indiscriminately invading countries around the globe. US administrations have used military force to promote regime change in Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Haiti. The Libyan government was so stupid that it got rid of nuclear bombs and missiles, leaving the country vulnerable to outside intervention. The US also tried to capture a combatant commander in Somalia (referring to field commander Mohammed Farrah Aidid, who was hunted during civil war in Somalia in 1993 - approx. transl.), invaded trying to prevent the collapse of Bosnia, split Serbia and supported the Saudis during their invasion of Yemen.

If ever there was a paranoid state with a real enemy, it is North Korea.

North Korean officials point to this reality. Of course, everything that the North Korean government says should be taken with skepticism, but there is no reason to doubt its concern about possible US military actions. When I was in North Korea last month, officials dismissed criticism of their nuclear program, citing the "unfriendly policy" of the United States and emphasizing military and nuclear threats (the latter, they say, have been around since the 1950s).

Undoubtedly, one of the goals of the DPRK's nuclear program is to protect itself from such a threat. nuclear bombs They also have other uses: for example, to strengthen the position of Pyongyang in the international arena, increase the loyalty of the military to the regime and create an opportunity for blackmailing neighbors. However, long-range missiles have only one purpose: to keep the United States from a military invasion of the country.

Multimedia

Parade in North Korea on the anniversary of the end of the Korean War

As for the talk that North Korea threatens "peace", it has never shown much interest in this "peace". The Kim dynasty spent little time scaring Russia, Europe, Africa, South America, Canada, Middle East or Southeast Asia. North Korea always has South Korea, Japan, and the superpower looming behind them, the United States, at gunpoint.

The harsh rhetoric of the ruling dynasty reflects weakness, not strength. They want to meet their virgins in this world and not in the next; none of them would deliberately commit suicide for fun. North Korea wants to avoid war with the United States, not to enter into it.

If the US wasn't "over there, around the corner," North Korea's safest policy would be to ignore the US. The creation of weapons that can reach America would certainly attract the attention of the United States, setting off the hysteria that is now sweeping Washington. For example, Hawaii is today discussing civil defense measures in the event of a North Korean nuclear attack. But with the threat of war, North Korea's only credible policy remains containment, which means at least a few American cities held hostage.

Naturally, the people of Washington cannot imagine a world in which they do not dominate and cannot act with impunity. However, North Korea does something that other potential adversaries (China and Russia) do not do: it deprives the United States of the opportunity to use its military forces. Since Kim Jong-un has a convenient and logical opportunity to turn a couple of American cities into a "lake of fire", will the US support the so-called "nuclear umbrella" by risking Los Angeles over Seoul? Will conventional war break out, will America march north to field Kim Jong Un and company from Seoul as victory approaches? Will the United States even risk intervening in an armed conflict if the DPRK feels that it could lose its already limited nuclear stockpiles?

Coates is concerned about the vaguely present threat from North Korea, but this is better understood as the usual and permanent danger of North Korean bombing whenever the US sees fit. The North Korean regime may be cruel, but it doesn't want war. On the contrary, he wants to make sure that the US does not go to war first.

The best answer for Washington would be to give up the war it doesn't want. North Korea has long had the resources it needs to defend itself. Although its advantages are not as great as America's - the economy is 40 times smaller and the population is 2 times smaller - South Korea's inability to defend itself demonstrates how the Pentagon has become an international welfare agency.

And as South Korea's desire to develop its own nuclear weapons increases, Washington needs to consider the benefits of rolling back the "nuclear umbrella" so that when protecting Seoul, Seoul is at risk, and not, say, Los Angeles or another American metropolis. Nuclear nonproliferation makes sense, but US security is more important.

Is North Korea a threat to America? Only because the United States has been “behind the door” for almost seventy years, preparing for a war with the DPRK. The US must change its policy in Northeast Asia to protect itself first and foremost.

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.