A Preemptive Strike on North Korea Risks an All-Out War in the Asia Pacific

North Korean provocations are forcing a United States decision whether or not to carry out a preemptive strike. Tensions are mounting as the rogue nation continues to inch closer to fielding a credible nuclear first strike capability to threaten Americas cities, its allies, and ensure the survival of its regime. More ballistic missile launches and a sixth underground nuclear test are expected this month. If North Korea takes actions that threatens the South Korean or U.S. forces, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has threatened possible pre-emptive military action. However, like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a preemptive U.S. strike will only exacerbate the threat and not divert Pyongyang from its dangerous path. In the interests of avoiding a calamity, before resorting to preemptive military strike, the U.S. needs to exhaust all economic, diplomatic measures to constrain Pyongyang.

Getting China to successfully intervene with North Korea will not be easy, nor will it be expected. Beijing has long been opposed to regime change and is looking to avoid a collapse which would trigger a refugee crisis. That said, President Donald Trump should not close the door for serious direct diplomacy. The Trump administration should look to seize any diplomatic opportunity to reduce tension with Pyongyang and seek a moratorium on ICBM or nuclear testing or a communications channel to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. In any case, the President must show strength and communicate to Kim that the consequences of an unprovoked first strike against the U.S. would result in a rapid regime-ending second strike response. The risk of providing positive diplomatic incentives to Kim may result in an action-reaction cycle of North Korean provocations in exchange for more concessions. However, the possible downside is much less than the cost of war triggered by a potential unprecedented military action.

The U.S. has long threatened force, and should not waver from this strategic option. A preemptive U.S. strike would place a high-risk of unintended escalation and all-out war in the Asia Pacific region one that would be far more devastating than ever before. It would likely result in retaliation jeopardizing millions of civilians and American forces in South Korea and Japan. Kinetic strikes would likely deepen, rather than alter, Pyongyangs strategic calculus. Further, strikes could trigger a war that would risk exactly the nuclear exchange they are meant to prevent. Defensive strikes aimed at launch capabilities are highly risky too because North Koreas mobile launchers are kept hidden, often in hardened underground facilities.

Force must always be an option, but war must be a last resort. Its important to exhaust all options of national power to leverage North Korea before resorting to preemptive kinetic action.

First, despite years of economic sanctions, Trump should consider a range of crippling measures that could impact Pyongyang and do not require Beijings cooperation. Even though Beijings support of Pyongyang has eroded, China is unwilling to apply pressure to the point of risking a crisis. The U.S. could target Chinese banks and illicit financial networks supporting North Koreas nefarious programs. Further, the U.S. could restrict petroleum exports to North Korea and sanction elites living abroad which over time could severely impact Kims rule.

Second, he will need to commit a credible and sustained military presence in South Korea and Japan, one that has promoted stability and deterred war since 1953. This includes the presence of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which is not designed or intended to contain or reduce Chinas influence in the region but rather to defend U.S. allies from the North Korean threat. Trump should also support his predecessors plan to increase the number of ground-based missile interceptors in the U.S. from 30 to 44 and the ongoing plans to improve and modernize those interceptors. Although reports note South Koreas interest in the possible redeployment of U.S. nuclear weapons as a point of leverage there is no upside. Returning nukes to the peninsula undermines Americas moral authority and nuclear nonproliferation obligations.

Third, Trump will need to demonstrate our capability to rapidly project power to deter and deny targeting U.S. interests through exercises much like the heavy bomber flights over South Korea in 2013 and 2016. He must be disciplined and measured in maintaining pressure on the Kim regime, and if necessary, explore Special Forces operations and nonconventional means that may delay further progress or impact leadership. There are obvious risks to these strategies; therefore, the President must be prudent in his calculus.

Getting North Korea to denuclearize now is a lost cause. However, seeking de-escalation with North Korea is a strategic imperative. The National Security Council should exhaust options that promise neither all-out war, nor capitulation. Preemption dilutes diplomacy, creates an atmosphere of resentment, and promotes regional instability. Its time for our Commander-in-Chief to be steady, demonstrate U.S. leadership by leveraging all diplomatic tools of national power, and avoid a preemptive attack which would no doubt precipitate into a catastrophic and costly war.

Jamie Mannina is a former diplomat at the U.S. Department of State. He is a longtime aide to Hillary Clinton and served as a Defense and Foreign Policy Advisor on her 2016 presidential campaign.