Pentagon Unveils Plan For "Pre-Emptive Strike" On North Korea

Tyler Durden's picture

Just hours after Trump made his famously heated vow to unleash "fire and fury" on North Korea if provocations by the Kim regime continued, the US Air Force issued a very clear statement in which it explicitly said that it was "ready to fight tonight", launching an attack of B-1 bombers if so ordered:

“How we train is how we fight and the more we interface with our allies, the better prepared we are to fight tonight,” said a 37th EBS B-1 pilot. “The B-1 is a long-range bomber that is well-suited for the maritime domain and can meet the unique challenges of the Pacific.”

Now, according to an NBC report, it appears that the B-1 pilot was dead serious, as the Pentagon has unveiled a plan for a preemptive strike on North Korean missile sites with bombers stationed in Guam, once Donald Trump gives the order to strike. Echoing what we said yesterday that war "under any analysis, is insanity", the preemptive strike plan is viewed as the "best option available" out of all the bad ones:

"There is no good option," a senior intelligence official involved in North Korean planning told NBC News, but a unilateral American bomber strike not supported by any assets in the South constitutes "the best of a lot of bad options."

The attack would consist of B-1 Lancer heavy bombers located on Andersen Air Force Base in Guam, a senior acting and retired military officials told NBC news.

Of all the military options … [President Donald Trump] could consider, this would be one of the two or three that would at least have the possibility of not escalating the situation,” retired Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe and an NBC News analyst, said.

Why the B-1?

Military sources told NBC News that the internal justification for centering a strike on the B-1 is both practical and intricate. The B-1 has the largest internal payload of any current bomber in the U.S. arsenal. A pair of bombers can carry a mix of weapons in three separate bomb bays — as many as 168 500-pound bombs — or more likely, according to military sources, the new Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile — Extended Range (JASSM-ER), a highly accurate missile with a range of 500 nautical miles, allowing the missile to be fired from well outside North Korean territory.

There is another important consideration: according to one senior military officer, "the B-1 has also been selected because it has the added benefit of not being able to carry nuclear weapons. Military planners think that will signal China, Russia, and Pyongyang that the U.S. is not trying to escalate an already bad situation any further."

The plan explains why in recent weeks pairs of B-1s have conducted 11 practice runs of a similar mission since the end of May, the last taking place on Monday, around the time Trump and Kim were exchanging unpleasantries in the media, with the training has accelerated since May, according to officials. In an actual mission, NBC notes that the non-nuclear bombers would be supported by satellites and drones and surrounded by fighter jets as well as aerial refueling and electronic warfare planes.

There are currently at least six B-1 bombers on Andersen Air Force base, which is located some 3,200km from North Korea. If given the command, these strategic bombers would target around two dozen North Korean "missile-launch sites, testing grounds and support facilities" according to sources cited by NBC.

Asked about the B-1 bomber plan, two U.S. officials told NBC News that the bombers were among the options under consideration but not the only option. NBC points out that "action would come from air, land and sea — and cyber."

Of course, as we elaborated yesterday, striking North Korea is certain to prompt an immediate and deadly response that could involve targets as near as Seoul, just 40 miles from the border, or as far away as Andersen AFB, according to Adm. Stavridis.

"The use of the B-1 bombers to actually drop bombs and destroy Korean infrastructure and kill North Koreans would cause an escalation," said Stavridis. "Kim Jong Un would be compelled to respond. He would lash out militarily, at a minimum against South Korea, and potentially at long-range targets, perhaps including Guam. … That's a bad set of outcomes from where we sit now."

"Diplomacy remains the lead," said Gen. Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy, the U.S. Pacific Air Forces commander, after the B-1 bombers' late May training run. "However, we have a responsibility to our allies and our nation to showcase our unwavering commitment while planning for the worst-case scenario. If called upon, we are ready to respond with rapid, lethal, and overwhelming force at a time and place of our choosing."

Separately, Defense Secretary James Mattis said military strategists at the Pentagon have a military solution in place to address the growing threat emanating from North Korea, but they are holding their fire in favor of ongoing diplomatic efforts. The Pentagon chief said any military option would be a multilateral one involving a number of regional powers in the Pacific.

“Do I have military options? Of course, I do. That’s my responsibility, to have those. And we work very closely with allies to ensure that this is not unilateral either … and of course there’s a military solution,” Mr. Mattis told reporters en route to meet with senior leaders in the technology sector in Seattle and California.

However, as the Washington Times reports, Mattis reiterated that the administration’s diplomatic efforts to quell tensions on the peninsula remained the top priority for the White House.

“We want to use diplomacy. That’s where we’ve been, that’s where we are right now. and that’s where we hope to remain. But at the same time, our defenses are robust” and ready to take on any threat posed by the North Korean regime, Mattis said.

* * *

Finally, should the worst-case scenario be put in play, and conventional war is launched, here is what Capital Economics predicted would be the drastic economic consequences from even a contained, non-nuclear war.

  • North Korea’s conventional forces, which include 700,000 men under arms and tens of thousands of artillery pieces, would be able to cause immense damage to the South Korean economy. If the North was able to set off a nuclear bomb in South Korea, the consequences would be even greater. Many of the main targets in South Korea are located close to the border with the North. The capital, Seoul, which accounts for roughly a fifth of the country’s population and economy, is located just 35 miles from the North Korean border, and would be a prime target.
  • The experience of past military conflicts shows how big an impact wars can have on the economy. The war in Syria has led to a 60% fall in the country’s GDP. The most devastating military conflict since World War Two, however, has been the Korean War (1950-53), which led to 1.2m South Korean deaths, and saw the value of its GDP fall by over 80%.
  • South Korea accounts for around 2% of global economic output. A 50% fall in South Korean GDP would directly knock 1% off global GDP. But there would also be indirect effects to consider. The main one is the disruption it would cause to global supply chains, which have been made more vulnerable by the introduction of just-in-time delivery systems. Months after the Thai floods had receded in 2011 electronics and automotive factories across the world were still reporting shortages.
  • The impact of a war in Korea would be much bigger. South Korea exports three times as many intermediate products as Thailand. In particular, South Korea is the biggest producer of liquid crystal displays in the world (40% of the global total) and the second biggest of semiconductors (17% market share). It is also a key automotive manufacturer and home to the world’s three biggest shipbuilders. If South Korean production was badly damaged by a war there would be shortages across the world. The disruption would last for some time – it takes around two years to build a semi-conductor factory from scratch.
  • The impact of the war on the US economy would likely be significant. At its peak in 1952, the US government was spending the equivalent of 4.2% of its GDP fighting the Korean War. The total cost of the second Gulf War (2003) and its aftermath has been estimated at US$1trn (5% of one year’s US GDP). A prolonged war in Korea would significantly push up US federal debt, which at 75% of GDP is already uncomfortably high.
  • Reconstruction after the war would be costly. Infrastructure, including electricity, water, buildings, roads and ports, would need to be rebuilt. Massive spare capacity in China’s steel, aluminium and cement industries mean reconstruction would unlikely be inflationary, and should instead provide a boost to global demand. The US, a key ally of South Korea, would likely shoulder a large share of the costs. The US spent around US$170bn on reconstruction after the most recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. South Korea’s economy is roughly 30 times larger than these two economies combined. If the US were to spend proportionally the same amount on reconstruction in Korea as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would add another 30% of GDP to its national debt.

Naturally, should North Korea manage to successfully launch a nuke, the devastation, economic and otherwise, would be orders of magnitude greater.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Rusty Shorts's picture

Good question, I just Google Earth'd North Korea and well...there's nothing there except a few rice paddies along the coast.

HRClinton's picture

Now that they made an example of the truthy guy they fired, Google will add the various Nuke sites and symbology to Google Earth.

Frank Underwood's picture

I believe Kim grabbed Taylor Swifts ass. That's worth a nuke or two

HRClinton's picture

What was? She's all skin and bones. 

Taint Boil's picture

Why, exactly, are we going to attack North Korea?

I think they said something .....

I was just talking with someone at work and asked them "What did North Korea do again" .... got the deer in the headlight look.

MFL5591's picture

Why were are going to attack Korea, is that the question.  The answer is simple.  The US goverment and the Federal reserve have destroyed the fabric of the country with a 21 Trillion dollar debt and the Rothchild /Bush/Rockerfeller/ Wall Street Bankers/Defense Contractors/ and US companies want to keep their party of stealing going at the expense of human life! 

thebigunit's picture

I'll explain it to you.

Why, exactly, are we going to attack North Korea?

Put down your doughnut and look at me.

There's this bad guy, see.  And he's got nuclear weapons, see.

And he thinks he's smarter and more untouchable than Hillary Clinton.

Got the picture yet?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

There's this bad guy, see.  And he's got nuclear weapons, see.

 

And he thinks he's smarter and more untouchable than Hillary Clinton.

 

Got the picture yet?

 

May is a woman, so it cannot be her.

Trump?

Bibi?

Macron?

Putin?

Modi?

Shehbaz Sharif?

Kim?

Li?

 

You need to be more clear.  

veritas semper vinces's picture

In case you haven't noticed,we are ruled by Satanists.Psychopaths is too mild word to describe them.And the foundation of their power is collapsing and they need a war,a biiiggly,beautiful war to cover this.

BarkingCat's picture

Satanists?

You might want to read again the old book of that particular mythology.

From what I remember it was not that Satan character that repeatedly brought misery upon the world.

HRClinton's picture

Tyler Durden, look, the MSM is muscling in on Doom News. 

How dare they?

Jballsquared's picture

10 reasons

1. They hate our freedom
2. They need democracy. Like Iraq and Libya and Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Syria.
3. The science is settled.
4. 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Kim meddles in hillary's campaign.
5. We have always been at war with East Asia
6. You can't handle the truth!
7. Lockheed Martin dividend is down to 2%. We can do better.
8. KIm tried to kill my dad.
9. They eat dogs.
10. You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.

TheGardener's picture

The "there aint no nukes comment"in a former just passed article comments section is given credence by this suddenly  seemingly feasible

no nukes involved scenario. Aren`t we told any confrontation going nuclear is going to wipe us all out ? Hiroshima and Nagasaki "just"

firebombed like Dresden ? Just short of denying the casualties what is the difference ?

Nobody called to acount for the mass slaughter at Hamburg or Dresden, entire suburbs wiped out and phosphor bombs on the folks that had fled to the river banks from the burning cities. A holocaust to believe in.

No nukes faked above ground for  3 generations, call it a bluff Trump!

We are all being had on this nuke thing for far too long, let one go off for real Fat Kim in DC or JNC and we make you empereor

for life of all of Korea.

 

shovelhead's picture

Sucks when you lose a war.

Solio's picture

The answer is, yes, of course!

HardAssets's picture

The narrative is that Donut Boy has a screw loose and has been accelerating the race for establishing the Norks capability to strike at the U.S. with nuclear weapons.

If this is true, they are an obvious threat.

Of course, we don't know if the narrative is true or not.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

So, you are saying it the duty of the US military to attack the government of any nation that has nukes and a fat leader that some claim is mentally unstable.

shovelhead's picture

Yup.

France should be on the list too.

Victor von Doom's picture

So should the US. Oh shit, I forgot - they already wage war on their own citizens.

NEOCON1's picture

Just stick your head further up putins ass, cock gobbler...

lucitanian's picture

"Why, exactly, are we going to attack North Korea?"

 

Because they are trying to defend themselves from constant US threat and aggression.

They need to learn that becoming a nuclear power is considered a threat to the US which is a nuclear power, which is ignoring nuclear treaties, which is renaging on previous agreements, and regularly threatening N. Korea, but what the hell, any enemy is a good enemy, fuck the consequences....

The US is the most dangerous contry on earth. I can only hope Russia and China tell this asshole Trump to back off in no unsertain terms, before he gets thousands of humans killed. Any attack on N. Korea will be a catastrophy and will serve no practical purpose.

Michael Musashi's picture

Kimchi, damn it!

Pickles are made from cucumbers, not cabbage!

Finally we got a good reason for war!!!!!!!!!!

Crazy Or Not's picture

# is a versatile metal that is crucial to and production: http://bit.ly/2utI3Ow

DPRK has an estimated 50% of world supply of Magnesite.
http://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-invest...

http://nautilus.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1990-...

(Page 203 -which links to PPpresentation NK resources MAP)

tmosley's picture

I know that, as a peanut, you can't understand this, but...

THERE WILL BE NO WAR WITH NORTH KOREA.

No matter how justified it would be. To have a war, you have to have someone who wants a war. No-one does, on any side. This is all jockeying for position in the coming set of negotiations that will put a permanent end to this situation.

shankster's picture

Everybody just calm down get out your EBT card and go shopping or something..we are just as safe as we were on 911..everything is OK, under control.

TuPhat's picture

You're right, I'm going to Walmart.  Can't use Amazon the Norks might hack the internet.  I need some more plastic junk while it's still available.

null's picture

Not against a belligerent enemy (self described) who is threatening you harm from the outside. That's not called DV.

you_are_cleared_hot's picture

Sorry, but this whole article is a work of fiction. There is no battle plan out there that calls for using B-1s because they do not carry nuclear bombs and would be "less of a threat" than a B-2. The B-1 CAN carry nuclear weapons, but the Air Force CHOOSES to have it carry conventional weapons...http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b-1b/

Sorry guys, but any REAL battle plan for NK would call for a very quick decapitation of ALL aircraft, Missile, C2, SAM and artillery sites using a swarm of cruise missiles fired from ships, subs and aircraft...THEN the fighters and bombers come in to mop up what is left. Boots will not be on the ground in NK - they don't need to.

detached.amusement's picture

I had a laugh at the notion that B1s were incapable of carrying nuclear payload also.....wtf are you kidding me?  anyone that believes that, I'll sell you my spare b1, cheap

Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

True. This aircraft goes back to the Carter Administration, and its designation, strategic bomber.

pods's picture

Yep, they were actually designed to be a long range nuclear bomber. They were retrofitted to drop conventional and cruise missiles.

pods

TheGardener's picture

Any piece of ordinance, supposedly nuclear or not , can be delivered by any means including in a container to

a major port of entry. You could even drop a large ordinance piece of evil from a chopper: A smallish Robinson R44  

can airlift a small car for shows and this is just a 3 passengers light aircraft.

Calling full BS on this "non nuclear capable aircraft".

 

 

GoingBig's picture

There is no such thing as a quick decapitation. You know not of what you speak. Much like the orange idiot. NK has a huge number of weapons pointed at Seoul and they wouldn't be picked off without getting a huge number off very quickly. This would be catastrophic. Your statement shows the typical ignorance displayed about the problems with the Korean peninsula.

Jethro Dull's picture

I believe all B-1's were de-nuclearized about a decade ago under Strategic Arms Agreements with the Russians. How long it would take to re-install the equipment is a question. It can be done --- possibly some nuclear payloads could be carried in the short with work arounds.

If it's 15 minutes from NK launch to impact at Guam, I doubt they get off the ground unless the crews are sitting in the plane ready to fire up those big engines and get that mass lumbering down the runway.

Never seen anything else shake the ground like one of those "Heavies" taking off. But, it takes time to get them rolling.

This is a negotiation. Sword fighting on the edge of a razor.

HardAssets's picture

For as long as I can remember, the B-1 was touted as part of the U.S. strategic nuclear Triad. (Subs- land based ICBMs - bombers). It was supposed to take over that task from the old B-52s.

If an enemy were an existential threat to a nation & all her people, wouldn't all available necessary force be used ? If what they assert is true, the Norks are a greater immediate & short term threat to the U.S. than the Germans & Japanese in WW2, the last time America fought a total war.

Something just doesn't add up. Either with this article as written, or the whole narrative.

Victor von Doom's picture

It's the whole narrative. They said the same shit about Iraq.

Gert_B_Frobe's picture

Damn, if those bombers lift off, Guam will surely tip over.

Rusty Shorts's picture

I just Google Earth'd Gaum as well...there's only 4 B-1's, 3 U-2's and 10 Tankers.

BarkingCat's picture

No, it will not. It will pop high above the surface of the ocean, like a ball that was released after being submerged.

When it splashes back down, it will create a giant tsunami which will surely wipe out anything on the sholines of the Pacific.

Hell, it will probably push Antarctica into South Africa.

 

Quick, call Hank Johnson so that he can sound the alarm.

Bryan's picture

Diplomacy -- riiiight.  That worked so well when Clinton sent over some nuclear scientists to help NK build up nuclear facilities "for energy purposes only."  NK promised... PROMISED... to never ever ever make nuclear weapons from our generous help and technology.  And so here we are 20 years later.

Next will be Iran in another 10 years or so... because they would never ever ever want to make nuclear weapons from our generous help with nuclear energy.  Diplomacy is rarely effective when both sides are not honest with each other.

Jethro Dull's picture

Remember speaking with one of the negotiators who later negotiated the Dayton Accords. He had negotiated during the SALT talks.

He said it was an endless cycle of reading the same statements over and over, until, the boys up top changed a line in the statement. The next day the Russians would do the same.

He said the Russkies learned to drink Jack Daniels and we learned to drink Vodka.

With the Norks, he said, wear a jock strap because they will literally kick you in the nads right at the negotiating table. Good story. Don't know if it was true, but, from the look on his face...

Bryan's picture

I believe it.  Politics is a dangerous chess match.

tmosley's picture

Most people don't understand that the crazy antics of the Norks is a negotiating tactic to keep their enemies at bay depite their absolutely overwhelming disadvantage when it comes to military spending (South Korea's military budget alone is almost 3X the GDP of North Korea).

The fact is that they are the sick man of Asia, and would roll over after they shot their wad with whatever missiles, nukes, and artillary they have, IF they could even get them to fire.

Victor von Doom's picture

Yeah, just kick the door in and the whole corrupt house will collapse, right?

I seem to remember someone else saying that.

BenBache's picture

Under American theory of self defense, if any country threatens the US, the US can attack it, overthrow its government, and install a "good" government. Doesn't that give North Korea the right under US created international law to attack the US because the US threatened it?  W merely said Saddam had WMD and the US went to war and destroyed a country.  Why not Korea?  Equal Rights for all Psychopaths.  Let the killers go at it.  Only morons believe any of this BS.  Look at Kim Jong Un, an obvious butch dyke tranny put in front of us as a threat.  What does this dyke threaten to do?  Send flying penises at us propeled by farts from the rear.  No way missiles can hit squat.  Think about it.  They have no wings, explosions propel them, they have no eyes, and no way to control the explosions.  What makes them hit a target? Nothing.  They all crash into the sea. 

 

1984.  The news consists of hoaxes and lies.  No one has nukes.  Missiles can't hit squat.  Think.  Imagine how a flying penis propeled by farts could possibly hit anything.

Buck Johnson's picture

They are picking a fight in order to give it an excuse to pull the plug on the economy that is about to implode.  They know that if there is  no war then the only people that they can blame this time is the govt. and banks and rich people.  So in their mind little guy from NK can't truly hurt the mainland of US at best Guam and that is at best.  So this is a win win in their minds and not having to worry about losing 20 to 40 cities or more in the US from a limited strike from Russia or China.

 

 

carbonmutant's picture

Actually, all we need to do is conduct some military exercises on the edge of NK airspace.
And then respond according to events...

spieslikeus's picture

Isn't that how shit always happens? An 'exercise' somehow morhps into not only something real, but exactly what the 'exercise' was about in the first place.