North Korea and the United States (mainly) are locked in a showdown, the outcome of which could be disastrous for millions of people in the Korean peninsula, Japan and a large part of the Asia Pacific region.
In fact, after the North Korean dictatorial regime successfully tested a hydrogen bomb, ten times stronger than the bomb dumped by the Americans on Hiroshima in August 1945, the United States of America, represented by President Trump and the Secretary of Defence, General Jim Mattis, issued a formal warning to Pyongyang, spelling out their options, in response to this provocation, including the use of the US nuclear arsenal.
This eventuality is as astounding as it is serious because, until now, technicians believed that the primary role of nuclear weapons is purely dissuasive, useful in convincing, by their sheer existence, a potential enemy to back down from its hostile stance.
Hence, Russians and Americans, who possess a massive arsenal of dangerous nuclear weapons, could destroy all life on this planet were they to engage in nuclear warfare.
It is therefore a fear-based equilibrium which characterises, even in times of peace, relations between the ‘major’ nuclear powers.
Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel (reportedly) also possess nuclear weapons, which confer a decisive advantage only when it comes to dissuasion and not to actual use.
It is hardly conceivable that a member of this ‘nuclear club’ would resort to using a nuclear weapon in a ‘classic’ conflict with a country that does not possess such weapons.
If Israelis and Americans have so vehemently opposed the Islamic Republic of Iran’s desire to possess nuclear weapons, it is precisely to avoid any major upheaval in the current balance of power established several decades ago in Israel’s favour and to the detriment of the community of Arab-Islamic countries.
If Teheran were to possess nuclear weapons, it would not only become invincible but, above all, it would deprive Tel Aviv of its status as the region’s sole nuclear power.
These are the truths which determine the possession and use of nuclear weapons, prompting the French theoreticians of dissuasion, Colonel Pierre Dabezies and General Pierre Marie Gallois who, in the 1950s, masterminded General De Gaulle’s nuclear strategy, to remark that “anything could be done with a nuclear weapon except using it”, comparing it to a bayonet on which one can sit at the risk of ‘major damage’.
Even though these words were uttered decades ago by these two theoreticians, with this article’s author present at the time, at a seminar for postgraduate students of Political Sciences on the theme of ‘Initiation to contemporary military theories’, in 1976-77 at the University of Paris I, Pantheon-Sorbonne, they are still relevant even today, particularly in the context of the American and North Korean crisis.
In fact, while General Jim Mattis remains circumspect and cautious regarding the likelihood of a nuclear response by Washington to Pyongyang’s provocation, President Trump will need to show a level of restraint required of someone who has a genuine understanding of the consequences of a nuclear war with North Korea.
The North Korean regime would like to develop the complete range of nuclear weaponry, not for an inopportune use but to thwart any ‘classic’ or conventional attack led by its American adversary.
It is to permanently dissuade the United States from contemplating the idea of bringing down the dictatorial regime of Kim Il Sung’s successor and grandson that North Korea is building and testing ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. Not to threaten Seoul or Tokyo!
On the other hand, if Washington, swayed by Donald Trump’s ardour, were to use a low-intensity nuclear weapon in order to strategically destroy North Korea’s military bases and missile launching sites, the latter would still have the time and the means to wreak major human, economic, infrastructural and military damage on South Korea, Japan, and even the island of Guam before, in turn, bearing the impact from an enormous nuclear bomb.
Given that 200,000 people died on 6th August 1945 in Hiroshima when the B-29 ELONA GAY dropped the ‘Little Boy’ bomb, one can estimate the damage caused by a weapon of this type, ten times more powerful, now in the hands of Kim Jong Un’s generals!
That is why in this major crisis, China and Russia are encouraging President Trump to exercise restraint and moderation because they sense that should the United States launch a nuclear attack, the North Korean dictator, believing that all is lost, will not hesitate to sacrifice his country and his people to do the same to the United States!
We strongly hope that those in the corridors of power in the United States, particularly the generals in the Pentagon who have always had a precise understanding of the consequences of a nuclear war, even a ‘limited’ one, will know how to convince their President that the only weapon that Washington possesses in this stand-off with Pyongyang is that of negotiation!
Fahd YATA
Original article : https://lnt.ma/washington-pyongyang-loption-nucleaire-sasseoir-baionnette/
Pour aller plus loin
