Strategic Plan For The United States Military

The North Korean regime is a hybrid threat because of the dynamic combination of its robust Korean People’s Army (KPA), its use and continued development of asymmetric warfare and the use of illicit criminal operations around the world. These elements operate to achieve and attain three major strategic intentions for North Korea. They are the survival of the regime, maintaining an independent North Korea and the ultimate goal for the reunification of the Korean peninsula (Scobell 2005).

The Korean peninsula has been a volatile area since the end of World War II. Today it is the last example of a single nation divided between two states, represents the longest division of ideologies, and is the archetype of enduring Cold War symptoms. Although small in size, The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been the biggest obstacle to regional stability in Asia, its militant and hostile policies posing a threat not only to western aligned nations, but also to its former and present benefactors, Russia and China. This dangerous country represents a very important target for the United States’ Intelligence Community, an extremely difficult one to exploit, but one that cannot be ignored as North Korea’s ambitions

For these reasons military interventions are out of the question. The United States will continue to remain strong alliances with South Korea and include a close coordination of policy towards North Korea. The DPRK will not be giving up their weapons but promised to not make any further developments if the previous sanctions are nullified and an aiding program is provided. The current situation shows that both countries are experiencing the prisoner’s dilemma whereas mutual credibility and cooperation will bring benefits to both countries and solve this dilemma. Not knowing when another attack or a devastating incident might occur, the United States will like to finally ask for the other delegations’ support of such measures that has a bright prospective focusing on deterring the usage of nuclear weaponry of DPRK. The United States of America is resolute of making changes and this delegate hopes to reach an effective

The future remains somewhat vague for Kim Jong-un and his current leadership as the Supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. Foreign Policy scholars and analysts believe that he will fail to control his country which could lead to its inevitable collapse. If and when North Korea collapses the responsibilities will undoubtedly fall on the shoulders of the United States. Unfortunately many Americans are still feeling fatigued given the trillions that were spent on rebuilding Iraq during the war and the thousands of lives lost as a result of the War. If the United States was put into a position to intervene; the nation should not hesitate in building a consensus at home and an international coalition abroad in order to construct a proper strategy to avoid any possible mishandling’s (Harrington & Ramberg). It’s quite feasible given South Korea’s transition from an authoritarian regime into a democratic nation whose economy is highly industrialized. In 2013 the RAND Corporation commenced a study which examined the problems that could possibly arise if North Korea were to collapse in the not too distant future. In 2006 the South Korean defense ministry stated that defense policy experts in South Korea expect troop sizes to grow by as much as seven hundred thousand in the event that Kim Jong-un’s regime does collapse. In the fall of 2014 the RAND Corporation called for the United States to insert an additional two hundred and seventy troops to secure

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has an operating nuclear weapons program and demonstrates the capability of enriching uranium and producing weapons-grade plutonium. The DPRK possesses seven dominant missiles; each has different target ranges and ceaselessly threatens the international community. By conducting nuclear tests periodically, the DPRK’s nuclear program foists as a constant threat to establishing world peace. One prominent example is the DPRK challenging the new leader, President Moon.

The most dangerous and lethal supreme leader of North Korea, Jim Jong Un, the third generation in his family to lead their country, is using his self-preservation tactics by launching ballistic testing missiles that could be a big threat to not only the U.S. but also in South Korea, and possibly Japan. The decision on whether or not we should attack North Korea is a very difficult choice. “If we were to attack them, we pose a big threat of killing approximately 10 million people in Seoul, South Korea and 25 million or more people in the metropolitan area of South Korea, which is almost half of the population” (Wood, North Korea’s Simple But Deadly Artillery Holds Seoul and U.S. Hostage). Understanding the cost and benefits of our options is

With approximately six to eight nuclear weapons and the fact that it did not sign a Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, without a doubt, North Korea is a significant threat to both the United States and her interests (Chanlett-Avery, Rinehart, & Nikitin, 2016). The United States’ recent policy of “strategic patience” has been largely ineffective. Strategic

Assess the possibility of the collapse of the North Korean state in the next 5-7 years by examining the influence and impact of relevant geopolitical factors/conditions.

After Soviet-backed North Korea invaded US-backed South Korea, more than three years of bloody warfare ensued. Despite all casualties, the territorial divide between the Koreas remained roughly the same, with the two states divided among the thirty-eighth parallel by an armistice. (Stueck, 1995) Apart from a brief period in the last decade when tensions eased, the two states continued to espouse intense hostilities against one another, with no formal peace agreements negotiated. (Sigal, 2002) From time to time, North Korea commits acts that are considered aggression under International Law, including but not limited to tunneling to South Korea, launching missiles towards South Korean military facilities and allegedly sinking a South Korean warship. Coupled with Pyongyang’s secrecy in foreign policy making, North Korea’s mixed foreign policy signals, at times, may cause one to believe that they are

How North Korea will meet its end is on the minds of many East Asian policy makers, analysts, experts, and military minds. Why is North Korea worth the attention? North Korea is one of the most heavily armed nations on earth. North Korea possesses a large conventional force of 1.2 million soldiers (Scobell 2007, 8), making her a threat to neighboring South Korea. In addition, North Korea maintains a large Special Operations Force to operate behind the lines in a major confrontation with South Korea (Scobell 2007, 8). But it is North Korea’s chemical weapons and missile inventory that pose a threat to not only South Korea but also Japan (Scobell 2007, 9-10) and island nations in the Pacific. The US is close allies with both Japan and South Korea and North Korea’s advances in unconventional military might are troubling. While it is unlikely North Korea will attack South Korea in an all out attempt to reunite the peninsula (Scobell 2007, 12), another possibility exists for North Korea: total collapse of the state as we understand it. The security of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction will be of paramount importance to the US and the rest of the world as North Korea maintains a robust WMD program to include nuclear weapons (Scobell 2007, 9-11). North Korea’s collapse would require massive resources from the US and South Korea and other neighboring countries to secure WMD facilities and the population. Since all out war launched by either US-ROK alliance or North

North Korea’s geographic position is critical to the national security of the U.S., Japan, South, Korea and the South Pacific region as a whole. Armed with significant nuclear weapons and the fourth largest army in the world, the possibility of an unstable North Korea has been avoided for decades, therefore recent threats

From the creation of the North Korean state following the Second World War, the United States has opposed them. In time, the U.S. learned how to better deal with North Korea, but tension between the two countries has never fully ceased. North Korea’s nuclear programs have been a concern to America since their establishment, and even though tensions had lessened at points, nuclear proliferation is still a large issue. Due to America’s stance with North Korea, talks between them have been difficult. In order to reduce the threat of the North Korean nuclear development, the U.S. needs to take a more hard-line stance with the nation’s current regime and force them to choose between their economic stability

The recent turn of events in North Korea with its alleged admission to possessing nuclear weapon has created nervous tension in the Far East region. Specifically, North Korea has recently transformed the existing bilateral U.S.-ROK alliance into an awkward triangular ROK-U.S.-DPRK dynamic, significantly complicating the previous bilateral relationships amongst the three as well as making these relationships more difficult to manage. We will trace the development of these relations, to gain a better insight into this long standing conflict and to assess better the future implications surrounding these tensions.

The central problem discussed in this paper is determining the general capabilities needed in the Joint Force 2025 to rebalance the force considering the current strategic challenges and the global security environment. This paper proposes that the Joint Force of 2025 must focus on its competitive advantages and it must curtail ineffective and expensive programs to preserve its ground forces capability to provide deterrence and defeat capabilities critical to our National Strategic Objectives. To support this position, this paper first articulates the emerging threats to U.S. National Interests and compares them to the key strategic direction of published Department of Defense (DoD) strategy and strategic concepts. Secondly, this proposal provides broad capabilities that the Joint Force must aggregate from the services of the DoD, and the general capabilities of each service. Finally, this paper highlights and mitigates the inherent risks to its proposed capabilities.

A paper submitted to the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the Department of Strategy & Policy.