The Gathering Storm on the Korean Peninsula

Today's shelling of a South Korean military base and surrounding civilian areas by North Korea can hardly have escaped anyone's notice. It is the last in a series of provocative actions by the communist Hermit Kingdom, which so far have consisted of cross-border exchanges of rifle fire and the torpedoeing of a South Korean naval vessel. In light of this, it is not unreasonable for the South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak to call for a stern - and possibly armed - response:

"Reckless attacks on South Korean civilians are not tolerable, especially when South Korea is providing North Korea with humanitarian aid," ... "As for such attacks on civilians, a response beyond the rule of engagement is necessary. Our military should show this through action rather than an administrative response" ... "Given that North Korea maintains an offensive posture, I think the Army, the Navy and the Air Force should unite and retaliate against (the North's) provocation with multiple-fold firepower," Lee said. "I think enormous retaliation is going to be necessary to make North Korea incapable of provoking us again."

Indeed, to attack a country's military infrastructure, not to mention the indiscriminate nature of the attack which did nothing to avoid civilian targets, is an act of war. Although in this case it is perhaps nothing more then a simple resumption of hostilities, since North and South Korea are still formally at war, the current situation being nothing more than a decades-long truce.

Nevertheless, South Korea should be aware that every response needs to be in line with the prescribed notions of just intentions, just conduct and proportionality under the just war theory. Furthermore, going to war with North Korea is not as easy as it should be considering the North's economic woes and the ongoing famine there. According to this Wikipedia article their armed forces consist of - if one includes reserves - almost 10 million men. Of course, North Korea also possesses at least a few nuclear weapons, which I don't doubt they will use as a last resort. And then there's China, which might or might not act in support of its erstwhile allies. All this should give South Korea pause and food for thought. Can they win a renewed armed conflict with their communist neighbours? If they, even for a second, believe the answer is no, then perhaps they should not start it in the first place. If, on the other hand, South Korea answers yes to this question, then today's attack is reason enough to go on the offensive. After all, given South Korea's overwhelming technological advantage, even the numerical imbalance between the sizes of the two armies should not be too insurmountable a problem.

As an aside, what does this potential conflict mean for Britain's decision to scrap its aircraft carriers? Con Coughlin writes the following in his Telegraph blog:

This morning’s deeply worrying eruption of hostilities between North and South Korea shows just how quickly conflicts can arise, and underlines the importance of having a carrier strike capability to respond to them.
Whenever Tony Blair was faced with an international crisis, his first question was invariably, “Where’s the carrier?” Gen Richards was himself a beneficiary of the protection afforded by carriers when he commanded the British military contingent that was sent by Mr Blair to intervene in Sierra Leone’s bloody civil war.
But if tensions on the Korean peninsula boiled over to the point where Mr Cameron felt obliged to intervene, he would find his military options were severely limited following what now looks increasingly like his reckless decision to scrap Ark Royal and her Harriers.

Indeed, in this case, an aircraft carrier in the area would have given Britain the choice of whether to put pressure on North Korea or, in the event of war, to at least back up South Korea. The presence of Britain and the United States in the area would also mean that China would have more to consider than its relations with South Korea and Japan should the Middle Kingdom intervene. It might even lead China to abandon the hepless North so as not to damage economic relations with the US, Britain, and through the latter, Europe. It is not to late for David Cameron to reconsider the scrapping of the carriers. HMS Ark Royals is still under sail and can be despatched to the Far East within days.

Defence cuts: Money or Military Judgement?

In an earlier post I argued that spending cuts should never be justified solely on the basis of saving money. Any cut should serve to streamline government, do away with non-essential assets or improve services. Yet this view often gets snowed under in the relentless torrent of money-saving measures, as the picture given by ministers often emphasises only the amount of money saved. This was also true for the cuts to the defence budget announced weeks ago.

The scrapping of HMS Ark Royal and the Harrier aircraft was 'sold' to the public by stressing that it would save more than a £100 million, but the military consequences were largely glossed over by ministers. The UK would be without carrier-based aircraft for ten years, leaving a gap in the defensive strategy of the country and causing worries about Britain's ability to defend the Falkland Islands. As Con Coughlin argues in his Telegraph column today this should not particularly worry us, as Argentina does not appear to be willing - or even possess the military capability  - to invade the island group. He might well be right. However, Coughlin then goes on to suggest that Harrier should not be scrapped because the aircraft might be necessary to strike at Al Qaeda in Yemen should they ever succeed in commiting a terrorist act on British soil.

Ministers have always said that the cuts to the defence budgets would never impair Britain's military capabilities, without ever explaining in detail how this would be so. For instance, if the Royal Navy could do every thing it needed to do without an aircraft carrier duing the next decade, why the need to continue the construction of two new carriers to be completed in 2020? They never gave, at least in my view, an adequately answer. This gives the appearance that scrapping Ark Royal was done just for financial reasons.

But now at last ministers are beginning to counter this fear. Lord Astor, the BBC reports, has said 'the decision to scrap Harrier had been a "military judgement" and not just about costs. He added: "Deleting the entire Tornado fleet would save three times more money." He said the defence review had been "tough but fair".' I'm not sure whether a Tornado aircraft is better than Harrier aircraft, and the government's position that it is may be true, but the arguments that this is so should not be financial but military in nature. Lord Astor's comments iare a promising start, and the MoD should now continue by informing the public of what those 'military judgements' were.