hankyoreh

North Korea’s official media channel, the Korean Central News Agency, reported on Jan. 31 that North Korea had successfully launched its intermediate-range ballistic missile the Hwasong-12. (KCNA/Yonhap News)

Min Kyung-tae

“Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.”

This was Otto von Bismarck's warning to the hard-line generals of the German army who insisted on carrying out a preemptive strike against Russia during World War I. Attacking first out of fear that your opponent will start a war is thus, according to Bismarck, foolish and tantamount to suicide.

The illusion that a preemptive attack could be advantageous, the fear that an opponent might attack first, and the fantasy that a war could be ended within a reasonable period have long been the core causes of the repeated wars throughout mankind’s history.

Perhaps such foolishness stems from the structure of the human brain. The human brain consists of three layers. The innermost “reptilian brain” oversees instincts, the surrounding “mammalian brain” is responsible for emotions, and the “primate brain” of the cerebral cortex is responsible for an individual’s most advanced intellectual functions.

In particular, humans developed reptilian brains as an evolutionary survival response to primitive times when we suffered from threats of hunger, extreme temperatures, and wild beasts. The complex was meant to increase our chances of survival. The humans who walk the earth today are the descendants of ancestors who developed this sort of intelligence.

The problem, however, is that the functions of the reptilian brain can directly lead to conflicts and confrontations between countries. The instinct to maximize one’s chances of survival can lead world leaders to make very destructive choices.

It is extremely dangerous for policymakers to be obsessed with being the first to declare victory, even at the cost of conducting a preemptive strike, rather than settling with an unstable peace. Today, as the face of war has changed due to technological advances, the decision-making methods of the reptilian brain which helped humanity in the past are now a threat that can lead to annihilation. We no longer live in a time when attacking first is the best option.

Therefore, in critical decision-making processes dealing with national security, the risk and warning functions of the reptilian brain may still be handy, but the real importance rests with the primate brain’s ability to comprehensively judge and manage situations.

In particular, on the Korean Peninsula, where two strong military powers are in confrontation, it is reckless to test each other’s levels of courage by requiring the unconditional surrender of the opponent.

Furthermore, entertaining the discussion of conducting a preemptive strike against North Korea further exacerbates this already risky situation.

If a preemptive strike fails to completely neutralize North Korea's nuclear weapons, can we really afford nuclear retaliation?

The “Kill Chain” system, which aims to deactivate North Korean missiles in advance, is a concept that has not yet been tested on the ground. The Kill Chain response system uses satellite imagery to monitor North Korea’s missile bases and would result in a preemptive strike if a launch motion is detected.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to put this strategy into practice given North Korea’s continuous advancement of its missile capabilities, such as switching to solid-fuel missiles that can be fired from mobile launchers. If mobile launchers are used, this makes the Kill Chain system useless since it would not be able to detect from where a missile would be launched.

Moreover, the idea of deploying additional Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, batteries to defend the Seoul metropolitan area would only raise tensions in Northeast Asia without any real benefits. In fact, during the Park Geun-hye administration that THAAD, the Korean military and the United States confirmed that a mid- to long-range high-altitude missile defense system is not suitable for defending the greater Seoul area.

Long-range artillery and short-range missiles deployed near the DMZ alone would cause enormous damage to the Seoul metropolitan area, so there is no reason for North Korea to launch an attack with mid- and long-range missiles that are several dozen times more destructive.

While the military can review the possibility of a preemptive strike or the deployment of additional THAAD batteries, using such discussions for political angling only serves to provoke North Korea and China. If the two Koreas continue this endless back and forth of military threats, the vicious cycle plaguing the peninsula will inevitably continue.

If a full-scale conflict does break out on the Korean Peninsula, even if the South “wins” the war, the two Koreas would be annihilated without a real victor. In the end, this game of chicken that depends on the continuous bolstering of military might would only result in the suffering of the Korean people.

Korea is the sixth-largest military power in the world, spending more than 50 trillion won, or upwards of US$40 billion, on defense annually. Nevertheless, military build-up alone is not enough to guarantee peace on the Korean Peninsula.

By relying on a decision-making method that believes that offense is the best defense, we could end up making the foolish choice of starting a second Korean War ourselves.

Instead, the best national defense strategy is to build a peace system that does not require war in the first place. South Korea's leadership should explore a sensible future strategy to peacefully resolve the North Korean nuclear issue and promote prosperity on the Korean Peninsula.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]