特朗普總統有關“炮火和怒火”的評論遭到了朝鮮更加強烈的口頭回擊。在特朗普發布警告幾個小時之后，朝鮮威脅稱要對美國在太平洋的關島進行導彈打擊。而特朗普也并未讓步，他在周四下午表示自己之前的警告可能“還不夠強硬”。

要評估戰爭發生的真實概率，就得準確理解美國對朝鮮先發制人進行打擊的能力和政治意愿。毫無疑問，美國擁有這樣的技術能力。然而，由此導致的政治、軍事、經濟和外交后果會讓它成為一個不受歡迎的選擇。

決策者和軍事分析師都十分清楚搶先對朝鮮發動攻擊的災難性后果。首先，按照傳統觀點，如果沒有被激怒，美國不會輕易選擇這樣極端的手段；其次，朝鮮是“理性行為者”，也不會做出激怒美國的自殺之舉。然而，人們擔心特朗普與平壤政府的口舌之爭是否會使得朝鮮嚴重誤解美國的意圖，從而無意中讓美國陷入與朝鮮的核戰爭中。

顯然，訴諸軍事會帶來巨大的風險。美國的先發制人，也就是針對朝鮮進行精確核打擊以破壞該國的核武器，會導致朝鮮對韓國、日本和這些地區的美軍進行毫無保留的報復。在朝韓非軍事區附近，朝鮮部署了大量常規火炮部隊，會給韓國造成巨大傷亡。

如果美國在沒有知會韓國并獲得首爾政府同意的情況下發動攻擊，給韓國帶來的損失將會極大影響美韓同盟，甚至可能導致同盟瓦解。考慮到韓國總統文在寅有興趣與朝鮮進行接觸，韓國幾乎不可能支持美國對朝鮮進行精確核打擊。

美國對朝鮮的打擊還可能導致中國的介入。《中朝友好合作互助條約》中規定，中國會在朝鮮遭遇外在入侵時給予援助。盡管這份條約簽署于56年前，時常有人爭論它是否還具有效力，但沒有人懷疑中國屆時將介入此事，捍衛其在朝鮮半島的國家利益，包括保留朝鮮這個國家，阻止由韓國領導的朝鮮半島統一。這會讓美國與中國發生直接碰撞，可能會引發另一場朝鮮戰爭。

在與朝鮮及其領袖金正恩進行交涉時，必須傳達明確的信號。由于沒人有十足把握預測金正恩接下來的舉動，美國需要發出明確的信號和關于極端后果的警告，阻止朝鮮由于錯估形勢做出挑釁行為。這種阻止需要對先發制人的打擊做好準備，并向平壤政府傳達明確的信息。盡管如此，此舉也有風險，可能遭到朝鮮的誤解，最終引發本打算避免的情況。

這就是為何我們看到如此多人對朝鮮的動武選擇進行爭論。沒有人覺得這是一個好的選擇，但也沒有人能排除這個選項。我不認為美國會在短期內率先對朝鮮發動攻擊，或與朝鮮展開核戰爭。我也不認為美國和朝鮮有意愿開戰。然而，由于難以捉摸的修辭和背后作為支撐的強大武器，戰爭爆發的危險依然存在。

作者Yun Sun是斯廷森中心東亞項目的高級項目主管。

譯者：嚴匡正

?

President Trump’s “fire and fury” comment has solicited an even stronger verbal retaliation from North Korea. A few hours after the president issued his warning, North Korea reacted with a threat of a missile strike on the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam. And Trump has not backed down, wondering Thursday afternoon if his previous warning “wasn’t tough enough.”

To assess the real probability of war requires an accurate understanding of the U.S. capability and political will to launch a preemptive strike on North Korea. No one questions that U.S. has such technical capability. However, it is the political, military, economic, and diplomatic consequences of such an attack that makes it an undesired option.

The disastrous result of a preemptive strike on North Korea is well understood among policy-makers and military analysts. Conventional wisdom holds that first, without being provoked, the U.S. would not lightly resort to such an extreme option; and second, North Korea as a “rational actor” will not provoke the U.S., an act of suicide. However, what people are indeed concerned with is whether the president’s verbal spat with Pyongyang could lead to North Korea’s serious miscalculation of U.S. intention, and whether the U.S. will stumble into a nuclear war with North Korea inadvertently.

It’s clear that the military option comes with significant risk. A U.S. preemptive strike, namely a targeted nuclear attack to take out North Korea’s nuclear weapons, would invite all-out retaliation by North Korea against South Korea, Japan, and U.S. troops in the region. With the massive conventional artilleries deployed near the Korean Demilitarized Zone, North Korea would inflict major casualties on the South.

If the U.S. resorts to a preemptive strike on North Korea without consultation and agreement from Seoul, the costs to South Korea would have a critically damaging effect over the U.S.-South Korea alliance, even possibly lead to its dissolution. Considering President Moon Jae-in’s interest in engagement with North Korea, it would be highly unlikely for South Korea to support a U.S. decision to launch a targeted nuclear attack on the North.

A U.S. preemptive strike on North Korea would also likely invite Chinese intervention. The Sino-North Korea Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance Treaty commits China to North Korea’s defense in the event of foreign aggression. Although the validity of the 56-year old treaty is constantly debated, few doubt that China would intervene to defend its perceived national interests in the Korean Peninsula, including the preservation of a North Korean state and the prevention of a South Korea-led unification. It would put U.S. and China directly on a collision course and could lead to another Korean War.

Clear signaling is necessary in dealing with North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un. Since no one can predict Kim’s next move with full confidence, the U.S. should send clear signals and warnings on the dire consequences to deter any ill-contemplated provocation by North Korea. The need to deter requires the preparedness for a preemptive strike and clear messaging to Pyongyang. Nevertheless, there is always the danger that the effort to deter North Korean attack might be misinterpreted and lead to the precise situation that it sets out to prevent.

This is also exactly why we are seeing so much debate over the military options on North Korea. No one sees it as a desired option, yet no one can take the option off the table. I don’t believe a preemptive strike, or a nuclear war with North Korea, is imminent. And I don’t believe either the U.S. or North Korea are intentionally pushing for a war. Nevertheless, with loose rhetoric backed by powerful weapons, the danger exists.

Yun Sun is a senior associate with the East Asia program at the Stimson Center.