North Korea threat: Why chances of conflict are higher than ever

Kim Jong-un expressed great satisfaction with the launch and called it a "meaningful prelude" to containing Guam. Photo / AP

The risk of conflict breaking out on the Korean Peninsula has never been greater as the margin for error shrinks.

That's the damning assessment by a former Australian ambassador to South Korea who warned the world was running out of options for dealing with Kim Jong-un.

Speaking to news.com.au, former senior Australian diplomat Mack Williams said the Peninsula has faced crisis points before, including in the 1990s.

He warned this time was different, citing North Korea's weapons stockpile and an unpredictable US leader as reasons the game has changed.

The ambassador to South Korea from 1994-1998 said the difference between now and then was that the North had upped the ante.

"North Korea has developed missiles and its nuclear technology is capable of causing damage.

"Its arsenal is also more difficult to take out."

Williams, who has a long career in Asian diplomacy, said while no one wanted war, the world had to accept it could happen, and all it would take was one simple error.

"What ante is left in this game?" he said.

"What can (US President Donald) Trump do? He could try and take out North Korea's rockets but imagine if one hits China or even Russia."

His comments come as Kim called for more ballistic missile launches into the Pacific following Tuesday's launch over Japan.

The Korean Central News Agency said Kim expressed great satisfaction with the launch and called it a "meaningful prelude" to containing Guam, the US Pacific territory and military hub.

As Trump warned all options were on the table following Tuesday's provocative launch, Williams said it wasn't just South Korea which would suffer.

Japan could also be subjected to a chemical or missile attack if diplomacy took a wrong turn.

"One wrong mistake would be apocalyptic for Japan," he said.

"Now there are some who believe antimissile capabilities offer some protection.

"But there's not enough defence against his (Kim's) missiles."

He said Tokyo appeared to have played the right card by not attempting to fire at the North Korean missile.

Williams said if Japan shot it down, Kim could retaliate and if it missed then the country would be humiliated.

People watch a TV screen showing a local news programme reporting about North Korea's missile launch at Seoul Train Station in Seoul, South Korea. Photo / AP

"On this occasion I believe they did the right thing by not doing anything."

Writing in IT news, reviews, and analysis site, Ars Technica, writer Sean Gallagher writes the US and Japan took the best course of action.

Missing could have far-reaching political implications and potentially suggest that anti-ballistic missile systems are incapable of protection, he writes.

If one did hit, "it could further provoke North Korea into much more dangerous actions".

However Williams warned if one landed anywhere in Japan, even by accident, the US would have no choice but to defend its ally.

Military experts believe Tuesday's missile was a new mid-range Hwasong-12 ballistic missile which flew over northern Japan, landing in the Pacific Ocean about 1000km east of the nation's mainland.

It was only the third time North Korea has fired a missile over Japan. The previous occasions in 1998 and 2009 used rockets purportedly for space exploration.

In the latest test, the DPRK tested a ballistic missile designed for military strikes and believed to be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Risk grows

Williams said regardless of how conflict broke out, whether it was a misfire or a deliberate act, Seoul would suffer first.

"Hundreds of thousands would be killed in just minutes," he said.

"No matter how it starts and whether it's Guam or Japan that's the target, Seoul will be the first casualty.

"North Korea has a greater array of rockets across the border and America would need hundreds of smart bombs and boots on the ground.

"There would be no way to stop the military bombardment on Seoul."

Williams said while South Koreans were generally stoic many were becoming increasingly concerned given the DPRK's missile build up.

"This isn't South Korea of the 1950s, it's a modern developed country and we are moral obligation to protect them is huge.

"Otherwise all the sacrifices of the Korean War would be for nothing."

Williams said while the US would ultimately win any conflict and North Korea would be annihilated, the human cost would be huge.

He said Kim wouldn't even care his country would no longer exist.

People fill the square of the main railway station to watch a news broadcast of the test-fire of an inter-continental ballistic rocket Hwasong-12, Wednesday, August 30, 2017, in Pyongyang. Photo / AP

War games

Williams said North Koreans weapons of mass destruction included both chemical and short-term missiles.

Both, he warned, could easily be used in an attack on South Korea or Japan.

Highlighting how Trump can be predicted to be unpredictable, Williams said inflammatory language and comments such as "all cards are on table" were not helping.

"The room for misunderstanding and error has never been greater and there is no military option. There's no cope for manoeuvre."

If conflict did break out, Williams said Australia would be drawn into it along with the US, which placed us in a difficult position with China.

Beijing doesn't want to see North Korea collapse or a nuclear fight or fallout on its border.
"All hell would break loose," he said.

He also said Australia would be wise to make ourselves less of a target to an angry North Korea.

US President Donald Trump said "all options are on the table" in terms of a US response to North Korea's launch. Photo / AP

'They got us'

The US president's language suggests he's rethinking any military options that might allow him to knock out North Korea's small but growing nuclear arsenal and ballistic missile range.

Speaking privately to the Associated Press, officials in Washington echo the warning that Trump's now former chief strategist Steve Bannon made in his last media interview before losing his job earlier this month: it is too late for a pre-emptive strike.

"There's no military solution, forget it," Bannon told the American Prospect in an August 16 interview.

"Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."