如果美国率先攻击朝鲜，会发生什么？

特朗普总统有关“炮火和怒火”的评论遭到了朝鲜更加强烈的口头回击。在特朗普发布警告几个小时之后，朝鲜威胁称要对美国在太平洋的关岛进行导弹打击。而特朗普也并未让步，他在周四下午表示自己之前的警告可能“还不够强硬”。

要评估战争发生的真实概率，就得准确理解美国对朝鲜先发制人进行打击的能力和政治意愿。毫无疑问，美国拥有这样的技术能力。然而，由此导致的政治、军事、经济和外交后果会让它成为一个不受欢迎的选择。

决策者和军事分析师都十分清楚抢先对朝鲜发动攻击的灾难性后果。首先，按照传统观点，如果没有被激怒，美国不会轻易选择这样极端的手段；其次，朝鲜是“理性行为者”，也不会做出激怒美国的自杀之举。然而，人们担心特朗普与平壤政府的口舌之争是否会使得朝鲜严重误解美国的意图，从而无意中让美国陷入与朝鲜的核战争中。

显然，诉诸军事会带来巨大的风险。美国的先发制人，也就是针对朝鲜进行精确核打击以破坏该国的核武器，会导致朝鲜对韩国、日本和这些地区的美军进行毫无保留的报复。在朝韩非军事区附近，朝鲜部署了大量常规火炮部队，会给韩国造成巨大伤亡。

如果美国在没有知会韩国并获得首尔政府同意的情况下发动攻击，给韩国带来的损失将会极大影响美韩同盟，甚至可能导致同盟瓦解。考虑到韩国总统文在寅有兴趣与朝鲜进行接触，韩国几乎不可能支持美国对朝鲜进行精确核打击。

美国对朝鲜的打击还可能导致中国的介入。《中朝友好合作互助条约》中规定，中国会在朝鲜遭遇外在入侵时给予援助。尽管这份条约签署于56年前，时常有人争论它是否还具有效力，但没有人怀疑中国届时将介入此事，捍卫其在朝鲜半岛的国家利益，包括保留朝鲜这个国家，阻止由韩国领导的朝鲜半岛统一。这会让美国与中国发生直接碰撞，可能会引发另一场朝鲜战争。

在与朝鲜及其领袖金正恩进行交涉时，必须传达明确的信号。由于没人有十足把握预测金正恩接下来的举动，美国需要发出明确的信号和关于极端后果的警告，阻止朝鲜由于错估形势做出挑衅行为。这种阻止需要对先发制人的打击做好准备，并向平壤政府传达明确的信息。尽管如此，此举也有风险，可能遭到朝鲜的误解，最终引发本打算避免的情况。

这就是为何我们看到如此多人对朝鲜的动武选择进行争论。没有人觉得这是一个好的选择，但也没有人能排除这个选项。我不认为美国会在短期内率先对朝鲜发动攻击，或与朝鲜展开核战争。我也不认为美国和朝鲜有意愿开战。然而，由于难以捉摸的修辞和背后作为支撑的强大武器，战争爆发的危险依然存在。

作者Yun Sun是斯廷森中心东亚项目的高级项目主管。

译者：严匡正

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.