A US Air Force B-1B bomber lands Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, Sept.21, 2016.

Why did the US again fly supersonic bombers over South Korea?

After last week's flyover, the US Air Force called this week's flight the closest bombers have ever flown to North Korea.

The United States flew two supersonic bombers over South Korea on Wednesday, the second such flight in two weeks’ time, in the latest display of military might amid renewed tensions with North Korea.

US Forces Korea called the flight, by B-1B bombers based in Guam, a show of the United States solidarity with South Korea and commitment to regional security.

"What we are showing today is just one tool we have to choose from a wide array of options. The alliance grows stronger every day and we remain prepared to defend and to preserve the security of the Korean Peninsula and the region," Lt. Gen. Thomas Bergeson, commander of the U.S. 7th Air Force in South Korea, said in a statement, according to the Associated Press. 

The flyover comes less than two weeks after North Korea conducted its fifth and most powerful nuclear test to date, boasting afterward that the detonation of a nuclear warhead proved it was capable of producing “standardized” nuclear weapons that could be delivered via missile. And last Tuesday, the US conducted a similar flyover with B-1B bombers escorted by US and South Korean jets.

The B-1Bs do not carry nuclear weapons, in accordance with the terms of a disarmament treaty, though generally, experts consider them nuclear-capable. On Wednesday, the US Air Force called it “the closest [flight] ever to North Korea by a B-1 bomber.” North Korea’s government often cites such maneuvers as proof of the imminent threat posed by the United States – as well as the reason it needs a nuclear program.

About 28,500 US troops are stationed in South Korea, which has no nuclear weapons and depends on the “nuclear umbrella” of the United States to deter its northern neighbor. In July, South Korea and the US announced that they had reached a deal on a new missile-defense system known as THAAD, following an increase in tests by the North.

The announcement riled Pyongyang and caused consternation in China, the North’s principal trading partner and diplomatic ally, as Jason Thomson wrote for The Christian Science Monitor at the time.

China, in particular, has decried the move, saying it will destabilize an already fragile region and negatively affect “world peace.” The question, then, is whether the defensive capabilities THAAD provides will outweigh the diplomatic ripples – and other reactions – it may provoke.

“I certainly don’t believe THAAD or any missile defense is a panacea,” says Jonathan Pollack, Interim SK-Korea Foundation Chair in Korea Studies, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. “But if it inhibits North Korea, under some extreme circumstances, from using its capabilities, and instills some confidence in the government of South Korea to defend key assets and population areas in a more integrated fashion, then it’ll be money well spent.”

One of the fundamental questions: How much of a threat does North Korea actually pose to South Korea? The simple answer to that question is that nobody seems to know, bar the regime in Pyongyang, but the rhetoric – and continued missile and nuclear tests – seems intended to instill fear.

UN diplomats say preparations are under way for a possible resolution in response to this month’s nuclear test by Pyongyang, though it’s unclear whether China will support them.

This report contains material from Reuters and the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why did the US again fly supersonic bombers over South Korea?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today