Development of the USA responses to North Korean attempts to conduct a hybrid war in 1966–1976

Authors

  • Denis A. Sadakov Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vyatka State University, 36 Moskovskaya Street, Kirov 610000, Russia

Keywords:

United States of America, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Korean demilitarised zone, 38th parallel
Supporting Agencies
The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant No. 22-78-10179).

Abstract

The phenomenon of USA resistance to North Korean attempts to conduct a hybrid war is studied on the example of conflicts in the Korean demilitarised zone and in the area of the Northern boundary line in 1966–1976. The confrontation between the USA and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea during this period was multi-dimensional and included such elements as Pyongyang’s propaganda campaigns, its support for left-wing radicals in Western countries and the recruitment of agents in the South. However, it was in the area of the 38th parallel that Democratic People’s Republic of Korea activity took on the character of a hybrid war, an important aspect of which was the actual or potential use of military force. The North’s actions pursued different objectives at different stages, but Pyongyang’s key objective remained to create conditions for the withdrawal of USA troops from Korea. In the later stages of the confrontation, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s forceful actions were supplemented by persistent attempts to get direct USA – North Korean talks to reduce friction. This article examines American perceptions of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea military activity during the period under study, identifies Washington’s approach to the responses the Americans used to counter North Korean actions, and presents the content and circumstances of key policy documents developed by Washington. The role of military force during the conflict is assessed. It concludes that deterrence of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was achieved through restraint and the use of adequate responses, which were designed to consider Pyongyang’s local military superiority in its chosen conflict zones.

Author Biography

  • Denis A. Sadakov, Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vyatka State University, 36 Moskovskaya Street, Kirov 610000, Russia

    PhD (history); researcher at the department of history and political sciences, faculty of history, political science and cultural studies

References

  1. Probst RR. Negotiating with the North Koreans. The US Experience at Panmunjom. Carlisle: US Army War College; 1977. 27 p.
  2. Michista N. North Korea’s military-diplomatic campaigns, 1966–2008. New York: Routledge; 2010. 276 p.
  3. Mobley RA. Flash Point North Korea. The Pueblo and EC-121 crises. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press; 2003. 216 p.
  4. Jackson V. How to engage the enemy: the case for national security diplomacy with North Korea. Special report No. 479. Washington: U. S. Institute of Peace; 2020. 24 p.
  5. Popescu N. Hybrid tactics: neither new nor only Russian. Issue Alert. 2015;4:1–2.
  6. Hoffman FG. Conflict in the 21st century: the rise of hybrid wars. Arlington: Potomac institute for Policy Studies; 2007. 72 p.
  7. Komleva NА. Hybrid warfare: its essence and specificity. Ural Federal University Journal. Series 3: Social and Political Sciences. 2017;12(3):128–137. Russian.
  8. Tsygankov PА. «Hybrid war»: political discourse and the international practice. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18: Sociology and Political Science. 2015;4:253–258. Russian. DOI: 10.24290/1029-3736-2015-0-4-253-258.
  9. Filimonov G., Danyuk N. «Hybrid war»: interpretations and a reality. Svobodnaya mysl’. 2017;3:17–24. Russian.
  10. Belozerov VK, Soloviev AV. Hybrid war in the domestic political and scientific discourse. Vlast’. 2015;9:5–11. Russian.
  11. Kim Il Sun. Sochineniya. Tom 20. Noyabr’ 1965 g. – dekabr’ 1966 g. [Works. Volume 20. 1965 November – 1966 December]. Pyongyang: Foreign Languages Publishing House; 1984. 573 p. Russian.
  12. Jackson V. Rival reputations: coercion and credibility in US-North Korea relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. 228 p.
  13. Johnson LB. The vantage point. Perspectives of the presidency. 1963–1969. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1971. 636 p.
  14. Sadakov DA. Diplomatiya SShA i osvobozhdenie ekipazha korablya «Pueblo», 1968 g. [US diplomacy and the release of the crew of the Pueblo, 1968]. Kirov: O-kratkoe; 2021. 136 p. Russian.
  15. Yungblud V. An unusual role: Soviet diplomacy between Washington and Pyongyang in 1968. Quaestio Rossica. 2021;9(4):1490–1502. Russian. DOI: 10.15826/qr.2021.4.651.
  16. Brennock DJ, Lerner MB. The Pueblo incident: a spy ship and the failure of American foreign policy. Naval War College Review [Internet]. 2002 [cited 2022 October 15];55(4). Available from: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol55/iss4/19.
  17. Lerner M. A dangerous miscalculation: new evidence from communist-bloc archives about North Korea and the crisis of 1968. Journal of Cold War History. 2004;6(1):3–21.
  18. Kissinger H. White House years. Boston: Little Brown Company; 1979. 1521 p.
  19. Nixon RM. The memoirs of Richard Nixon. New York: Grosset & Dunlap; 1978. 1120 p.
  20. Mobley R. Revisiting the Korean tree-trimming incident. Joint Forces Quarterly. 2003;35:108–115.

Downloads

Published

2023-01-25

How to Cite

[1]
Sadakov, D.A. 2023. Development of the USA responses to North Korean attempts to conduct a hybrid war in 1966–1976. Journal of the Belarusian State University. History. 1 (Jan. 2023), 58–68. DOI:https://doi.org/10.33581/2520-6338-2023-1-58-68.