So far today, I've read six articles by so called "experts" who are apoplectic that President Trump had the temerity to threaten North Korea with a reign of fire. These "experts" say that any threat of war is a terrible thing that a president ought never to do. President Trump should try instead to use diplomacy, they all say.
Here's the problem with these "experts". They are not the ones who have to make the decision so they can ignore reality. That means that they can call for diplomacy with a country that clearly has no desire to negotiate with the USA. For the last 24 years, all discussions with North Korea have been in the nature of attempts by the NK's to stall any action by America while the NK nuclear and missile programs move forward. Each supposed agreement with the NK's has been violated in secret by that country, but the "experts" can still talk of the glories of negotiations. The President, however, has to deal with things as they really are, not as the experts want them to be.
America has a basic choice to make. Are we prepared to live with a North Korea armed with nuclear missiles than can hit the USA? It's not a hard question to understand, although it is a quite difficult one to answer. If our answer is that we cannot accept a nuclear armed North Korea, then the likely outcome is war in Korea. That means hundreds of thousands, if not millions of casualties inflicted on mainly on North and South Korea as well as huge numbers of dead and wounded in Japan and among American servicemen and women. It's a horrible cost, but it is still less than the cost that a nuclear strike by the NK's on the USA would be. On the other hand, if we are prepared to accept a nuclear armed North Korea, then we can sit back and watch it happen.
Remember, when president Obama signed the deal with Iran, he basically made the decision that the USA could live with an Islamic terrorist state armed with nukes. No matter how one dissects the JPOA signed with Iran, it does end with an Iranian state with missiles and nukes. Is a nuclear North Korea really any worse than a nuclear Iran?
This is a very difficult decision for President Trump to make. In my opinion, he ought to call Congress back and seek authorization with a strike against North Korea if necessary. Even if the authority is not used, it will caution the North Koreans to be very careful what they do. It will also force Congress to take a position on dealing with the NK's. If Congress says no authority, then there will only be a strike if we ever detect the NK's about to launch an attack (or already having launched such an attack.) My guess is that Congress would grant the authority, but it would be up to them. The President would need to make the case but it seems that there is no lack of evidence here.
Here's the problem with these "experts". They are not the ones who have to make the decision so they can ignore reality. That means that they can call for diplomacy with a country that clearly has no desire to negotiate with the USA. For the last 24 years, all discussions with North Korea have been in the nature of attempts by the NK's to stall any action by America while the NK nuclear and missile programs move forward. Each supposed agreement with the NK's has been violated in secret by that country, but the "experts" can still talk of the glories of negotiations. The President, however, has to deal with things as they really are, not as the experts want them to be.
America has a basic choice to make. Are we prepared to live with a North Korea armed with nuclear missiles than can hit the USA? It's not a hard question to understand, although it is a quite difficult one to answer. If our answer is that we cannot accept a nuclear armed North Korea, then the likely outcome is war in Korea. That means hundreds of thousands, if not millions of casualties inflicted on mainly on North and South Korea as well as huge numbers of dead and wounded in Japan and among American servicemen and women. It's a horrible cost, but it is still less than the cost that a nuclear strike by the NK's on the USA would be. On the other hand, if we are prepared to accept a nuclear armed North Korea, then we can sit back and watch it happen.
Remember, when president Obama signed the deal with Iran, he basically made the decision that the USA could live with an Islamic terrorist state armed with nukes. No matter how one dissects the JPOA signed with Iran, it does end with an Iranian state with missiles and nukes. Is a nuclear North Korea really any worse than a nuclear Iran?
This is a very difficult decision for President Trump to make. In my opinion, he ought to call Congress back and seek authorization with a strike against North Korea if necessary. Even if the authority is not used, it will caution the North Koreans to be very careful what they do. It will also force Congress to take a position on dealing with the NK's. If Congress says no authority, then there will only be a strike if we ever detect the NK's about to launch an attack (or already having launched such an attack.) My guess is that Congress would grant the authority, but it would be up to them. The President would need to make the case but it seems that there is no lack of evidence here.
No comments:
Post a Comment