Yesterday, North Korea announced it would be testing a nuclear weapon in the near future.
In response, U.S. officials warned North Korea that such a test would constitute “an unacceptable threat to peace and security in Asia,” and the United States would retaliate by seeking U.N. sanctions against North Korea.
This is a very simple matter. Our country, the United States, does not wish for any additional countries to possess nuclear weapons.
The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that one of these weapons will fall into the hands of a crazed dictator, who will nuke some large American city and plunge the world into nuclear war.
On the other hand, other countries wish to have nuclear weapons. If a nation lacks nuclear capability, it has no means of retaliating if some other nation chooses to nuke one of its major cities.
It must be annoying to North Korea that the United States could, theoretically, drop a nuke on Pyongyang and kill 5 million North Koreans in a single blow, without North Korea being able to inflict a similar loss on America.
The threat of a nuclear strike is, of course, comparatively small. Every country in the world, whether it has nuclear weapons or not, knows perfectly well that firing a nuclear weapon would be the signal for firing more nuclear weapons, which would in turn result in a general nuclear war.
Nobody wants nuclear war, and therefore it is highly unlikely that any nation will use nuclear weapons against any other in the near future.
But North Korea’s decision to run nuclear tests is not motivated by a concern for national security. It is, rather, a matter of pride. North Korea dislikes the fact that we can nuke it, while it remains incapable of nuking us.
It is annoying in the same way it would annoy me if some of my classmates began carrying guns to class. Even if I knew quite well these people were good-hearted and would not fire except in self-defense, I would dislike the fact they possessed the power of life and death over me. And if the teacher said, “Oh, no, Jeff, they can carry guns to class, but you can’t,” I would be quite insulted.
That is the crux of the matter. We claim the right to possess nuclear weapons, yet we deny that same right to the North Koreans. This is an insult, and the North Koreans refuse to swallow it.
All that being said, the question still remains: Should we allow the North Koreans to conduct nuclear testing? I say yes, we should. It is the lesser of two evils.
If we refuse to allow North Korea to build nuclear weapons, it will ignore us and build them anyway. Then the U.N., with the United States at its head, will commence sanctions against North Korea. North Korea’s economy will suffer, and it will harbor a grudge against the United States.
Anti-American feelings will run high in North Korea, and it will double its efforts at nuclear-weapon production out of spite.
We will request that they stop, and they will refuse. At last, after about a year of pointless diplomacy, the United States will lead a U.N. coalition into North Korea. North Korea will become a second Iraq, and we will get stuck there and be unable to leave, just as we are presently stuck in the Arabian Desert.
With the commencement of this war with North Korea, the United States’ reputation as a big, stupid bully will be firmly established.
We will be the aggressors and prime motivators of two successive wars. We will lose our prestige as peacemakers and acquire the name of a warmonger.
Now, we must admit under certain circumstances war is necessary for peace. The classic example is Hitler — if the victors of the First World War had attacked him in 1932 or so, before he grew too powerful, World War II would have been over in a few weeks.
But North Korea’s case is very different. The country does not share Hitler’s desire for war. It merely wants nuclear weapons.
So I say, let it have nuclear weapons. It is a bad, undesirable alternative, but it is the best one available. I would prefer an armed North Korea to another pointless war.
Nuke Jeff at [email protected].
