Obviously, one of the most pressing foreign-policy issues facing President Trump’s administration concerns North Korea. Questions of how far the fat, hedonistic little hamster who currently runs that nation will go toward the acquisition of strategic nuclear weapons and what he might do with them are certainly of grave import and must be addressed in the soberest and most judicious manner.
Those who are either old enough to recall or well-read enough are aware that the issue of nuclear proliferation in North Korea is not particular to Kim Jong-un (the fat, hedonistic little hamster); it has been an ongoing concern of every American president since the Reagan era. This week, a noted expert on North Korea said the regime of Kim Jong-un is a scant year and a half away from development of a nuclear missile that would be capable of reaching the continental United States.
So what’s the United States to do?
As I have previously stated, tactical nuclear strikes by the U.S. against North Korea would decisively mitigate any nuclear threat posed by that nation. While this would obviously result in an inordinately large loss of life, the employment of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Japan resulted in an inordinately large loss of life – but this had been weighed against grim casualty projections based on information available at the time.
In the face of the above argument, some would counter that in the case of America’s only other nuclear deployments, we were officially at war with Japan at the time, and the rationale of using nuclear weapons had been examined in the soberest and most prudent manner. We are not at war with North Korea, which would effectively negate any such comparison.
Conversely, and based on information we have available now, there are experts who have gone on record indicating that times have changed sufficiently to cancel out the above counter argument, and that future historians will see little difference between the actions taken against the aggressors of our age and officially designated combatants of, say, World War II. The dynamic of the West’s efforts against Islamic militants, which involves a less structured concept of aggressors and combatants, quite handily supports this practical change in the paradigm of modern warfare, and tangentially, the ethics employed in conducting warfare.
In considering such severe measures as tactical nuclear strikes against North Korea in order to neutralize the potential threat of that nation executing nuclear strikes against the United States, the Trump administration would, of course, have to consider the public perception attendant to that. The specter of hundreds of thousands or millions of North Koreans suffering the aftermath of a nuclear attack would certainly be cited (and probably embellished) by the establishment press and domestic subversives as reason for avoiding such action at all cost. Then, there would be the ensuing outcry from those at home who consider any action that the U.S. takes to preserve an upper hand in foreign policy as imperialistic.
One must also realize that many in the U.S. did consider the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as barbaric in 1945; in fact, it wound up being fodder for American communist propaganda for decades afterward. Unfortunately, the influence of such narrow thinking has vastly proliferated since the Cold War era, thus imparting misplaced sympathies upon the American populace. In reality, we may be weighing hundreds of thousands or millions of North Koreans suffering the aftermath of a U.S. nuclear strike against hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans suffering the aftermath of a North Korean nuclear strike.
The question then arises: Are tactical nuclear strikes truly the only options open to the most powerful nation on Earth (which the U.S. still remains)? Obviously not, but our diplomatic and even our military options have been stultified by the influence of leftist and globalist politics; even targeted conventional military strikes against North Korea with the objective of neutralizing her ability to project nuclear weapons would be met with outrage at home, and would have to be circumspectly considered and deftly justified to our citizens and the world.
“Should the U.S. dare to show even the slightest sign of attempt to remove our supreme leadership, we will strike a merciless blow at the heart of the U.S. with our nuclear hammer.” – North Korean Foreign Ministry, July 25, 2017
In weighing these factors, one must certainly consider moral imperatives. In so doing, it is important to pragmatically consider our morality versus that of the North Korean regime. Those who have followed the progress of North Korea’s nuclear pursuits will no doubt be familiar with the belligerent, tribalist invective and bluster typically employed by Kim and his surrogates. There are also the bizarre and chilling state-sponsored media productions North Korea has released, which dramatize their annihilation of America with nuclear weapons. One would be monumentally foolish not to presume that these are indicative of their potential for rash action and barbarism.
In the end, of course, it will be the wisdom and prudence of those in the Trump administration that determine the outcome of this crisis in the short term, regardless of the methods employed. Given the lack of wisdom and prudence employed by previous administrations, however, long-term outcomes will remain equally uncertain for some time to come.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush