Bomb Pyongyang Now
by Henry Lamb
October 10, 2006
Within minutes of the announcement of North Korea's nuclear test, CNN paraded talking heads who were quick to denounce President Bush because he failed to prevent it. This despicable display of Democratic distortion ignores the fact that Democrat Bill Clinton sent Democrat Jimmy Carter to North Korea to strike the deal that made the recent test possible.
In 1994, Jimmy Carter met with Kim Jong-Il to convince him to abandon his nuclear ambitions. Carter came home a hero, with a piece of paper that said North Korea would stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons if the U.S. supplied two nuclear reactors for electricity generation, fuel oil and a ton of money. Bill Clinton praised the agreement, sent the goodies and pretty much forgot about it. Republican opponents warned that Kim could not be trusted and that the agreement had no adequate means of verification.
In 1998, Clinton's military chief of staff testified that North Korea did not have an active ballistic missile program. One week later, the North Koreans launched a missile over Japan that landed off the Alaska coast...
It is now abundantly clear that Clinton and Carter were wrong and that their opponents were right. Democrats who now call for one-on-one talks with North Korea, seeking another appeasement, are still wrong. It is equally wrong to expect the United Nations to solve the problem.
President Bush was right when he identified North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the "Axis of Evil." Democrats claim that this proclamation is the reason North Korea and Iran are pursuing their nuclear arsenals. Hogwash! They were evil states before the announcement; they were pursuing their nuclear ambitions before the announcement, and neither words nor paper agreements can change that pursuit.
Words and meaningless paper agreements are what to expect from the U.N. For two years or more, the U.N. has collected a mountain of words and meaningless agreements about Iran's pursuit of its nuclear ambitions. All the while, Iran has been developing its enrichment capability. Those who insist on believing that Iran seeks only "peaceful" uses of its nuclear capability are as naive as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
It would be a wonderful world, indeed, if disputes among nations could be resolved through dialogue and discussions. For this to happen, the participants have to be in agreement about foundational principles. Some of the developed nations have found that these fundamental principles can serve as a foundation for resolving disputes. These principles include the supreme value of human life and freedom. Sadly, many nations of the world reject these principles.
Kim Jong-Il, for example, used the hundreds of millions of dollars the Clinton administration gave him, not for food for his people, but to advance his nuclear pursuits. Millions of North Koreans starved. Iran continues to supply technology and materials to terrorists in Iraq to slaughter thousands of innocent Muslims, in hopes of killing a few Americans and extinguishing the hope of freedom their new democratic government promises. Africa is awash with warlords and governments that destroy human life with gleeful enthusiasm in order to retain their power to enslave their people.
Words and paper agreements with these people are worthless. Sheer force is the only language they understand or respect. The absence of force is seen as weakness and emboldens even more aggressive action by them.
What, then, should the United States do about this North Korean nuclear test? One option is tighter economic sanctions. North Korea has been under sanctions for some time; it didn't stop them, nor will new sanctions. Another option would be for the president to sit down with Kim, one-on-one, and try to come to an agreement that would stuff the nuclear genie back into the bottle. This is the option that many Democrats and socialists around the world would prefer.
Another option: bomb the hell out of Pyongyang, with special attention to every building Kim is known to frequent and every known missile base in the country.
Of course, this would unleash seismic ripples around the world. Iran would almost certainly crank up its military and enter the fray in Iraq – unless Tehran were known to be on the target list. Russia and China – and France, of course – would scream bloody murder. And the George Soros-funded anti-war groups in the U.S. would go ballistic.
The aftermath would be ugly, no doubt. It will be no more attractive a year from now or five years from now – it will be even worse. But if it does not occur before these "evil" nations get fully operational, the explosions will be in the United States, and the screams will come from Americans.
Will you mind it if the rest of the free world chooses to disagree with the embrace of anarchy?
And so, in a case where we're afraid that another country MIGHT be a threat to us - that they MAY POSSIBLY bomb us - it is entirely prudent to take actions to lessen the threat. It is NOT prudent, though, to attack based on a possible, maybe threat.
How large a war would that result in? How many would die? How many innocents would die because we acted rashly based on our fears, rather than logically and in a well-thought-out manner? How many of our soldiers will die? What will be the cost? How will we pay for that?
Where will the soldiers come from to engage in a much larger war than Iraq? Will we reinstate the draft? Would drafted soldiers be of the quality needed in order to "win" this preemptive invasion? Will the citizens of NK embrace our invasion or will they try to strike back? What is our plan to win this war? EXACTLY what is the plan?
Under WHAT LEGAL BASIS will we bomb a sovereign nation? Is that an action we can endorse other countries living by (ie, do we support other nations having the legal precedent of pre-emptive invasions based on fear)?
Until you can answer some basic questions in a well-reasoned manner, we are not conservatively ready to begin such an invasion and, fortunately for the US and the world, I don't think Bush has the political clout to do so - having failed so miserably in Iraq.
You also said...
"We just don't know enough to be able to predict the results of our actions.
And so, in a case where we're afraid that another country MIGHT be a threat to us - that they MAY POSSIBLY bomb us - it is entirely prudent to take actions to lessen the threat. It is NOT prudent, though, to attack based on a possible, maybe threat."
Judging strictly from that choice bit of rhetoric, were this country populated solely by Dan's, this nation would shortly cease to exist.
I don't know if you've checked the barometer lately, Dan, but the pressure is plummeting like a stone, and a storm of biblical proportions is on the way.
"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven..," Dan. Like or not, that includes war. And, like it or not, even God sent the Israelites into war preemptively.
That doesn't make us war-mongers, it's simply the nature of the beast. To quote another poet...
"We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
since the world's been turning..."
So let's examine your questions...
"How large a war would that result in?
Easy answer: Huge.
"How many would die?"
Again, easy answer: Too many.
"How many innocents would die because we acted rashly based on our fears, rather than logically and in a well-thought-out manner?"
One innocent is too many, but your question is predicated on the belief that we would act 'rashly based on our fears... yada yada.' In fairness to you, I recognize that this is how you feel personally about such ventures: talk is preferable to war, and that's fine, I respect your feelings on this. However, all this brings to mind a great 'Axiom of Struggle' and I wish I could remember where I read this (I won't google it now. To do so would break my chain of thought)...
"Never strike a man if talk will avert violence.
"Failing that, never maim a man if striking him will suffice.
"Failing that, never kill a man if maiming him will suffice.
"Even so, failing even that, never kill a man, unless your own death or the death of others would serve no purpose but to advance the designs of Evil."
Wise words, those. But back to your questions...
"How many of our soldiers will die?"
Too many.
"What will be the cost?"
Too high, win or lose.
"How will we pay for that?"
In blood or money? Either way, through sacrifice; personal as well as national.
"Where will the soldiers come from to engage in a much larger war than Iraq?"
Let's look instead at your next question.
"Will we reinstate the draft?"
Common sense should provide the answer. But to quote King Solomon once more... "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9.
A draft, in some form, is inevitable.
"Would drafted soldiers be of the quality needed in order to "win" this preemptive invasion?"
That depends on the quality of training, and the quality of discipline, and the quality of morale; all of which are inter-linked.
"Will the citizens of NK embrace our invasion or will they try to strike back?"
Judging from a 60 minutes piece from last year, or the year before, I'd say most of the nation would indeed fight. They are taught in their schools that America is filled with criminals, devils, monsters. But assuming it comes down to national survival, would you let that deter you? Will fear stay your hand?
"What is our plan to win this war?"
I couldn't say, that is the pervue of generals and captains.
"EXACTLY what is the plan?"
Irrelevant when you consider the fact that EVERY plan is scrapped the moment battle is engaged. It's one thing to anticipate the enemy, and plan accordingly, but it's quite another when the enemy begins doing things one has NOT planned for. Plans change, or should. They, if nothing else, should be evolving creatures. Like Bruce Lee said, "Be like water."
"Under WHAT LEGAL BASIS will we bomb a sovereign nation?"
Considering they are signatories to the Non-proliferation Treaty, and assuming they continue to act provocatively, this nation, and Japan, have the right to defend themselves. If you see your neighbor filling his entire back yard, fence to fence, with cord wood fifteen feet high, and dousing it with gasoline.... Call the police. He's not only going to burn down his own house but yours in the process. If he's pointing a gun at you with one hand and stiking a match with the other... shoot him. Legalities be damned.
"Is that an action we can endorse other countries living by (ie, do we support other nations having the legal precedent of pre-emptive invasions based on fear)?"
Since when is fear a bad thing? Isn't this the same discussion we had over Israel's choice to invade southern Lebanon? Were they wrong to fear that the rockets would kill their civilians? And remember, Hezbollah fired at civilian population centers; Their suicide bombers attack civilians. If fear allows one to act prudently, fear becomes a tool for good. God didn't give us fears to act irrationally, but rather, to act rationally in self-preservation.
---
Very good questions, all, albeit predicated-- though you're not likely to admit it --on fear. Which, as I stated, is not always a bad thing. Fear becomes destructive when it cripples one's ability to act deliberately and decisively... In preservation.
Physician, Heal thyself!
I've many thoughts on your comments (and, by the way, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions), but I think it comes down to this comment of yours. You and a minority of US citizenry think it's rational to attack NK based on the fear of a possible threat.
I and a majority of the US think it highly irrational to attack NK based on the fear of a possible threat.
You gave some fairly good answers to my questions (It'll cost too much, too many people will die, too many innocents will die, etc) and I agree with your answers: It WILL cost too much, win or lose. Responsible living demands that, when things cost too much, we don't buy them.
Your reasoning and answers are correct. Your solution is a rejection of your own answers and reasoning.
Again, I'll suggest that those who want to bomb NK are losing the war of words. Your case is lacking in logic and morality and we the people are rejecting it. Sometimes democracies get it right.
"Responsible living demands that, when things cost too much, we don't buy them..." Poor analogy since wars aren't bought or sold. They are foisted upon one nation by another. We won't have to buy a war with NKorea, or China, or Iran, or Syria.... sooner or later we'll have it for free, whether we want it or not. It's called Inevitability.
"Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? THAT is the sound of Inevitability."
--Agent Smith, The Matrix
But for the record... I'm not advocating any war with NKorea at this point. Even for me, the NorK's* haven't crossed the proverbial Rubicon.
---
* H/T to Neal Boortz
Well, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying the US can't defend herself. I'm saying to attack now is to undo our defenses.
But, if you don't think we ought to attack, what's been the purposes of these last few posts - this one subtitled: "Bomb Pyongyan Now"? And the other saying we should quit talking and take some action - what action are you advocating?
Just looking at all the angles. Besides, it's not my title... it's the authors.
China has received a slap in the face by N.K., after publicly telling them to stop. Even if they could obviously care less about the decade of endless talking and U.N. resolutions by us, China may have the pull to put an end to this.
We'll just have to wait and see.
And if the Chicoms won't do it, then we must. N.K. has already threatened S.K. if we don't have a one-on-one talk with them, and that, my friends, is nothing short of hostage taking. That CANNOT be tolerated.
Now there's an applicable analogy.
1. Under Bill Clinton North Korea didn't do any nuke testing or weaponize any plutonium. That's 6 years of at least quiet if not peace.
2. The "Agreed Framework" that Jimmy Carter brokered had provision for both sides. North Korea would a) stop processing plutonium and place all currentlky procesed plutonium under international monitoring. The US would a) provide 500,000 units of fuel oil and b) provide two ligt water reactors. These are reactors that produce electricity, but their waste products can not be weaponized. Also the US was to work towards normalizing realtions with North Korea.
3. The Bush administration stopped shipments of fuel oil and support for NK's light water reactors after coming to power. They also revealed that NK had been secretly enriching uranium. This was not an element addressed in the 1994 Aggreed Framework.
4. NK kicked the international monitors out of the country and took back possession of the previously processed plutonium.
5. It wasn't until Bush called NK a member of the Axis of Evil that NK pulled out of the Nonproliferation Treaty.
6. This week's nuke test seems to have been made from the processed plutonium that was secured during the Clinton admin.
7. At every step NK has requested direct talks with the US, to resolve each item. It is from the administration's steadfast refusal to talk that matters have come to such a head.
8. Any talk of force on the Korean peninsula, must consider that for the past two decades NK has had enough standard munitions aimed at S. Korea to flatten the country. These new nukes are not an added threat to S Korea, they are a lever to be used against the US and Japan.
EL if you're going to post such editorials without comment, then the suggestion is that you fully support the article's points.
"Hostage Taking"
Now there's an applicable analogy.
Conversely, BenT "furiously" typed out his post between the 5 and 6 o'clock news.
As to his assertions... I choose not to take his facts as quote unquote "facts," since they were rattled off the top of his head as he furiously typed his own comment.
Instead, I'll look for corroboration or refutation elsewhere. But his comment in no way addresses the issue... what to do about NKorea?
Anyone else out there with an opinion as to the "facts" BenT has presented?
If we were to follow that advice, Dan, we would take care of potential problems prudently--when they first emerge.
But you just can't understand that, can you? You think that getting the voodoo doll out and reading the tea-leaves after interpreting the rolled bones then kicking a little dirt over the obvious evil source of the problem to hide it will suffice...right?
What I can't understand is that even when gangrene sets in you don't recognize the need to amputate!
I suspect that you DO realize it but your own hopes are for a breakdown of society where you fantasize peace will then reign.
Let's rephrase that in a more realistic way, shall we?
"...having had leftists hamper his efforts in Iraq.
This would be exactly what I'm advocating, D. And prudently taking care of a problem is in no way synonymous with attacking a country unprovoked. THAT would be a truly un-conservative, imprudent and unwise idea (not to mention immoral).
As even W seems to be saying these days.
ER....umm...run that by me again? Maybe-PUT JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THOUGHT INTO IT THIS TIME!
We HAVE been provoked--over, and over, and over, and over and...
Get it?
I doubt it!
I'll revise my statement to "prudently taking care of a problem is in no way synonymous with attacking a country that is not a clear and present threat to us."