July 23, 2017

Sitting ducks in East Asia should “nuke-up” to ensure Cold War doesn’t heat up

David MenziesMission Specialist

It’s hard to argue with the premise of a recent Forbes article entitled, “Why North Korea Cannot Have Nuclear Weapons, But Japan and South Korea Should.” Kim Jung Un continues to ramp-up missile-testing and neither of his two most likely targets have nukes. 

Regardless of what Dennis Rodman says, we know North Korea is a dictatorship that routinely violates international law and human rights; therefore, we know North Korea cannot be trusted with this most destructive of weapons.

Some might say that allowing only select nations to have nukes is hypocritical, or a double-standard, but it isn’t. It’s actually just sound policy based on the core values exhibited by contemporary democracies.

The current standoff in East Asia reminds me of the most logic-defying concept in the world of Star Trek where, thanks to the Treaty of Algeron, the Federation’s military arm, Starfleet (the good guys), have a huge tactical disadvantage.

Starfleet promises its ships will always remain visible and therefore vulnerable whereas cloaking devices are standard-issue equipment on the ships being piloted by the bad guys, the Romulans and Klingons.

Watch as I make my case using an example where the good guys instantly morphed into sitting ducks watching helplessly as the enemy got around due to a technical glitch.

Back on planet Earth, it’s time for South Korea and Japan to stop playing by the rules of Queensbury when dealing with a brass-knuckle street fighter.

After all, the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction ensured that the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union remained a cold war.

As it stands now, South Korea and Japan are like a couple of well-meaning yet ill-prepared Federation starships, completely at a disadvantage should that maniac in Pyongyang ever decide to press the button.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-07-23 22:04:03 -0400
Henry Rearden—You worry about S. Korea or Japan receiving US nukes and then switching sides. If Japan became Communist tomorrow and became Russia’s friend, Putin would give them nukes.
The point is they can get them from either the East or the West.
commented 2017-07-23 19:54:12 -0400
I don’t believe that North Korea will, at least initially, go after Japan or South Korea.

North Korea has many connections with the Iranian government, and has shared nuclear development information over the years. With its new missiles, and their reach, North Korea would probably first strike Israel to anger the Americans and put fear into its neighbours.

Once South Korea, Japan, and which ever country North Korea will want to pressure into submission chooses life over atomic destruction, North Korea will easily dominate the region.

The question remains whether the US will want to immediately get into a shooting war with North Korea. Depending upon who is in office, the thought might be innocent lives and we can live with detente. Of course, North Korea will become emboldened and eventually fire on the West Coast and possibly Alaska when its missiles improve in range, so a shooting war will be likely no matter what.

The best thing to do, in my opinion, is a pre-emptive strike. The next time there is a government general assembly with all leaders present along with the military top brass, or when there is another very public demonstration of firepower paraded past the leadership, take them out with whatever bomb – conventional or atomic – for the safety and security of the world.

Its said that the leadership should not be attacked as they will be the ones who will sue for peace. In this case there are probably more of the population who would be thankful to see the Kim family removed. The army itself may be a different story, but without a commander to tell them what to do, what could or would they do?

Then worry about Iran and Islam.
commented 2017-07-23 18:45:53 -0400
DOES anyone trust IRAN ?? Yet the U.S. and apparently the U.N. trust them with nuclear development!
commented 2017-07-23 16:35:40 -0400
The great – and rarely considered – danger of any country getting nukes is that a dramatic change in government can put very different people into power than were previously in charge.

For example, if nukes had existed in 1900, the world might have thought it reasonable that the Tsar of Russia had them. But in 1917, the Tsar was overthrown and gradually replaced by Lenin’s (and then Stalin’s) Communist regime with a self-imposed mandate of bring the whole world to Marxism. Imagine if they had inherited the Tsar’s nukes! How well do you think that would have gone for the rest of the world?

To use another example, suppose that Weimar Germany had acquired nukes in, say, 1920. They were a left-of-center socialist but not communist government. The world might have gone along with them getting nukes. But then Hitler came to power in 1933 and he would have inherited these same nukes. Imagine how WW II might have gone then!

Is it inconceivable that a democracy like South Korea or Japan – or even the UK or US – could find a very different kind of leader in charge whose hand we wouldn’t want on the nuclear button?

I don’t say any of these things because I truly believe that South Korea or Japan would turn fascist or communist and actually use these weapons against their (former) friends but it does seem to me to be a possibility that bears some consideration.
commented 2017-07-23 16:35:39 -0400
The great – and rarely considered – danger of any country getting nukes is that a dramatic change in government can put very different people into power than were previously in charge.

For example, if nukes had existed in 1900, the world might have thought it reasonable that the Tsar of Russia had them. But in 1917, the Tsar was overthrown and gradually replaced by Lenin’s (and then Stalin’s) Communist regime with a self-imposed mandate of bring the whole world to Marxism. Imagine if they had inherited the Tsar’s nukes! How well do you think that would have gone for the rest of the world?

To use another example, suppose that Weimar Germany had acquired nukes in, say, 1920. They were a left-of-center socialist but not communist government. The world might have gone along with them getting nukes. But then Hitler came to power in 1933 and he would have inherited these same nukes. Imagine how WW II might have gone then!

Is it inconceivable that a democracy like South Korea or Japan – or even the UK or US – could find a very different kind of leader in charge whose hand we wouldn’t want on the nuclear button?

I don’t say any of these things because I truly believe that South Korea or Japan would turn fascist or communist and actually use these weapons against their (former) friends but it does seem to me to be a possibility that bears some consideration.
commented 2017-07-23 13:36:19 -0400
The new S. Korean Pres. Moon Jae-in figures that he can make a peace deal with the North. It is his decision, but Japan may get nuked while both Koreans are talking. Would you trust Kim Jong-un?
commented 2017-07-23 13:27:24 -0400
In spite of sanctions North Korea is experiencing the greatest economic gains in 17 years – how is this possible without china feeding their monster child – to use it as a threat to US presence in the south pacific.
commented 2017-07-23 12:42:16 -0400
Gosh. If only a Nobel Peace Prize winner was to magically appear in this, our hour of greatest need, and wash away all the troubles forever with a deal like, oh… let’s say, Iran, for instance!