Pro vs. Con: Should military action be used in North Korea?
Conflict could ensure nuclear holocaust

By Peter Ajak
Collegian Reporter
November 1, 2006

The use of military power is supposed to be the last line of defense. Every nation possesses numerous options it can use to further its national interests. These options depend on the powers of the country in question and its influence. True, the test of a nuclear bomb by North Korea was a provocative act. It shows its defiance against the international community and its impudence against international peace. However, a military strike against North Korea is not the best response.

North Korea has nuclear bombs. The test it conducted Oct. 9 confirmed it is a serious threat. The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and it could wage a successful military campaign against North Korea, but it is also probable that the country would resort to the use of nuclear weapons before it concedes defeat. Hence, attacking North Korea could mean creating a situation that leads to a nuclear holocaust.

If the United States and the international community declare war on North Korea, the country would most likely strike against South Korea and Japan. Even without nukes, North Korea’s arsenal is superior to its neighbors, and it can still destroy them.

People must remember North Korea is a totalitarian regime and the goal of such a government is its own survival. But if it cannot last, the goal shifts, instead, to focus on bringing down everyone else. Therefore, not only would a declaration of war on North Korea lead to the end of the country’s regime, but also to the “end” of the neighboring regimes.

Additionally, the United States has already overstretched its military might. A few years ago, President George W. Bush categorized Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil.” As we all know, Congress and the president authorized a military campaign against Iraq, the weakest of the three.

Today, the success of the Iraq War is in question. Thousands of body bags have been flown home, yet the accomplishments of the war are still unclear. Reports have been made that the United States does not have enough troops in Iraq. Thus, it would not be sensible to attack North Korea when the United States lacks manpower to wage the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well.

But for argument’s sake, let’s assume the United States has enough troops to wage three wars concurrently: there is still a chance that an American-led invasion of North Korea would lead to a result similar to the Iraq quagmire. This result would destabilize North Korea, allowing participation of other actors (hostile to America). Given that North Korea is heavily armed and has weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons and long-range missiles would fall into the hands of people who would use them. This situation, likewise, could lead to a nuclear holocaust.

We can not talk of war with North Korea and ignore the possibility of nuclear holocaust because the former triggers the latter. Caution is necessary in dealing with these calamities. The costs of such a war would include the death of many and the possible destruction of other states in the region. After we have paid this price, what would we get out of it?

The movie Crimson Tide was about a U.S. submarine being authorized to launch nuclear missiles if Russian rebels attempted to fuel their nuclear missile. Lt. Commander Ron Hunter, played by Denzel Washington, pointed out that the true enemy can never defeated in a nuclear war because both sides destroy each other. In a nuclear war, the true enemy is war itself. War is an idea, and no one can wage a war against an idea, just as it is impossible to wage war against terror. Thus, in thinking of attacking North Korea, we need to figure out who the enemy really is.

ajakp1@lasalle.edu