Pro vs. Con: Should military action be used in North Korea?
Coalition, with China taking charge, needed

By Sam Fran Scavuzzo
Collegian Editor
November 1, 2006

No one wants another war.

That being said, no one wants another Sept. 11 either. For the world to allow North Korea to avoid punishment after deliberately and repeatedly rebuking the international community can only be dangerous for everyone, in all countries. With the recent tests of nuclear weapons, North Korea’s administration is waving a red flag in front of the bull that is the rest of the world.

For Kim Jung Il to legitimately be deterred, military strikes are needed.

This does not mean a unilateral U.S. mission should be instituted. Quite the contrary, a large scale, global coalition needs to be created in order to keep North Korea in check. In fact, China should lead the cause with the United States playing a limited, but leading, role.

Strategic military strikes against suspected North Korean nuclear sites by China – historically an ally of the fellow communist nation – would let Kim Jung Il know now he was playing with fire.

Since succeeding his father in October 1998, Kim has proved to be nothing but a menace to the international community. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, he has disobeyed nuclear agreements with the Clinton and Bush Administrations alike.

Nuclear treaties to have the tendency to be broken, though. The United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China signed the Non Proliferation Treaty in 1970, banning the spread of nuclear weapons. Since then, Israel, India and Pakistan have joined the ranks with little international fervor. North Korea cannot be another nation to escape unpunished.

To allow North Korea to face only economic and diplomatic sanctions in this situation would be irresponsible, not even specifically because the nation could attack America. Other nations in the region are in danger. North Korea has warned its southern counterpart from agreeing with U.N. sanctions — who knows what they will do?

Furthermore, it is dangerous because Japan, Taiwan, Iran or Egypt will feel legitimate in pursuing nuclear weapons themselves. The more nations with nuclear strike capabilities, the more likely an accident could occur, and nuclear accidents – unlike spilled milk – are worth crying over.

Additionally, if North Korea’s already fragile state was to somehow collapse, then a force worse than Kim Jung Il could gain possession of the weaponry. Even if the state wasn’t to fail, he may flat out trade weapons to terrorists for money.

North Korea’s situation is a lot different the Iraqi one in 2003. For one, it is more evident that North Korea physically has nuclear weapons. For another, their administration has made direct threats to the United States, something even Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have had the gumption to do.

As the weeks have passed since the initial test, the United Nations has levied “heavy” sanctions against North Korea. Has this stopped their nuclear program one iota? Quite the contrary, the nation now looks to launch a second test rather soon. If the situation is continued as is, the already fragile global harmony will seriously be jeopardized.

What President Bush, the State Department and the Pentagon need to do is emphasize the benefit for China to see that the world is far worse for then with North Korea, a nation so close to them having weapons. Then try to work with the United Nations to garner a large coalition of states willing to hit spots where it will hurt Kim Jung Il. A regime change is not imperative. Removing nuclear weapons from North Korea is.

scavuzzos1@lasalle.edu