In almost every way that I can imagine, a nuclear first strike does not make sense - whether it ‘makes sense’ is relatively unimportant except to judge whether or not it is in our best interests to allow our head of state to behave this way on our behalf.
If I may digress just a bit, I think the flaw in your logic (as I see it) is your assumption that the decision making apparatus and processes of a democratic republic like ours are necessarily rational or well-informed. That is not necessarily true. I might have inaccurately remembered or misinterpreted your positions, but it seems to me you operate on the assumption that Kim is completely crazy and that we are generally more rational. That may be true in many respects, but in this specific context we’re discussing and debating here, that assumption, if I’m reading you correctly, grossly distorts reality.
This is not in any way to suggest that Kim’s the good guy and we’re the bad guys – Kim’s regime is a disgusting pall on humanity, but that’s not the point. What I’m talking about has nothing to do with who’s good and who’s not. I’m advocating that rather than framing this as a debate of “good regime” and “bad regime”, “humane” and “inhumane,” that we go beyond that simplistic binary type of thinking and understand someone’s position and operate in response to that relative position.
On that note, what needs to be remembered is that the Kim regime’s position is increasingly desperate, having gone from somewhat desperate in the 1990s to most likely feeling really desperate now, and that is why he is being provocative. Again, we can be self-righteous if we want, but remaining committed to a policy of non-negotiable and extreme sanctions that threaten to weaken his grip on power is not going to make Kim back down. Not without him being offered something in return. And that something has to be more than just the opportunity to speak with the US directly. Talk is cheap. He wants security for his regime. Period.
I believe I recall earlier that you (or perhaps someone else) wrote that one of Kim’s aims is to possibly force the US out of the region and reunite Korea under his rule, which is in my view highly implausible. The idea that he wants to reunite Korea under his banner might have made sense if we were still in the 1950s, but not now. For one thing, the Republic of Korea can defend itself quite well, thank you very much. South Korea is not typically thought of as a global military power but it can, and will, fiercely defend its homeland. North Korea has spent the last 7 decades preparing for war, but guess what? South Korea has spent the last 7 decades preparing for war, too. Don’t let the images of pretty young lads and lasses clinging to their Samsungs and covered in cosmetics full you: South Korea is a warrior culture in which every able-bodied man over the age of 18 is required to fulfill a minimum 2-year military commitment. Kim, having lived and having been educated outside of North Korea, surely knows this and isn’t so dumb as to believe he’s going to reunite Korea without making a total mess of both ends of the peninsula. I seriously doubt that’s what he wants, and if he really and truly were “crazy” and had no capacity to understand reality, he surely would have recklessly charged into South Korea by now. Right?
So that’s why I say, Kim isn’t crazy. Yes, he’s barbaric. Yes, he’s ruthless. True, he has little capacity to empathize with the millions of Koreans who suffer under his rule. But in the end, he was probably raised by his equally callous father and grandfather to believe that his rule is his birthright and, like any powerful person on the planet (including the mop-haired bastard who now rules us), believes that he’s entitled to certain privileges the rest of us aren’t, and that some eggs have to be broken in order to make his omelet taste good in the morning.
In the era of globalization, you make an excellent point. Unfortunately, though, we are increasingly moving away from globalization toward nationalism. We’re moving away from a world based on global cooperation and replacing it with a world that operates according to global competition. Don’t believe me? Why did we pull out of TPP? Why did we withdraw from the Paris accord? Why does this administration threaten to pull out of NAFTA? Why has this president already proposed tariffs on imports from Canada? Why is he placing tariffs on international aerospace companies who compete with Boeing? Why did he propose tariffs on Chinese solar panels and Korean washing machines just 2 days ago? Why is he openly skeptical of NATO? Why is he threatening to label China a currency manipulator, even though they probably no longer are? This is another aspect of the discussion that has been overlooked, but this trend is incredibly significant and it is crucial in order to understand the North Korean situation even more. The United States might be showing open skepticism toward global alliances and partnerships on the one hand, but that doesn’t mean it is necessarily removing itself from global police duty.
To address your comment: Yes, I absolutely think it is within the realm of possibility that the United States could attack and simply lay waste to what it perceives to be a dangerous North Korean state on the cusp of achieving its own nuclear umbrella. I don’t have a crystal ball, so I’m not saying it would happen, but I absolutely believe that it could. As I’ve written previously, I think that there are probably two competing theories and/or strategies that are being actively discussed at the moment: on one end of the debate spectrum, we accept North Korea as a nuclear state and try to figure out what the implications of that are and how to function with that new reality. On the opposite end, we refuse to allow North Korea to obtain this sort of leverage and increase pressure (which can be anything from extreme economic and political isolation…to outright war) to make absolutely certain that they never acquire this capability. Perhaps there’s a middle ground, but I would not be so sure of that. And even if there is a middle ground, nobody can be sure what it would look like and how long either side would honor the agreement. It’s really a matter now of two competing ways to analyze and evaluate the situation. It’s a matter of how we decide to live, or not live, with North Korea’s strategy of using nuclear leverage in trying to gain a new measure of respect from us and its Asian neighbors. I don’t for the record believe we are evil - again that’s not really the way to frame this. You have to go beyond the usual binary debate and consider the multitude of factors and the situations many nuances. Regardless of whether one views the US as a force for good or not, we have the ultimate power here. We have the greater capacity to cause harm on a wider scale. Therefore, whether we like it or not, whether we think it’s fair or not, we have arguably the greater ethical responsibility to consider our behavior more carefully.
Just to clarify, it’s not necessary for the US to launch the first strike. It could simply create the conditions that compel North Korea strike first, which would make us no less ‘guilty’.
What strikes me about the comments above is the certitude with which you write, as though we all know for sure how a war with North Korea would unfold. There is absolutely no way to predict what would trigger either the US or North Korea to strike first. And once a war begins, there’s certainly no way to know with certainty how it would unfold. I do feel confident that, without the kinds of occupying ground forces nearby, a major conflict that goes beyond say a few shots fired in the DMZ, would quickly escalate into a war with massive ordnance and entail a lot of destruction. And the longer it continues, the more grave it would be for both sides, which is one reason why I suspect the US in that situation would go right for the quick Mike Tyson-esque first round knock out.