During WWII, of course, all the fighters were madly counterfeiting each other’s money and postage. And we assume that North Korea and perhaps China do this today, and perhaps one day western governments will own up to cold war practices.
So, should we engage in such things now, say to affect ends in Somalia or Zaire or North Korea?
Should we counterfeit the hard currency of unstable third-world nations to accomplish nefarious and dastardly but also vague and nebulous ends?
No.
What would doing so accomplish?
We’re not at war with any of the countries you mention, so the comparison to WWII doesn’t hold.
So you’re saying that nations can bomb each other’s roads, factories, ports, power plants and airports… but they shouldn’t be allowed to hurt each other’s economies?
It’s no more dastardly a tactic than any other methods of warfare. But with the enemies we currently have, it’d be futile. We can’t ruin North Korea’s economy, because Kim Jong Il beat us to it.
Who is saying that?
Nice one! 
Our problems are now solved! Somali shillings for everyone! …and what does Zaire use now-a-days?
It seemed to be implied that it was somehow more evil than other elements of warfare.
How would counterfeiting the currency conceivably make things any better in Somalia or Zaire or North Korea?
I would be seriously surprised if the Chinese government was currently printing fake US currency. They are heavily invested in the future of the dollar and such a move would destroy the value of that investment. It wouldn’t be terribly surprising if some private Chinese individuals were attempting to do US counterfeiting. But if caught the Chinese government would likely punish them quite harshly. Now the North Koreans counterfeiting has been strongly rumored for years.
Counterfeiting another countries currency is a hostile enough act that it would be uncalled for outside of a war.
Incidentally, I’ve read that the British helped people counterfeit massive amounts of Continental currency during the Revolutionary War.
Damn it, he’s always one step ahead of us.
I bet we do it now with Cuba, but they would never admit it and neither would we.
Remember that for a lot of really nasty countries the currency isn’t convertable anyway. They aren’t traded on the world market, and are therefore essentially worthless outside the country. And visitors aren’t allowed to brink suitcases full of currency into the country, either the local scrip or hard currency. You’re generally required to buy a certain amount of the local scrip at outrageous exchange rates, and the government carefully hordes foreign hard currency so they can buy imports.
To use these unconverable currencies, you’d have to smuggle them into the country and get it into the hands of people who could spend it. But what are they going to spend it on?
This is how the Soviet Union used to work, and how North Korea still works. Other countries like Zimbabwe or Somalia are a little different in that their currencies are also essentially worthless inside the country as well as outside.
Why can’t it be both, like the late Earl Warren?
Well, as Zaire no longer exists and Somalia doesn’t have a functioning fiat currency based economy, it would be fairly pointless.
But it is not particularly evil to try to undermine an actual enemy state’s economy. It may be pointless as it is hard to actually effect, but evil?
Nothing, the country Zaire no longer exists.
If the North Korean government counterfeits U.S. dollars or $20 bills, I would think it does it for exactly the same reason a private counterfeiter does, i.e., to get money/stuff for free or nearly-free, and not as a scheme to “undermine” the value of the dollar, i.e., cause artificial inflation. You would have to counterfeit a whole lot of U.S. notes, some nontrivial percentage of the amount the Federal Reserve (or the U.S. Mint?) has printed each year, to cause any noticeable dilution of the dollar’s purchasing power; and while it might be possible for NK to print that many, it would not be possible to pass that many.