The Daily Gamecock

Column: First strike on North Korea viable option

default column
default column

There are no good wars, but there are necessary wars. 

As we have seen in the past few weeks, North Korea is a fiercely nationalistic country that will not shy away from bombastic threats against the United States and South Korea, even going so far as to lay out a plan for a missile attack against Guam. With the President of the United States also issuing his own threats, the situation is only getting worse.

It seems as though our two nations are on the brink of war. If conflict is inevitable, then it seems reasonable to choose the path that will lead to the best results. I think the best solution to the current crisis on the Korean Peninsula is a precise strike against both the state’s conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons, as well as a strike against Kim Jong-un himself. No, this is not an outcome I particularly like, but as we come closer to a nuclear conflict, using our military to make surgical strikes against the Kim regime is the better option.

First of all, North Korea has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world. The delivery system of these weapons consists of a battery of conventional artillery pieces strategically placed along the border, and the consensus is that these weapons would target Seoul and its almost 10 million residents. Besides a nuclear detonation, these simple Cold War-era artillery pieces would represent the greatest danger to Korean and American lives. Although these guns are fired from mountain positions which may be difficult to strike, it is conceivable that the combination of American aircraft and cruise missiles could defeat the guns before they could be used.

North Korea’s nuclear weapons are the most clear reason for a preemptive strike. In order to protect Korea’s neighboring states from annihilation, a rogue state should not be allowed to possess such weapons. Even though the American mainland would not be in the line of fire of North Korea’s current arsenal, it is estimated that any nuclear blast on a major metropolitan area would devastate the economy, and as few as 10 detonations could destroy the world via nuclear winter.

The element that ties both of the above dangers together is the current leader of North Korea. Kim Jong-un’s policies and actions seem to be even more unhinged than those of his father. The dictator personally made threats to the United States over a litany of subjects from provocative military drills to the premiere of “The Interview.” Kim established his rule with a series of brutal executions of his family members and top generals who defied him, setting a grave example for any surviving members of his regime. This kind of impulsive despot with no respect for human rights is a threat not only to his own people, but to the rest of the world. 

Personally, I think that the Kim dynasty has overstayed its welcome and should follow the path of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. Since no clear leader has emerged to follow Kim Jong-un, it is likely that a post-Kim North Korea would look like China after the loss of Mao, with an oligarchical government and an emphasis on production. Also, it isn’t inconceivable that the hypothetical New North would seek reunification with the South after decades of separation.

Overall, I think the best course of action for the rogue state is an assassination of their leader, as well as a military strike against the North’s war-making capabilities. Although this response is not a very kind one, it is superior to a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.


Comments