Nuke
So what do you do when a sovereign nation goes against what an international community forbids it to do?
Lets take North Korea for example. An independent nation that has, in some senses, been very hostile internationally and domestically. First lets address the question, are we allowed to tell North Korea it cannot develop nuclear weapons? Not just us as the United States, but the world at large? I see a few problems with this. First, we do. Most of the major nations in the world who get to make the major calls on international weapons policy are also stockpiling nuclear weapons. Anyone say hypocrisy? Arguments can and have been made that its necessary to maintain global stability, “you nuke us, we nuke you” response, but by that argument, North Korea, Iran, anyone has every right to develop nuclear weapons. You can argue that they are more likely to do something rash with said weapons. It might be argued that the North Korean government will act more irresponsibly and could fire off nukes haphazardly, retreat into their bunkers and only its citizens receive the retribution. Our own possession of nuclear weapons and the retaliatory use of force therefore should become irrelevant to how we would respond to an attack from North Korea. Nuclear weapons would then fail to punish those responsible. It would only serve to harm innocence. Why then do we possess these weapons? To make a point? Would we nuke another nation who did that to us? Should we? This leads into how I feel how the last two wars the US has conducted have turned out: In the destruction of innocence rather than actually providing justice for the people. This happens easily when those responsible are such a small fraction of the whole. Iraqi government, arguably just the men in absolute power of the nation (i.e. Saddam) were the only ones necessary to remove to remove a threat.
So back to North Korea, were they to use nuclear weapons, or even in the presupposition that they will (another “preemptive war”), what would that accomplish?
Now international community is an interesting dynamic. I think that the international community, at least as a whole, is calling for Korea to cease its testing/development of nuclear weapons is a good thing. I don’t think it will influence them, but I think the agreement found there is what is needed. But, in order for their call to lay down arms, I still believe there must be reciprocity practiced by all the nations involved.
Thoughts?
A few notes. You’ve asked some tough questions, and they are well worth asking.
Firstly:
North Korea has the history of a repeat offender, lead by a man commonly understood to be both dangerous and mentally estranged. Considering the history of N. Korea, and the nature of human rights and persecution within its boundaries, this is hardly a nation worthy of developing weapons you rightfully point out as dangerous to innocents and civilians.
Secondly:
The response of the United States is irrelevant. Not only would a single nuclear weapon remain realistically non-threatening to the American populace (due to fully operational anti-missile defense systems along the Western border), but the likely American response would not utilize nuclear weapons. Such a “holocaust” is tirelessly unlikely, and only the product of the most radical of scenarios.
In today’s international diplomacy, nuclear weapons exist, and remain the primary bargaining chip in any hostile situation. Might makes right in this real world, whether one wishes to admit it or not, and simply laying down one’s most powerful defense will not and historically has not brought about any sort of international, eschatological utopia.
Thirdly:
A key aspect of the argument presented hinges on the aspect of international combat via nuclear weapons. The question is left asking: at what point does any national military action, nuclear or otherwise, remain appropriate?
Fourthly:
To glaringly generalize the previous two major wars (Kuwait, Iraq) as characterized by injustice and collateral damage is shameful. American soldiers are currently in training to prevent the lost lives of innocents, learning urban warfare techniques that save the most lives. US Soldiers are pitted against the worst possible circumstances, where the enemy has even pitted young children as decoys or human weapons in this terrible conflict.
This is not a black and white issue, and certainly not one lacking justice. What about the tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees that have been imported stateside? What of the 80%+ sectors that have been successfully turned over to the national security forces? These few, limited examples drawn from the many cannot be responsibly ignored.
Fifthly: A solution is never formally proposed. Were you to place yourself in the seat of the Presidency, how would you initiate to process of dehabilitating nuclear proliferation? In light of national security risks involved, what would your response be?
This is tricky issue, and certainly one that can’t be resolved in a blog post, something I’m sure you’re more than aware of.
Carl Henry
June 8, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I was counting on you making it to at least two hundred, eighty-thirdly… Will respond more in depth later.
plukevdh
June 9, 2009 at 1:13 am
“International, eschatological utopia” is an excellent phrase. One dollar.
I think it’s important to note that all wars are full of injustice on a person-to-person scale. Some people who shouldn’t have been killed are. Some people who (arguably) should be killed aren’t. That is unjust. That is a terrible argument against war; it is only an inevitable and tragic consequence of something as awful as war, no matter how JUSTIFIED the war may be. Anyway, God will make it right.
Johnjohn
October 3, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hey are you any good with WordPress/html/css? I suck really badly and need some help. Give me a holler if you’re not too busy & feel like mucking around with my site.
kevin
July 28, 2009 at 3:10 pm
did your brain die?
Been missing your posts. 
Michelle Abernathy
September 10, 2009 at 12:19 am