A Missile Party Down by the Riverbank

It is time to grab our inner tubes and trailer hitches because we are having a missile party down by the riverbank. President Trump is transporting the THAAD and Minuteman III missiles, while Kim Jung-Un will probably drag over his failed ballistic missiles. Vice President Pence is predicted to mean mug Kim from across the river, and Secretary of State Tillerson will keep assuring everyone that all of the party’s potential events are on the table, including punching Kim in the face if he speaks out against what he perceives as an American threat. President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi will bring the beer and probably act as moderators if things get out of hand, while President Putin may possibly take Kim’s side if a brawl erupts.

The situation on the Korean Peninsula is getting very serious, and the world is watching the actions taken by all parties closely. It is easy to condemn the North Korean dictator from the safety of the United States, but let us consider what a war in East Asia would really mean. First of all, despite its much smaller population, the North has an active military force just slightly smaller than the United States (this does not include reservists and the potential large number of Americans available for service if needed). A combined force of the United States and South Korea could defeat the North with superior weapons and equipment, but it would not be quick and there would be many casualties on both sides (civilians and military personnel alike). This would also likely cause the reinstatement of the draft to keep up with the demands of the military, and in addition, the economy would be affected. The cost of the war alone would be astronomical. All of this would be a good case scenario, with the worst case scenario being nuclear war or World War III.

Military action should not be taken lightly, yet in the media, we hear the constant rhetoric of the North Korean threat to the United States and how military action may prove to be necessary to keep Americans and South Koreans safe. However, if you read the statements by Kim Jung-Un, it seems pretty clear that he will only take action if provoked by the United States. American politicians are quick to condemn Kim for speaking out against what he deems as aggressive behavior by the United States, but how come the actions by the United States are not condemned by the same politicians? It seems a bit hypocritical. According to their logic, simulating invading North Korea in exercises with South Korea, sending the USS Carl Vinson strike group to the region, deploying the THAAD missile system, which is simultaneously viewed as a threat to China and Russia, implementing economic sanctions that do little to hurt the Kim regime but cause suffering amongst the population, and launching a couple of
Minuteman III missiles from California west into the Pacific Ocean are not confrontational or aggressive. The argument against North Korea is one-sided (this is not to say that the Kim regime does not have its faults, but this is a critique of American foreign policy).

It is unfortunate that diplomacy may fail because of the arrogance of American officials. War seems to be the only solution when a country does not bend to the will of the United States. According to President Trump and his administration, North Korea has "gotta behave" before the diplomatic route can be taken. In other words, North Korea has to compromise, but the United States does not. Like the old cliché, it is “my way or the highway.” Except, this highway leads to war. If a nuclear war does occur, the parties by the riverbank will become desperate attempts to catch fish for survival. Let us hope a war with North Korea can be averted.

Thanks for reading, and if you found this analysis to be interesting, please check out my book, The Global Bully.
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 03, 2017 10:26 Tags: i-b-kim-jung-un-b-i, i-b-north-korea-b-i, i-b-trump-b-i
No comments have been added yet.