A Utilitarian Argument for Atomic War on North Korea

The world economy is physically interrelated; if it stops because of North Korean nuclear attacks as many as a billion people could die in a worst case scenario. North Korea has never signed off to end the 1950s war and an uneasy state of armistice has prevailed since. North Korea has methodically sought to build a nuclear weapon capacity while in a belligerent status. Because the weapons and missiles have matured to fruition, North Korea today comprises a grave threat to powers beyond the Korean peninsula.

A utilitarian argument for pre-emptive nuclear war to terminate Dictator Kim Jong Un’s nuclear capacity must show that the greater good for ending the nuclear power of North Korea justifies war. And that the greater evil lay in lower giving North Korea and opportunity to launch nuclear missiles on Tokyo (directly and indirectly dead to to economic and radiological disruption 25 million), and several U.S. cities as well as Seoul.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41150291

If a few U.S. cities were to be nuked the national economy would collapse. U.S. economic leadership has proven itself remarkably incapable of making recoveries from disasters that create better infrastructure than before. Tremendous economic costs are absorbed an unrealistically charged on a credit card while empowering the rich with zero-interest loans. Chinese business would suffer directly from U.S. economic collapse.

In a worst case, if Tokyo, Beijing , Moscow and Washington were nuked perhaps a billion people around the world would die through disease and famine created by economic and social dislocation as well as the comparatively minor sum of direct nuclear casualties. Allowing the Dictator of North Korea the opportunity to decide forever when or who he will nuke with hydrogen bombs on ICBMs is unthinkably dopey. Before President Bill Clinton subverted the foundations for long term post-cold war peaceful relations with Russia, the United States would not have regarded hydrogen bombs in the hands of someone that might use them as somthing simply to ignore.

A utilitarian argument would run that with a U.S. war to end North Korean nuclear capability the maximum casualties probable one million, with as few as 250,000 possible at a minimum. The maximum number of casualties from a war started by North Korea in the next decade at a time of its own selection is one billion. The greater good utility plainly is on the side of nuking North Korea now rather than later in a reactive criterion.

The United States has several hundred very small bunker-buster nuclear bombs that can be air drooped or launched perhaps, on tomahawk missiles. Fifty of those launched simultaneous with thousands of conventional tomahawk warheads along with air assault, torpedoes and perhaps a couple of tactical nuclear weapons and an air assault with various carper bombing should stop the majority of the North Korea missile threat.

Japan may need to defend with anti-ballistic missiles presently against a few North Korean missiles. That scenario grows increasingly worse regarding survival in the years ahead with a North Korean short-range missile build-up. To wait to launch war to end regime of Dictator Un in effect brings Japan to a state of near-certain doom, and that is not moral for a nation that has taken Japanese protection as its own.

Since the United States has taken a turn toward godless atheism, homosexual marriage and dope in recent years it is challenging to make a Christian moral argument against war. War is sometimes- as in this case- comparable to self-defense against an eminent threat. With nuclear launch windows so narrow it is not reasonable to wait, like the Israelis did before launching the 1972 Yom Kippur war, until intelligence provides data that the enemy is about to launch an offensive campaign.

The left may believe it moral to give up objective political analysis and pursue an existential agenda where nothing matters objectively. Political analysis that is objective on the contrary is requisite for the existence of democracy in a non-democratic world where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated. Military reality matters too. One is not assured of peace and prosperity of one simple ignores objective military threats and the risk they pose. For the American left to discount the very real threat to Tokyo and the U.S.A. is not a morally defensible position. The United States certainly cannot be the world’s policeman if, for reasons of corruption, it will not even defend itself.