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.
