"Therefore, if North Korea persists in its launch preparations, the United States should immediately make clear its intention to strike and destroy the North Korean Taepodong missile before it can be launched. This could be accomplished, for example, by a cruise missile launched from a submarine carrying a high-explosive warhead. The blast would be similar to the one that killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. But the effect on the Taepodong would be devastating. The multi-story, thin-skinned missile filled with high-energy fuel is itself explosive -- the U.S. airstrike would puncture the missile and probably cause it to explode. The carefully engineered test bed for North Korea's nascent nuclear missile force would be destroyed, and its attempt to retrogress to Cold War threats thwarted. There would be no damage to North Korea outside the immediate vicinity of the missile gantry."
So that makes it ok then? Just pre-emptively launch a missile attack, without warning, on a fellow member of the UN and destroy state property?
Evidently the Post doesn't think North Korea and China would consider this an act of war. Strange coming from a newspaper that is anti-war, no?
What ever happened to the left wing media's demand that all such actions must be santioned by the UN?
And what of South Korea?
"We should not conceal our determination to strike the Taepodong if North Korea refuses to drain the fuel out and take it back to the warehouse. When they learn of it, our South Korean allies will surely not support this ultimatum -- indeed they will vigorously oppose it. The United States should accordingly make clear to the North that the South will play no role in the attack, which can be carried out entirely with U.S. forces and without use of South Korean territory."
Well that's ok then, isn't it? I'm sure the North Koreans are resonable people and will listen to the country that just attacked them.
So how did we get to this stage anyway?
Creative diplomacy might have avoided the need to choose between these two unattractive alternatives. Indeed, in earlier years the two of us were directly involved in negotiations with North Korea, coupled with military planning, to prevent just such an outcome. We believe diplomacy might have precluded the current situation. But diplomacy has failed, and we cannot sit by and let this deadly threat mature.
That would be Clinton's failed diplomacy of demand but don't verify while North Korea developed nukes on his watch.
The Post also says Bush should have gone after North Korea instead of Saddam. There are a few not unimportant differences. Saddam had WMD and had used them on the Iranians and Kurds. We didn't know then and we may not know today if North Korea has nukes for sure. What we do know is they haven't used any - yet.
While Saddam may not be linked directly to 9/11, it has been proven that he supported terrorists including al Qaeda.
One thing that has stopped - for now - countries launching nuclear attacks on each other, is the idea of mutually assured destruction. I'm not sure terrorists care much if they die with us so long as us infidels die.
I find it interesting to hear the Washington Post sounding so hawkish and unilaterlist, the very things they constantly criticize Bush for.
It's true something must be done, but what? The Post is calling for another Cuban missle crisis. Are we ready for that? North Korea might not be so easily isolated and Cuba wasn't divided north and south with two large armies facing each other.
And why isn't the Post calling for Iran's nuclear facilities to be attacked?
The players are gathering around the poker table and let's hope North Korea blinks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment