Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 12 comments on POV: Weighing Our Options for Dealing with North Korea

  1. While sanctions have delayed North Korea’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, these delays may collide with the American political system. Say the desired delivery systems take two years rather than two months to develop. This places us in late 2019 when the election cycle will demand strong motivations for people to vote for or against the candidates. Historically, this confluence has been bad news. In wartime Americans support their warriors by keeping those who send them to war in office.

  2. Sure let’s continue the Democrat policy of appeasement which has led us to NK having ballistic missles and hydrogen bombs. Yes keep it up and you will find yourself in a similar situation with Iran in the not too distant future.

    1. Absolutely agree with you. Diplomacy has gotten us into this mess. NK prints counterfit US dollars and devalues our currency, tortures their own people in labor camps, and now is a nuclear threat. Time to take out this Teletubby before he gets an ICBM capable of reaching the US mainland.

  3. You lay out a case showing that half a century of “diplomacy” has brought us a rogue nation armed with nuclear weapons and ICBM technology who is sharing their weapons technology with other nations. Yet your only suggestion is to keep pursuing the same failed strategy that produced the current situation. That defies logic and simply invites more of the same result.

  4. So basically the left-wing liberal academics think the US should keep pursuing a failed policy in North Korea. Kim only understands one thing, a show of force. If some of our destroyers parked off the Korean peninsula fired a few missiles at them the US wouldn’t have to worry about their weapons program anymore.

  5. War in Korea means the deaths of > 100,000 South Koreans and US servicemembers, and maybe more than a million. I know, I served there in the 2d Division. NK conventional artillery alone could generate the smaller number of deaths, nukes would cause the higher. Sure, if NK fires a nuke at somebody, obliterate them. But attacking them without cause makes us the aggressor and makes us responsible for all those deaths. Kim is not suicidal; just like Stalin and Mao, he will not nuke the US, because he knows the response will end his life and his regime. Deterrence worked for 70 years – why are we giving up on it now? By the way, have any of you hawkish commentators spent 20+ years in the military like I have?

    1. Bravo Andrew, and thank you for your service! The war hawks seem to think the only casualties will be North Koreans, or that Kim will back down if the US blows up something of his first. I saw a 60 Minutes piece on the Korean peninsular and the DMZ. The US military leadership onsite and in the immediate line-of-fire concurs on a death toll of at least 100,000 in the first few minutes of a military conflict.

      1. There are no war hawks. I understand there is a fairy tale in cloud-cuckoo land in which Donald Trump is the incarnation of either evil or insanity or both, and the residents use Trump as a weathervane to show which way is wrong. I don’t live there.

        Whatever the bravado, Trump and his staff know as well as everyone else that 100k figure would be just the beginning of a bloodbath. Few minutes? I believe it. We would quickly be praying that it not go past the 10 million mark. We would also be terrified at the thought of China entering war with us, especially after they’ve scavenged our military and intelligence files through years of cyber warfare. We would be hoping that Iran wouldn’t leverage our commitment in the Pacific to follow through on its stated goal of “wiping Israel from the map.”

        I see North Korea as the primary culpable threat in this looming disaster, and I can’t chalk up Kim’s insane destruction within his own country as “pragmatic” abominations like Stalin’s or Mao’s. I think he won’t even blink at losing half his soldiers. This isn’t Trump’s fault. Obama contributed, and so did Bill Clinton’s capitulation in the 1990’s. It’s partly due to China’s support for NoKo. But this is all ultimately the responsibility and the culpability of the North Korean leadership.

    2. Thank you, Andrew. My father served 1945-47 in Korea. My son is a college professor in the South. I have not been to the North, but a few North-South reunions fueled good press when Kim first took office. As in Vietnam, the Koreans were one people within living memory. “Obliterate them” will also be costly. Shame on us if we fire first, I think we agree. If Kim is truly dangerous, he is attacking in other ways with other delivery systems.

  6. Kim Jong-un of North Korea is not stupid. Facing US military hostility stationed in the South and in East Asia in general, he needs nuclear weapon as a powerful deterrence against American’s military threat. He knows that Americans are not afraid of conventional weapons in a war. His logic is simply: if he can deliver nuclear bombs over the sky to North America, Uncle Sam would think twice before attacking him. With the capability of long range delivery the potential war becomes non-local therefore he can project his power over America. In achieving this goal, Kim Jong-un so far is successful in implementing his strategic plan. Now, on the other hand, it seems that America today is feeling the threat of Kim’s nuclear power build-up and thinking about destroying him before it is too late. But why? Why can’t Kim Jong-un have nuclear weapons? Let him have the toy. If he is not going to use it, what good is it to have it (besides as a deterrence)? And we know he is not going to use it knowing too well that if he did use it first that would be the end day of his regime and his life on earth. Developing and maintaining nuclear weaponry would cost money and resources. Having a nuclear bomb would not put food on the table. That would apply to America too. Maintain the status quo is the best policy. Attacking North Korea first would cost tremendous amount of lives on both sides as noted by above reader. The best US foreign policy dealing with Kim Jong-un would be completely ignoring him, no matter what weapons he has. Avoiding war with North Korea would be good for America, good for South Korea, and good for US stock market and its overall economy.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *