July 22, 2006 :: Investor’s Business Daily ::
Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, explains in Investor’s Business Daily why missile defense is a common sense necessity in the age of rogue nations such as North Korea. Kennedy notes that while most U.S. policymakers seem to believe that Kim Jong Il would never launch a missile at the U.S., such a scenario exists. He sketches out a plausible scenario that Kim Jong Il might arrive at the conclusion that a nuclear attack against the U.S. might not even bring about a retaliatory strike from Washington:
Imagine Kim Jong Il calculated that he could launch a nuclear missile against Seattle—well within range of his Taepodong-2 missile. He would first recall that the U.S. did not use nuclear weapons during the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iran hostage crisis, bombing of Marines in Beirut, terrorist attacks by al-Qaida throughout the 1990s or the 9-11 assault.
In each case, measured military action was taken, great effort was made not to endanger civilians and a central concern was not provoking hostilities with China or Russia. Second, Kim Jong Il might be convinced that China will defend the North Koreans as it has in the past. So what would happen?
Assume China does move to protect the North Koreans in their folly. Chinese President Hu Jintao calls President Bush and declares that the North Korean attack on Seattle was an awful crime, but that any nuclear retaliation will be seen by the Chinese as an attack on China itself. He pledges to help the U.S. rebuild Seattle and promises to deal harshly with the North Koreans.
Likewise, President Vladimir Putin calls to second his Chinese counterpart: Russia, too, will assist in rebuilding and offers to help negotiate a cease-fire—claiming that the last thing the world needs is a nuclear attack by the U.S. on North Korea….
It is possible, perhaps likely, that the U.S. would launch a counterattack using nuclear weapons. This would fulfill the premise of mutually assured destruction, and require a large-scale nuclear attack to destroy the North Korean regime and its military capabilities—especially since the prospect of a North Korean invasion of the South would become a real possibility under such uncertain circumstances.
But would the U.S. attack if it meant a possible nuclear war with China and Russia? Bush is a courageous and patriotic man. But to avoid a full-scale nuclear war and the annihilation of millions of Americans, is it possible that a U.S. president might not retaliate using nuclear weapons and instead accept such an attack as an unfortunate catastrophe that might lead to the unthinkable nuclear war between the superpowers?
(Article)
» More stories on: Analysis, North Korea, Policy
