Should Japan and South Korea Go Nuclear?

By Pat Buchanan

Nuclear War
Should Japan and South Korea Go Nuclear?
Pat Buchanan
Patrick J .Buchanan

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- By setting off a 100-kiloton bomb, after firing a missile over Japan, Kim Jong Un has gotten the world's attention.

What else does he want?

Almost surely not war with America. For no matter what damage Kim could visit on U.S. troops and bases in South Korea, Okinawa and Guam, his country would be destroyed and the regime his grandfather built annihilated.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” wrote Sun Tzu. Kim likely has something like this in mind.

His nuclear and missile tests have already called the bluff of George W. Bush who, in his “axis of evil” speech, declared that the world's worst regimes would not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons.

Arguably the world's worst regime now has the world's worst weapon, an H-bomb, with ICBMs to follow.

What else does Kim want? He wants the U.S. to halt joint military maneuvers with the South, recognize his regime, tear up the security pact with Seoul, and get our forces off the peninsula.

No way, says President Trump. Emerging from church, Trump added, “South Korea's … talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!”

On Monday, South Korea was accelerating the activation of the high-altitude missile defense implanted by the United States. Russia and China were talking of moving missile forces into the area. And Mattis had warned Kim he was toying with the fate of his country:

“Any threat to the United States or its territories, including Guam or our allies, will be met with a massive military response.”

As the United States can only lose from a new Korean war in which thousands of Americans and millions of Koreans could perish, the first imperative is to dispense with the war talk, and to prevent the war Mattis rightly says would be “catastrophic.”

China has declared that it will enter a new Korean conflict on the side of the North, but only if the North does not attack first.

For this and other reasons, the U.S. should let the North strike the first blow, unless we have hard evidence Kim is preparing a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

But if and when we manage to tamp down this crisis, we should ask ourselves why we are in this crisis. Why are we a party to this frozen conflict from 1953 that is 8,000 miles away?

The first Korean War ended months into Ike's first term. Our security treaty with Seoul was signed in October 1953.

That year, Stalin's successors had taken over a USSR that was busy testing missiles and hydrogen bombs. China was ruled by Chairman Mao, who had sent a million “volunteers‘ to fight in Korea. Japan, still recovering from World War II, was disarmed and entirely dependent upon the United States for its defense.

What has changed in six and a half decades?

That USSR no longer exists. It split, three decades ago, into 15 nations. Japan has risen to boast an economy 100 times as large as North Korea's. South Korea is among the most advanced nations in Asia with a population twice that of the North and an economy 40 times as large.

Since the KORUS free trade deal took effect under President Obama, Seoul has been running surging trade surpluses in goods at our expense every year.

The world has changed dramatically since the 1950s. But U.S. policy failed to change commensurately.

The basic question that needs addressing:

Why do we still keep 28,000 troops in South Korea as a trip wire to bring us into a second Korean war from its first hours, a war that could bring nuclear strikes on our troops, bases, and, soon, our nation?

We cannot walk away from our Korean allies in this crisis. But we should look upon the North's drive to marry nuclear warheads to ICBMs as a wake-up call to review a policy rooted in Cold War realities that ceased to exist when Ronald Reagan went home.

Consider. North Korea devotes 25 percent of GDP to defense. South Korea spends 2.6 percent, Japan 1 percent. Yet these mighty Asian allies, who run annual trade surpluses at our expense, require us to defend them from a maniacal little country right next door.

After this crisis, South Korea and Japan should begin to make the kind of defense effort the U.S. does, and create their own nuclear deterrents. This might get Beijing's attention, as our pleas for its assistance with North Korea apparently have not.

Already involved in land disputes with a nuclear-armed Russia and India, China's dominance of Asia — should Japan and South Korea acquire nuclear weapons — begins to diminish.

“As our case is new,” said Abraham Lincoln, “we must think anew and act anew.”

 

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.

15
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
10 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
oldvetJohnJim MacklintomcatRoss Campbell Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
oldvet
Guest
oldvet

News Max has said POTUS Trump has given go ahead to shoot down any more NK missiles heading out over the Pacific

John
Guest
John

So in Pat’s own words, Japan has 100 times the economy of North Korea, but spends only 1% on defense.

So Japan spends almost three times as much on defense. North Korea firing provacative test ICBMs eats up some coin as well.

C’mon, Pat, cut the hyperbole.

I agree that we should pull our support, but over five years to hopefully give them a chance to wean. But don’t freak people out.

Jim Macklin
Guest
Jim Macklin

Nobody was considering attacking North Korea until they began and continued their nuclear program. Their IR & ICBM programs just make them a target because they are an active threat of a crazy leader making a first strike. The best outcome will be if China assassinates the entire Kim family. Japan and South Korea will not increase their safety by going nuclear. That will just feed Kim’s paranoia. Japan and South Korea should develop defensive technology that can intercept any in-coming missile or artillery shell with 100% effectiveness. The United States can turn North Korea into a slag heap any… Read more »

Ross Campbell
Guest
Ross Campbell

If China doesn’t want them to nuke up,then they better get it together,or we will,kims been playing good poker for long time.enough play time,he keeps getting more time with bluff.soon will be there.Get it done now.

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

What a mess with no way to win. If we wipe the little fat b*st*rd of the face of the earth we will have started the third world war with China coming after us and Russia would get involved on their side. That would be an oh sh*t moment. Can’t someone slip in and slit his fat throat some night? I very much agree that Japan and S. K. should fund their own protection in this childish game of lil kim against the world. Japanese and S.K. make a lot of money over the products they sell us, but I… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@tomcat, I would not worry about Russia. Russia has less that half of the GDP of France. Russia is not the powerhouse that the Soviet Union was. Russia’s economy is about the same size as India. China is using NoKo as a proxy so that if anything does happen, China will not sustain damage, and China wants badly to keep it that way, according to my sources. In an alliance, Japan would contribute top notch Naval assets. Taiwan would contribute really good air assets. The ROK would contribute huge infantry. Australia would contribute token ships and men. The Flippers are… Read more »

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

@Wild Bill, that’s funny but it would be a good idea and when the laser gets done with him it could burn the rag off the heads of some Iranians.

Chuck
Guest
Chuck

There is no reason to lose one american life over NK. If and that is a large if, they make a first strike a single response should be used. Load every large air flying machine we have with moab’s and do a scorched earth on the ENTIRE country. No mercy and no second chances. Not only does this remove any future threat from NK but I will bet the middle east gets very quiet for a long time. Anything less and you are just following the other petty dictators of history.

marc disabled vet
Guest
marc disabled vet

I think with FAT BOY having them
is BAD enough ! If we could get rid
of all nukes and high explosives
making war more up-close and personal ,
( more like hand to hand combat) I think we
would have a lot less confrontations !

Danny
Guest
Danny

Japan and South Korea are nuclear already, being under the protection of the United States. Both Countries have multiple types and numbers of Nukes at their disposal by being under The United States protection!

VE Veteran - Old Man's Club
Guest
VE Veteran - Old Man's Club

They should’ve let Patton keep going east after he reached the Elbe River in 1945. At that time we could’ve defeated the Soviets and possibly have changed the world for the better. Too late now, and all of the appeasers who’ve set in the White House seem to have forgotten Churchill’s warning – “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

DrSique
Guest
DrSique

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” Churchill had become a very wise man. I’m pretty sure that was the Obama Doctrine. What should happen is for Japan, South Korea, and any other regional nation under threat, should commit to a NATO style pact where any one attacked draws a response from all. Put Lil Kim on notice that any aggression will end his regime…………and his life. Certainly, these countries with solid economies should be expected to fund their own defense. While I believe that America must remain involved in pushing back against… Read more »

marc disabled vet
Guest
marc disabled vet

(( BUT BUT BUT We’re the world police ))
(democrat point of view )^^^
The last part was right on point. why do we
need to always be the one to pay ?

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

We pay so that we will appear, to our potential allies, to be the logical winner from the very start. The Filipinos, Taiwanese, Japanese, and even the ROK will not join us if it appears that we will be the losers or the outcome will be close. So… we pay.

Janek
Guest
Janek

Did the Congressional ‘Church Hearings’ on the CIA in the 1970’s end the practice of ‘Political Assassination’? LOL