ShareThis Page

Keeping Kim from crossing red line

| Wednesday, Oct. 4, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
An undated photo from the North Korean government shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, second from right, at an undisclosed location in North Korea. (Korean Central News Agency | Korea News Service via AP)
An undated photo from the North Korean government shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, second from right, at an undisclosed location in North Korea. (Korean Central News Agency | Korea News Service via AP)

North Korea is too close to crossing the red line — deploying nuclear missiles that can destroy a U.S. city — and President Trump must take military action.

Even if Pyongyang were to freeze its nuclear program in place, it now has the technology and resources to advance to that lethal capacity on short notice.

The regime believes that such a capability is essential for ensuring its territorial integrity. That's absurd.

The United States and South Korea have little to gain from reunification of the peninsula. Moving the Demilitarized Zone to a land border with China would put China's troops within eyeball range of American GIs — hardly a recipe for stability.

Seoul doesn't need the cost of feeding 25 million North Koreans and re-educating them to live as civilized participants in the global economy. China enabled and guaranteed the security of the menacing regime that has emerged in the North and wants a buffer state. Fine — then those should be Beijing's burdens.

China has repeatedly suggested “freeze for freeze” — a U.S. offer to suspend joint military exercises with South Korea in exchange for a suspension of North Korea's nuclear development — but things have gone too far for the United States to accept the status quo.

It would leave Pyongyang with the option of invading the South and quickly deploying the capacity to nuke Seattle if America comes to South Korea's aid.

The mere fact that Washington would let matters get to the point that North Korea can strike Japan or South Korea will eventually cause both allies to conclude they need independent nuclear deterrents.

Already, South Korea has asked Washington to reintroduce tactical nuclear warheads that could be used alongside conventional weapons, reversing Seoul's policy of seeking a non-nuclear peninsula.

Japan and South Korea obtaining independent nuclear weapons would encourage other Asian nations to do the same and effectively end the United Nations nuclear nonproliferation regime.

U.N. sanctions won't work. Most of North Korea's export revenues and oil come from China. Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated duplicity regarding full enforcement of sanctions and has much to gain from pinning down U.S. attention with a continuing crisis in North Korea.

Moreover, North Korea has endured long periods of isolation-inflicted famine and economic deprivation. Only sanctions that wholly cut off its sources of petroleum and cash to power and pay its military could be expected to move the situation — China and Russia simply won't back or enforce such measures.

Instead of fully enforcing sanctions against the North, Beijing has turned the screws on South Korea — orchestrating an embargo on its goods in China, severely curtailing Chinese tourism in South Korea, and harassing businesses that invested in good faith in the Middle Kingdom.

At this point, China's suggestions are worth only a polite listen and reiteration that without North Korea dismantling in whole its nuclear program, the Yanks are coming.

Years of appeasement by Presidents Bush and Obama leave Trump in much the same position Winston Churchill inherited from Neville Chamberlain.

Churchill refused to bargain with Hitler, and Trump should do the same with Kim Jong Un.

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.