Article 2
Two major actions being considered by President Trump to deal with the increasing nuclear threat include the "many options" of "total annihilation" of North Korea, as well as stopping all trade with any country that has economic relations with North Korea.
Launching a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea has many implications. First, it could provoke tensions with other countries in the area, such as China or Russia. The use of nuclear weapons so close to their borders could, worst case, initiate a nuclear response, or at the very least, incite backlash, possibly diplomatically or economically. North Korea will also be looking to return fire, and could launch counter strikes against the US or its allies in Asia (South Korea and Japan). There is also the issue of likely civilian casualties in North Korea, and the aftermath of destroying a nation's leadership. A post Kim Jong Un North Korea could be similar to a post Saddam Iraq, becoming unstable, and a base for terrorism. It could even become uninhabitable due to radioactive fallout (which may even affect nearby nations due to wind and water patterns).
Stopping trade has similar negative consequences. China, who is one of North Korea's main trade partners, is also America's largest trade partner, with total trade last year adding up to over $650 billion. Ending business with China and other countries would decrease American imports, driving prices of many goods up, as well as decreasing business efficiency. Even if China agrees to cut trade with North Korea in order to maintain trade with America, this may result in North Korea launching nuclear weapons in protest anyways.
What is the correct choice for the white house to pursue? Are there other options to consider?
Connection to class topics:
Does and should the president have the sole power to end trade and launch a nuclear strike? Since the constitution, the office of President has gained significant powers, especially in the area of foreign relations. New technology, such as the invention of nuclear weapons have given the President even more military power (he alone holds the responsibility of launching a nuclear attack). Congress has no check on this presidential power, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule it unconstitutional. Yet it does appear to be the best strategy. Having 435 Congressmen deliberate over the launching of a nuclear strike in a time of crisis and national defense may be too slow. Does this mean that the constitution is outdated? Does new technologies not anticipated by the Founders make the balance of power inefficient? Or should America retain its founding principles no matter what, as the benefits of balance outweigh certain strategies?
5 comments:
I think it is a reasonable idea that the executive holds the power for launching a nuclear test because of the supposed speed and decisiveness of a Presidential decision, but I think that in any situation that truly necessitates a nuclear response or action, Congress should be able to act quickly anyway. A nuclear attack is an act of war, and if Congress has the power to declare war, nuclear attacks should be included here. After Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declared war very quickly and unanimously, and I don't think the U.S. is very good at taking "preemptive" action (the Middle East), so it might as well act in response. The President's power is balanced by the idea of his culpability and accountability, but if a miscalculated move is made and the U.S. is punished for it, the important thing is to deal with the new problems; it doesn't help to be able to assign blame.
I think the power of a nuclear strike is too large and devastating of a power to grant to a single person or branch of government. When the Constitution was written, checks and balances were an important part of checking power and preventing one branch or person from gaining too much power. Simply allowing the President to launch a nuclear attack, especially a preemptive nuclear attack, without any checks to his power could result in an out of control executive branch. While the threat of a nuclear attack may seem like cause for an impulsive action such as a nuclear strike, we have seen previously that impulsive actions by the executive branch can have devastating consequences. For example, Lyndon B. Johnson acted impulsively when responding to a North Vietnamese torpedo attack in the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to terrible long-term consequences.
I do not believe the president should be the one solely to choose if we are end trade relations AND launch a preemptive strike. Even if the presidency has since had it's powers expanded. It just doesn't feel right to give Him this great power. After World War 2, all wars waged by us were call to actions from our president who would single-handedly drag a country to war rather than Congress voting upon it. Since this time, the threat of nuclear destruction is on the table, maybe some more thought should be considered before we leave it to Him to decide we use it or not. This also means that the Constitution is not outdated, as it is up to the branches to their job. Whether they do it or not is not a sign of the Constitution being outdated but rather incompetency in our branches.
Every time that the US issues threats to North Korea, they end up making us look like chumps. Trump threatened "fire and fury" if the North continued its provocations. So how did the US respond when the Kim Jong-un fired a missile of Japan? It did effectively nothing.
Threats may make you sound macho, but don't make them if you aren't willing to back them up, because if you don't, neither your allies nor your enemies will take you seriously.
The US-North Korea relationship is a fight between two dogs who are all bark and no bite. Trump can threaten "fire and fury," and Kim can threaten to nuke Guam, but at the end of the day, neither of these will happen. Kim's main priority is to keep his power, not to launch a suicide attack. He will never attack America, South Korea, or Japan, nor will he believe Trump's empty promises. Much like a caged dog barking at you, the best way to deal with him is to walk away.
Post a Comment