The U.S. Should Take Action

By Nick Mascioli & Garrett Handel

The U.S. should take direct action against North Korea. For years, we have been issuing new sanctions that have had no impact whatsoever on North Korea’s testing of nuclear missiles. As we watch, they get closer and closer to creating nuclear missiles capable of reaching major U.S. cities.

While many argue that we should aim for a peace agreement, this idea is extremely idealistic and not at all realistic. While it is obvious that the possibility of a war is not ideal, North Korea has made it clear that they cannot be trusted through actions such as violating the pact they negotiated with the U.S. in 2012, in which they agreed to suspend nuclear and long-range missile tests.

Those who support diplomacy argue nuclear deterrence, the idea that nuclear weapons will never be used by either side out of fear of mutual destruction, is an effective strategy. However, this argument is flawed, as it has not been nuclear deterrence that has prevented North Korea from attacking, it has simply been the fact that they have not yet constructed nuclear weapons capable of reaching the U.S., and when they do, they will strike.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated, “Failing now to act on the most pressing security issue in the world may bring catastrophic consequences. The policy of strategic patience is over.” This conflict will only worsen for the U.S. unless action is taken, which is a major concern for experts. The United States cannot afford to wait for North Korea to strike first.

______________________________________________________

A More Aggressive Approach Is Needed

By Devin Murphy and Thomas O’Brien

For the past twenty years, the U.S. has attempted to reason diplomatically with North Korea to no avail. The North Koreans simply have no interest in forfeiting their nuclear arsenal, no matter how many countries are demanding. The only option that has not been tried so far would be a more aggressive approach to the situation in North Korea. As all other options have failed in regards to stopping North Korea’s nuclear program, the only thing left on the table is to stop it ourselves and to stop it by force.

Non-aggressive attempts to negotiate with North Korea in the past have not worked. David Hosansky, writer of “North Korea Showdown,” stated that “After North Korea tested its first atomic bomb in 2006, President George W. Bush’s administration attempted unsuccessfully to negotiate a new deal.  The Obama Administration then embarked on its strategic-patience policy.” For decades, North Korea has had hostile relations with the rest of the world. Leaders have tried to peacefully negotiate with the isolated country, yet after an agreement or sanction is reached, North Korea continued to ignore the economic punishments. Moreover, relying on other countries to take a non-aggressive approach would be a mistake because they “under-deliver” every time, according to Bruce Klinger, a research fellow at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.  A country geographically close to North Korea such as China should be able to enforce restrictions on North Korea that can help resolve the conflict. For decades, China has not come through.  In fact, in a recent missile launched by North Korea, “many of the key components came from China,” according to David Hosansky. Clearly, the lack of aggression and punishments on North Korea does not hinder them in any way to stop proliferating as much as they have been in recent decades.

Deal after deal have fallen through while sanctions failed to punish the North Koreans effectively as they come after the deed is done. As Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “For too long the international community has been reactive in addressing North Korea. The whole world has stood and watched and waited for the North Koreans to make the first move, to launch a missile near their country and then decide on their course of action. The U.S. must use its resources to stop North Korea before a successful missile launch comes in our direction, not after. As all other options have failed in regards to stopping North Korea’s nuclear program, the only thing left on the table is to stop it ourselves and to stop it by force.

______________________________________________________

A Non-Aggressive Approach Is Needed

By Matthew Auguste

Have you ever experienced the feeling of the sky going dark, filled with ashes and smoke, or the sense of your hearing fade away from you from explosions around you? That is a possibility of what may come if we were to take an aggressive stance against North Korea, the home of a country born, built, and bred on becoming a strong militaristic nation. The U.S. should take a non-aggressive stance against North Korea to reduce the chances of innocent lives being lost in the midst of war.  The long-term effects of North Korea using nuclear missiles would devastate the world and its ecosystem. Taking the more subtle approach and avoiding war at any cost will surely save the lives of many people and may allow the U.S. to find a common ground.

Currently, we have many troops and foreigners within the Korean peninsula who are either stationed or just living in South Korea. According to David Hosansky, “More than 130,000 Americans who live in South Korea and about 28,000 U.S. troops are stationed there.”  This puts the U.S. in a bad spot because if North Korea is provoked to a certain point,  the nations already has enough troops and the military capability to invade South Korea, killing its citizens and foreigners alike.

April 2013, a North Korea agency warned foreigners in South Korea that they should leave the region, stating, “The situation on the Korean Peninsula is inching close to a thermonuclear war due to the evermore undisguised hostile actions of the United States and the South Korean puppet warmonger.” Even though the majority of people just ignored the warning,  it still made the U.S. realize that North Korea probably had the potential or was close to possessing the potential for nuclear missiles.

There are ways the U.S. could avoid such outcomes without taking aggressive actions. The government could try to work with Chinese officials to  find a solution to limit trade for North Korea. According to Joshua Stanton, a Washington-based attorney and former U.S. army judge advocate in South Korea who has advised the House Foreign Affairs Committee on North Korean sanctions, “We need to do a much better job of, first, devoting sufficient resources to finding out where North Korea’s money laundering is going through, and second, we have to have the political will to sanction, to designate, to freeze the assets of companies and banks in third countries, including China, that are helping North Korea violate the sanctions.” This would cut North Korea off from resources without causing any real physical damage. Yes, it might be a more economic attack, but it should help with limiting their militaristic capabilities. These are just a couple reasons why going with an aggressive action may not be the right course and why maybe a more diplomatic solution is better.

If we are to prevent a war with North Korea, we need to be smart. Going to war with North Korea should not be an option. Why choose bloodshed when there is another option available?