NKorean nukes a small part of problem

GUEST COMMENTARY

As most Americans are already aware, the country of North Korea has been much in the news lately. For the past 18 months or so, this tiny nation has garnered worldwide attention. Its actions have caught the attention of us in America and sparked numerous exchanges and meetings of officials and leaders.

Our President, Donald Trump, has called North Korea’s leader “little rocket man.” The North Korean leader, in turn, has insulted our President by referring to him as a “dotard,” which is a fancy term for feeble minded.

But this dispute isn’t just about name-calling. It’s about something else and a matter that ultimately affects the future existence of all of us on this planet. It’s the outgrowth of what North Korea did to shine a spotlight on itself. It developed nuclear weapons and the capacity to launch them.

This is significant because nuclear arms are the worst means of terror and destruction possible. The use of them at any location goes beyond the annihilation caused there; it could set off a chain reaction, dragging other nations into conflict and causing worldwide devastation.

North Korea successfully made this problem surface by advancing its weaponry. First, it launched a medium-range missile, then a long-range missile, followed by the display of a miniaturized nuclear warhead to be carried on the latter.

Once the world witnessed this brazen display of might, it was up in arms, so to speak. Particularly the United States, which has major allies in the region, felt threatened. So, it stepped to the forefront with moves, diplomatic and otherwise, in an attempt to mitigate the threat.

Now, certainly no one can oppose this and find fault with our intentions. It never hurts to try to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, and it always helps to prevent another nation from joining the world’s nuclear club. The more countries that possess nuclear warheads, the more likely it is that they will be used.

So, it’s a plus that we, America, want them, North Korea, to denuclearize. However, the dilemma here comes down to one of disparity. Here we are, as the world’s number one ranked nuclear power, telling a young upstart that it can’t have a nuclear capacity.

Here we are in possession of 4,500 warheads at the same time we’re telling North Korea it can’t and shouldn’t have any.

The dilemma is further complicated in another way. We Americans expect to keep our whole nuclear arsenal for protection of ourselves and our allies while we attempt to strip North Korea of its protection. This expectation goes beyond being unrealistic and unreasonable; it is more than any nation or people can be expected to swallow.

But worse than this is the actual threat to the world represented by the respective sides, us and North Korea. By any general, objective standard, North Korea is a mere David in this world of nuclear giants such as America, Russia, France and England. By the same standard, we are Goliath with our nuclear warheads on land, sea and in the air.

We have enough firepower in our nuclear arsenal to kill every person on earth, probably multiple times. North Korea, by contrast, probably has only enough to kill a tiny fraction of the world’s population.

Thus, forcing it to rid itself of nuclear weapons goes only a tiny way toward solving the problem.

Maybe, if we Americans were, and are, so worried about weapons of mass destruction, we can do the world one big favor. First, admit that nuclear arms are the worst and most terrifying of all weapons of mass destruction. Second, remind ourselves and humanity that we have been the only nation to use nuclear weapons during war (Japan, 1945). And, third, stop playing politics with this subject and declare nuclear arms to be illegal and not to be possessed in any form by any nation on earth.

I realize, of course, how dreamy and impractically idealistic this sounds. Okay, then tell me how practical, realistic and sustainable is the existing arrangement between the world’s major nuclear powers.

As it stands now, each, together or separately, is poised to obliterate the other and possibly the whole world in the process.

America might do this trying to save its capitalistic system. Russia could do the same in the name of its toned-down socialism. China could follow suit to save its version of state-sponsored bureaucratic totalitarianism.

I’ll conclude with some wise words from the great orator and organizer Martin Luther King.

Dr. King summarized our situation with one very prophetic and profound comment. He stated, some 60 years ago, “We live in an age of guided missiles and misguided men.”

Amen.