The problem of North Korea

First of two parts

The more things change, the more they stay the same, at least when it comes to America’s handling of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

For all of President Trump’s campaign bluster about how he was going to neutralize the threat and bring peace to the peninsula, his approach has been identical to that of President Obama: Talk, talk, issue a few meaningless threats, and talk some more. It is a strategy that will prove effective only if it bores Kim to death.

It’s growing old, but more ominously, it is emboldening Kim to continue rattling his nuclear sabre with accelerated ballistic missile development.

If decisive action is not taken quickly, we run the risk of another “Iran” – where America talked incessantly, replete with idle threats warning the Iranians not to construct facilities that could manufacture nuclear weapons.

And where did all the talk get us? Right behind the eight-ball, because they built those facilities anyway.

The cat is now forever out of the bag, as Iran has multiple nuclear installations in areas virtually impossible to attack, all but ensuing that it will soon become nuclear armed, if it isn’t already.

North Korea has several nuclear weapons, and while they haven’t yet developed the capability to deliver them over long distances, they’re getting closer each day. Currently, they could likely hit South Korea and Japan, given that nukes don’t need to be particularly accurate.

At some point, however, they’ll have the ability to deliver a warhead to Hawaii and possibly our West Coast.

To lend a helping hand, here’s a look at the Korea problem, and some common-sense solutions:

It is imperative to understand Kim’s nature and motivations.

North Korea effectively declared war against the United States last year after President Obama sanctioned Kim personally for human rights abuses.

“The United States has crossed the red line in our showdown ... we regard this crime as a declaration of war,” a government spokesman stated. Since then, Kim’s threats, from sinking our aircraft carriers to launching missiles at the U.S., continue to escalate.

Why are we so up in arms, literally, about this situation?

And why should we be the least bit worried about some young punk’s bellicose rhetoric to attack the U.S., since more often than not, his missiles travel 6 feet before blowing up?

Because North Korea’s push for a serious nuclear arsenal is accelerating. And that threatens everyone.

Kim is different from most dictators, taking “wild card” to a new level. Sure, he is smart. Strong, ruthless, and paranoid, too.

But those traits in a strongman, while dangerous, are not uncommon. Kim is in a league of his own.

He is a leader who, if capable, will likely follow through on his threats. Naturally, he would try to save himself and retain power should he start a war, but if he dies “gloriously” in defense of North Korea, and in doing so honors the “Kim Dynasty” by making his deceased father and grandfather proud (both of whom were North Korean leaders during the Cold War), so be it. That is an unacceptable risk. Before any action is taken, America must get its troops out of South Korea, once and for all.

The 30,000 soldiers stationed there are merely symbolic, standing no chance of staving off a North Korean invasion, given that they’d be facing the world’s fourth-largest army, over 1.2 million strong. Being political pawns – and sitting ducks – is not the proper role for the United States Army.

The Republic of South Korea is a strong, prosperous country with world-class industrial facilities and an educated work force. It is eminently capable of defending itself conventionally.

There is something fundamentally wrong about America securing the borders of foreign countries while its own borders remain wide open.

And it’s not just illegal aliens, human traffickers and drug smugglers crossing unimpeded, but terrorists possibly carrying nuclear, biological and chemical weapons – a threat that will exponentially increase should Kim be able to smuggle a nuke into Mexico.

That’s inexcusable. “Charity” starts at home.