Former Vice President Walter Mondale has come out in support of the William Perry/Ashton Carter plan to engage in a preventive attack against North Korea:
Former Vice President Walter Mondale says he supports a pre-emptive U.S. strike against a North Korean missile that is raising nuclear fears around the globe.
Earlier this week North Korea announced it was preparing to test a missile that could reach United States mainland. Tensions rose further when the North Koreans put fuel into the missile, and continued to insist that a test firing was imminent.
Mondale said on WCCO-AM Friday that the United States should tell North Korea “defuel that missile. It has three boosters. Dismantle it and put it back in the sheds. Because if you’re getting ready to fire this, we’ll take it out.”
Mondale, who’s also a former U.S. ambassador to Japan, calls the North Korean missile “one of the most dangerous developments” in recent history.
“Nuclear weapons can destroy hundreds of millions of people in one strike – destroy major cities -it is the danger of our time,” Mondale said. “Here’s this bizarre, hermit kingdom up there, with a paranoid leader getting ready to test a missile system that can hit us. We’ve got to stop it.”
Hat tip: Liberty and Justice via The Moderate Voice
Let me restate the reasons I oppose such a move:
- it would be immoral since it does not conform to Just War Theory
- it would be illegal since it would be an unprovoked attack against another UN member state
- at best it would be a stopgap measure since it would in no way stop North Korea from pursuing such weapons
- it would motivate North Korea to use whatever resources it had against us
- it would lower the U. S.’s standing in the world confirming the opinion of many that the U. S. is a rogue nation
- it wouldn’t impress anybody
- it would put the South Koreans and our own forces stationed in Korea in jeopardy
No one has claimed that the missile that the North Koreans have purportedly fueled (others are denying this) has a warhead i.e. there is no attack imminent and, consequently, no attack is being preempted. The suggestion is for preventative war not preemptive war and that goes well beyond a slippery slope.
This is a great post. I had seen several posts simply stating that it was easy for people who did not have the responsibility to deal with the consequences to talk tough, but none dealing with the injustice of launching an attack such as this and the numerous ways it would be ineffective and counter-productive.
Frankly, I think this is a case of a couple of Democrats [was Perry a Republican in Clinton’s cabinet?] looking tough on defense for their brethren before the midterms. They can not possibly think this is a rational or justified course of action. Or maybe trying to taunt the Bush Admin into action? Not sure, but the timing and content of their remarks make no sense to me.
Thanks, Jason.
I honestly don’t understand why Mondale and Perry are pitching this idea. The downside risk is so high and the upside gain is so low it’s completely baffling to me.
Some have suggested that it’s a feint. I don’t believe in feints: you either attack full force or you don’t pretend to attack.