Risks, Sunk Costs, and Buttinsky

I have a basic question about Mark Mackie’s post, re-posted at RealClearDefense, “Solving the Siege of Seoul”. Why is it any of our business?

That the residents of Seoul are at the mercy of North Korea’s Kim regime is not headline news. It’s been true for well over half a century. They’ve accepted the risk. They may not really understand the risk; they may underestimate it. But it’s their risk not ours.

If American interest requires that we act against North Korea militarily, we will need to ignore sunk costs and, sadly, the lives of the people of Seoul (not to mention Pyongyang) are among them.

All of that is why I don’t believe we should engage in preventive war. If Seattle or Guam or Japan or a U. S. aircraft carrier (or Seoul!) are attacked by the North Koreans, it’s a different story.

1 comment… add one
  • Gray Shambler Link

    I guess I disagree. When military intelligence tells the President that Kim has an ICBM capable of carrying his nuclear device to U. S. shores, I would say go. Full scale air attack. Tell the So. Korean allies this is what we will do.
    People say Kim wants what all dictators want, a fat, full, long and secure life at the top. I think this one’s different.
    The whole world saw what a low cost operation could do to the U.S. economy on 9/11/2001. That changed the paradigm.
    We are vulnerable, and Kim knows it.

Leave a Comment