Just war perspective of U.S. v. N. Korea showdown

By Art Jannnicelli
www.WhatTheHellamidoinghere.com

In the last year tension between the U.S. and Korea have increased dramatically. N. Korea claims to have restarted their Nuclear weapons production program. The U.S. has even labeled them an “Axis of Evil”. On the surface N. Korea appears to be the aggressor in this dispute possibly justifying U.S. military action against N. Korea.
On the contrary, there are several reasons why a war between the United States and North Korea, would not be a just “Just War” from the U.S. stand point. While there are seven categories to Just War theory it will only be necessary to point out a few to prove that this would be an unjust war.

The first violation of Just War theory is that a war with N. Korea would not be a last resort. In 1994, the U.S. confronted N. Korea about its Nuclear weapons program. The result was the 1994 Nuclear weapons accord between N. Koreas and the U.S. The point of the accord was to prevent the proliferation of Nuclear weapons. In short, the N. Korean government agreed to discontinue its nuclear weapons production activities and in exchange the U.S. would build two “light-water” Nuclear reactors that do not produce fuel for Nuclear weapons (BBC News 11/17/02).

However, the agreement was not followed. The U.S. had not built those two reactors by the time President G.W. Bush took office. Bush has taken a hard on communism position and therefore has decided he will not build these reactors. Besides setting a dangerous precedent that new presidents can ignore the treaties ratified under previous presidents, refusing to build the plants violates the agreement.

N. Korea also claims that the U.S. has moved thousands of nuclear weapons into S. Korea. This creates a cold war like situation where the N. Koreans may feel the need to keep a nuclear deterrent against one so close in the south. It is unclear whether the U.S. has actually moved Nuclear weapons into S. Korea. Although, this would not be a deviation from past action by the U.S. government, this was done in Turkey prior to the Cuban missile crisis. The U.S. may also be the only with the capability to use the weapons in S. Korea, which might justify the presence of the weapons to the U.S. since they would not be technically for use by S. Korea.

Clearly, then War should not be considered the resolution to this conflict. Since, obviously all the U.S. would need to do to decrease tensions in the region would be to agree to follow the 1994 accord and build the two light-water reactors. Removing any Nuclear weapons from S. Korea would also be an important gesture. These steps while monetarily and politically costly, are cheaper then a nuclear exchange with N. Korea even in the short term.

Another two problems with a just war on N. Korea are, a reasonable chance of success and proportional in means and ends. These should be mentioned together because they are violations of just war for similar reasons.

From the Cold War the world learned and dreaded the concept of “mutually assured destruction.” This is the idea that any war between nuclear powers can have only one conclusion, annihilation of both sides. This is because the use of those weapons would always remain a last resort for both sides. The problem is a nuclear power will not start a war with conventional weapons with another nuclear power. In this scenario whoever decides to attack first will have the advantage because they will then launch a massive nuclear strike against their opponent to try and prevent them from launching. Although, since it takes about half an hour for ICBM's to cross the world, it is unlikely that this strategy would prevent their opponents from launching. So any war between the U.S. and N. Korea would be one of Mutually assured destruction; at least for the U.S. forces in the region.
Therefore, mutually assured destruction would be a violation of a reasonable expectation of success. Since, by attacking first and destroying N. Korea the U.S. would fail at its objective of creating new peace by disarming N. Korea. It would also be in possible for the U.S. to try a non-nuclear solution such as invasion; since if things looked hopeless, N. Korea would be likely to defend itself with nuclear weapons. Another popular option of the U.S. military is a simple tactical conventional strike. The problem with this is attacking a nuclear power plant has the potential to destroy N. Korea rather then just disarm it. At the same time, if the strike fails, there is a risk of nuclear retaliation by N. Korea.

Mutually assured destruction would of course also violate the proportional means principal. Any use of nuclear weapons is one of the most evil actions anyone can commit too. This fact makes it impossible that nuclear weapons could ever be used in a Just War; because there is no amount of good that could be achieved that could make up for the potential loss of life and fall out damage potential to everyone around the detonation.

For these reasons the U.S. should not consider war an option for dealing with the crisis in N. Korea. First, because the U.S. itself was the actual instigator of the conflict by not building the reactors like it promised. Although, even if you ignore or dispute that point, it is impossible to ignore the fact that war between nuclear powers is just too terrible a price to pay for any conceivable ends. Therefore, the U.S. should swallow its pride and agree to meet its obligations in the 1994 Nuclear weapons accord.