Absolutely. Often the best use of a strong military is not actually using it, but simply offering the credible threat of using it. Lefties love diplomacy but forget that diplomacy only really works if you have a credible threat of force to back it up. You often don’t actually have to go to war to get what you want, but you can’t expect hostile countries to cooperate if you take military action completely off the table.
Not to mention that in the long term sanctions might not be a completely peaceful response anyway. Sanctions are what got us into WWII; the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because US economic sanctions cut off vital imports needed by Japan to continue their war with China. The Japanese were forced to expand into SE Asia to obtain war materials and believed the US Pacific naval presence was a threat to that expansion. Hence the attack to remove that threat.
In similar fashion, if sanctions become too effective against the Norks, might they not react aggressively to protect their own national interest?
“Often the best use of a strong military is not actually using it, but simply offering the credible threat of using it.”
Or, as the Romans put it, si vis pacem, para bellum. (If you want peace, prepare for war.)
“Sanctions are what got us into WWII; the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because US economic sanctions cut off vital imports needed by Japan to continue their war with China.”
May I recommend “Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy,” by David Bergamini? I know the word “conspiracy” has been turned into a pejorative by the left, but we must not forget that people do conspire.
The Japanese were out to impose their hegemony on fully half of the globe, not just China.
Oh, and something the norks have to consider that the Japanese didn’t is that we can destroy their capitol in minutes if we decide to, and, unlike the Japanese, if their capitol is destroyed, they’re done.
Ronald Reagan: Peace Through Strength
It works with the right leadership.