Posted on 03/22/2018 4:21:55 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Winter Olympics' closing ceremonies also concluded North Korea's propaganda effort to divert attention from its nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs. And although President Trump announced more economic sanctions against Pyongyang last week, he also bluntly presaged "Phase Two" of U.S. action against the Kim regime, which "may be a very rough thing."
CIA Director Mike Pompeo said in January that Pyongyang was within "a handful of months" of being able to deliver nuclear warheads to the U.S. How long must America wait before it acts to eliminate that threat?
Pre-emption opponents argue that action is not justified because Pyongyang does not constitute an "imminent threat." They are wrong. The threat is imminent, and the case against pre-emption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times. Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute. That would risk striking after the North has deliverable nuclear weapons, a much more dangerous situation.
In assessing the timing of pre-emptive attacks, the classic formulation is Daniel Webster's test of "necessity." British forces in 1837 invaded U.S. territory to destroy the steamboat Caroline, which Canadian rebels had used to transport weapons into Ontario.
Webster asserted that Britain failed to show that "the necessity of self-defense was instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation." Pre-emption opponents would argue that Britain should have waited until the Caroline reached Canada before attacking.
Would an American strike today against North Korea's nuclear-weapons program violate Webster's necessity test? Clearly not. Necessity in the nuclear and ballistic-missile age is simply different than in the age of steam. What was once remote is now, as a practical matter, near; what was previously time-consuming to deliver can now arrive in minutes; and the level of destructiveness of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is infinitely greater than that of the steamship Caroline's weapons cargo.
Timing and distance have long been recognized as surrogate measures defining the seriousness of military threats, thereby serving as criteria to justify pre-emptive political or military actions. In the days of sail, maritime states were recognized as controlling territorial waters (above and below the surface) for three nautical miles out to sea. In the early 18th century, that was the farthest distance cannonballs could reach, hence defining a state's outer defense perimeter. While some states asserted broader maritime claims, the three-mile limit was widely accepted in Europe.
Technological developments inevitably challenged maritime-state defenses. Over time, many nations extended their territorial claims, but the U.S. adhered to the three-mile limit until World War II. After proclaiming U.S. neutrality in 1939, in large measure to limit the activities of belligerent-power warships and submarines in our waters, President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly realized the three-mile limit was an invitation for aggression. German submarines were sinking ships off the coast within sight of Boston and New York.
In May 1941, Roosevelt told the Pan-American Union that "if the Axis Powers fail to gain control of the seas, then they are certainly defeated." He explained that our defenses had "to relate . . . to the lightning speed of modern warfare." He scoffed at those waiting "until bombs actually drop in the streets" of U.S. cities: "Our Bunker Hill of tomorrow may be several thousand miles from Boston." Accordingly, over time, Roosevelt vastly extended America's "waters of self defense" to include Greenland, Iceland and even parts of West Africa.
Similarly in 1988, President Reagan unilaterally extended U.S. territorial waters from three to 12 miles. Reagan's executive order cited U.S. national security and other significant interests in this expansion, and administration officials underlined that a major rationale was making it harder for Soviet spy ships to gather information.
In short, both Roosevelt and Reagan acted unilaterally to adjust to new realities. They did not reify time and distance, or confuse the concrete for the existential. They adjusted the measures to reality, not the reverse.
Although the Caroline criteria are often cited in pre-emption debates, they are merely customary international law, which is interpreted and modified in light of changing state practice. In contemporary times, Israel has already twice struck nuclear-weapons programs in hostile states: destroying the Osirak reactor outside Baghdad in 1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans in 2007.
This is how we should think today about the threat of nuclear warheads delivered by ballistic missiles. In 1837 Britain unleashed pre-emptive "fire and fury" against a wooden steamboat. It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current "necessity" posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first.
John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad".
This article first appeared in The Wall Street Journal and is reprinted here with the kind permission of the author.
Follow John R. Bolton on Twitter
Japan used similar reasoning for the surgical strike on Pearl Harbor...
Actually, it was North Korea that did a Pearl Harbor on the US by crossing the 38th parallel with its entire army that summer day in 1950. It will likely do another Pearl Harbor the next chance it gets.
No they didn't. This is revisionism.
The US wasn't threatening to bomb Japanese mainland or even invade it. Japan was widening its hegemonic control of the Pacific rim and thought they could stem US interference by destroying the US Pacific fleet in Hawaii.
They made a fatal mistake.
NK has threatened to nuke the US. It won't be a "surgical strike." A properly positioned and detonated nuclear device would have devastating impact on US electronics infrastructure.
I guess I don’t see the similarity you are speaking of, except they were both pre-emptive. Japan had already started conquering territory. North Korea hasn’t bothas threatened the US.
Well, there’s this just in! Bolton is definitely a Hawk, so if war with the Norks that’s maybe in the offing, Bolton is the guy who’s on board with doing it.
McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/politics/hr-mcmaster-trump-bolton.html
Excellent choice. Trump is sending a message: “no more mister nice guy”, let’s get things done.
The similarity is the justification of the attack, without the realization that burning out one weed in a field of dry vegetation might not be the best plan...
All we did was cut off their access to resources.
Bolton is a good choice and should have been chosen last year at the start of the administration.
I want Rocket Man to think twice on every move he makes and having Bolton in this position makes it more likely he will.
Somehow I think the corrupt DC cabal want something to hit our country. Wouldn’t it be a shame if it hit DC instead if the left coast. A rapid draining of the swamp. I hate what our country has become. When states defy Federal law, our politicians in cahoots with 3rd world cesspool. Something needs to change and quick.
It’s nice to have someone who loves America in charge!
So much talk about talk. It is the three strike carrier groups sitting nearby that is sending President Trump’s message loud and clear.
I think the deal has already been struck. Turn over your nukes or big bada-boom.
Out of the four Al-Qaida hijacked airliners on 9-11-2001, only one, the one that targeted DC, didn’t make its target.
Some say it’s a pity. Had it hit the capitol, I wonder if the US wouldn’t be headed down the road to muslim ruin.
What?! No. Japan's preemptive sneak attack was strategically offensive.
After they raped Nanking.
I hear that. The collusion between the rats, rhinos and now I think POTUS is appalling. I really think they’re all conspiring to start a war on our own turf and it’s right around the corner.
So, no border wall and more stupid wars. That’s what Trump voters wanted, right?
This jerk never met a war he didn’t want someone else’s kids to fight.
Globalists Billy Kristol and John Bolton are always cheerleading to send US troops to the Middle East, but never to our southern border.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
