Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBolton, WSJ, 2/28/18: The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-legal-case-for-striking-north-korea-first-1519862374The Winter Olympics closing ceremonies also concluded North Koreas 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.
-snip-
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 Koreas nuclear weapons by striking first.
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.
-snip-
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 Koreas nuclear weapons by striking first.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 930 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bolton, WSJ, 2/28/18: The Legal Case for Striking North Korea First (Original Post)
highplainsdem
Mar 2018
OP
highplainsdem
(49,005 posts)1. Rachel just mentioned this op-ed piece.
poboy2
(2,078 posts)2. Bolton interview 3/15/18 on Fox
Bolton on Ex-Spy Poisoning by Russia: Putin Is Saying, 'What Are You Gonna Do About It?'
Bolton on North Korea Talks: They're Only Serious About Finishing a 'Deliverable Nuclear Weapon'
Bolton: 'Our Goal Should Be Regime Change in Iran'
John Bolton said Thursday that the chemical poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in England fits into the larger pattern of Russia and similar regimes making peaceful promises and then lying about them.
The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said that not only is the attack itself significant, but so is the fact that it is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention."What does it take to get people to connect the dots?" Bolton asked Sandra Smith. "Russia, China, Syria, Iran, North Korea...these are regimes that make agreements and lie about them."
-
In a further response to the attack, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May expelled 23 Russian diplomats.
Bolton said the "blatant" attack in public reminds him of North Korea, "Moscow's friend," murdering Kim Jong Un's brother in the middle of an airport last year."It's an act of defiance. It's saying to London and the other western capitals, 'what are you gonna do about it?' Well, I think there should be a very strong answer to that," he said, arguing the time has come for real "deterrence" that Vladimir Putin will understand.
Smith also asked Bolton about the potential exit of White House National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster, of whom Bolton is rumored to potentially replace.
"It it my long-standing and very boring policy not to comment on personnel matters," Bolton replied. "And that's what I'm still doing."
Watch the interview above.
=
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/15/john-bolton-sergei-skripal-poisoning-russia-putin-saying-what-are-you-gonna-do-about-it