Like a naughty child, North Korea keeps getting our attention by playing with nuclear toys. And, like loving parents, we keep telling “Supreme Leader” Kimmy the Kreep that if he doesn’t behave, we’re going to cut off his supply of candy.
Then, just to be sure that he won’t hate us even more than he already does, we’re prepared to offer him “incentive packages.” We lovingly tell him, “If you promise not to try to turn us into a massive Soylent Green factory, we’ll give you lots and lots of goodies.”
Of course, since children really want parents to be firm, even if we succeed in bribing Kimmy today, down the road he’ll simply threaten us again. And, under current U.S. policy, we’ll respond by giving him still more goodies as an inducement to behave.
As you might have noticed, this approach doesn’t work real well when dealing with savages – especially spoiled savages. Even a casual student of history understands that you can’t domesticate savages with kindness and bribes.
During the era of the Greatest Generation, things were much different. In the final days of World War II, Japan was desperately trying to surrender to the U.S., but it insisted on one condition: Hirohito must remain as emperor.
Harry Truman, who’s boldest act to that point in time had been his declaration of bankruptcy when his men’s haberdashery store failed in Independence, Mo., told the Japanese, “No thanks,” then sent “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” to pay them a visit.
Little Boy and Fat Man were, of course, nicknames for the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug. 6 and Aug. 9, 1945. As a result, more than 200,000 Japanese citizens were instantly incinerated, and many thousands more suffered and died in the coming months and years from serious injuries and radiation exposure.
Since those horrific events, virtually all civilized people have stricken the dreaded “N word” – nuclear – from their vocabularies. Even when it comes to people who state that their chief purpose in life is to kill as many Americans as possible, the nuclear option is off the table. Which is a heck of a relief to those who want to annihilate America.
Priding myself on being a civilized Western man, I, of course, do not want to see a nuclear weapon used against anyone. But the other day I got to thinking about the results of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki holocausts. The destruction, death and suffering brought about by Little Boy and Fat Man were easy to see. But, to be fair and balanced, perhaps we should also examine the good that came out of this unspeakable tragedy.
For starters, Japan unconditionally surrendered, and thus World War II ended immediately … fighting, injury and killing came to an abrupt halt … Japan became, and has remained, a staunch ally of the U.S. … it adopted much of our culture – from finance to sports, from fashion to food … it became one of the world’s great economic and industrial powers … and, as a result of all this, for more than 60 years Japanese people have been freer and more prosperous than ever before in their history.
Now, contrast those results to the implementation of America’s no-win policy in the Korean War. When the U.S. pushed the murderous North Koreans into Manchuria in 1953, Gen. Douglas MacArthur wanted to use atomic weapons to finish the job, as the U.S. had done in Japan. Ironically, it was Haberdasher Harry who nixed the idea, fired MacArthur and let the enemy know that our new strategy was to embrace tie ball games.
As a result of Truman’s “humane” act, tens of millions of people have suffered under tyranny in North Korea for more than 50 years. Today, they not only lead miserable, undernourished lives, they are completely isolated and have no idea what’s going on in the outside world.
That’s pretty sad when you realize that America’s next generation of Little Boy and Fat Man could have ended the Korean War in one day. Now, 50 years later, the North Korean chickens have come home to roost.
By “coming home to roost,” I mean that they’ve decided to build their own bigger and better versions of Little Boy and Fat Man. And to Kimmy’s credit, he’s not pretending to be interested in using nuclear power for cheaper, cleaner energy.
Of course, the U.S. could still end the North Korean “problem” in one day with a single nuclear strike on Pyongyang, but that’s unthinkable to most Americans. After all, we don’t want to offend the 97-pound weaklings at the U.N. who sop up our charity while plotting to destroy us.
The reality is that the U.S. is not going to nuke anybody, no matter what they do. That being the case, here’s an interesting question to think about while lying in bed tonight: When North Korea’s version of Krusty the Clown, Iran’s Mahmoud Muttonhead, Venezuela’s Chubby Chavez or some other murderous miscreant finally strikes New York or Washington or Los Angeles with a nuclear device, will the U.S. have the moral strength to respond in kind?
Right now, I would have to say no. We are far too guilt-ridden and far too “civilized” to nuke anyone, even if they nuke us first. Which begs the next question: What will the outcome be if we refuse to respond to a nuclear strike with overwhelming force? This is a question that every American would do well to think seriously about as the Genghis Khans of the 21st century continue to flex their nuclear muscles.
Pleasant dreams …
Related special offer: