With the news breaking earlier this week that North Korea may, and likely does, possess nuclear weapons, tensions and fears have hit new highs, particularly after threats made by the communist regime against the United States.President Trump, not one to take threats or “tough talk” laying down, fired back, saying if North Korea doesn’t knock it off, they’d see “fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen.”
According to former Obama administration official Susan Rice, this sort of rhetoric is a no-no.The Washington Free Beacon is reporting:
The former national security adviser and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations wrote in a New York Times op-ed Thursday that tolerating Pyongyang’s possession of nuclear weapons could be the “pragmatic” move.
“History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” she wrote. “It will require being pragmatic.”In contrast, Trump’s national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, said last week that if North Korea “had nuclear weapons that can threaten the United States, it’s intolerable from the president’s perspective.”
Rice’s “pragmatic” action first involves halting the rhetoric and employing “rational, steady American leadership.” Rice condemned Trump’s “fire and fury” statement made Tuesday in response to Pyongyang’s latest weapons developments. She said that the United States has long been used to the Kims’ “belligerent and colorful rhetoric” in response to new resolutions.
Rice argued that military action must be avoided at all costs. She said that after careful study, the previous administration determined “preventive war” would result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of casualties.No one wants to see military action against North Korea, or any country for that matter; however, Kim Jong Un and the government of North Korea have proven to be unpredictable and defiant, which makes them extraordinarily dangerous. They absolutely cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
The fact remains that had Obama not been such a weak leader, North Korea likely wouldn’t have been able to obtain nuclear weapons to begin with. So, why would anyone want to take advice from the previous administration on how to handle this particular situation when Ms. Rice already had a chance — and failed — to fix the mess before it started?
We should continue to hope and strive for a peaceful resolution to this problem, however, we cannot simply ignore it and hope it goes away.[NOTE: This article was written by Michael Cantrell. Follow him on Twitter @MCantrell0928 and on Facebook]