The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Should Japan and South Korea Go Nuclear?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

By setting off a 100-kiloton bomb, after firing a missile over Japan, Kim Jong Un has gotten the world’s attention.

What else does he want?

Almost surely not war with America. For no matter what damage Kim could visit on U.S. troops and bases in South Korea, Okinawa and Guam, his country would be destroyed and the regime his grandfather built annihilated.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting,” wrote Sun Tzu. Kim likely has something like this in mind.

His nuclear and missile tests have already called the bluff of George W. Bush who, in his “axis of evil” speech, declared that the world’s worst regimes would not be allowed to acquire the world’s worst weapons.

Arguably the world’s worst regime now has the world’s worst weapon, an H-bomb, with ICBMs to follow.

What else does Kim want? He wants the U.S. to halt joint military maneuvers with the South, recognize his regime, tear up the security pact with Seoul, and get our forces off the peninsula.

No way, says President Trump. Emerging from church, Trump added, “South Korea’s … talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!”

On Monday, South Korea was accelerating the activation of the high-altitude missile defense implanted by the United States. Russia and China were talking of moving missile forces into the area. And Mattis had warned Kim he was toying with the fate of his country:

“Any threat to the United States or its territories, including Guam or our allies, will be met with a massive military response.”

As the United States can only lose from a new Korean war in which thousands of Americans and millions of Koreans could perish, the first imperative is to dispense with the war talk, and to prevent the war Mattis rightly says would be “catastrophic.”

China has declared that it will enter a new Korean conflict on the side of the North, but only if the North does not attack first.

For this and other reasons, the U.S. should let the North strike the first blow, unless we have hard evidence Kim is preparing a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

But if and when we manage to tamp down this crisis, we should ask ourselves why we are in this crisis. Why are we a party to this frozen conflict from 1953 that is 8,000 miles away?

The first Korean War ended months into Ike’s first term. Our security treaty with Seoul was signed in October 1953.

That year, Stalin’s successors had taken over a USSR that was busy testing missiles and hydrogen bombs. China was ruled by Chairman Mao, who had sent a million “volunteers’ to fight in Korea. Japan, still recovering from World War II, was disarmed and entirely dependent upon the United States for its defense.

What has changed in six and a half decades?


That USSR no longer exists. It split, three decades ago, into 15 nations. Japan has risen to boast an economy 100 times as large as North Korea’s. South Korea is among the most advanced nations in Asia with a population twice that of the North and an economy 40 times as large.

Since the KORUS free trade deal took effect under President Obama, Seoul has been running surging trade surpluses in goods at our expense every year.

The world has changed dramatically since the 1950s. But U.S. policy failed to change commensurately.

The basic question that needs addressing:

Why do we still keep 28,000 troops in South Korea as a trip wire to bring us into a second Korean war from its first hours, a war that could bring nuclear strikes on our troops, bases, and, soon, our nation?

We cannot walk away from our Korean allies in this crisis. But we should look upon the North’s drive to marry nuclear warheads to ICBMs as a wake-up call to review a policy rooted in Cold War realities that ceased to exist when Ronald Reagan went home.

Consider. North Korea devotes 25 percent of GDP to defense. South Korea spends 2.6 percent, Japan 1 percent. Yet these mighty Asian allies, who run annual trade surpluses at our expense, require us to defend them from a maniacal little country right next door.

After this crisis, South Korea and Japan should begin to make the kind of defense effort the U.S. does, and create their own nuclear deterrents. This might get Beijing’s attention, as our pleas for its assistance with North Korea apparently have not.

Already involved in land disputes with a nuclear-armed Russia and India, China’s dominance of Asia — should Japan and South Korea acquire nuclear weapons — begins to diminish.

“As our case is new,” said Abraham Lincoln, “we must think anew and act anew.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, North Korea 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Giuseppe says:

    After this crisis, South Korea and Japan should begin to make the kind of defense effort the U.S. does, and create their own nuclear deterrents.

    This idea is appealing and rational. Sovereign nations after all should see to their own security. But the Empire will never allow Japan and South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons. The Empire’s military bases in those countries are vital to a geopolitical strategy to encircle the Eurasian landmass and control the world island (a fantasy since China is laying the infrastructure for total domination in Eurasia, but that is another story). If they were to have nukes, Japan and South Korea might feel emboldened to say Yankee go home.

    So on we go with the status quo, the Empire overstretched, out of money and in decline. It’s just a question of time.

    • Replies: @Aren Haich
  2. Japan really wants the US in Okinawa as bulwark against China. Esp as China has made anti-Japanism its ruling national sentiment and as China is poised to be the great power in Asia, Japan leans on the US. NK is just a pawn in this game.

    South Korea(and possibly even NK) wants the US in the region because if the US goes, Korea will be squeezed between China and Japan. While NK wants the US out of SK, it prefers US presence in Okinawa cuz if the US goes, Korea will be stuck between two nations with much bigger economies.

    When will anyone mention the fact that the US created NK by calling on Soviets to enter North Asia and then cutting Korea like a cake and giving half to Stalin?

    And when will anyone bring up US bombing over NK which was near-genocidal. (If any nation bombed Israel like that, it would certainly be called genocidal.) Unless NK attacks first, what right does the US have to kill more people in NK? It’d be like Germans killing millions of more Jews.

  3. polistra says:

    Everybody who is threatened by USA should go nuclear.

    Just after Hiroshima, our military had it right. They were treating the A-bomb as open-source, making the methods available to other countries. They understood that a widespread deterrent would stop future total conquests.

    A year later, Deepstate got better organized and decided that WE were going to be the total conqueror from now on. The open source stopped, and “non-proliferation” became the goal.

  4. It is naive to believe that Japan does not already possess nuclear weapons, if only “on loan” from the Pentagon. Japan’s many nuclear reactors have been generating plutonium for quite some time and there are many rumours of a program to build nuclear weapons.

    One reason the Pentagon has so many bases around the world is to provide forward projection of power. Against major powers such as China and Russia, this makes sense only if there are nukes stored at those sites. In Germany this is made explicit. The nukes stored in Turkey were the subject of many articles at the time of the plot against Erdogan. All those THAD sites are dual purposed for nuclear weapons capable missles. What is the recent installation of THAD batteries really meant to accomplish?

    This “go nuclear” policy likely already is real. Many intelligence operations already know that. Hence all the fuss emanating from North Korea (almong others).

    • Agree: NickG
  5. Randal says:

    In principle, every state that desires sovereignty should have nuclear weapons. Possession of nuclear weapons is the sine qua non of true national sovereignty in the post-WW2 world, insofar as that can exist in the modern world. A state that has no nuclear weapons has sovereignty and independence of action only at the sufferance of those that do. In practice, many of the states that could easily acquire such weapons do not feel that they need them sufficiently to overcome the economic, political and diplomatic costs involved in acquiring them.

    On the other hand, a world stuffed full of nuclear weapon states is clearly one in which the threat of nuclear war is high. It is clearly in the interests of the powerful nuclear weapon states to discourage the acquisition of nuclear weapons by states which do not already have them. The most effective way of doing so is not the coercive approach of sanctions and threats adopted by the US over Iran and North Korea, which failed in North Korea and would have failed in Iran if that country had actually wanted nuclear weapons (which is highly doubtful), but rather the approach of making states feel that they do not want or need them sufficiently urgently to overcome the costs of acquiring them.

    The way to do that is twofold – first, make nuclear weapons ineffective as anything other than last resort deterrents by having a powerful anti-nuclear taboo, which serves also to increase the diplomatic and economic costs of obtaining them. (This highlights the crass stupidity of recent moves within the US establishment to suggest increased focus on “usable” small nuclear weapons and doctrines for such use.) Second, have a strong framework of respect for national sovereignty that as far as possible precludes gross military threats of the kind the US, in particular, has deployed against rivals and uncooperative states.

    Nuclear weapons, in this context, are primarily weapons of the weak and the threatened. Like the gun for the individual, they represent the ultimate equaliser. They are the only way that a country as small as North Korea can credibly deter a superpower with a track record of military aggression such as the US, which has repeatedly used military force to coerce and overthrow governments of states which refuse to comply with its wishes.

    The recent renewed push by North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons represents that country’s recognition of its own vulnerability to US aggression, reinforced by the fate of dissident countries such as Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya over the past three decades. US policy in the past three decades did not create that desire, but it has given it an urgency, a necessity, and a priority that was not there previously and need not have been there at all if the US had instead chosen, after the collapse of its Soviet rival, to respect international law and national sovereignty.

    Russia and China should make clear the US’s own direct responsibility for creating the current situation in Korea, and refuse to cooperate further with US attempts to use coercive sanctions and to create a justification for military force via UNSC resolutions that will be abused just as past such resolutions on Libya, for instance, were abused. It’s understandable that they would prefer a non-nuclear North Korea, but that ship sailed some time ago. The issue now is not over whether North Korea can obtain nuclear weapons (they already have them) but whether the US regime has to factor in a risk to US cities when it considers military aggression against North Korea, as well as the longstanding risk to South Korean cities.

    China in particular would prefer a less well armed and less prickly North Korean government with which to deal in future, but the route to that end is not the coercive and self-serving one favoured by the US bipartisan foreign policy establishment, which can only end in war unless one side or the other backs down.

    • Agree: for-the-record
    • Replies: @Rurik
  6. Hell yes, everybody should be nuclear-armed, including me : I want a hand-held bazooka type launcher with a range for it’s mini-a-bombs of ca ten kilometers.

    Look the more nations which have nukes, the more the chance that one of them will go nuts and kick off the end of planet mirth, period.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

    • Replies: @Lawrence Fitton
  7. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “We cannot walk away from our Korean allies in this crisis.”

    And why not?

  8. To the question in the headline, the answer is an unqualified yes. It would also get China’s undivided attention and probably help calm them a bit as well.

  9. Randal says:

    Here’s one of the US regime’s most prominent warmongers making the US’s thuggish hypocrisy unusually explicit:

    North Korea ‘begging for war’ says US, calling for strongest possible sanctions

    “[Kim Jong-un's] abusive use of missiles and his nuclear threats show that he is begging for war.”

    By testing weapons.

    Testing weapons is “begging for war”, if you are not a vassal of the US.

    But only if those weapons threaten US cities. The US, uniquely in the world (along with, to some extent, specially authorised US vassal-states, of course), has the right to wage war and to slaughter foreign civilians in order to coerce their government, merely in response to a theoretical potential threat against its own cities, of the kind which every other country in the world is expected to put up with and live with.

  10. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadaffi would have been still around if they had possessed nuclear weapons. They would have deterred the US aggressor, and there would have been no mess in the Middle East for which the US is responsible. Every nation who wants to be souverän needs nuclear weapons not to use it but to deter aggressors such as the US. Kim Jong Un is not crazy he and his country just want to be respected by the US. All the bluster about a North Korea threat is nonsense. The North Korean regime knows that a war with the US would be the end of the Kim dynasty. President Trump should cool down his rhetoric that makes him look childish. The “Secret Government,” which runs the US should now better than the “Commander-in-Chief” and should make President Trump see reason. If the US doesn’t instigate an incident, which they have done before, North Korea will do nothing. Just let Kim Jong Un morph into his grandfather’s footsteps, everything will be okay.

  11. @Priss Factor

    Ish. Japan is no great lover of the US either; the US among other things, demands obedience to a number of other dogma repugnant to the Japanese. The result is that the Japanese are trying to play both sides while also hoping to accumulate a military force – seems to be Abe’s goal. Other political factions may think differently.

    China conducts economic warfare more than physical warfare; this is difficult for most nations to deal with or even understand.

  12. Rurik says: • Website

    The first Korean War ended months into Ike’s first term.

    Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    which is why our “education” system is dedicated to making certain there isn’t an “alert and knowledgeable citizenry” anywhere within sight of a public school or university

    and the Constitutional protections of our liberties were turned to dust along with the three 9/11 towers

    now they have unlimited military budgets and a total surveillance/police state, but they have to have boogey men to justify it all

    so it there isn’t sufficient boogey men, they’ll create them

    I just wish they go full ‘Wag the Dog’, (the movie) and simply manifest all the necessary wars with Hollywood types of production. The sheople will respond just the same, and hand over the lucre and their freedoms, and we could avoid all the actual bloodshed.

  13. Rurik says: • Website

    China in particular would prefer a less well armed and less prickly North Korean government

    Kim is China’s little barking dog

    I suspect Russia and China (and many others) are amused at watching the big ZUSA goon be barked at by Lil’ Kim. The world is tired of the ZUSA’s hubris and belligerence, and everyone likes to see a bully get his.

    China could defuse this on a dime. Lil’ Kim is their dog on a leash.

    But the MIC loves having him there too, barking and barking. Cha-ching!

    they all love the status quo.. The MIC, the congressional whores who get defense dollars, the leaders who get to ‘protect’ their respective nations, the generals… the media..

    it’s all theater

    • Replies: @Randal
  14. @Priss Factor

    Lots of Okinawans want Yankee to go home. They are sick of the filth of American soldier boys – the very dregs of humanity.

  15. Fredrik says:

    Because then you will have no more allies.

    If that’s what you want then by all means proceed.

    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @anon
  16. @Authenticjazzman

    yes, the more nukes the greater likelihood of a conflagration. america should lead the world in a push to eliminate all nukes. after all, we’re the only nation to use them.
    kim jong un does not want to end up like gaddafi or saddam. he is under constant threats from the u.s. if he doesn’t appear strong, he suffers more abuse. he won’t back down. we threaten him with joint war exercises in the dmz. he responds by sending rockets into the sea.
    lastly, i don’t know who’s more nuts un or trump.

  17. Roy says:

    Japan is not trying to “play both sides”, which implies actively undermining the US while pretending to be an ally. Unless you have evidence the Japanese government is secretly supporting the NK government, that is a baseless charge. Abe is indeed more nationalistic than his predecessors, but he is no hurry to see America leave. If he wants to build a more robust military, then let him have at it. But I am not sure they actually want to spend a lot of money on a large military as long as we are there.

  18. Arguably the world’s worst regime now has the world’s worst weapon, an H-bomb, with ICBMs to follow.

    The world’s worst regime is located in Imperial Washington.

    Should Japan and South Korea have nukes? That’s a question for Japan and South Korea.

  19. nsa says:

    We here in Ft. Meade have been listening in on Trumpenstein’s daily call to Tel Aviv for instructions and permission to flush his toilet. In yesterday’s call, the Izzies nixed any attack on the DPRK as a total waste of their satrap’s resources….and instructed their butt boy to get going on dishonoring the nuke deal with Iran.

  20. Randal says:

    Kim is China’s little barking dog


    China could defuse this on a dime. Lil’ Kim is their dog on a leash.

    No, this is an absurd over-simplification of a complex and rather nuanced situation, imo.

    China clearly has influence over North Korea. As a nascent superpower next door to a small developing country, how could it be otherwise? But it does not control North Korea as the US does Britain, for instance, because the former country’s elite, unlike the latter’s, has a reasonably healthily prickly determination to maintain its independence.

    China could crush North Korea, either militarily or economically, if it chose to, certainly. But it could not do so without significant costs. Short of crushing North Korea, China cannot compel obedience in details of policy, if NK regards those policies as sufficiently important to justify resisting Chinese pressure. To date, China’s leadership has not seen doing so as being worth those costs. Whether that will continue probably depends as much on Chinese political developments as on global strategic considerations.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  21. vetran says:

    That would be a great idea to keep the US economy afloat. Lol …
    Weapons are the only things that the US produce nowadays : Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and al, anyone?
    For sure, all countries scarred by Dr Strangelove types would love to acquire some deadly US weapons. Lol …

  22. Rurik says: • Website

    absurd over-simplification of a complex and rather nuanced situation

    hey! that’s my specialty ;)

    has a reasonably healthily prickly determination to maintain its independence

    how much independence could it maintain without China’s forbearance?

    If China said it was going to sanction NK and cut off all supply lines and resources, unless NK swore off nuclear testing, for how long could NK survive China’s wrath?

    China could crush North Korea, either militarily or economically, if it chose to, certainly. But it could not do so without significant costs.

    here we simply disagree

    I believe China is vouchsafing the NK regime because it really doesn’t think for two seconds that Lil’ Kim is suicidal, as he likes very much playing the part of divine leader, and also China- just as most people on the planet – like very much seeing someone poke the ZUSA fiend in the eye. IOW I think China is giving Lil’ Kim a long leash not because of any ‘significant costs’ for reining him in, but rather because they enjoy the spectacle.

    those are my absurd over-simplifications of a complex situation

    not that I don’t agree that it is far more nuanced once you get deep into it all, but I still see it as basically theater for the sheople of the planet, to keep the shekels flowing to the arms corporations and give the governments of the world a pretext to ‘keep their people safe’.

  23. bjondo says:

    why does DC commit slow suicide?
    why does DC let parasites of a degraded culture destroy its superior culture?
    why does DC let a parasite suck out its life?
    why does DC let traitors remain free and rich?

  24. Eisenhower wanted something like this. Specifically, he wanted Western Europe to be able to stand on its own against the Soviets, and for US forces to eventually pull out from Europe altogether. He never thought that NATO would really last that long. But to do this, it meant a fully re-armed West Germany, i.e. a nuclear armed West Germany. The Soviet Union did not look too keenly on this scenario. While it did not plan to have the US stay in Western Europe, it was certainly willing to live in a world where the US and NATO kept West Germany under control, and much preferred it to the alternative.

    In the same way, I imagine that the thing China fears most is a nuclear armed Japan. If the US still has some competent diplomats left, they would make the point to China that it is risking a nuclear Japan and probably South Korea — not to mention decreased trade with the US — just to save the hide of Kim Jong Un, who has almost certainly done China no favors during his reign thus far.

  25. @Giuseppe

    The idea is not just “appealing and rational”, it is the inevitable future of the region; unless some irresponsible idiot starts a war before that future becomes a reality.

  26. ROTFL

  27. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Just out of curiosity, why would the USA need allies if it had a truly DEFENSIVE defense policy? It has two weak neighbours, Canada and Mexico, neither of whom is a military threat, and is moated by two oceans. How does having allies like Estonia or Montenegro make America safer?

    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
  28. @anonymous

    Pat says, “We cannot walk away from our Korean allies in this crisis.”

    And some anonymous asks, “Why not?”

    Because history matters. Because honor matters. Because friends and allies matter.

    If we walk away from this crisis, it won’t be long before we find ourselves running away in every crisis.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @anonymous
    , @anon
  29. Rurik says: • Website

    Because history matters. Because honor matters. Because friends and allies matter.

    honor? Really?

    there’s another discussion going on about the attack on the USS Liberty on this site

    and from there it has gone on to the false flag attack on 9/11, and the serial wars of aggression all based on lies that the ZUS has perpetrated on several inoffensive nations that have not harmed us and did not threaten us in any way.

    Yet you would mention ‘honor’?!

    when referring to the ZUSA?

    that is one pathetic and grotesque joke sir.

    how did our ‘friends’ fare during the Bay of Pigs betrayal?

    how did our good buddy Saddam fare, who had dutifully used all those chemical weapons we gave him to slaughter Persians and asked papa Bush if he could attack Kuwait and April Glaspie said ‘sure, no problem’. How did it work out for him being our ‘friend’? Eh?

    how did it work out for the Vietnamese who collaborated with us?

    how did it work out for the Iraqis who collaborated with us?

    how well did it work out for Gadhafi when he cooperated with us on the ‘war on terror’?

    or Assad when he allowed the CIA to use his torture chambers?

    when they put three bullets into Pat Tillman’s forehead at a distance of a few feet, were they thinking of their honor? Maybe they decided to be honorable when they just lied about the whole affair, eh?

    when we give Israel White Phosphorous to use on children, are we being honorable then?

    or perhaps it’s when we use White Phosphorus on civilians in Fallujah that we’re being honorable

    I think that during 2016 alone, the Nobel Peace Prize winner dropped 26,171 bombs on assorted civilians and freedom fighters trying to get the ‘honorable’ nation out of their lands. Was he showing the world how honorable the ZUSA really is?

    or perhaps it’s when we drone a wedding and ‘bug splat’ the children all dressed up to see their big sister on her big day get ripped to shreds, that we’re really being honorable.

    but the ZUSA’s “honor” has been widely known of for a long time, like in Dresden, or Eisenhower’s death camps for German teenage boys, or the forced marches of German women and children into the frozen waste lands that we demonstrated our noble ‘honor’. Or when we were best buddies with good ol Uncle Joe, who genocided and enslaved millions.

    I could go on at length about the ZUSA’s “honor”, but something tells me that’s not why we’re still in S. Korea. But rather because the MIC’s love of tax slave lucre, and the assorted whores in congress who get their kickbacks from that very same MIC.

    whaddaya think?

    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
  30. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    Another anonymous, but please consider comment #27.

    I see nothing any more honorable about my Uncle Sam in Korea than when he was in Vietnam. Or do you think “we” should still be there, too?

  31. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    (I am anonymous # 27).

    But why should we be involved in these crises in the first place, Charlie? What for? How do we prosper from it? The Swiss do not get mixed up in various crises. Nobody thinks any less of the Swiss. Or more of us, for that matter.

    Why do we need Korean allies? How does this protect America? Are South Korean troops in North Dakota defending America from a potential Canadian invasion? The alliance 100% benefits South Korea and 0% benefits the USA. This is true, I believe, of all the innumerable alliances America has made over the decades since ww2. Where is the “mutual” in the US-Japan treaty of mutual security? What American state is being protected by Japan?

    You remind me a lot of all those guys who said during the Vietnam war that America could not leave because it would be too big a blow to American prestige.

  32. @Rurik

    Pat says, “We cannot walk away from our Korean allies in this crisis.”

    And some anonymous asks, “Why not?”

    And I say because honor matters and some other things such as friends and allies.

    And then I catch mfn hell from Rurik and others, who object that “honor” is a bad joke if used to describe “our” ZUSA government.

    But people here at UR should know that when Pat says “we” as in “should not walk away” … that refers to the American people, not to the ZUSA government. And they should know that about myself too. And I think people do know that … but they use myself and Pat to recycle all the anti-USA stuff all over again, and of course most of the anti-USA stuff is true – at least since LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin.

    If anyone has read what I have written to refute the KCNA propaganda put out by such as Whitney here at UR, then they know that I have consistently spoken of the “Korean people.” It’s all true what you say, even in reference to Korea, Syngman Rhee was guilty of crimes against humanity, but to hell with Rhee and to hell with the ZUSA government … we still are the American people and the Korean people still exist and that’s where the “honor” comes into the equation … or not. That’s what’s up to us to decide.

  33. @anon

    Dear Anonymous #27,

    Thanks for giving me your views about myself that I remind you of something about USA in Vietnam … but that’s the point. You, #27, remind me of those guys who are so caught up in the Vietnam narrative that they make everything about that same narrative. And then they scream out that anti-USA stuff over and over and over and over … do you really think that there is anyone here at UR who hasn’t heard it all … over and over and over and over? (In my case I figured out how rotten the whole Vietnam thing was when I heard from Senator Fulbright how LBJ had twisted his arm, with lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in order to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.)

    But it’s all good, what you say over and over … except that Korea really is different. Korea isn’t Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan, or even Vietnam. I seem to have to say this over and over, but here it is:

    The United States Army was attacked in Korea, 25 June 1950, by the North Korean army.

    That’s the thing, # 27. To me, what it means to be a “conservative” is to understand that history matters, history means something. Maybe history means everything.

  34. @anon

    anon (#27) says

    Just out of curiosity, why would the USA need allies if it had a truly DEFENSIVE defense policy? It has two weak neighbours, Canada and Mexico, neither of whom is a military threat, and is moated by two oceans. How does having allies like Estonia or Montenegro make America safer? — anon

    That last part about Estonia and Montenegro is to the point. Intending no disrespect for Estonia or Montenegro, we don’t need them as allies. NATO should have disappeared with the Berlin wall. Today, NATO is a huge scam, a detail in the Democratic Party’s scheme to avoid admitting why and how Killery lost to Trump in 2016. (Because, duh, the American people voted her and them out?) The President seemed to know that back when he was running for the office, and we still have hope for Donald Trump, but since he fired General Flynn, who knows?

    Anyway, anon, you raise the question of does USA need any allies at all in order to defend itself? That’s kinda the way it seems when you think back over all the “friends” you have had … “with friends like that, who needs enemies?” – and then you fall back into your eternal center and you remember those few truly good even great friends … and then everything looks different.

    Anyway, we don’t need any more entangling alliances and still less do we need entangling “trade agreements” or “partnerships”! Still less do we need WTO’s “financial services” section of every standard WTO trade agreement! What we need is to reassert ourselves as a sovereign nation.

    But as for allies and defense … and specifically in the case of Korea … it’s all about history. That’s where we get back to friends. Do we need real friends in this world? But beyond that, do we have real friends in this world? And if we do have real friends, how should we treat them?

    Getting back to the President, I criticized him when he turned away President Moon (of South Korea) earlier this year. I thought, “What a way to treat a friend?” And then I realized that a real friend is someone who will let you know when you are wrong. That’s what Trump was doing: Trump was being a real friend when telling Moon that this latest Kim-dynasty ruler of the North (Kim Jong-un) … it would just be stupid to approach him diplomatically.

    Trump’s intelligence is underestimated. I just wish he could have told all the foreign lobbyists and neocon infiltrators/traitors to go to hell … and NOT fired General Flynn.

  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Grandpa Charlie


    — which was meekly and mildly minding its own business in Fort Bragg when treacherous North Korean army marched all the way to North Carolina and ATTACKED it!!

    That’s the thing, # 27. To me, what it means to be a “conservative” is to understand that history matters, history means something. Maybe history means everything.

    Geography means a lot also.
    So does sovereignty.

    If you’re intent on understanding history, wiki provides this mid-point starting-point:

    The Korean War began in 1950, when the Soviets walked out of a U.N. Security Council meeting, removing their possible veto. Under a United Nations umbrella, hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops fought to prevent the takeover of South Korea by North Korea, and later, to invade the northern nation. After repeated advances and retreats by both sides, and the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army’s entry into the war, the Korean Armistice Agreement returned the peninsula to the status quo in 1953.

    Key word is “Soviets . . .”

    USA coddled “Soviets” , even knowingly harbored Soviet spies, who represented USA in the most crucial negotiations affecting USA over the course of 75 years (Harry Dexter White at Bretton Wood).

    USA gave weapons to Soviets, gave them money, provided political cover as Soviets slaughtered millions of Ukrainians, raped millions of German women, dispossessed millions of Germans as Soviets drew the borders of Poland — all this time, USA played huggy-bear kissy-face with Soviets.

    Suddenly, Soviets act out in ways USA no likey, so USA takes over other peoples lands, people, ambitions, culture, sovereignty and tries to tell them how to behave and what friends to make.

    Then USA gets all pissy when natives of said land defend themselves.

    THAT’s the history, Grandpa conservative flag-waver.

    Do you teach your grandchildren to stay in their own back yard?

  36. Pat Boyle says:

    Korea – in case you forgot – has the smartest population of any nation on earth. Korea will be a world power shortly. They are basically replicating the Japanese miracle after the Meijii Restoration . They are going from a dirt poor country to a superpower in the blink of an eye.

    We should be nice to the Koreans. They are not the kind of people we want against us.

  37. Pat Boyle says:

    You might also consider that Iran, Afghanistan and Libya don’t make televisions. I broke my TV. I fell on it. It was a Korean TV. I replaced it yesterday with another which was a better TV and half the price. It was also Korean.

    Korea has the highest population IQ on earth. They are going places. All the supertankers use Korean engines (they are real big engines). In a few year Korea may have a bigger GNP than America. This isn’t my prediction but rather that of people who purport to know.

    Koreans like us. We should try and keep it that way.

    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @anon
  38. I teach my grandchildren that it they happen to be in their own backyard in what happens to be friendly country, and they find themselves under armed attack, then they should fight back as best they can and remember what happened and blame the attackers and no one else for it.

    Wikipedia article, ‘Korean War’, in the very first paragraph states: “The Korean War began when North Korea invaded South Korea.”

    The United States Army had been in South Korea since the end of World War II, so when Kim Il-sung (Stalin’s stooge) ordered the attack on Seoul, he knowingly ordered attack on the United States Army, and no one had to go to North Carolina to carry out Kim’s orders. (In any event, the US troops in South Korea, pursuant to lawful orders, were in the same Army as the US troops in North Carolina.)

    President Truman fell into Stalin’s trap to go to the UN for authority to counter Kim’s aggression. He should have gone to Congress for a Declaration of War. But we do have to live with the past, so we have that unfortunate karma to live with, even now. However, Truman’s approach was so contrary to reality, as it turned out, that the UN thing as to Korea matters almost none today – especially since Kissinger (and Nixon), beginning with Kissinger’s secret trip to Beijing in 1971, bestowed China’s permanent seat on the UNSC to Chairman Mao and the PRC.

    • Replies: @anon
  39. Above comment (#40) should be addressed to “anonymous” (#37) who acknowledges the importance of geography but apparently doesn’t even know that the United States Army was in South Korea in 1950 and was attacked there by the North Korean army. Anonymous #37 seems to think that the US had to invade South Korea to get troops there (all the way from Fort Bragg) … which happens to be the propaganda put out by the government of North Korea and you can find it at Kim’s KCNA. Which says something about Anonymous #37 – a troll.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  40. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    The US Army was attacked in Korea in 1950.

    True. And what does that have to do with current events almost 70 years later? I see no parallel. The US navy was attacked by Japan in 1941. Should we be fighting or allied with Japan now because of this? I see no connection at all.

    To say that US troops should be in Korea because it is “not Libya” is another asinine statement of yours. How does that qualify as a criteria for deterring the presence of US troops in any place outside of the national territory of America? South Korea has twice the population and more then forty times the economy of its northern counterpart. They can and should be able to look after themselves just fine.

    “History matters”. Actually to say that a situation must be maintained because it has been done so for a long time is also asinine. Bismarck said that sticking to the carcass of dead policies was the most common error in foreign policy. America’s maintenance and extension of the moribund NATO alliance is a good example of this, when America SHOULD have left Europe in the early 1990′s.

  41. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Pat Boyle

    Koreans like us.

    WE do not need to keep troops in Korea to be “liked”. You are even more absurd then Charlie.

  42. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    If you want your grandchildren to die fighting for South Korea, that is up to you. Although I pity them.

    Any American with half a brain should not want this.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @MarkinLA
  43. @anon

    The US Army was attacked in Korea in 1950.

    US withdrew from SK and declared to the world it would not intervene to save SK.

    It’s almost like the US lured NK into SK to have a war and dump all its war surplus on Korean peninsula. Good for military industrial complex.

    Granted, no smoking gun on this theory.

  44. MarkinLA says:

    If we got out of Korea and stopped our yearly military exercises, maybe the north and south can come to terms for reunification. My proposal would be to make Kim a king of a constitutional monarchy where he gets 2 billion dollars a year to travel all around the world to gamble at casinos and screw in brothels.

  45. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    “… but apparently doesn’t even know that the United States Army was in South Korea in 1950 …”

    Goodness, did the sarcasm elude you?

    Now, step back, and tell us why Uncle Sam was in Korea to begin with to the benefit of Americans.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.