Appeasement in the twentieth century was seen as a mistake, a sign of weakness at a time when the free world needed strength.

Lack of action against North Korea—while not exactly appeasement—in this century is still a sign of weakness. However, it is now lauded, and President Donald Trump’s (seemingly) pro-intervention stance and bellicose attitude towards North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un is often ridiculed.

Trump’s pro-interventionist stance, however, should not be ridiculed when American strength is sorely needed [1]. A pro-intervention stance may actually be the best way to dismantle North Korea’s brutal regime

North Korea is a threat to world peace, not because it has nuclear weapons, but because it is a highly unpredictable rogue state with nuclear weapons that believes having nuclear capability is the only way to perpetuate the current regime’s survival [2]. While Kim Jong-un is admittedly rational, his entire rationality is based on using his nuclear weapons in order to bargain for his regime’s survival.

The Kim regime’s survival, however, is inherently detrimental to peace in the Korean Peninsula and the world. This regime is one that plays brinksmanship with South Korea and the US in order to force its only major ally, China, into taking a softer and more favorable stance on the Kim regime [3].

By using nuclear weapons and the threat of war as bargaining chips, the North Korean regime constantly heightens tensions on the peninsula, and between two superpowers, the US and China. The firing of artillery into South Korea—which could easily cause escalation into a full-blown conflict [4]. Having North Korea play with fire is an unacceptable risk. With tensions already high in the peninsula and between the world’s superpowers across the globe, having a powder-keg regime is undesirable, not to mention that this regime undisputably creates horrible living conditions for its own citizens. Causing internal regime change through intervention would not only diffuse situations between major world powers but also improve living standards for the North Korean people—any regime would be better than the current one.

While President Trump may call for “fire and fury,” and de facto declares war on Twitter, realistic military options are more limited [5]. While “fire and fury” would almost definitely bring about intervention on behalf of the Kim regime from China and possibly Russia, a limited, surgical strike that is just enough to take out North Korea’s offensive military capability, nuclear arsenal, and its regime is the best option. Such a military option also has minimal risks.

While many believe that any military strike into North Korea would put Seoul at risk of being “flattened” by North Korean artillery, and put Japan at risk of nuclear attack, those two risks—which seem to be the main concerns—are largely myths [6][7]. On the issue of Seoul being flattened by North Korea’s “large” arsenal, actual figures of North Korea’s artillery capabilities prove that Seoul is actually under minimal threat, especially if the United States launches a preemptive strike at North Korea’s artillery placements around the demilitarized zone. While North Korea does have 13,000 artillery pieces placed near Seoul, artillery is relatively non-lethal, as it could not produce the densities of fire capable of creating mass destruction beyond terror and harassment, especially with North Korea’s inaccurate and aging artillery designs [8]. Besides this limitation, only 700 of North Korea’s guns have the range to strike Seoul, and those weapons are limited to a maximum calibre of 170mm—light compared to naval artillery designs of over 400mm that caused so much destruction during the Korean War and the preceding world war [9]. A preemptive strike could take out most, if not all, of North Korea’s 700 artillery pieces capable of hitting Seoul, therefore minimizing this risk.

Taking a stance on foreign policy inherently requires identifying the policy to take a stance on. But this notion proves difficult - impossible even - when considering Trump’s interaction with North Korea. In fact, we have little concrete ‘policy’ to go off of. Instead, in an all too fittingly ‘Trump’ fashion, we must rely on disturbing tweets and haphazard conversations with reporters to any form kind of coherent understanding of Trump’s foreign policy regarding North Korea.

Just last week President Trump published a series of revealing tweets writing, “I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man...Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done [14]!”

Soon after posting, “Rocket Man” went viral, perfectly embodying the phenomenon that is the Trump presidency: Attention. What are we to make of this? How does the President of the United States think it remotely acceptable to demean a dangerous dictator on a public social-media platform? How, too, does the President justify publicly undermining his Secretary of State’s legitimacy and authority?

Dissecting Trump’s tweet for concrete policy regarding North Korea may sound absurd, but is the only viable option we have been given. Pushing aside its medium, the tweet re-directs our attention towards the possibility of nuclear action. President Trump clearly dismisses ‘negotiation’ or diplomatic relations with North Korea, and instead endorses ‘doing what has to be done.’ For the Trump Administration, this is looking more and more like waging nuclear war.

The consequences of this action would be utterly catastrophic. In an interview with Newsweek, Representative Ted Lieu (D-Calif) and outspoken Trump critic said "That is an unbelievably bloody scenario...North Korea is an absolute danger and threat, and we need to take its ability to kill a lot of people seriously [15].” Issuing tweets as the only means of foreign policy strategy completely disregards the calamity that is a nuclear crisis.  

Often times, it can be tempting to equate reactionary policy with justified policy. That is, to consider policy enacted immediately as warranted because of the current circumstance at hand. When regarded in retrospect, however, reactionary policy is often deemed far too extreme and in need of much revision in order to endure.

Writer William Gu, makes precisely this mistake in his piece praising Trumps military stance on North Korea. He seems to argue that because there is no other viable option, waging nuclear war is the ‘lesser evil’ of policy routes. To clarify: nuclear war and foreign policy plans strike at two fundamentally different executive actions. Drafting concrete policy that provides for both defense and potential attack plans sits drastically apart from engaging in nuclear war and confronting its catastrophic consequences.

Gu doesn’t seem to distinguish between the two. If we equate Trump's foreign policy on North Korea to waging nuclear war, then we have utterly lost sight of the primary value and purpose of foreign policy in the first place. Justified foreign policy requires an in depth understanding of the current situation, a nuanced evaluation of the consequences of action, and numerous consultations with policy advisors and experts. The Trump administration has engaged with none of these three components regarding North Korea. Thus, it becomes obvious that Trump has proposed no ‘real’ foreign policy but instead used the looming threat of nuclear war as a facade for such.

Gu also fails to acknowledge the irony that the very President who sells himself as ‘the world’s greatest dealmaker’ has entirely dismissed any sort of negotiation or diplomatic relation with North Korea or, even, the surrounding peninsula [17]. In other words, we are confronted with a deal-maker incapable of making deals. Perhaps if more emphasis were to be placed on active, diplomatic discussion with North Korea, ‘waging nuclear war’ wouldn’t appear to be the ‘lesser-evil’ of foreign policy options.

If President Trump were judged by his tweets, people would think America is in the midst of a civil war. However, what matters more are his actions. And his actions have been, quoting Trump, “tremendous”; even Hillary Clinton seemed to endorse his actual policies on North Korea, although she did blast Trump’s aggressive tweets [17].

Ms. Trigo argues that Trump’s aggressive stance on North Korea is a bad decision and that Trump “can’t seem to grasp the severity of the current situation”; however, history shows that of all the recent presidents, Trump has come the closest to ending the Korean crisis with an interventionist stance that echoes the late President Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” strategy.