How so? The agreement actually was beneficial to both sides. We delayed NK from building the extra nuclear bombs it could have already built by now, and NK got the badly needed oil which its people needed to survive. Sometimes a wounded animal can be the most dangerous. The pact was just a delaying tactic until NK was too weak to be bothered with.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Clinton/Carter could have forseen this; but I can't imagine Bush 41 or Bush 43 entering into the same agreement without a more intensive verifiability aspect. Also, had we taken more decisive (military, or the threat thereof) action, we would not be facing the problem we are today.
One nuke is sufficient to allow NK or anyone else to hold the world hostage.
On 9/11, everything changed. Thus, the so called "Bush Doctrine", that has the liberals in a panic, is warranted and necessary. Today, we know that we MUST take pre-emptive action when necessary to protect our interests and those of our allies.
Who will win, the US big time, who not only will have tamed NK, but have gotten China to not only acquiesce, but likely do most of the spanking of its wayward child.
This is a very high stakes crap game. We don't know WHAT NK may do.
I think the real point is that the Bush Doctrine looks much more "right" today than it did when the policy was first enunciated. We MUST use our military power to stop the spread of nuclear weapons when we can. |
