Letter: Unpalatable action against North Korea
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Lionel Bloch
Sir: Elizabeth Young's strictures (letter, 10 June) about the iniquities of the proposed United Nations sanctions against North Korea are misconceived. It is most unlikely that the UN will endorse an effective boycott and unilateral US action - should it ever come to it - will be merely a toothless, feel-good Clintonian posture.
The real problem facing the entire world is how to do away with nuclear weapons acquired or developed by rogue dictators. Humanitarian pleas, UN resolutions, even visits by Jimmy Carter, are all a waste of time. The futility of UN sanctions against Iraq has demonstrated beyond doubt that despots such as Saddam Hussein will not be moved by the deprivations inflicted on their subjects.
The real choice is therefore much starker: either the Western powers (we cannot count on Russia and China) allow Kim-Il-Sung to go ahead with his nuclear arming unhindered, or they crush his arsenal by military force. If his atomic installations were taken out by conventional missiles, coupled with a clear threat that any retaliation would be met by an overwhelming nuclear response, the preventive strike would not lead to an escalation.
Dare we risk such an unpalatable action? The answer must be in the affirmative if we dare to consider the alternatives of doing nothing.
Yours faithfully,
LIONEL BLOCH
London, W1
10 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments