More than a nuisance
Published: Thursday, April 12, 2012
Updated: Thursday, April 12, 2012 13:04
Let's play a little game of word association: When I say weapons of mass destruction, what is your response? Is it Iran? Is it terrorists? Is it the war in Iraq?
This Bush-era rhetoric has been forever engrained in our minds as the catalyst for crusade, and whether far left, far right or somewhere in between, weapons of mass destruction are something to be feared.
If our invasion into the Middle East would have resulted in the discovery and disarming of weapons of mass destruction, there would be few who would have objected to the war's purpose.
Missiles are something to be feared regardless of political affiliation because all it takes is one misstep, one hasty assumption, one tantrum or one spontaneous release of ambition to destroy unsuspecting people -- military or civilian.
While the days of legitimate Middle East weapons of mass destruction concerns may be waning, in another corner of the planet they are robust and undeniably unsettling.
Hardly a week goes by during which North Korea isn't fueling a rocket, launching a rocket or building a rocket. Though the country claims the rockets are for satellite installation purposes, the rest of the world suspects -- rightfully so -- otherwise.
Just yesterday, North Korea fueled another rocket, a move that concerned the neighboring South Korea and Japan. North Korea has experimented with nuclear development in recent years, so the fear felt by neighbors is legitimate.
Yet, for some reason, despite the tangible nature of North Korea's misdeeds, the country remains sovereign and untouched.
North Korea is a country run by a dictatorship that oppresses its citizens while outwardly threatening the world. They've proven that they have simultaneously the technology to create truly frightening weaponry and the obstinateness to reject global goodness.
Halting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and overthrowing an unjust, threatening and oppressive dictatorship were good enough reason for us to invade the Middle East in the early 2000s, and that was based solely on suspicion.
With North Korea, we have the same grounds as with the Middle East, but the only difference is that these grounds are proven.
Yes, southeast Asia is an area in which our military forces are comfortably low in numbers, but it's an area in which innocent people can be protected from an overzealous and boisterous dictator.
Is a 10-year occupation without clear purpose the best course of action? Probably not. Is allowing another 10 years of unchecked tyranny to exist the best course of action? Absolutely not.
Matt is a senior majoring in English education.