On preventing war, from Socrates to North Korea
BY JAMES SCHALL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 04/24/17 12:20 PM EDT
Concerning shotguns, we can deal with them in two ways. We can take all the shotguns away from everybody. The only ones who have them are the ones who took them away. The question then becomes: Can we trust the ones who took them away? Or, we can teach everyone what a shotgun is, how, and in what circumstances to use it. The question then becomes one of personal virtue and care about accidents. We have noticed recently, in the case of Muslim attacks, that guns or bombs are really not necessary. Trucks, knives, and airplanes will do, as might poisoning the water supply. The question then is asked: Do weapons have that much to do with war?
War issues of various sorts currently occur in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, the Ukraine, and Iran. A dangerous spat flares between Turks and Kurds. Something is always amiss in South Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, and Somalia. I talked to a Stanford student who was in Rwanda. Memories of that country’s agonies cannot be avoided. Likewise, I read of the partition of Pakistan and India in 1947, that resulted in one of the greatest slaughters of modern times. Meanwhile, ISIS plans for world-wide jihad, while the Chinese navy seeks to control strategic sea routes. And not all is quiet on the western front. Nations there seek to protect their own identity.
Wars are not caused by weapons. Wars may be delayed or even deterred by weapons. The occasions that begin wars, as Aristotle said, are often trivial. The causes of wars are not trivial. A major cause of war is the utopian notion that we can rid ourselves of them without creating something worse. Pacifism does not prevent wars. It more often causes them by projecting weakness.
The North Korean government affirmed that, if nuclear war breaks out, the U.S. military, South Korea, and “surrounding areas” will be reduced “to ashes.” We presume Kim Jong Un, the country's leader, included North Korea in this calculation. He shrewdly understands that, if he gives up his nuclear weapons, he jeopardizes his whole regime. Nuclear weaponry is the one thing he has that makes him significant. Everyone knows that he can demolish the near-by capital of South Korea in a matter of minutes. He also knows that, should he do so, he would also get rid of the capital of North Korea in about the same amount of time. In the event, we would end up with a world without Koreans.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/330223-on-preventing-war-and-avoiding-utopian-notions
