Desperate times call for desperate columns. That was my initial reaction to the column we posted yesterday by my hero, Charles Krauthammer, on North Korea. For those who missed it, Krauthammer urged that we threaten China with a nuclear Japan if China does not help us squeeze North Korea into abandoning its nuclear project. But does Japan have any desire to acquire nuclear weapons? I’m not aware that they do. And would the threat of a nuclear Japan be enough to fundamentally alter Chinese policy? That’s not clear to me either.
Not that I have a better answer. One thing we shouldn’t do, though, is release vessels carrying North Korean missiles and nucelar technology bound for places like Yemen, when he are lucky enough to intercept them on the high seas. Here, David Rivkin and Lee Casey, my former law colleagues, argue on National Review Online that seizing such cargo is justified not only by geopolitical imperatives, but probably by international law as well. According to Rivkin and Casey, seizing the scuds would have been improper only if they were intended only for Yemen (with whom we are not at war) and not for Al Qaeda. Since it is far from clear that this was the case, Rivkin and Casey contend that we should have seized the cargo and then offered Yemen the opportunity to prove, in a U.S. court, that the scuds belonged to it, and it alone.
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.