North Korea: The Ethics of a U.S. Military Strike

As part of a series on North Korea, I have made the strategic case for war to prevent Pyongyang’s development of a nuclear-tipped ICBM, interrogated the arguments through debate, and explained why a conflict is becoming inevitable. This piece provides a refutation of the moral arguments made against a U.S. military strike. A further article will outline what victory in another Korean war looks like and some principles for destroying North Korea’s armed forces.

One common argument made against a military strike on North Korea is that it would be a preventive ‘war of choice’ and therefore unethical.

To assess this, we must first determine if a disarming military strike on North Korea would be preventive in nature, and if so, whether this is morally disqualifying.

Anticipatory self-defense (pre-emption) is permissible when an attack is imminent. Preventive war is a where a military strike aims to neutralize a threat that is not immediate but could become so in the future.

North Korea’s circumstances today are markedly different to those of Iraq in 2003. North Korea has violated innumerate UNSC resolutions and openly progressed its nuclear weapons program despite universal condemnation. There is no ambiguity as to the regime’s nuclear ambition or the concrete advances being made towards its objective. 

Given that North Korea routinely threatens both the United States and its allies with nuclear attack, a strict interpretation of pre-emptive war is too restrictive. It is an unreasonable threshold for an ICBM to literally be on the launch pad for an anticipatory strike to be permissible. Some might argue that even this does not qualify, for without an accompanying declaration of hostile intent a missile launch could be a test and not an attack. According to a strict interpretation of pre-emptive strike, a launched ICBM might have to be in-flight and tracking towards the United States or an ally to trigger anticipatory self-defense provisions.  

Since North Korea is openly threatening international peace and security, the burden is on Pyongyang to prove that its nuclear weapons program poses no threat to America or its allies. North Korea has manifestly failed to do this, and therefore any attack on its nuclear program by the United States qualifies as anticipatory self-defense – regardless of whether the strike is to defend against an imminent threat or a future one.

Overruling allies

Another argument made is that conducting a military strike on North Korea without the permission of regional allies would be unethical, especially given the catastrophic impact another Korean war could have on nations like South Korea.

South Korea is a major stakeholder, one that rejects a U.S. military strike on North Korea. Hundreds of thousands of South Koreans could perish in a new Korean war, and the burden of incorporating a collapsed North Korea into a unified peninsula falls primarily on Seoul.

The question is whether these interests confer a moral veto against an American military strike.

The answer is no. All military alliances confer two risks on each party – abandonment, and entrapment. Abandonment means that, despite pledges, an ally fails to fulfill their obligations for support in the event of a military attack. Entrapment means being dragged into a conflict contrary to one’s interests owing to the actions or circumstances of an ally. These risks always exist together, although emphasis is usually on the one at a given time.

For decades it has been South Korea’s fear of abandonment that governed the alliance dynamic. This is why tens of thousands of U.S. troops were stationed along the DMZ despite no operational rationale underpinning their deployment. The purpose was to ensure that, should North Korea attack, U.S. soldiers would be among the first to die thereby acting as a ‘tripwire’ for America’s commitment to the fight. Meanwhile, America has consistently spent more on defense as a percentage of GDP compared to their frontline ally. In short, the costs of the alliance have been borne by the larger party – South Korea has reaped the benefits.

The United States has selflessly underwritten South Korea’s independence without North Korea posing a direct threat to its own territory. While North Korea was unable to threaten vital American interests, it was reasonable for South Korea to have a decisive injunction against preventive military action given it was the only one at risk. 

This situation is now changed. With North Korea developing the ability to strike the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, one consequence is that South Korea is now at risk of alliance entrapment. After having sought and received assurances for its own security over decades, South Korea cannot now assert a veto over how the United States chooses to defend its own territory and populace. Entrapment was always a risk in the ROK-America alliance; a risk historically borne by the United States and in fact realized in the first Korean War.

South Korea has a right to argue its position in Washington, and the Trump administration is obligated to give a proper hearing and mitigate risks to its ally wherever feasible. In the final analysis, however, there is no moral obligation on the part of a U.S. president to heed South Korea’s protests should the White House apprehend an unacceptable threat to the United States.

North Korea’s regime

The nature of the North Korean regime cannot be ignored. Taking preventive military options ‘off the table’ equals de facto acceptance of the state-orchestrated mass atrocities perpetrated by the regime against its own people, in perpetuity.

As with the Soviet Union, tolerance of a regime that can inflict unacceptable harm with nuclear weapons may be a reality. It is not unethical to prioritize national survival over combating foreign human rights abuses. Nevertheless, it is unethical to knowingly allow that end state to arise. Once North Korea possesses several hundred nuclear-tipped ICBMs it will be impossible for the U.S. to intervene without committing national suicide. This circumstance is not just limited to internal atrocities within North Korea but also constrains America from protecting allies against large-scale conventional attack.

The scale of North Korea’s human rights abuses was articulated by President Trump during his recent speech in Seoul. His remarks were drawn right out of the United Nations investigation into North Korea’s human rights abuses. This 2013 UN Report found that “systemic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

North Korean security forces are overseeing widespread discrimination, arbitrary detention, torture, execution and prison camps, abductions, and crimes against humanity. According to the UN Report these crimes include, but are not limited to:

extermination, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.

North Korea’s current leader is an exemplar of sadist depravity, including towards members of his own family. Kim Jong-un publicly purged then executed his uncle, before assassinating his half-brother with VX nerve agent at a busy international airport.

As a staunch foreign policy realist, I view humanitarian intervention success stories as sketchy at best and therefore advocate the narrowest possible interpretation of the so-called ‘Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine. Nevertheless, it is not possible to argue that preventive war against North Korea is immoral without at the same time accepting that the regime’s human rights abuses do not justify conflict either. It is unquestionably the case that if the peninsula were forcibly united under Seoul, these state-orchestrated atrocities would immediately cease.

On one level, war is always immoral. It involves industrialized murder perpetrated by an organized force against fellow human beings. Another Korean war would be horrendously violent, with American forces having to destroy a numerous and motivated enemy. However, the specific ethical arguments made against a military strike fail in critical respects. In sum, a U.S. military strike aimed at neutralizing the threat of a nuclear-tipped ICBM is ethically justified in addition to being strategically correct.

Crispin Rovere is a member of the Australian Labor Party and previous convenor of the ACT ALP International Affairs Policy Committee. Formerly he was a Ph.D. candidate at the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre (SDSC) and previously worked in Secretariat of the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, and published on nuclear policy. Crispin is the author of The Trump Phenomenon: How One Man Conquered America.