Nor would Pyongyang have to roll the tanks in response. The North might announce an hour-long bombardment of Seoul in retaliation for America’s attacks. But, the Kim regime might explain, it would then be finished so long as the United States did not renew its “criminal aggression.” South Koreans, suffering thousands or tens of thousands of casualties and economic devastation, might well take the DPRK’s side.

One could imagine an argument that all these risks still were worth the end of the North Korean regime. But Mazza would roll the dice merely to degrade Pyongyang’s military capabilities. A modest good, to be sure, but one worth setting Seoul aflame?

Unsatisfactory though it might be, keeping peace on the peninsula should be everyone’s, and especially the South’s, overriding objective. Military action of any sort would be extremely dangerous, since even a “victory” could and—given the unstable dynamics on the peninsula today—likely would result in widespread death and destruction. Pyongyang obviously hides behind this threat, but it remains a powerful deterrent.

This doesn’t lead to a South Korean policy of pacifism. Seoul could very well believe that the only way to maintain an effective deterrent of its own would be to retaliate in response to any new North Korean provocations. Indeed, if the ROK took over responsibility for its own defense, as it should, it might decide that it would be worth the risk to defang some of the DPRK’s military capabilities, since the North would be less likely to fear an ensuing attempt at regime change. However, if Seoul did so, it should bear the entire risk of war, and not expect the United States to intervene if the ROK judged wrong.

Some day the DPRK, or at least its current malignant regime, will pass away. The smartest strategy is to wait. Unfortunately, tolerating a government that so mistreats its own people and threatens regional peace is the best of a set of bad choices. Starting a war is the worst.

(Photo by Annalog)