Your editorial about Kim Jong Un's threat to initiate nuclear war mentions that there are reasons why he is doing so -- one of which is to break free of the economic sanctions imposed on North Korea ["Don't reward Kim Jong Un," April 12]. If this is an accurate assessment, wouldn't it make more sense for the United States to deal diplomatically with the trade restrictions imposed on North Korea, in return for a pledge of peace, rather than counter his threats of warfare with retaliatory action?
While it may be true that North Korea unilaterally cancels agreements, we must try diplomatic measures over and over again, and not resort to warfare, which has become our characteristic way of dealing with hostile international governments.
War or peace? The answer rests in our hands, not his.
Robert Shorin, Syosset
I found Newsday's editorial confusing. While the writer rightly describes Kim Jong Un as dangerous, and says the United States should not reward that trait and should be prepared to blast his missiles out of the sky, the rest of the piece is contradictory.
Speaking of the need for North Korea to redirect its focus from weaponry to economic development, the editorial says, "We should help only if he agrees to stop making nukes and selling nuclear materials, especially to Iran."
I thought the point was that we should not fall for false promises from North Korea again.
Anne Corson, South Huntington