In American foreign policy, it's not difficult to make mistakes — especially when it comes to military intervention. Many Americans agree our involvement in World War II was the right thing to do, and not intervening in Darfur and/or Rwanda was the wrong thing to do. America is about to make another huge mistake — not intervening in North Korea. While invasion is a bitter pill to swallow, it is the only action consistent with both American moral ideals and our future national security. I will outline some reasons we should invade North Korea and answer some potential criticisms for doing so. The extreme secrecy of the North Korean dictatorship makes gathering information difficult, but a combination of defectors and documentarians has revealed a lot about the conditions north of the 38th parallel. The best reason to invade North Korea is to ease the extreme hardship and suffering the North Korean people have endured for decades. The North Koreans' isolationist, command economy has not been and will not be capable of feeding the population. Famine is a persistent problem — evidence suggests death by starvation is a reality in rural areas. Political dissent is punished the same way the Nazis did, by placing the offender and his or her entire family into concentration work camps. Some of these camps hold 30,000 people, and some escapees lived their entire lives there. According to a July 20, 2009, Washington Post article, some 200,000 prisoners are estimated to be in these camps, and some escapees had lived their entire lives there. In a July 25, 2009, article by the Digital Journal, Im Chun-yong, a high-level military defector, reports the North Korean military tests chemical and biological weapons on mentally retarded children and adults from the concentration camps. This kind of human experimentation is widespread. The threat North Korea poses to the international community cannot be ignored. Consider some facts: North Korea has the biggest stock of chemical and biological weapons in the world, according to www.armscontrol.org; Kim Jong-Il is aging and he promised his population significant economic growth by 2012; and his chosen successor is his youngest son, who is 21, and the rest of the regime is not too happy with that choice. In other words, the risk of a power struggle is incredibly high, and the consequences would be disastrous. Combine that 5,000 ton weapons stockpile, according to the International Crisis Group, with North Korea's more than adequate supply of long-range artillery and ballistic missiles. Consider that Seoul, South Korea's capital of 12 million people, is a mere 10 kilometers from the border. Opponents of invasion might argue North Korea is not a threat because they know starting a military conflict would be suicide. While that's likely true, it does not mean that is the calculation North Korea's political and military planners are making. North Korea's military and population are well-prepared to operate in a chemically and biologically hostile environment, meaning they might make the gamble that they can occupy South Korea. Also, in the instance of a power vacuum, a desperate leader might start a conflict inadvertently, or in a scheme against political opponents or simply as an act of if-I-can't-have-it-no-one-can. Critics might argue we are overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan now, but this is inaccurate. We have 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, according to a May 9, 2010, article in The Korea Times. We also have both conventional and nuclear B-2s and B-52s bombers staged off Guam. Some might fear the risk of a proxy war with China, but in my opinion, this is more likely to occur if North Korea starts the conflict. China has an interest in stabilizing North Korea because a power struggle might mean hundreds of thousands of North Korean refugees. Plus, interest in us as a trading partner would deter direct conflict. While it seems far-fetched, a calm look at the facts reveals invading North Korea, likely through bilateral operations with South Korea, or possibly a U.N.-coordinated attack, is better than the alternative. The North Korean regime is dangerous, but the risk of political instability could be even more catastrophic. Beth Mendenhall is a senior in political science and philosophy. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.