Would you agree on a pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

[Lucas-Rio]

Wyrdness said:

Soundwave said:

There is no deal really to be made actually. North Korea has the world community by the balls here. 

There is no realistic military option here. This is at Bush's feet IMO. 

This is also why Obama was extremely smart in negotiating with Iran and getting them to come back from the brink BEFORE getting fucking weapons, and all those idiots who were screaming "don't negotiate! what a bad leader" ... well enjoy your North Korea problem now.

NK has nukes already, all we can do is try to incentivize them now to stop using them and threatening with them, but you can't exactly do a lot once the regime already gets them. 

Exactly this, NK may not win any wars against the world but they can win some battles with very severe rataliations if they're attacked and inflict substantial damage, it only takes one nuke to do so. US has always had the advantage of their countries geographical position so few enemies could strike at them now essentially the whole west coast of the US and large parts of Asia are potentially in range of H-bombs if anyone tries anything.

Lucas Rio also touched upon this some what with the Libya part of his post, NK have seen all these countries go down so rather than follow them they've armed themselves to the teeth.

I'd liked to ask those saying yes if you're in the US are you prepared to accept the liklihood of nukes hitting your country as a result.

And this actually may be the best outcome to prevent a war.

A war never broke out between the US and the Soviet because of nuclear weapons. North Korea already had Seoul has the main insurance policy but now this is on another scale. Nucleat weapons armed countries don't get attacked.