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

[Soundwave]

Azuren said:

Soundwave said:

Is to show the world that NK will defend itself no matter what. 

They are actually proceeding in a fairly logical manner. They know full well what happens to "regimes" like Saddam Hussein who didn't have nuclear weapons. Those are the guys that end up dead. 

Kim has no intention of being one of them. Nuclear weapons assure NK that the regime will live on, and even more than that, they can use their belligerience as a bargaining chip now. "OK, we'll stop firing missles over Japan, but you have to stop treating us like a rogue state and we want economic kick backs".

It's actually fairly well played on their part. They've taken a pretty shitty poker hand and maneuvered themselves into a strong position by betting everything on nukes.  

To defend itself from a country that it has habitually antagonized and demonized, right?

In fairness to North Korea, it is the US that went to war in their country. It is the US that surrounds their border with military bases and runs military drills simulating the destruction of their regime. 

It's not so easy to bully a country when they have nuclear weapons, most likely the US is going to have to swallow their pride here and conceed certain things to North Korea.