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

[Aeolus451]

Soundwave said:

Aeolus451 said:
No. NK likes to bluff alot. It's gotten to the point, you can't take any of the bluffs seriously. It's like the short guy running his mouth to make up for his size. So preemptively attacking NK on the basis that they are being serious with their threats wouldn't hold any water these days regardless of what party chooses to it. I'm all for protecting ourselves but they'll have to strike first to give the US/Japan an ironclad justification for war. Plus, China and Russia will more likely side with the US/Japan in that scenario. Preemptively attacking NK might start a war with China and Russia because the justification would be really flimsy.

Yeah but in this case, the short guy has a loaded gun. 

He threatened people so much with it that everyone knows he's not going to use it. Attacking NK on the pretense that he's gonna use it so we have to attack him first is laughable. If WW3 starts and billions of people die because we attacked a country because it's leader who has a long history of bluffing, that's far worse than the second Iraq war. If we're gonna potentially kill millions, I'd rather be in the right or have legit excuse for it.