| AbbathTheGrim said: 1) Are you ok with the US and Co. doing a pre-emptive strike against North Korea in an effort to stop this constant threat? If you say no, why? |
No, because there is no threat: Whatever some morons might be telling, North Korea will not attack/strike first.
As dozens of experts have pointed out, about the only reason countries like Iran, North Korea etc. are interested in atomic or hydrogen bombs is because these weapons have historically turned out to be the best deterrent against being attacked by the US: The US has so far never attacked a country that has the atomic bomb, because of the danger of retaliatory strikes.
| AbbathTheGrim said: 2) If you think that a preemptive attack against NK should be avoided at all costs, what would be your position in a possible scenario where the procrastination of an intervention there results in North Korea striking first? |
What would be your position in a possible scenario where not killing each and every newborn baby resulted in a Zombie newborn uprising, killing each and every grown-up?
It's just not going to happen. Countries like NK might indeed use these weapons, but only for retaliatory strikes, not for first strikes. I know many people believe the NK leadership to be completely crazy and irrational, but they aren't as crazy and irrational as to attack/first strike a country like the US; they are very well aware that they'd be wiped off the map in an instant.
If one is afraid of his country being struck by a NK atomic/hydrogen bomb, the easiest way to avoid this is by stopping the US government from attacking NK: No attack, no retaliatory strike. The people who put US citizens in danger of being killed by NK bombs and causing WW3 are the people supporting preemptive strikes against NK.
