Yeah...it's an optimistic stance. But I definatly don't trust us to not nuke someone...first off, we've done it like you said. Second, our recent history (as well as many of the opinions in this thread) suggest that preemptive strike is our mode of operation.

 

IMO, the atomic bombs of WWII were pretty justified, all things considered. Less Japanese were casualties from the bombs than from the firebombing we had been doing, and from the invasion that would otherwise have been needed to win that war. But, that's not a scenario that would occur in today's conventional combat. We could never justify to the world using a nuclear weapon agaisnt someone without being threatened with destruction, and no country is really capable of that (except with nukes of course).

As for our recent history of first strikes... that's kind of my point. We haven't initiated hostilities with North Korea because they can't really threaten us... but they're trying to develop the capability to do so. The only reason North Korea should fear attack from us is if they make us afraid of attack by them. Status Quo Ante is working out fine- why do they want to upset that?

 

He's wrong and has no clue what he is talking about. What Clinton "gave" them was light water reactors, which really didn't happen anyways. Oaf should do some research on what light water reactors are before he starts talking.

 

The average north korean is four inches shorter than south koreans supposedly due to malnutrition.

Smaller target=harder to shoot.