[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Michael Ferris

Bill, I’m not an ethicist, just a fuzzy-headed occasional poet, but I think I would answer your question this way:

It is defensible for a nation to shoot down a missile that has been fired at its people. It should take care to minimize all loss of life from such an action, so over the open ocean may not be the worst option. It is not defensible for a nation ‘preemptively’ to bomb or attack another nation that it suspects may launch a missile at it in the future. (Isn’t that the infelicitous "Bush Doctrine"?) And it’s hypocritical for a nation to attack another ‘preemptively’ when the preemptive aggressor already possesses one of the world’s largest arsenals of the weapon in question.

It’s an interesting exercise to compare the list of countries that the US has bombed or invaded since 1945 with the list of countries that North Korea has bombed or invaded since 1945. Then, it’s interesting to see how many of the countries that the US bombed or invaded had nuclear capability at the time we attacked them. You can draw your own conclusions from the exercise.

Michael, Would you rather live in the US or North Korea?

Would you rather have the Don as President or would you rather have the Supreme Leader of North Korea as your President?

Two simple questions. You can answer them directly, and honestly, or you can dance around them.

The only thing in your post that I wish to respond to, for now, is:

It is not defensible for a nation ‘preemptively’ to bomb or attack another nation that it suspects may launch a missile at it in the future.

No kidding?

Has the US bombed or "attacked" North Korea? Or has the US simply demonstrated that she has far more military power than NK and that it would be unwise for NK to launch a first strike upon the US? Did you listen to the UN speech?

Please stay on target. Pun intended.