When a preemptive strike is a better alternative than a negotiated agreement

Washington Post:
Almost half of GOP backs preemptive strike on North Korea, poll finds

Is it the Trump Effect? The president has repeatedly called Kim Jong Un “Rocket Man” and generally proved fond of the kind of saber-rattling we expect from the other side of this standoff.
Before the Six Day War between Israel and several Arab states, Israel's enemies threatened to utterly destroy Israel in much the same way North Korea's leaders have threatened the US.  They were not seeking a negotiated agreement.  Israel was already existing within the "67 borders."   Israel responded with a preemptive strike that wiped out much of the Egyptian air force and launched attacks elsewhere against those who threatened its destruction.

With North Korea, the US already knows that a negotiated agreement will not solve the problem of North Korean belligerence.  Any chance that it could have was killed by Obama's attack on Libya after it gave up its nukes.  But even before that we already know that North Korea's word was no good.  They have already reneged on the deal Bill Clinton gave them despite US delivery of extortion money to them.

I now see a preemptive strike as the most realistic hope of avoiding a nuclear attack that will destroy mostly Democrat controlled cities in this country.  The only other possible alternative would by Chinese military intervention in North Korea to topple the regime first.  That is not as far-fetched as some may think.  There is a reason why China has been testing its own missile defense system as tensions build in the region.  But, I certainly would not put all my chips on that outcome.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains