Is a pre-emptive strike on North Korea justified?

is it sad i thought of chain reaction as in the Fission chain reaction from their nuclear bomb?

anyway, i think that all the major countries of the world, china, russia, japan, usa, canada, australia and the EU, should warn that if want to start an arms race, then face the consequences

If only they had McDonald's and air conditioning, traits of the cultured white man

I'm not sure i'd like to see South Korea as a major world power.

One of my best friends lives in Seoul and I know that the government is highly authoriatrian, civil rights are well below average and the culture is naturally xenophobic and often openly racsist (especially towards Chinese people as more than a few South Koreans I met compared then very negatively to Jews...). Throw in some fanatical and highly intolerant Christian beliefs and South Korea isn't what i'd call a liberal democracy by any stretch of the imagination. It's certainly not a country i'd like to see with any real global power.

Of course North Korea's human and civil rights abuses are worse but in all honesty I think a reunified Korea would be even more dangerous to world stability. Both sides are used to decades of militarism and have been exposed to decades state propaganda that has resulted in a highly intolerant, ignorant, xenophobic and racist society with questionable human rights and authoritarian governments...

I don't think this would change with reunification.

I also don't think the NK leadership, although a little crazy, would be crazy enough to start firing nukes at Japan, America or South Korea. They know they would be obliterated if they did that. I don't think they are suicidal.

It's obvious they are just flexing there political muscles. Who cares if they have nukes? A lot of unstable or aggressive countries have nukes. China have been commiting genocide in Tibet for half a century and the death toll is into the millions, they violently surpress protests on a daily basis across the country, their civil rights are attrocious yet no one is talking about invading China because they are a genocidal regieme who have nukes.

Best thing to do is totally ignore them. I bet they are loving the reaction.

That's a pretty ignorant comment.

They needed further stable economic development, really. Western nations gave them political institutions and legal systems, but they could have developed alot better if they weren't so tribal when we had left. Many sub-saharan territories weren't socially or culturally equipped to be stable nations. Contrast that with South American and Asian countries... big difference in adaptation to independence.

Honestly, I don't think North Korea is out to attack anybody. It just wants the weapons as defence and so it has a bigger voice, in my opinion.

my favourite part was the bit where we murdered tens of millions and created deep divisions in their society that last to this day

It isn't as simple as that. Yes, there were those who suffered at the hands of western colonialism, but we also gave them institutions, technology, and so on. It isn't as black and white as many anti-colonialists see it. We civilised alot of African countries, until our empire faced economic collapse and started an irreversible path of decolonisation at the end of WWII.

They don't seem to be intent on attacking anyone, rather shore up domestic legitimacy- that the government can still project power.

GOTTA BREAK A FEW EGGS TO MAKE AN OMELETTE, EH?

you apologist ****

This would be removing an antagonistic state which sponsors terrorism and builds nuclear weapons.

It could send a message, either good or bad, out to Iran, true... and China and Russia would have to factor that in to their decisions.

The alternative to not attacking North Korea could either be letting it develop ICBMs, seeing it fall apart internally and then maybe getting violent, or letting it attack South Korea and cause major damage. It would also send the opposite message to Iran, that the world won't do anything if it develops nukes.

We should take a stand now.

You're the apologist, I'm the one defending the empire.

Apologism... for the Empire? The bloodiest regime in history?

Apologism... for the Empire? The bloodiest regime in history?

The British Empire wasn't the bloodiest regime in history. It wasn't some tyrannical regime which ordered the systematic slaughter of Africans.

Time for you to read some books then!