"While the likelihood of North Korea launching a nuclear attack remains remote"

What's the basis for that assessment? Many think the likelihood is very high and inevitable.

They are completely unstable, they attacked the south for shelling a stretch of water .. it was gunfire practice. They sank a SK patrol craft recently, and for some reason there has been no response.

Is it any wonder they feel emboldened to further attacks.

If you tolerate NK and their aggressive stance, then this is what happens. This is the idiot Obama, "let's talk about it" school of foreign policy, what a bumbling klutz.

We should apply the precautionary principle, as many want to apply it elsewhere (AGW for instance) and reduce their nuclear and military capacity, to zero.

The US could do it in a couple of days.

yes, there will be some fallout and deaths, but isn't that better than millions or tens of millions of deaths?

Take out the leadership and military leaders now.

You're not with the CIA by any chance, Amicus?

>>We should apply the precautionary principle, as many want to apply it elsewhere (AGW for instance) and reduce their nuclear and military capacity, to zero. The US could do it in a couple of days. yes, there will be some fallout and deaths, but isn't that better than millions or tens of millions of deaths? Take out the leadership and military leaders now.<<

I am sure that you would be one of the first to volunteer to invade North Korea, would you not? Or perhaps you would prefer just to press a button, or guide in a few missiles, safe in a bunker somewhere in New Mexico?

>>"While the likelihood of North Korea launching a nuclear attack remains remote"
What's the basis for that assessment? Many think the likelihood is very high and inevitable.<<

Oddly enough, Amicus, the probability that Koreans would deliberately obliterate their kinsmen is surprisingly low. On my last visit to Seoul I listened to the stories of a number of folk whose relatives are still living and working in the North. Every so often, when there is a temporary thaw in the negotiations, they get the opportunity to meet.

http://northkoreawatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/south-koreans-reunited-with-northern.html

The leadership of the country may be unstable, but a requirement to kill relatives may be tough to implement. Having worked in Germany for a number of years before reunion, and from my visits to Taipei in more recent times, I can assure you that blood ties remain a significant factor in these situations, and are quite powerful politically.

But I am sure that you are far more comfortable treating these people as numbers, and that you envisage "some fallout and deaths" as being entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

Just out of interest, how do the problems of North and South Korea affect you, personally?

pericles, calm down .. it's just an opinion, other people may have differing opinions to yourself. I travel a lot, an awful lot, to many places, and hear differing opinions. Clearly we travel in different levels.

as to your other questions .. none of your business

Amicus reminds me of those urging a pre-emptive strike on Iran "before it's too late."

Too late for what? Better to talk now than suffer later.
Better to hope that the weird leadership of the north is still receptive to reason before demanding it be receptive to force,
even "friendly fire."

Pre-emptive strikes, like torture, sounds good on paper, but not at all good in practice due to the iron law of unintended consequences.

As St John Chrysostom put it many centuries ago:
"Violence is not overcome by violence, but by forebearance."

Absolutely right, Amicus.

>>pericles, calm down .. It's just an opinion, other people may have differing opinions to yourself.<<

I am rather pleased - delighted, in fact - that your and my opinions on this situation are about as far apart as they can be. I would hate it if it were otherwise.

>>as to your other questions .. none of your business<<

What, not even an opinion, on whether you would volunteer to fight in the conflict that you seem so eager to encourage? Or an opinion, perhaps, on whether you would prefer to sit it out in safety while others were killed in order to satisfy your sense of... what, exactly? Justice? Revenge? Bloodlust?

Which prompts the question, what exactly is your motivation on this?

Or just an opinion will do.

Rather than comparing your own opinions on this you should spend some time reading these interesting insights from someone that seems to know what they are talking about...

Viewing cable 09SEOUL672, MND: DPRK MILITARY RHETORIC AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

"the DPRK leadership's "top priority" need to stabilize the
DPRK internally in preparation for succession, according to
XXXXXXXXXXXX A second priority was to achieve improved
Relations with the United States, which the DPRK regards as its only
potential security guarantor, ironically."

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09SEOUL672.html

stezza wikileaks is an arm of AIPAC.Never believe who fired the first shot,since truth is always the first casuality of war.

The USA is 14 times more powerful militarily,than its nearest rival.So why is North Korea a threat? When the USSR collapsed,the neo-con facists in the West salivated about total world domination.This has always been the dream.Zbigniew Brezezinski some years before 911. "What we need is a truel massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Enter the myth of terrorism and the loss of liberties in the West.