[Mavdog]

Your failure to understand the difference between regional conflicts involving non-nuclear countries and the situation in korea is baffling, but humorous.

You term the ability of Korea to deliver a nuclear strike as “debatable”, that their capability to send those missles if hit with a pre-emptive attack “not proved”, with a proposal to attack North Korea which “would produce a much smaller percentage chance of a North Korean missle strike.” How inane. I’d like for you to be living in Tokyo or Seoul while this attack takes place and see if you like to “debate” the “not proved” nuclear devastation should the “smaller percentage” come to be real and those North Korean missles hit and explode. Yes, that would be the consequence, a destroyed Korea, and the world’s third largest economic power blown apart. It's like Dirty Harry when he had fired off his bullets, "5 or 6?" was the question as he asked the punk “Do you feel lucky?” Great movie, not so great real life (and death) scenario.

Your statement that ” I am talking about the possibility of saving millions of lives.” Is absurd, you’re talking about jeopardizing MILLIONS of lives. The ONLY way to resolve the situation is to negotiate for the removal of the weapons, and to reach an agreement with verifiable removal of the weapons which is a solution without putting millions of people's lives in harms way. That’s the way to ensure no nukes go off, not armed conflict which only INCREASES the odds that the nukes WILL go off.

You ask:

You wrote and I quote: "but in the Korean situation armed conflict is the complete wrong course." Now since that predisposes what will occur in the future if we take military action.

It actually is a statement in the present tense. I don’t have your crystal ball.

Do you have a crystal ball that you can tell with absolute certainty that this will be worse than no action.

I can say with absolute certainty that an armed attack today against North Korea is “worse” than not attacking.

Can you promise that there is zero chance that N Korean won't launch a nuclear strike before the end of the year if the US doesn't take military action?

I can say with certainty that there is a 100% probability that North Korea will launch whatever missles they have if the US takes military action.

Can you promise with 100% certainty that the US couldn't destroy N Korea's ability to launch nuclear strikes with a premptive military strike before any could be launched? If not your are spilling nothing but conjecture and assumption.

You’re upside down in your question, a negative can’t be proven. The question is if there is 100% certainty that the US COULD destroy North Koreas ability to launch, which there isn't.

Funny about that “implied” agreement on non-aggression you insist exists….guess what primary issue the North Korean's seek in an agreement with the US? Yep, it’s a non-agression statement. Odd that they would make such a big deal over it, maybe they just need to talk to you so you could explain to the Koreans that they already have one….