slowguy wrote:
jkca1 wrote:
slowguy wrote:
Quote:
Do we wait around until NK launches missiles, having already been given notice that "North Korea said it was reviewing plans to strike U.S. military targets in Guam with medium-range ballistic missiles to create “enveloping fire,” That is an act of war.Let's not get carried away. Announcing that you've got plans, is NOT an act of war.
Why isn't it? If I say I have plans to murder you that's enough to put me in jail. Or do we give NK the benefit of the doubt because they are so stable and reasonable? I am not willing to become a victim. I don't believe NK will stop its acts of aggression because they are ruled by a mad man who has nobody to tell him to stop. My question for those willing to wait is how long? How many have to die before enough is enough?
International Law and definitions applicable to war are not the same as domestic law regarding threats or intimidation. And, in general, if I told you I had plans to kill you, I doubt very much that I'd end up in jail. People make those kinds of threats all the time.
That said, an act of war is just that, an act. Nasty statements are not acts of war. An act of war is an action taken by one nation against another during armed conflict or war, or with the intent to provoke armed conflict or war. If N.Korea launches a missile at Guam, with the intent of provoking war with the US, that would be an act of war. If they test a missile, with the declared intent for it to land short of Guam and to display their capabilities, that's probably not an actual act of war. If they simply state, in a press release, that they're reviewing war plans, that's not an act of war.
That's all separate from whether we should or could act.
I think that waiting for your opponent to nuke you first is bad politics. I'm with the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure lobby. Unless China brings down the hammer this is not going to end happily for anyone.
"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."