That we should strike before North Korea does

razham05

In the status quo, we all know and realize that North Korea is threatening the US with the missile, at this point. We all also realize, that striking in this case, means we’re going to revenge North Korea for all they have done to the int'l community, particularly to the United States of America, after the Korean War. Their existence, in this matter, could harm the whole world at the worst case scenario. That is, because their use and ownership of the WMD is not correct under the status quo.

Our stance that we would like to strike first before North Korea does, so that we will help the USA respond to all the nuclear threats going through them by working with the US to solve this problem.

Our mechanisms are:

1.  Allying with the United States of America, seeing that if this option is visible.

2.  We’re going to strike, but first of all, with the economic embargo to them–and if it is not effective at all, we’re going to have a military intervention.

First argument, why it is strategic for most of the rest of the world to strike North Korea?

First layer: Because North Korea was, is, and will do even more missile testing, which will harm the USA to begin w/. We already saw the numerous times Kim Jong Un stated that they have successfully tested several missiles, and even if it is not true (aka Jong Un is bluffing), it will still threaten the USA in security matters because of several reasons:

First reason, As we know, the missile contains one of the WMD, and we think that the presence of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is not enough–because in the status quo, it is not legally binding, proven by DPRK’s getting out of the treaty and became active in testing, and so on and so forth. We think, that the presence of the WMD is not justified, because the harm they will get is just the world’s destruction in the end of the day. Therefore, it is the utmost correct for the rest of the world to take action on the North Korean issue, as this will harm the world in general. Comparatively, in the other side of the house, letting North Korea strike first (and maybe, once and for all), will mean that North Korea is ready to destroy the world, and we won’t see that happen and even if, the Opp will claim that if we strike first as in aggressively striking, that will increase the possibility of World War III. Indeed, WWIII will happen in both sides of the house, but at least we reduce that risk.

Second reason, Even if DPRK went out from the NPT and doing everything they can to even physically destroy the United States of America, we think that what they are doing recently with the missiles will not only provoke the US to take more action, but the rest of the world too. In fact, there are less UN resolutions that address North Korean matter (but instead, Israel is the one that was put in the spotlight comparing to the North Korean), while we see that condemning is not enough. Therefore, the international law should be more legally binding regarding North Korea–or else, they will do whatever it takes to make matters worse, for example, going for another missile strike.

Second layer: Striking North Korea first will mean the world takes their preemptive measures before everything get destroyed–that is to say, the rest of US allies will have their option to prevent any worst-case scenario to happen. Even if, we could say that economic embargo could be the start of the strike, and even if it is proven ineffective in the end of the day–at least, the world has done something preventive to make sure that the WMD-related trade, or activities, could be reduced, specifically inside DPRK. In fact, when DPRK declared a war to the United States of America due to Trump’s tweet regarding DPRK.

Those are the...