1. Kim has told us he will annihilate us
So what. He can't.
2. Kim has developed nukes to do so.
The only nation with enough nukes to annihilate the US is Russia. (perhaps China) And then only if the missile defence systems of the US fail completely. Every nation, and especially NK knows that the US retaliation would be sufficient to end their nations. Mao was crazy enough to think millions of Chinese would survive and that they would then prevail. Now he WAS crazy.ANd yet he never used nukes.
3. Kim has successfully tested the delivery mechanisms for said nukes.
4. Kim has developed an H Bomb.
5. Kim has violated an ally's air space not once but twice.
6. Kim continues to threaten the US and our allies with nukes.
So what.? See 2.
How many more knowns do we need here? I don't need 100% Ricky. I have enough to go on. He's got to go before it's too late.
You have no clue what you don't know. Or do, but won't admit it because your arguement falls apart then...
Do you know with any degree of certainty that NK would be unable to retaliate or motivated to not retaliate to a first strike?
You've already complained that there has been poor intelligence about NK. What on earth makes you think that if they didn't know what was being developed that they then know where everything is and how to eradicate all assets? (Please answer this as it is essential to risk assessment.Freeman. )
If you actually think NK would risk retaliation after a first strike of their own, how could you possibly imagine they wouldn't retaliate to a US first strike. If they are crazy enough to strike first,(A) they couldn't possibly be sane enough, or vengeful enough, not to retaliate.(B)
If you are right about A you have
to then be wrong about B.
You can't guarantee that China wouldn't be involved in the case of A... they've said they would. In which case B becomes a global nuclear war where the US actually is going to be heavily damaged at the very least. And the Korean Pennisula uninhabitable for hundreds of years...
How many more knowns do we need here?
We actually have enough knowns,
that the risk of nuclear war is greater if the US strikes first than if the US is patient...
We have enough knowns to know with virtual certainty that a US first strike would result in a Korean peninsula utterly destroyed
We have enough knowns to know that assured destruction has been an effective deterrent to first use of nuclear weapons for decades... And that is enough evidence to offer to support the course of action proposed. Yes, there is a little doubt. But your option has a certain result.
You and Freeman are making assumptions that directly contradict . NK can't be crazy enough to use first strike, but sane enough NOT to retaliate.
Intelligence can't be poor on tracking NK weapons development, but good enough to ensure 100% success for a US first strike.
China can't be crazy enough to support NK weapons development but sane enough not to get involved in defending NK after a US first strike.
What I know is 100% certain. No nation has used nuclear weapons since their enemies had the ability to strike back at them with nuclear weapons... And there is no evidence other than NK posturing, that they would take the risk - knowing full well what the result would be,,,
Why are you giving in to bluster ? NK bluster and posturing should not be sufficient to end US, SK and Japanese resolve.