Do you favor or oppose a pre-emptive military strike on North Korea

[wiggs]

21. It would probably be a preventative strike, not pre-emptive

Preventative strike means that some day an adversarial country could become an imminent threat and we better head it off now. Preventative strikes, like Iraq 2003, are generally illegal.

Pre-emptive means there's an imminent threat like massing at the border and moving missiles into place for a strike. IIRC it becomes an act of self-defense to carry out a pre-emptive attack and is generally legal. I haven't heard anyone say that an attack on the US from N Korea is imminent. South Korea might feel a threat is imminent I guess...

In either case with respect to N Korea, I don't see why any of the previous authorizations to use force would apply. There is time to go to congress, as intended, and ask for new authorization. And since it might be S Korea, not us, that is under threat I would think there's time to go to the UN or other allies and get consensus on action...so that we aren't sticking our neck out there alone. Any other pathway is worrisome, maybe illegal. I would hope that behind the scenes congressmen/women from both sides of the aisle are weighing in proactively on what their expectations are.