Today, August 5th 2003, there are putatively responsible experienced and high-ranking professionals appearing on television and in recent print media advocating, strongly, what amounts to an all-out pre-emptive attack upon North Korea, as an "unavoidable" alternative to failing or frustrated multilateral diplomacy.
Question:
Unless the attack is so ferocious as to virtually destroy what is left of North Korean industrial power and ALL military defenses, and unless such an attack would regard unimaginable "collateral damage" as acceptable, then what possible military or moral justification for it could possibly exist!
|