legion, my boy, I think rather than that description suffering from anything, that you've rather hit the thing square on. There IS a maturity issue at work here. Or more specifically, a lack of maturity at work.

The little gargoyle that's running that little hellhole is the proverbial yappy little dog.. always seeking to show himself to be larger than he is.

We do treat China and India differently because they're, for lack of a better term, more mature - they know the 'rules' and generally play by them, while NK is a complete wild card. My question was meant more to spark discussion about 'pre-emptive' strikes vs. 'preventative', as well as thinking about what rules we expect other nations to play by & whether or not we play by those same rules. We may be the only superpower in the world right now, but I think that's only because China learned a lot from watching the USSR's mistakes...

Dave points up the idea of the Just War Theory. Which makes me think a little...

Since the left is usually the one out there waving the white flag... for example, in Iraq, screaming about an 'unprovoked attack on Saddam, and an "unjust war".... this seems a foundational position change to me. And I wonder why they'd do that just now.

To be blunt, I'm not sure I buy into the Liberal definition of what defines a just war. That said, that definition seems to have changed somewhat since the argument was centering on Iraq. One must wonder why some among the left are now calling for us to get involved in another preemptive strike. Perhaps they're taking fear of another attack a little more seriously than a lot on as regards to the jihadists, for example?

Further, we invaded Iraq and far more complete Intel than what we have on what the North Koreans have up their sleeve. Certainly, what Intel we do have suggest that there's a rocket on a pad in North Korea. Just as certainly the technicians there have been at least going through the motions of fueling this thing up. But what if we're dealing with a ruse, here? Who, do you suppose, gets the blame for invading on false information? Do you suppose it would be the ones now urging the President to make a preemptive strike in North Korea? You and I both know that's not true. So why the change of attitude, then?

I think, as with all things involving the left, this bottom lines at Politics. When Democrats go so far offer their usual well worn paths, it's because they have something political in mind. I suspect that the only reason for this position is because it's something Bush has not directly said he would do. Any chance, after all, to oppose him... this being an election year, and all...

In my perception, North Korea seems far more liable to put fake equipment of the spark an international incident, that are the Muslim extremists we are now battling and winning against in Iraq. It's my judgment that the rocket were all so concerned about, will never see any flight time whatever , because it never had the capability.

I don't think you have quite thought through this all the way. What proof do we have that NK doesn't have a nuke on the warhead? What proof did we have that China or India didn't have a nuke on their missiles? Yet we are still treating them differently.

While it is true that de jure all countries are "equal", surely you can recognize that there is a de facto difference.

You pose an interesting question, but at its heart there is an assumed notion that all countries are equal.

Well, legally speaking, they are. We have long since recognized NK as a sovereign state. Corrupt, belligerent, and batsh*t crazy, but sovereign nonetheless.

To put it individual terms, Crazy 'ol Joe can lean out of his window and curse and scream at people all he wants. Maybe someone knows or finds out he's got a gun. Unless he's actively threatening people by waving it around or telling folks he's gonna shoot them (or in NK's case, saying they're gonna launch it at a country or actually putting a live warhead on it), you can't have the cops bust in his door, and you definitely can't shoot him first.

The obvious parallel to all this is when Israel took out those arab nuke facilities, but I frankly don't know much about the political details or saber-rattling that went on prior to that attack...

You pose an interesting question, but at its heart there is an assumed notion that all countries are equal. China and India have launched missiles that could have been a ruse for launching a nuclear strike on the US. They have the nuclear capability. We have not discouraged (and I suspect if asked we would encourage) their space programs.

Now why do you think that the US would be getting upset about NK fueling a missile prior to launch and not upset about China and India fueling a missile? The missiles launched by India and China could have produced a strike anywhere in the US vs the NK launch which only threatens parts of Alaska.

Once you work out why the US is upset with the NK plans and weren't upset with India and China, then see if you can answer your own question. It might be an interesting exercise in logic and clear thought for you.

Writing in today's Washington Post, two former officials of the Clinton administration call for the US to unilaterally and preemptively destroy the North Korean's long range missile on the ground before it can be launched. Ashton B. C...

James Joyner can't help but notice how surprisingly hawkish are Clinton Administration officials Secretary of Defense William Perry and Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter when it comes to the contemporary North Korean situation.......

In my opinion, the results of a full scale attack on North Korea right now will be disastrous. Of course one could argue that this is not what they are advocating: Perry and Carter are advocating to strike this missile site, not an all out attack on NK...

What would you say if NK or Iran or China made similar threats to take out the space shuttle on the pad the next time it's scheduled to go up with some 'classified military payload'?

I think we have international support to shoot down a missile launched at us. However, I don't think we would have as much support if we launch an attack on North Korean soil, even if it just on their launch complex.

I also disagree with the quoted assertion that "We should not conceal our determination to strike the Taepodong if North Korea refuses to drain the fuel out and take it back to the warehouse." I don't know how much play this gets in the DPRK media, but if they have told their people they are going to launch, then they would be hard pressed to not tell them of an American attack. Once that gets out, politics will force their hands to step up aggressive rhetoric and cancel any diplomatic efforts.

The DPRK has a history of raising the stakes to try and win more concessions. This what this test is all about. The DPRK needs a reason to stop the launch without it looking like a loss. Efforts should be focused on that option, not countering with another raising of the stakes. Eventually someone will call, we would all be better off if the stakes are low when that happens.

...

The Bush administration is weighing responses to a possible North Korean missile test that include a...

I take your point. I'd say, though, that preventative war makes sense in the case of a rogue regime with declared intentions of doing you have that is in possession of WMD. The UN Charter, as it were, isn't a suicide pact.

Now, it's true that the DPRK is not an existential threat nor likely to evolve into that soon. But denying them a successful test of their long range missile capability has all manner of benefits. Allowing it to take place has precious few.

We have the support of the international community on our stance here, although they may not have the courage of their convictions. But, as Ben Parker famously noted, with great power comes great responsibility.

Carter and Perry are very clearly advocating preventive war.

Taking another tack would an attack be justified if the missile didn't have the potential of reaching our territory? If they keep up with development and testing, they might have a missile that could one day. I don't see where the limit is on such reasoning.