Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (49051)	6/23/2006 1:53:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I'm not going to try and sell it. I'm not pushing preemption, which is why I added some comments against it. I just thought it was an interesting enough idea/article to post. I'm with Andy McCarthy on this. I don't think we should try to preempt without some reasonable solid and specific evidence that something more than a test launch is planned. If North Korea was weaker and currently less dangerous, but had just as much future potential to be dangerous than maybe I'd support preemption to avoid the threat, but North Korea is already dangerous enough to make preemption a bad idea. If we had reason to think North Korea was going to attack us or our allies, preemption might be "the least bad idea", but at the moment I see no evidence that an attack is planned. Some other opinions - Facing Down Pyongyang What to do about North Korea. An NRO Symposium article.nationalreview.com