Why Not a First Strike?

The North Koreans are preening like peacocks this week. Their threats are raining upon South Korea and the United States like a tsunami. Everyone expects that they are hollow. They probably are. Yet with each step towards taking actual action, from moving a missile around which has the capacity to reach South Korea, Japan, and even Guam, up to and including the supposed authorization of their army to use nuclear weapons against the United States, isn't it fair to consider when we and our allies ought to perhaps do something more than talk, or merely move around our defensive weapons and systems? Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel insist that we are doing all they can diplomatically to lessen the pressures. Let's presume they are; how long might it be before the North Koreans actually do something? Isn't it fair to wonder whether they may really mean to do something this time? It is far too easy to believe that they would never do anything suicidal; but might they one day become convinced of their own rhetoric, or reach the point where they feel they cannot back down and manage to save face? It is with great consideration and soul searching that any nation should approach the war option. But approach it, at times, a nation must. Are we reaching the point where it might make sense to take a page from Israel's book? Might we at least begin to consider a pre-emptive strike? Who knows? One well placed missile might cool the North Korean rhetoric; it may even fuel a rebellion there, and end the threat to world peace of evil regime in Pyongyang. Surely this thought is at least at the back of the minds of Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and even President Obama. It ought to be if it is not. Morally, we do not have to wait for an actual attack to defend ourselves or our allies.