Hello Alexander,

 MV>> Better focus on the madman that are still alive, Such as that
 MV>> idiot in the White House that threatens to nuke that other
 MV>> idiot in Pyongyang.

 ak> IMHO, from the side of North Korea it is a play of words like this:
 ak> "You, the US, conduct your military drills near our shore -- let's see
 ak> how it will look if we conduct rocket drill in the sea near Guam." (No
 ak> words that Guam should be attacked by rockets as many honest media tell).

A missile launched from North Korea would take about 14 seconds
to reach Guam.  How would it be known if it was a test or a threat?
Not enough time to make that determination.  So the missile(s) would
be assumed to be a threat, and dealt with as such.

It would take significantly less than 14 seconds for missiles
launched in retaliation to reach North Korea.

Not sure what, if anything, will remain in North Korea afterwards.

 ak> A hint to the US about double standards.

There is no double standard.

GWB - preemptive first strike on Iraq.
Donald Trump - preemptive first strike on North Korea.
The only difference being using or not using nukes to do it.

 ak> Although such words are not those words that can be heard by the US.
 ak> With Trump or without him.

Is there any legitimate reason that a preemptive first strike
should be used (with or without nukes) against any country?

--Lee

-- 
Our Nuts, Your Mouth

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb