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 idiot
 MV>>>> in Pyongyang.

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

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

 ak> It is the same situation North Korea is now. The US & South Korea often
 ak> hold military exercises at distance of 10 miles from the North Korea
 ak> shore and even closer. "How would it be known if it was a test or a
 ak> threat?", I repeat your question.

Missile tests and military exercizes are often conducted within
close distances to another country's border.  That is not a major
problem in most instances.  However, what we are seeing here is
a deliberate provokation by one madman to another madman.  With
neither madman willing or able to blink.

 ak> It can be a solution - do not provoke Pyongyang and do not hold military
 ak> activity near the border.

The fat man who is threatening to launch missiles is easy to
provoke.  And the fat man doing the provoking is an airhead.
How do you go about convincing either of them to get a hold
of their own senses?

 ak> But North Korea seems too small, and this solution probably is too
 ak> humiliating for the US.  It is like a great bully boy cannot stop provoke
 ak> his weak classmate. ;-)

North Korea has the fourth largest army in the world.  And a giant
neighbor willing to back it up, if necessary.  Was US President Harry
Truman right in retiring General Douglas MacArthur rather than allow
him to invade China in order to bring peace to the Korean peninsula?

Rather than losing 50,000 American troops in a renewed conflict
in Korea, the number could easily surpass 50 million (military and
civilian).

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

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

 ak> It is a fully lawless term.

Which is why each side would claim to be retaliating in kind,
rather than be named the instigator.

--Lee

-- 
We Put Big Loads In Tight Places

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

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb