This message was self-deleted by its author

[Lurks Often]

33. Realistically it would depend on the justification of the strike and it's result

None of my comments should be considered advocating for a pre-emptive strike

A first strike would be non-nuclear, thinking otherwise is conspiracy theory level thinking.

A pre-emptive attack on NK missile sites to prevent NK from launching a nuclear attack on S. Korea, Japan or Guam* would be supported by the majority of Americans, presuming of course there is firm evidence that there was a high probability such an attack was
going to happen.

A pre-emptive attack on NK to kill Fat Boy would probably be supported by the majority of Americans, especially if the successor gave up NK's nuclear weapons and factual evidence (including photo's) of the horrific living conditions of the average North Korean citizen.

A pre-emptive attack on NK just because Trump "felt like it" would not be supported by the majority of Americans.

*I remain skeptical of NK's ability to be able to launch a long range missile with a working nuclear weapon with a high probability of it both hitting the intended target and having the warhead go off at the desired time.