I don't agree. I think they would try a limited attack to "demonstrate their power" and/or "demonstrate the weakness of the west" (ie. us). I think they believe we won't do anything significant - like fire a nuke back or invade. You know what, I think they're right. The {expletive} in the WH doesn't have the stones to retaliate with a nuke. He doesn't have the guts to commit the forces it would take to make a serious run at the NKs. He'd couch it in terms of not risking war, risking millions of South Korean lives... But he'll wuss out, and NK will grow bolder.
So yeah, I think Guam, Japan, etc. (anything within range of their proven medium range missiles) are very much at risk.
Nah.
Obama wants a nuke weapon launched April 15: First, so he can ban all US nuclear weapons and condemn OUR use of nuclear weapons in Japan in WWII by blaming US for the North Korean attack; and second, so it will take attention off of the April 15 tax increases that would otherwise be in the news that day.
Seriously? I don't think he actually believes they would launch a weapon, and he really doesn't care if they did lauch a weapon.
After all, if there is a war, he gets to spend more money.
If there is a nuclear attack on US soil, he gets to spend more money, and be declared (by his news media) as responding the "strength" and "courage" of being a heroic wartime president .... Remember, all those attributes Bush actually displayed but was cursed by Obama's media for doing after 9/11?
Further, if they (the communists in North Korea) did launch, well, they are communists and so WE (south Korea) are to be blamed because "we" (capitalists) are the "real" cause of the North Korea economic failures and hatred and aggressive policies and its starvation.