[risk]

>>>> Can this nation hold together when it confronts the casualties of Korean War II?

We must, we always must. We should first do whatever it takes to avoid the casualties, but if we reason that it can't be done any other way, then there needs to be an unleashing of force like we've never done before. I think we're very close to that moment now. In fact, we may possibly be able to avoid much greater calamity if we strike now.

My father, a WWII veteran decorated with a purple heart, has said that he thinks we should be thinking the unthinkable and considering the cost of not striking now. He's still alive to give that sort of advice. We're still alive to take it. So are our families. So are the families of one of our closest allies, Japan.

We can not live with allowing a North Korean nuclear weapon falling on an ally of ours that we asked not to maintain a defensive nuclear capability because we would protect it. We cannot live with an invasion of South Korea. Likewise, China should know that we will use force in Taiwan or in North Korea -- as needed to protect our interests and the freedoms of the people left in those regions who love liberty and economic freedom.

[Filibuster_60]

Your father probably said the same thing about China when it got the bomb in '64. Sure, the costs of inaction are potentially catastrophic. But as long as the enemy doesn't strike first, it's always potentially catastrophic. On the other hand launching preemptive warfare guarantees heavy loss of life. It's not in anyone's nature to shed blood to prevent something that may or may not happen anyway.