the US should preemptively attack north korea

First of all, is it not a slippery slope fallacy to say that NK will perfect their rocket technology and get more nukes? Just because they want that and may be working towards that, does not make it inevitable for those goals to come to fruition. You have provided no warrant to support that claim. Second, you say they aren't fit to have nukes. What's your criteria for which nations are fit to have nukes and which are not? You make the claim NK is not fit but you have provided no evidence for that claim. Also you say, if obtained, they will use the weapons to hold the world hostage. Again, another slippery slope, it's entirely possible, albeit unlikely, that NK may want to obtain nuclear capabilities for power generation or to have in order to be treated equally on the international stage. As we all know, any country with nuclear weapons, has a significantly larger capacity for influence on the international stage. Country A may dislike country B, country A is significantly less likely to resort to militaristic means against country B if they have nuclear capabilities. The point is, you provided no warrant for he claim that NK will inevitably use nuclear technology to "hold the world hostage", whatever that means. Lastly, you say it would cause the worst humanitarian disaster ever, but the worst humanitarian disaster ever is better than losing two cities of your own nation. To make a statement such as this, it seems to me that you value the lives of people that are closer in geographical terms to you than others who are farther away. That makes no sense. An attack on NK would inevitably result in the loss of innocent/non combatant lives, as is evidenced by the fact that virtually ever military action in modern times, has resulted in the loss of some number of innocent lives, the propagandist will call it "collateral damage". So it seems to me that you are essentially arguing that people living in NY or LA have more of a right to continue to exist, than does someone in Pyongyang or Kaesong? So we should absolutely positively kill innocent people on one area of the globe because it might, maybe, possibly, prevent the loss of lives of others on a different spot on the globe? This all begs the question, what do you mean by preemptive strike? Military targets only? Drone strikes? Boots on the ground? It's impossible to argue against a position if you don't define what you mean when you use a phrase. Preemptive strikes run a gambit of various actions, I would appreciate some clarification as to what you mean when you say preemptive strike. War is hell. Killing masses of people should not be undertaken lightly. The only time it is justifiable is in the face of an immediate and inevitable threat. NK could potentially pose a threat, however no more than dozens of other countries in the world that have generations of animosity built up towards the western powers, specifically the US, for decades of foreign policy interventions into the affairs of the NKs and many other countries as well. So should we just preemptively strike anyone and everyone that could possibly, maybe, potentially be a threat in the future? Perhaps that kind of mentality and action is what has led to foreign countries having a deep disdain for the US government. NK has allies, a preemptive strike is just another word for war. A preemptive strike is an aggressive act of war. The initiation of force is never justified, the only truly just war is a war of pure defense. Just because the agency is called the Department of Defense, does not mean it only engages in defensive measures. I'll leave it at that for know, I eagerly await your response.