White House National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster stated during a recent interview that “all options” are on the table in regards to North Korea. The Security Advisor even threatened “preventive war” should North Korea continue to fast-paced nuclear weapons program.
“What you’re asking is, are we preparing plans for a preventive war, right?” said the national security professional in response to a question from MSNBC host and conservative pundit, Hugh Hewitt. “A war that would prevent North Korea from threatening the United States with a nuclear weapon.”
“And the president’s been very clear about it. He said he’s not gonna tolerate North Korea being able to threaten the United States. If they have nuclear weapons that can threaten the United States, it’s intolerable from the president’s perspective. So of course, we have to provide all options to do that. And that includes a military option.”
It’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with this. I think it’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with a rogue, brutal regime, I mean, who murdered his own brother with nerve agent in an airport. I mean, think about what he’s done, in terms of his own brutal repression of not only members of his regime but his own family.
“I’m not going to confirm [whether the latest ICBM could reach anywhere in the U.S.] but whether it could reach San Francisco or Pittsburgh or Washington, I mean how much does that matter? It’s a grave threat,” McMaster said. He added: “It’s impossible to overstate the danger associated with a rogue, brutal regime.”
North Korea threatened brutal consequences for any attempt to remove Kim from power.
“Should the U.S. dare to show even the slightest sign of an attempt to remove our supreme leadership, we will strike a merciless blow at the heart of the U.S. with our powerful nuclear hammer, honed and hardened over time,” a foreign ministry spokesman said.
Still, McMaster did not rule out such an attempt when asked whether it could be a legitimate tool.
“I think it depends on the legal justifications for that. And this goes back to just war theory. And what is the nature of the risk? And does that risk justify acting in defense of your people and your vital interests?”