According to a political scientist at Harvard University, Michel Walzer, a pre-emptive strike can be justified when an enemy shows clear intent to inflict damage and prepare for military strikes and when their actions are serious enough to prompt a military response. 

Following North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile launches in July, Trump’s national security adviser H.R. McMaster had suggested the idea of “preventive strikes,” a more controversial concept than a pre-emptive strike, but this was dismissed by security experts as it clashes with international norms.

“From the US’ perspective, it is all about making the case for its military attacks. If a superpower like the US has something that it thinks justifies its actions, international laws have little impact,” said Park Hwee-rhak, a political science professor at Kookmin University in Seoul.

Despite this, putting in place a pre-emptive strike still appears to be far-fetched, experts noted, as it is highly unlikely that the North will put into action what it says it will do.

Any strike on the US’ territory will assure the end of Pyongyang’s regime. There are also questions over the accuracy and reliability of North Korean missiles, despite its recent advancements in tests, since they have not been used in real warfare.

As for the US, experts said, a military action also carries a hefty price.

While it risks starting an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula that could result in thousands of civilian casualties, chances of successfully taking out all or most of the North Korean missile and nuclear facilities, hidden deep in mountain caves or underground, are considered low.

“Over the past decades, we have seen that if there is harsh rhetoric going back and forth between the North and the US, it is rather unlikely that something serious might really happen,” said Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies.

Some suggested that Trump should refrain from escalating tension with his harsh and unpredictable rhetoric. North Korea has been regularly making bellicose rhetoric against its perceived enemies, threatening to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire” and to “annihilate” South Koreans or the Americans. Trump was the first US president in decades to respond to North with similar language.

Following his remark that the North might face “fire and fury,” US lawmakers, such as Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, criticized the president for issuing a threat that he might not be able to follow through on.

“I think Trump is as unpredictable as Kim Jong-un as he has demonstrated such behaviors. I believe that there is a possibility that military conflict on the peninsula could be caused by the Trump administration,” said Rep. Ha Tae-kyung of the opposition Bareun Party.

By Yeo Jun-suk (jasonyeo@heraldcorp.com)