system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5: Why is it that "preemptive strikes" were so important in the middle east but now that N. Korea has been shown to be a threat and actively threatening the US, the US doesn't enact a preemptive strike?
gpt
War is political. Preemptive strikes can be real but just as often it's just an excuse to start some shit for ulterior motives.

North Korea on the other hand is...

* No serious threat
* Has nothing America wants, ie. not worth starting shit over
* War with North Korea will cause massive trouble

The Iraq and Afghanistan conflict caused America to nose dive further into debt and everyone is struggling to stabilize the countries and clean up the mess.

Let's assume a NK conflict is swiftly won and NK get's "liberated". There are now some 24 million North Koreans from a dysfunctional nation unloaded on the world. That's a pretty big burden to deal with.

So in short, there's no pre emptive strikes because there's no real threat and nobody wants to make NK their problem.