I'm perplexed by the logic here I'm perplexed that you're perplexed. The article does a good job of laying out their argument. In short: The claim is that K

I'm perplexed by the logic here I'm perplexed that you're perplexed. The article does a good job of laying out their argument. In short: The claim is that Kim believes the US wouldn't "retaliate so savagely" because the US wouldn't be willing to risk losing a major populated area to a successful ICBM strike. So preemptive nuclear strikes on local bases make sense to degrade the US's ability to stage a conventional invasion, while acting as a deterrent by threatening a strike on the domestic US. You can choose to believe or not believe that argument (it depends on your measure of risk in that scenario), but the logic is clear and reasonable.