If the missle had hit japan this morning, would you still think that?

Yes. The missile did not have a warhead on it.

If, somehow, it ended up hitting Japan it certainly would have been a big scary incident but few causalities if any.

What he said was:

Best case: NK government falls on its own. Least casualties.

Worst case: NK attacks (i.e. the missile had hit) or gets attacked, massive casualties on all sides.

How does your appeal to emotion change any of that?

What I was referring to this: "As nutty as they seem neither NK nor USA are going to attempt a first-strike" My question was not an appeal to emotion. My question was, "Had the missle not broken up but instead hit Japan". I'm not convinced they didn't attempt a first strike this morning, it doesn't seem like "wait them out, they'll probably never strike" is a sound argument to me given that they are already launching missiles over Japan.

The missile was clearly a message. According to the CNN journalist that talked about it, who is in NK, this is the response to the "fire and fury" threat by Trump.