Thoughts on preemptive war.

Aside from making the correlation to the fallacies given by the Bush administration that led us to the war in Iraq, what are your thoughts on preemption as a viable military strategy?

Do you feel the U.S should use preemptive military strikes in order to ensure national security?

Do you think that the nature of warfare has changed in such a way that nations must utilize preemption?

Polynikes said:

Do you feel the U.S should use preemptive military strikes in order to ensure national security?

Click to expand...

My answer is no. I'd much rather rely on preemptive diplomacy instead. We are continuously protected by our US Military Force as it stands in defense of our US borders coast to coast. US Military Force is only absolutely needed if any attacks are made against the USA by a well defined militarized enemy or state. I am confident that the US military could immediately confront and destroy such an enemy state if such attacks were brought to US soil.

Our US National Security is as good as it may possibly get with some room for improvement. Keep in mind, nothing is 100% safe or protected. With that in mind, the US has about the best their is for securing a nation. Diplomacy should always be used first unless very very unusual dire circumstances warranted an offensive strike instead.

Polynikes said:

Do you feel the U.S should use preemptive military strikes in order to ensure national security?

Do you think that the nature of warfare has changed in such a way that nations must utilize preemption?

Click to expand...

In certain instances, yes.

Polynikes said:

Aside from making the correlation to the fallacies given by the Bush administration that led us to the war in Iraq, what are your thoughts on preemption as a viable military strategy?

Do you feel the U.S should use preemptive military strikes in order to ensure national security?

Do you think that the nature of warfare has changed in such a way that nations must utilize preemption?

Click to expand...

I don't think its necessary in all cases, but I don't think we should take it off the table at all. Its a great tactic.

bhkad said:

In certain instances, yes.

Click to expand...

For example? Besides the obvious. Given the nature of warfare today we no longer have the luxury of watching Soviet tanks line up across the plains of eastern Europe.

Would North Korea putting Taepodong II missles on the launch pad be enough provocation to warrant such action?

I think that accurate and timely intelligence is the most essential element that needs to be in place when considering the option of preemption.

WI Crippler said:

I don't think its necessary in all cases, but I don't think we should take it off the table at all. Its a great tactic.

Click to expand...

Right, I don't believe it can encompass enough circumstances to be considered a doctrine. However, I also think that the notion that America will not be the aggressor when threatened in any situation is absurd.

How do you feel about the stated position that America will not be the first to use nuclear weapons?

Polynikes said:

Aside from making the correlation to the fallacies given by the Bush administration that led us to the war in Iraq, what are your thoughts on preemption as a viable military strategy?

Do you feel the U.S should use preemptive military strikes in order to ensure national security?

Do you think that the nature of warfare has changed in such a way that nations must utilize preemption?

Click to expand...

1. Iraq was not preemptive. It was a response to UN violations with several warnings posed ahead of time.

2. We try to preempt whenever possible. Losing the initiative is a great way to have large portions of your military destroyed before having a chance to rally and build up.

3. Every nation attempts to preempt when possible. Its a great military strategy whenever the threat of war is immediate. Fighting a prepared army is not a good idea. Clubbing them in their beds works best.

Outofthebox: there is no such thing as preemptive diplomacy. There's only diplomacy and then war if all else fails. If diplomacy looks like it may fail then you decide if you want to make a preemptive fast strike to catch anyone off guard or wait until the now enemy's army is sufficiently worked up and prepared for your attack.

I doubt seriously that we have ever entered a war with zero diplomacy prior to military action. Even the Taliban were told to hand over the evildoers.

OutoftheBox said:

My answer is no. I'd much rather rely on preemptive diplomacy instead. We are continuously protected by our US Military Force as it stands in defense of our US borders coast to coast. US Military Force is only absolutely needed if any attacks are made against the USA by a well defined militarized enemy or state. I am confident that the US military could immediately confront and destroy such an enemy state if such attacks were brought to US soil.

Click to expand...

How does the US military protect us from a nuclear-tipped missile launched from North Korea?

I don't mean the deterrence of retalliation, I mean protection from the missile headed to Seattle.

Goobieman said:

How does the US military protect us from a nuclear-tipped missile launched from North Korea?

I don't mean the deterrence of retalliation, I mean protection from the missile headed to Seattle.

Click to expand...

The Army has the answer:

"The mission of Army Aviation is to kill as many godless communist bastards and their subhuman cohorts as possible with the least expenditure of munitions and to integrate all supporting fires to restore cave dwelling as an accepted way of life in the former communist region."

:mrgreen: