Thoughts on preemptive war.

[Polynikes]

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?

 

[OutoftheBox]

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

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.

 

[The Baron]

An excerpt from Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin:

"In 1787, James Wilson, a prominent Founder, rejected the argument that American had to wait until attacked to excercise military power and mocked the proponents of this notion: 'Whatever may be the provocation, however important the object in view, and however necessary dispatch and secrecy may be, still the declaration must precede the preparation, and the enemy will be informed of you intentions, not only before you are equipped for an attack, but even before you are fortified for a defense. The consequence it too obvious to require any further delineation.'"

I wish our leaders today had more of the wisdom of our Founders.

 

[The Baron]

"US Military Force is only absolutely needed if any attacks are made against the USA by a well defined militarized enemy or state." - OutoftheBox

Terrorist are not well defined. In fact, their primary advantage that they are not "defined" and hide themselves among civilians.

"I am confident that the US military could immediately confront and destroy such an enemy state if such attacks were brought to US soil." - OutoftheBox

"Enemy states" are not the biggest threat to our security these days. Faceless cowards who owe allegiance not to any "state" but to a cause. The traditional rules of warfare (i.e. the Geneva Convention, et al.) do not apply (not that pre-emptive strikes are forbidden by the any convention--at least, none to my knowledge).

 

[bhkad]

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?

In certain instances, yes.

 

[WI Crippler]

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?

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.

 

[Polynikes]

In certain instances, yes.

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.

 

[Polynikes]

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.

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?

 

[Keorythe]

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?

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.

 

[American]

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.

 

[Goobieman]

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.

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.

 

[American]

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.

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: