Since this is in the news, it should make for an interesting discussion
Is this doctrine reasonable? If country A considers that country B is a threat and therefore should be attacked, isn't country B justified to attack country A preemptively according to the same doctrine? If so, doesn't it provide easy justification for widespread war?[PLAIN said:http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss5.html]The[/PLAIN] [Broken] United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
Last edited by a moderator: