Preemptive Nuclear Attack: What Are the Implications?

[LURCH]

Well, I got to say I'm not really convinced by the arguments pro- this policy. But for the sake of argument, if we were to accept those arguments the question of whether such a policy actually spurs proliferation hasn't been addressed, though SOS mentioned it and it's in the articles as well. Since we're talking about doing this because terrorists *might* have WMD, then it seems that basic human response is to arm yourself to face your threat. So, to any opponent to whom we are a threat, additional arming on their part would be a likely outcome.

It's just nuts, to my way of thinking.

There are two possible ways to read your conclusion When you say "to any oppoennt to whom we are a threat..." are you talking about the terrorist threat that we are planning to use this policiy against? If so, then the idea that "...additional arming on their part would be the likely outcome.." is sort-of a non-issue. terrorists who want to attack the U.S. will arm themselves as heavily as they can no matter what the U.S. is doing.

 

[Skyhunter]

Talk about someone who is mentally unstable...

And aside from timelines, proliferation, etc., NO this is not just contingency planning. This is saber rattling, and a dangerous policy. Bush's mentality is "either the world is with me or I'll blow it up."

I saw the thread about Kim Jong Il, I didn't bother to comment because I believe the current psychopath sitting in the oval office is a far greater threat than some tin horn dictator.

The same sadistic motivation that drove him to blow up frogs, and burn pledges with hot wires is still a part a of his psyche.

And the scariest part is that is the tough guy persona that so appeals to the conservative military types.

 

[2CentsWorth]

There are two possible ways to read your conclusion When you say "to any oppoennt to whom we are a threat..." are you talking about the terrorist threat that we are planning to use this policiy against? If so, then the idea that "...additional arming on their part would be the likely outcome.." is sort-of a non-issue. terrorists who want to attack the U.S. will arm themselves as heavily as they can no matter what the U.S. is doing.

Since "terrorists" are not of a specific nation state, I take it the US is threatening to use Nukes against...Iran, Syria? The point made by pattylou is terrorists don't need WMD to attack as was amply illustrated by 9-11. I take it that means using Nukes in retaliation would not be justified in this case? It's just idiotic.

If anyone has proof about how terrorists are arming themselves heavily with WMD, please provide evidence--Oh and maybe someone can narrow it down to where all these terrorists are so we will know where to make our preemptive first strike.

 

[pattylou]

There are two possible ways to read your conclusion When you say "to any oppoennt to whom we are a threat..." are you talking about the terrorist threat that we are planning to use this policiy against? If so, then the idea that "...additional arming on their part would be the likely outcome.." is sort-of a non-issue. terrorists who want to attack the U.S. will arm themselves as heavily as they can no matter what the U.S. is doing.

I believe systems are inter-related. I believe that by promoting nuclear pre-emption, we cause many small effects - such as greater fear in the world in general, among "non-terrorists" including citizenry and legitimate governments, as well as among "terrorists."

I believe this could lead to more of a mentality among some segments that "The US is escalating and so we should too." If a legitimate government is influenced in this way, then it may play out similarly to what we see going on in Iran. Legitimate governments may also consider terrorist organisations to be a useful resourse - ie governments and terrorists are inter-related.

And then there's the whole issue of Bush deciding that a legitimate government is a legitimate *target* for a pre-emptive strike because they "harbor terrorists" - even though he struck out with this approach wrt Iraq. Some argue that his actions have increased recruitment for terrorist groups - and if that's the case then a nuke-preemption plan would certainly boost enlistment to these groups as well!

You can't separate it into neat little boxes. Governments (including the US) *do* help terrorist groups. They just don't call them terrorists when they are helping them. They call them freedom fighters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

(of course, it's really the US that is spreading freedom. )

I feel that I haven't really hit the nail on the head in my response to you, but I trust you get the general drift. This either/or mentality is not the best one for developing safe global relations and peace. Understanding that people generally lie along a spectrum, and understanding the *reasns* for terrorism, instead of responding with force, is an approach that stands a much better chance of success.

p.s. my husband flies virtual fighter pilot missions every Thursday with someone named Lurch. I have to ask if that's you.

 

[loseyourname]

Well, thank you patty for at least providing legitimate counterarguments. Since no one else is actually addressing the merits/dismerits of this policy and just assuming that Bush is insane and trying to scare people and wants an excuse to use nukes, I'll just bow out. I'm trying to discuss military strategy and everyone just wants to psychoanalyze their favorite boogeyman.

 

[edward]

I just realized that it is all about money. Using the threat of a nuclear strike or even making a nuclear strike on a country, is much cheaper than sending in the military.

With our current national debt, an Iraq style military invasion of another country would be impossible to finance.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Well, thank you patty for at least providing legitimate counterarguments. Since no one else is actually addressing the merits/dismerits of this policy and just assuming that Bush is insane and trying to scare people and wants an excuse to use nukes, I'll just bow out. I'm trying to discuss military strategy and everyone just wants to psychoanalyze their favorite boogeyman.

How can this be discussed without reference to the recent preemptive strike that was based on claims of WMD? How can one not question the administration that is formulating this doctrine, and motives and possible uses of it during the duration of it's term, and possibly beyond that?

There has been a response to the idea that this is just military planning. In this current global environment, which is very volatile, why would the US make the announcements that have been made if it is just military planning? A continued lack of understanding of the rest of the world? Would this reason make anyone feel better? Not me. And if it is truly just an option, why aren't other options being discussed? Because to date this administration has acted unilaterally with no effort at negotiations (unless the other party or parties agree to all their term--meaning no compromise), and military options, particularly nuclear ones, should be of last resort.

In the meantime, countries are part of the "axis of evil," whereas the US is pure as the driven snow, and Americans with short memories of history believe this BS. The Bush administration has been pursuing a neocon agenda, and this is the wrong direction for our foreign policy.

 

[edward]

Well, thank you patty for at least providing legitimate counterarguments. Since no one else is actually addressing the merits/dismerits of this policy

I don't think this policy will have much merit in the global community.
But apparently we still have the , "Nuke them out of existence", mentality within certain circles.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The refusal of the US to reject first strike, in the face of a worldwide propaganda campaign by the USSR, stabilized the cold war and can arguably have prevented nuclear exchanges. The leaders in the Kremlin could never be sure just what would trigger the US strike, and so they erred on the side of caution.

 

[pattylou]

Someone earlier made the point that it was the threat of retaliation that kept the USSR from striking, not fear of us acting pre-emptively. Are you saying this isn't the case?

If it is, then the distinction between the current proposal and the cold war, is that the US is talking about pre-emptively striking terrorist groups. This preemption is problematic because:

1. terrorists are not localized or a nation state (where do you strike? What about the fallout on allies or our own troops?).

2. our intelligence appears limited and occasionally manipulated (what if you get it wrong?)

3. "terrorists" are not well defined and can be: a/ individuals, b/ a localised group, c/ members of a non-localised group, or even d/ a ruling group of a nation (Taliban). These different manifestations of "terrorists" can interact as well. And, who we call a terrorist, can change from one year to the next, as well, with no change on their part or agenda.

4. We screwed up wrt Iraq, when we used this same approach sans the nuclear bomb. Same mentality, same players, same propaganda - only add a nuclear bomb to the plan. Oh dear!

And *none* of these concerns are nearly as much of a problem if we remove "pre-emptive" from the plan, and simply go with retaliation after the fact. Like we did in Afghanistan. Remember how that one actually went over pretty well?

(of course, I think "nuclear" should be removed from the plan as well, but I'll leave that out for the sake of argument for the moment).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And *none* of these concerns are as much of a problem if we remove "pre-emptive" from the plan, and simply go with retaliation.

I think that this plan is more or less just adding "pre-emptive" to our current plans. I think another effect is that we will begin producing more nukes as well, that is "new nukes" that won't be designed for blowing up entire cities or city blocks. I believe they wanted to be able to produce these and have them on hand just incase but needed some reasoning for it. The fact that the US is more or less getting away with having pre-emtively struck Iraq so far is also setting a precident that the military believes will allow them more leeway in their options. So they are adjusting their strategies to take advantage.
If people call foul on the military for adding a "pre-emptive policy" then I think they will only change the wording, if they even care.

 

[kyleb]

They don't care, our attack on Iraq wasn't a preemptive strike. Preemptive, by the very definition of the word, requires the attack to be a response to an immanent threat. Not even our administration tries to claim that Iraq was an immanent thereat at this point; so apparently they have no respect for the policy of preemption and clearly have no trouble with commiting acts of outright aggression.

 

[SOS2008]

They don't care, our attack on Iraq wasn't a preemptive strike. Preemptive, by the very definition of the word, requires the attack to be a response to an immanent threat. Not even our administration tries to claim that Iraq was an immanent thereat at this point; so apparently they have no respect for the policy of preemption and clearly have no trouble with commiting acts of outright aggression.

Good point about the definition requiring immanent threat. And as many of us know, this administration has pursued it's agenda even without popular support in America. They don't care about representation, laws, cost, divisiveness--nothing but there own desires.

As far as comparisons to the cold war go, there are significant differences, such as a clear "enemy" that clearly had WMD. In this case MAD was indeed a deterrent regardless of first strike or retaliatory strike. These things don't exist in the "war on terror."

 

[SOS2008]

I just realized that it is all about money. Using the threat of a nuclear strike or even making a nuclear strike on a country, is much cheaper than sending in the military.

With our current national debt, an Iraq style military invasion of another country would be impossible to finance.

This is a good point as well. At this time, what other way can the Bush administration attack another country? So is it just a threat to maintain a position of strength? If so, it is being aimed at nation states, not terrorists.

 

[loseyourname]

I don't think this policy will have much merit in the global community. But apparently we still have the , "Nuke them out of existence", mentality within certain circles.

Sure, if you consider the destruction of a single missile silo or biological launch site to be blinking a group of people out of existence. I guess this is just one of those emotionally charged issues in which hyperbole is not going to be avoided. Personally, I can't even imagine a scenario where a large-scale first strike would be authorized. Honestly, I'll admit that I'm probably being somewhat naively optimistic. I don't doubt that there are elements in this and all governments that would use nuclear weapons with far less discretion than I would. But I don't see people making that point. I see them resorting to overstatement and one-liners. Okay, granted, some people do make legitimate points, but we still get an awful lot of overstatement and one-liners. I guess they're just a pet peeve of mine, like Pengwuino is a pet peeve of everyone else. Probably a relic from my experience with formal debates and hours spent in philosophy classes carefully evaluating the way arguments are made. I can't stand political discussions, yet I refuse to stop taking part in them. I believe this is what Juliet meant by "sweet sorrow," but I'll just call it a compulsive malady, more like heroin than sugar.

 

[Art]

What do "normal relations" with a psychopath look like? Il is like Stalin, only crazy.

I'd say a lot like Britains 'relations' with Bush

 

[Art]

Sure, if you consider the destruction of a single missile silo or biological launch site to be blinking a group of people out of existence. I guess this is just one of those emotionally charged issues in which hyperbole is not going to be avoided. Personally, I can't even imagine a scenario where a large-scale first strike would be authorized. Honestly, I'll admit that I'm probably being somewhat naively optimistic. I don't doubt that there are elements in this and all governments that would use nuclear weapons with far less discretion than I would. But I don't see people making that point. I see them resorting to overstatement and one-liners. Okay, granted, some people do make legitimate points, but we still get an awful lot of overstatement and one-liners. I guess they're just a pet peeve of mine, like Pengwuino is a pet peeve of everyone else. Probably a relic from my experience with formal debates and hours spent in philosophy classes carefully evaluating the way arguments are made. I can't stand political discussions, yet I refuse to stop taking part in them. I believe this is what Juliet meant by "sweet sorrow," but I'll just call it a compulsive malady, more like heroin than sugar.

What the US military gov't is doing is trying to remove the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons from the public consciousness.

As many of the US military's potential targets are deep underground they believe a ground penetrating nuclear device is the best military option.

This is not a policy designed to handle scenarios such as examples you have given of missiles being fuelled and about to fire. This is simply a response to lessons the military have learned from Iraq. i.e. airstrikes with conventional weapons against deeply buried hardened bunkers are ineffective and ground invasions are expensive.

Certain countries which America has designated as 'evil' such as Iran are allegedly pursuing weapons programs which could eventually lead to them possessing nuclear weapons. The US has stated they will not let this happen and so rather than launch a full scale invasion of a country which has a strong conventional military force and as they know conventional airstrikes will not work they are looking for ways to destroy the installations where the weapons are being developed.

The US military will not wait until the Iranians are fuelling missiles ready for a strike, they will destroy Iran's capability to ever develop weapons long, long before they have perfected a working bomb. First though they are running a PR campaign to persuade people that nukes aren't really all that bad and that they should be considered just another specialist weapon in the military's arsenal to be used when needed such as (son of) napalm and fuel air bombs (aka the poor man's nuclear bomb).

 

[SOS2008]

I'd say a lot like Britains 'relations' with Bush

Yeh, we've had many a discussion about the long list of dictators the U.S. has maintained relations with through history. Though their system of government is not our preference (e.g., Cuba), these countries have been contained perfectly well without launching WW3. The reason being is the capitalists (multinationals, etc.) prefer stability over ideology, because they want an environment in which commerce can flow unimpeded.

How have so many countries become an enemy? Using Iran as an example -- Iran has been ripe for democracy (certainly more than Iraq). In the case of Iran, what comes first, the chicken (U.S. aggression) or the egg (nuclear program as insurance against an unprovoked attack)? If the country is not a real threat (is Iran planning to attack the U.S.?), what could be done to normalize relations (carrot versus the stick), in which certain behavior (e.g., support of terrorism) could be addressed.

N. Korea is struggling to survive, and Syria is very nervous (they don't have a nuclear program). What constitutes a legitimate threat to American safety?
Why are military options the first on the table? So what changed, when, and why?

 

[Skyhunter]

Well, thank you patty for at least providing legitimate counterarguments. Since no one else is actually addressing the merits/dismerits of this policy and just assuming that Bush is insane and trying to scare people and wants an excuse to use nukes, I'll just bow out. I'm trying to discuss military strategy and everyone just wants to psychoanalyze their favorite boogeyman.

"Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean the are not out to get me."

to me the idea that Bush & Co. are looking for scenarios where they could use nuclear weapons is misguided.

I agree there could be possible scenarios where a nuclear strike may be feasible. Instead of preparing for the eventuality as Bushco are doing, I would develop policies and practices to prevent such a scenario.

Bushco does not want to avoid using them, they want to do it.

Why do I believe this?

Why do you think they rushed into invade Iraq when the weapons inspectors were in Iraq?

They didn't want the scenario they had created for a preemptive war to dissolve when the inspectors found that the WMD hype was nothing more than hype.

I am no longer willing to give them the benefit of any doubt! I believe they are "oblivious, in denial, dangerous."

 

[Informal Logic]

It is interesting to note earlier theories of big business and tendencies toward the status quo, compared to now and and how for some big business instability can be just as profitable if not more? But getting back to Bush's foreign policy, here is a nice summary of why the US has been heading the direction it has:

The comeback of neoconservatism under George W. Bush

During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, railing against the post-Cold War foreign policy of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, which reduced military expenditures and was, in their view, insufficiently idealistic. They accused it of lacking "moral clarity" and the conviction to unilaterally pursue U.S. strategic interests abroad. In the writings of Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Max Boot, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, William Bennett, Peter Rodman, and others influential in forging the foreign policy doctrines of the Bush administration, there are frequent references to the appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, to which are compared the Cold War's policies of détente and containment (rather than rollback) with the Soviet Union and the PRC.
---------
Such so-called neoconservatives were eager to implement a new foreign policy with the change in Administrations from Clinton to George W. Bush. Early in the Bush Administration…many neoconservatives perceived Bush's foreign policies to be not substantially different from the policies of Clinton.

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon, however, the influence of neoconservatism -- at least as it is understood to mean an aggressive stance toward foreign policy threats -- in the Bush administration appears to have found its purpose in the shift from the threat of Communism to the threat of Islamic terrorism.

As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which sometimes exhibites an isolationist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad, and promoting democracy and freedom. Critics have charged that, while paying lip service to such American values, neoconservatives have supported undemocratic regimes for realpolitik reasons [Realpolitik (German for "realistic politics") is foreign politics based on practical concerns (political expediency) rather than theory or ethics].
------
Neoconservatives won a landmark victory with the Bush Doctrine after September 11th. Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an influential conservative thinktank in Washington that has been under neoconservative influence since the election of Reagan, argued in his AEI piece "The Underpinnings of the Bush doctrine" that "the fundamental premise of the Bush Doctrine is true: The United States possesses the means—economic, military, diplomatic—to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes. Further, and especially in light of the domestic political reaction to the attacks of September 11, the victory in Afghanistan and the remarkable skill demonstrated by President Bush in focusing national attention, it is equally true that Americans possesses the requisite political willpower to pursue an expansive strategy."

The Bush Doctrine, a departure from previous U.S. foreign policy, is a proclamation on the right of the United States to wage pre-emptive war should it be threatened by terrorists or rogue states. This doctrine can be seen as the abandonment of a focus on the doctrine of deterrence (in the Cold War through Mutually Assured Destruction) as the primary means of self-defense. There is some opinion that preemptive strikes have long been a part of international practice and indeed of American practice, as exemplified, for example, by the unilateral U.S. blockade and boarding of Cuban shipping during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The doctrine also states that the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."

While more conventional foreign policy experts argued that Iraq could be restrained by enforcing No-Fly Zones and by a policy of inspection by United Nations inspectors to restrict its ability to possesses chemical or nuclear weapons, neoconservatives considered this policy direction ineffectual and labeled it appeasement of Saddam Hussein.

-------
The neoconservatives, often referred to by their political opponents as the neocons, are credited with (or blamed for) influencing U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) and George W. Bush (2001–present). Neoconservatives have often been singled out for criticism by opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many of whom see this invasion as a neoconservative initiative. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an aggressive moralist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon...eback_of_neoconservatism_under_George_W._Bush

 

[Smurf]

Pre-emptive attacks are immoral. Pre-emptive nuclear attacks are just stupid.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But the THREAT of preemptive nuclear attacks can be very useful. Nobody suffered a nuclear attack between 1950, when the Soviets got the bomb, and now. Partly because of US first strike capability and threat.

 

[Informal Logic]

But the THREAT of preemptive nuclear attacks can be very useful. Nobody suffered a nuclear attack between 1950, when the Soviets got the bomb, and now. Partly because of US first strike capability and threat.

Yes, it did in that scenario.

These weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, so 1) how much of a deterrence will these create? and 2) in regard to terrorists, will it function as a deterrence or a recruiting tool? And as someone mentioned, it also caused the arms race--the current scenario involves possible proliferation within numerous 'rogue' nations (North Korea already, and Iran in the process).

 

[kyleb]

Pre-emptive attacks are immoral. Pre-emptive nuclear attacks are just stupid.

I someone was gearing up to try and kill me; I'd be sure to do everything I could to preempt that, including attack. I don't see how anyone could consider such a position immoral.

 

[deckart]

I sure am teetering on the idea of turning the middle east into a glass parking lot. Unfortunately, there would be too many "friendlies" at any given time. :)

 

[Smurf]

I someone was gearing up to try and kill me; I'd be sure to do everything I could to preempt that, including attack. I don't see how anyone could consider such a position immoral.

My bad, I was thinking preventive. Wrong term

 

[kyleb]

I whole heartedly argee with you on the idea of preventive attacks, just wanted to clarify the moral validity of preemption.

 

[deckart]

The first (if there every is one) preemptive nuclear attack may very well be performed by Isreal against hostile Arab country. There is enough hate (hundreds of years of it) towards Isreal in the Middle East that if one of these hostile Arab countries had nuclear capacity, they would use it to attack Isreal at first opportunity. This could be a very likely situation.

 

[Art]

I someone was gearing up to try and kill me; I'd be sure to do everything I could to preempt that, including attack. I don't see how anyone could consider such a position immoral.

To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?

 

[Informal Logic]

The first (if there every is one) preemptive nuclear attack may very well be performed by Isreal against hostile Arab country. There is enough hate (hundreds of years of it) towards Isreal in the Middle East that if one of these hostile Arab countries had nuclear capacity, they would use it to attack Isreal at first opportunity. This could be a very likely situation.

I do not think any country, regardless of years of conflict, will ever take nuclear weapons so lightly. Even considering conventional warfare--any Arab country will always think twice about a military attack against Israel, and I should think Israel would think twice in reverse.

 

[Informal Logic]

To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?

Excellent question. One cannot take the higher moral ground while being a hypocrite.

 

[kyleb]

The first (if there every is one) preemptive nuclear attack may very well be performed by Isreal against hostile Arab country. There is enough hate (hundreds of years of it) towards Isreal in the Middle East that if one of these hostile Arab countries had nuclear capacity, they would use it to attack Isreal at first opportunity. This could be a very likely situation.

You seem to be confused on your history, there has not been hundreds of years of hate towards Israel.

To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?

I'll need to clarify what you are specifically referring to when you say "overt threats" in order to give an effective answer to that. Also, please note my intent in using the phrase "gearing up to try and kill."

Heh, maybe I can preempt any further confusion by using an example from history and pointing out that I believe Iraq would have been well within their moral ground to try and preempt us. Granted, they never rightly had the power to do it effectively so it would have been a stupid move, but morally justifiable in its intent none the less.

Excellent question. One cannot take the higher moral ground while being a hypocrite.

I'm not sure I follow the intent of your comment; were you looking forward to being able my position as hypocrite instead of confronting stance my directly?

 

[Smurf]

To clarify, based on what you say and the overt threats from the US gov't if Iran, Syria or N. Korea launched a preemptive nuclear attack against the US are you saying you'd believe it to be morally justified?

Nuclear weapons are never justified. Pre-Emptive attacks are always justified (self-defence), the question is wether they are really pre-emptive or not (i.e. is there really an 'imminent threat').

The only instance that North Korea and the US could launch pre-emptive attacks on each other were if one of them had a squad of bombers (or missiles) headed for the other one, then attacking those missiles/bombers would be 'pre-emtive' and is, of course, justified.

 

[Skyhunter]

It is interesting to note earlier theories of big business and tendencies toward the status quo, compared to now and and how for some big business instability can be just as profitable if not more? But getting back to Bush's foreign policy, here is a nice summary of why the US has been heading the direction it has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon...eback_of_neoconservatism_under_George_W._Bush

The United States possesses the means—economic, military, diplomatic—to realize its expansive geopolitical purposes.

Gary Hart wrote an essay to point out the greatest flaw in the AEI's PNAC, which appears to be the basis for the Bush doctrine.

"The idea that government exists to protect, not oppress, the individual has an enormous power not fully understood by most Americans who take this principle for granted from birth. Far more nations will follow us because of the power of this ideal than the might of all our weapons."


Against those who view America's noblest values as an inconvenience or even hindrance to the exertion of influence abroad, Hart warns that we ignore principle only at our peril. Such an approach may serve short-term goals, but there are costs; among them is the compromising of a crucial strategic asset, America's fourth power.


Certain objectives require a military response--few serious people would disagree. The question is "whether America's purposes are best achieved through empire and force or through principle and persuasion." To suggest the former, Hart argues, is to misread both history and our current revolutionary age, one where terrorism, the internationalization of markets, information technology, eroding nation-state authority and other realities demand not doctrines of superstate unilateralism and preemption but rather appreciation for new collective security structures, international regulatory bodies, even forms of collaborative sovereignty.


Applying the best insights of strategy to statecraft, Hart finds fuzziness, overreaching, and "theological" simplicity in America's current foreign policy. Nor does he believe the war on terror, necessary in the near term, will itself serve to chart America's larger strategic course. A bracing vision of an America responsive to a full spectrum of global challenges, The Fourth Power calls for a deeper understanding both of the threats we face and the profound strengths at our disposal to fight them.

 

[Smurf]

The first (if there every is one) preemptive nuclear attack may very well be performed by Isreal against hostile Arab country. There is enough hate (hundreds of years of it) towards Isreal in the Middle East that if one of these hostile Arab countries had nuclear capacity, they would use it to attack Isreal at first opportunity.

Israel has barely existed for a few decades, let alone hundreds of years.
And I find the likelyhood of Arabs using nukes against Israel to be just as, if not less, likely than the other way around and israel is a lot closer than any Arabs to getting nukes (if they don't already have them).