StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Do you agree with Bush's first strike policy? If so how do you justify it and where do you draw the limit? If not, how do believe a nation should defend against first strike weapons weilded by people who do not care about retaliation?

The policy:

Under Bush's new policy the U.S. would attack foriegn entities (including nations) before any attack was made against the U.S. under certain poorly defined conditions:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military ... _7-01.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... 9-2002Jun1

whats the first strike policy? o_O

Well, I have to admit I don't have a solid position on this subject yet. That is the main reason I made this thread. Having said that here is my current train of thought.

One should only strike first under the following conditions:

1. Your target can deliver a decisive first strike against you (with respect to total war). your target cannot be retaliated against effectively once hostilities have begun, or damages sustained from your target's first strike against you are greater than the total damage necessary to anhilate your target.

2. You have tried to communicate with your target and neutralize both sides first strike capabilities with respect to each other.

3. A "reasonable" amount of time to dismantle both sides first strike capabilities has elapsed. A "reasonable" amount of time may pass if your target is unwilling to communicate, there is no time left between the time you have to launch a first strike and the time your target will launch its first strike (based on a perponderance of the evidence), you are unable to communicate with your target and there is a perponderance of evidence that they are going to use their first strike option, or your target refuses to agree to a fair dismantling of both sides first strike capabilities (this must be verifiable of course).

4. If you strike first under these conditions and:
--it turns out it was a misunderstanding
--your target tried to communicate with you
--your target would have agreed to a fair dismantling of both sides first strike capabilities
then:
you accept 50% of the total damages from the whole conflict.

As far as I understand Bush's policy it would not be limited to the above conditions. Therefore, I am against it for now. However, I will hold off on voting until I see more arguements.

I too must hold off voting until I further research the topic. Your conditions sound very reasonable; I'm going to have to look at and think about what Bush's conditions amount to.

<Palpatine>I'll be watching this thread with great interest.</Palpatine>

I think the interesting point is then, what about Nixon's bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war? They were a threat, obvious, and proven, yet his actions then were wildly unpopular for the simple reason that we did not officially declare war.

The United States must realize in the end that it cannot survive by emulating Bin Ladin, the first strike without "fair warning" such as a declaration of the war means that the United States has now transformed itself into a terrorist nation. As stated before, currently the plan is too vague, and how could it be clear? What is preponderance of evidence?

We talk about Saddam Hussein all the time but to this date Saddam has not used a nuclear weapon on the United States, do they have a preponderance of weapon that he will use it later? How do we affirm this? Does this give United States reason to attack Iraq first?

What we see here looks not unreasonable to many because of the way Hussein is imaged in American media. Right or wrong, the top ten hate list of American enemies has Hussein above it, you could have Bin Laden attacking Hussein and we would not give a damn.

But what about Cuba? We are in an uneasy detente with Cuba but what if one day the President argued that Cuba was a threat based on its proximity and that there was a need to eliminate that threat?

How far does this power extend? And is it at all possible to clarify the issue? That's the big question. Looking at the history of American Foreign policy which has been abused more than once, I must say that I have no faith in the "justice" the US claims to administer.

Acutal a Terriost nation can not exist by definition
Terroisim by definition is the act by INDIVIDUALS without goverment approval aginst somthing(could be anything) through Violance

No it just makes a more Violent State not a terriost one

Nova Andromeda wrote:One should only strike first under the following conditions:
1. Your target can deliver a decisive first strike against you (with respect to total war).

What exactly do you mean by "total war?" Do you mean to say that the only permissible preemptive strike is against a nation with a standing army?

NEWSFLASH: the world has changed since 9/11. The most imminent threat to the United States of America is no longer restricted to a massive nuclear strike from the USSR.

your target cannot be retaliated against effectively once hostilities have begun,

In other words, the other guy has to be capable of totally annihilating you, destroying your capability to retaliate. Um, by then it's too late, no?

or damages sustained from your target's first strike against you are greater than the total damage necessary to anhilate your target.

Oh, you're going to have to explain that one. Do you mean to say that you can only strike first if the other guy, if he were to strike first, would do more damage than what it would take to totally annihilate him?

I'm sorry, I'm not following.

2. You have tried to communicate with your target and neutralize both sides first strike capabilities with respect to each other.

WTF? What's this "both sides" nonsense? "I promise not to attack you if you promise not to attack me!" Yeah, that'll work.

"Please Mr. Hussein, don't hurt 'em."

3. A "reasonable" amount of time to dismantle both sides first strike capabilities has elapsed. A "reasonable" amount of time may pass if your target is unwilling to communicate, there is no time left between the time you have to launch a first strike and the time your target will launch its first strike (based on a perponderance of the evidence), you are unable to communicate with your target and there is a perponderance of evidence that they are going to use their first strike option, or your target refuses to agree to a fair dismantling of both sides first strike capabilities (this must be verifiable of course).

Again with the "both sides" nonsense.

And exactly who, pray tell, would evaluate said evidence? The UN? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

4. If you strike first under these conditions and:
--it turns out it was a misunderstanding
--your target tried to communicate with you
--your target would have agreed to a fair dismantling of both sides first strike capabilities
then:
you accept 50% of the total damages from the whole conflict.

What the hell is this? Ever seen the movie "Fail Safe?" Do you actually advocate destruction of American cities in the event of a "misunderstanding?" Give me your address, I'll make sure your hometown is #1 on the list.

Look, kids! It's United Federation of Planets Policy 101!

As far as I understand Bush's policy it would not be limited to the above conditions.

Darn tootin'!

1. Find terrorist camp in remote region of Southwest Asia.

2. Send B-52 to transform surrounding desert from sand into glass.

3. With terrorist camp gone, future terrorist strike adverted.

"B-b-b-but you don't have any evidence those terrorists were planning an attack!"

And your point is...? I daresay that Terrorists=Plan to attack USA. See Terrorists, assume that they're planning something, somewhere down the road. Kill terrorists and those terrorists are no longer a threat.

Therefore, I am against it for now. However, I will hold off on voting until I see more arguements.

For the love of...this is unbelievable.

Does this fall under the "USA is just a high-tech bully!" doctrine? What fantasy world are you living in where you assume that the OTHER side would play by the same rules?

Good heavens, my brain is short-circuiting from trying to comprehend this.

The US is an incompetant police state, its government has repeatedly done unconstitutional things and the army is no better. This current campaign in Afghanistan, for instance, is illegal. Congress did not vote on it, the president simply declared war. This is treason, punishable by death I believe. And everyone in the military who followed this ILLEGAL order is also treasonous.

A first strike policy is nothing compared to the actions taken in the name of national security.

kojikun wrote:The US is an incompetant police state, its government has repeatedly done unconstitutional things and the army is no better. This current campaign in Afghanistan, for instance, is illegal. Congress did not vote on it, the president simply declared war. This is treason, punishable by death I believe.

Wow, a troll. Notice how I don't tear apart each sentence.

And everyone in the military who followed this ILLEGAL order is also treasonous.

Funny, I don't feel like a traitor.

A first strike policy is nothing compared to the actions taken in the name of national security.

Um, okay.

Let me start with some general clarifications. First, you must satisfy all 4 conditions before you are justified in launching a first strike. Second, this policy is designed to be general and not limited to actions against terrorist groups. Now on to a point by point rebuttal.


--"The most imminent threat to the United States of America is no longer restricted to a massive nuclear strike from the USSR."
--See the second and third part of condition 1. They are designed to address modern terrorist threats.

--"'your target cannot be retaliated against effectively once hostilities have begun'
--In other words, the other guy has to be capable of totally annihilating you, destroying your capability to retaliate."
--No, what I mean is what I wrote, once hostilities begin you cannot retaliate effectively. This may be due to the targets ability to hide its assets or any number of other things.

--"Do you mean to say that you can only strike first if the other guy, if he were to strike first, would do more damage than what it would take to totally annihilate him?"
--You seem to understand this just fine. I'll let you think of why this needs to be part of condition 1.

--"WTF? What's this "both sides" nonsense? "I promise not to attack you if you promise not to attack me!" Yeah, that'll work."
--Now we see your true colors. You must be truly proud of that strawman. See condition 3, in which I state that both sides must agree to dismantle there first strike capacities (perhaps I should have added, "and actually do it and verify it for the other side," for people like you).

--"And exactly who, pray tell, would evaluate said evidence?"
--Clearly, each respective side would evaluate the evidence since they are only ones that matter!

--"Do you actually advocate destruction of American cities in the event of a "'misunderstanding?'"
--What do you know Cirrocu has found a nitpick. It would be more clear if I said "pays for 50% of the total damages" (of course payment will probably not be entirely in the form of money). Then again Cirrocu does like his strawmen.

--"I daresay that Terrorists=Plan to attack USA. See Terrorists, assume that they're planning something, somewhere down the road. Kill terrorists and those terrorists are no longer a threat."
--Normally I have to go to fundamentalist sites to find such blatant evil, but wait it rears it ugly head in Mr. Wong's very own website! What you advocate is the destruction of anything Bush and Bush alone thinks might be a threat!

--"What fantasy world are you living in where you assume that the OTHER side would play by the same rules?"
--The whole point of the 4 conditions is to allow for a first strike if the other side doesn't play fair!!!

--"Good heavens, my brain is short-circuiting from trying to comprehend this."
--That's okay mocking stupid people like you makes up for having to listen to you....

A nation is made up of individuals, so yes there can be such a thing. Terrorists are if we were to take it from the very basic definition, people who use terror to obtain and achieve goals. A terrorist nation is one that uses terror to obtain and achieve goals.

I fail to see the contradiction.

First Strike without proper declaration of war only makes things look worst.

Because quite frankly, when it comes down to it, a lot of the Palistinians and Israeli could be classified as terrorists, but they do not pose a threat to the United States. By the above reasoning, anything that has tooth or a claw should be eliminated because to hell with it, rabbits sure can terrorize farms.

Lemme clear some things up for the people who live in shacks in the moutatins preparing some revenge! On that blasted Gove o ment

Lemme quote and answer some things said so far

[qutoe]
NEWSFLASH: the world has changed since 9/11. The most imminent threat to the United States of America is no longer restricted to a massive nuclear strike from the USSR.
[/quote]
NEWSFLASH: 9/11 changed nothing, if you use your logic and say because an acutal attack was finaly carried then its a THREAT now and the other 20 Ali-Quada related Terroist insdents ment nothing is rather bad thinking insn't it? Considering that by that logic ther USSR was never a threat because they have yet to attack us(USSR broke up BTW to you people in the shacks in the mountians BTW)

9/11 finaly got the avarge idiot(aka Joe-six pack to you shack in the moutains types)
(I agree with what the rest of you said however it was correct)



Next up!

The US is an incompetant police state, its government has repeatedly done unconstitutional things and the army is no better. This current campaign in Afghanistan, for instance, is illegal. Congress did not vote on it, the president simply declared war. This is treason, punishable by death I believe. And everyone in the military who followed this ILLEGAL order is also treasonous

1. There ARE Police states
Take a look at what South Afria used to be 10 exuse me 20 years ago and then compare it to the USA.
2. The Presdent has the right for a set period of time to send troops anywhere thanks to the Vietnam war, The currant Conflict(I don't call a war, somthing where we bomb the hell out of everything that moves THEN send in ground troops to make sure we got em all) is completly legal till the Senate and House says diffrent
3. He did not declar war on Afiganstan he decalred war on Terror(IE Crat double talk, also means he's probably not gonna stop there)
4. Acting under orders is not Treason, Refusing said orders is, Espcialy if they are from the Commander in Chief
Till the Senate and House says diffrent of course

Some helpful hints from anyone who ever stayed awake in Poly Sci class

Nova Andromeda wrote:--"I daresay that Terrorists=Plan to attack USA. See Terrorists, assume that they're planning something, somewhere down the road. Kill terrorists and those terrorists are no longer a threat."
--Normally I have to go to fundamentalist sites to find such blatant evil, but wait it rears it ugly head in Mr. Wong's very own website! What you advocate is the destruction of anything Bush and Bush alone thinks might be a threat!

News flash, Nova. Terrorists by nature look for the easy, unprepared target and hit it first, then scurry away like rats in the dark. To expect them to do otherwise is to expect them to act like men, rather than the vermin that they have repeatedly proven themselves to be. You can deal with men. Vermin, you exterminate wherever they show up.

--"What fantasy world are you living in where you assume that the OTHER side would play by the same rules?"
--The whole point of the 4 conditions is to allow for a first strike if the other side doesn't play fair!!!

It is an extremely short-lived nation that makes its policies on the assumption that the other side plays fair.

Iceberg wrote:

Nova Andromeda wrote:--"I daresay that Terrorists=Plan to attack USA. See Terrorists, assume that they're planning something, somewhere down the road. Kill terrorists and those terrorists are no longer a threat."
--Normally I have to go to fundamentalist sites to find such blatant evil, but wait it rears it ugly head in Mr. Wong's very own website! What you advocate is the destruction of anything Bush and Bush alone thinks might be a threat!

News flash, Nova. Terrorists by nature look for the easy, unprepared target and hit it first, then scurry away like rats in the dark. To expect them to do otherwise is to expect them to act like men, rather than the vermin that they have repeatedly proven themselves to be. You can deal with men. Vermin, you exterminate wherever they show up.

Yes, but the issue is how to identify who is and who isn't "vermin." Do we just assume that Mr. Bush Jr. will always be correct in identifying targets?

Iceberg wrote:

--"What fantasy world are you living in where you assume that the OTHER side would play by the same rules?"
--The whole point of the 4 conditions is to allow for a first strike if the other side doesn't play fair!!!

It is an extremely short-lived nation that makes its policies on the assumption that the other side plays fair.

That's precisely what Nova was saying...you can't assume the other guy will play fair, which is exactly why you have a first strike protocol. Everybody has to understand that Nova's first post wasn't a condemnation of first-strike policies, but rather a suggested improved first-strike policy. It still allows a nation to pre-emptively take care of threats...it just restricts said nation to only doing so in the most responsible manner possible.

Cirrocu:

-- Wow, a troll. Notice how I don't tear apart each sentence. --

Notice how you don't bother to address anything I've said. Concession accepted.

-- Funny, I don't feel like a traitor. --

And Osama bin Laden doesn't feel like he was wrong to destroy the WTC. Try again.

-- Um, okay. --

Yes.

Bean:

-- 1. There ARE Police states
Take a look at what South Afria used to be 10 exuse me 20 years ago and then compare it to the USA. --

Never said the US was good at being a police state. Incompetance. ^^

-- 2. The Presdent has the right for a set period of time to send troops anywhere thanks to the Vietnam war, The currant Conflict(I don't call a war, somthing where we bomb the hell out of everything that moves THEN send in ground troops to make sure we got em all) is completly legal till the Senate and House says diffrent --

US Constitution
Section 8:
"The Congress shall have power to ... declare war"

The Constitution does NOT give the president the power to declare war.

Articles of Confederation
Article IX:
"The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war"

Articles of Confederation FORBID the president from declaring war.

Now, unless I'm mistaken, the constitution and articles of confederation say that only congress may declare war and that the president is not allowed to do so. If you'd like to show me where this Vietname thing is I'd be more then happy to read it but as far as I know, the Constitution and AoC are the highest law.

-- 3. He did not declar war on Afiganstan he decalred war on Terror(IE Crat double talk, also means he's probably not gonna stop there) --

I never said he declared war against Afghanist.

-- 4. Acting under orders is not Treason, Refusing said orders is, Espcialy if they are from the Commander in Chief Till the Senate and House says diffrent of course --

Wrong. See above, the Commander in Chief does not have power to declare war ONLY congress can declare war.

The Commander in Chief has the right to operate American military forces in foreign regions, with or without the consent of Congress. There are limits on what he may do and how long the forces can operate without Congressional approval, but that does not change the fact that the President doesn't have to get Congress's permission before smacking down some pissant little banana republic.

As I already said if you scrolll up a bit Iceburg

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation as the Supreme Law of the Land. Using the AoC for a refrence of what the powers of the US Government are and aren't would not be correct.

Other than that, since I don't have the knowledge of this policy firmly embedded within my mind, I cannot pass judgement on it either way, right or wrong.

President Bush's decision to order United States Armed Services into action in Afghanistan in no way, shape, or form constitutes a violation of the Constitution for the United States of America or an act of treason.

The Constitution for the United States of America says a number of things on the subject.

In Article II, Section 3, it states:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; [...]

As Commander-in-Chief, it is within the President of the United States's (POTUS) authority to issue orders to officers of the United States Armed Forces; for an officer or an enlisted-rating to refuse orders from the POTUS is insubordination, and a violation of the POTUS's Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief.

In Article I, Section 8, it states:

The Congress shall have Power [...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water [...]

Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated or even implied that the Congress's power to declare war in any way restricts the authority of the POTUS as Commander-in-Chief to issue orders to the United States Armed Forces. Nowhere in the Constitution is it stated or even implied that the POTUS cannot order the United States Armed Forces into action without a declaration of war from the Congress.

According to Section 2 of the 93d Congress H.J. Res. 542, commonly cited as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-148):

(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The final clause bears repeating -- it is within the legal authority of the POTUS to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities during "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

One should pay further attention to the fact that this power is specifically enumerated in the War Powers Resolution, the purpose of which was to limit the POTUS's authority as Commander-in-Chief. Under the War Powers Resolution, the POTUS has the authority to order United States Armed Forces into action in the listed circumstances, provided that he or she should notify the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate in writing of the action and its purposes; the Armed Forces may remain in service for 60 days under Presidential authority, without action by the Congress.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is still in effect. It is, then, currently fully within the POTUS's Constitutional and statutory powers as Commander-in-Chief to order United States Armed Forces into action without a declaration of war from the Congress.

Finally, for the question of treason -- the Constitution for the United States of America is very explicit on the subject. It states in Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

In no way, shape, or form, does the act of ordering United States Armed Forces into action without a declaration of war satisfy the Constitutional definition of treason. In no way, shape, or form does obedience to orders to that effect satisfy the Constitutional definition of treason.

It should be added, however, that disobedience to orders to that effect, given legally and lawfully under the Constitutional and statutory powers of the Office of the POTUS, does constitute a crime -- insubordination.

Whether or not one agrees with President Bush's decision to order United States Armed Forces into action in Afghanistan without a declaration of war from the Congress is quite irrelevant; neither the most outspoken defence nor the most virulent detraction of the fact will change the legality of it, under both the Constitution for the United States of America and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Publius

Incidentally, regarding the question of the legal status of the Articles of Confederation:

The Articles of Confederation stated that amendment of the Articles required unanimous vote by all thirteen States; the Constitution of the United States specifically states (Article VII) that the Constitution should take effect upon the ratification of nine States.

That is, the Constitution took effect in nine States while the Articles of Confederation were still in force -- in the legal sense, those nine States had seceded from the Confederation and established a new Union, independent of the old.

With the ratification of the thirteenth State, the old Union ceased to exist, and the Articles of Confederation, the fundamental law thereof, became irrelevant to the jurisprudence of the new Union. It is to be noted that the Constitution for the United States of America was conceived and adopted because of the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation.

Publius

kojikun wrote:Cirrocu:

Notice how you don't bother to address anything I've said. Concession accepted.

Darth Cirrocu wrote:Funny, I don't feel like a traitor.

And Osama bin Laden doesn't feel like he was wrong to destroy the WTC. Try again.

Oh, that's rich. Tell you what, here's my personal challenge to you, kojikun:

Find someone who will sponsor you onto a military base and go over to the enlisted club on a Friday night. Walk in and say, "All members of the United States Armed Forces who have followed the ILLEGAL orders of that ILLEGITIMATE president, George W. Bush, are hereby accused of treason!"

To save you some brainpower in the decision-making process, I'll give you a good idea of the general reaction from the different branches.

ARMY - Silence, followed by a few minutes of the grunts trying to comprehend what it was you just said. It would be best to take that opportunity to escape, because once they figure it out, they'll beat the snot out of you.

NAVY - Silence, then mocking laughter. You'll have a couple minutes to escape, because after they stop laughing they'll beat the snot out of you.

AIR FORCE - Silence, stupefied looks, and then an incalculable amount of indifference because, quite honestly, crackpots like you aren't worth the time and effort to beat the snot out of. Drinking beer is a far more efficient use of time and energy.

MARINES - Silence. Don't bother trying to escape, because big, burly Marines already have all the exits blocked. They'll beat the snot out you, send you to the hospital, wait for you to heal, and then beat the snot out of you again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

What is a "First Strike?" People who debate the sort of things we debate tend to naturally think in bellicose terms, so we equate "First Strike" to "Nuke the bastards!" Umm, no.

The U.S. has frequently hesitated to use force because of world condemnation. Sudan (which, I might add, one of the most abhorrent governments in the world) offered the Clinton administration a crack at Bin Laden. No takers, even after all he had done. In 1945, we didn't attack the Russians in order to free East Berlin and Poland, even though we had the military capability to do so, Patton was urging that it be done, and this whole Cold War business could have been avoided. Macarthur was fired because, among other things, he had urged that China be bombed when they initiated aggressive action against RoK and UN forces in the Korean War. Such bombings might have had strategic benefits. In Vietnam, the U.S. fought with its hands tied behind its back because of a desire to avoid conflict with Russia.

Where has all the agitation about this "First Strike policy" come from? Allegations that we intend to invade Iraq, of course. No other nation has been "targeted" in any meaningful way. Sure, we have plans that have gotten leaked. Contingency plans. Dig deep enough in the Pentagon, and you'll probably find plans to invade Madagascar in some far-fetched scenario. None of this means anything.

I think the first people we should be asking about this new policy are the people in the countries we intend to strike. Sadaam has killed over a million of his own people, and he continues to do so. I'm not talking about anything that ostensibly has occurred because of the sanctions (which are another issue altogether, and have been the source of many inaccurate statements and much dubious criticism of the U.S.), I'm talking about military actions of the Iraqi army against civilians in political reprisals. We exhorted the people of Iraq to rebel at the end of Desert Storm. They did, and they were crushed. We didn't help them because the "coalition" would have collapsed. Regrettably, toppling Sadaam was not the original mission. Every nation except for Britain would have been up in arms about "American hegemony" and "American warmongering" if we had continued operations. We had hoped that the Iraqi people would have been able to free themselves, so that whatever came next wouldn't be thought of as a "puppet regime" by the world. We miscalculated. We bowed to the dictates of popularity.

Perhaps we have a debt to the people of Iraq for all of that.

The Iraqi army only obeys Sadaam's orders because they fear him. Every defector to have come out of Iraq (some of them generals) says that the main army has no loyalty to Sadaam. Considering how easily many units surrendered in the Gulf War and the sentiments expressed by many ordinary soldiers who were captured, this isn't hard to believe.

All we would really have to do would be to take out the Republican Guard and the palace guards. And anything we would do would be in close cooperation with Iraqi resistance movements. The most likely scenario would be the Afghanistan model, in which we allowed the Afghans to liberate themselves with only as much help as was absolutely necessary.

So why should we be worried about Sadam at all? It has been well-documented that Iraq has a large cache of uranium to refine. Recently, Sadaam has been caught smuggling the machinery to do this on return flights from Syria. Look here for other evidence and analysis:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/junior/note1.htm
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/medi ... listic.htm
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/medi ... n-free.htm

For a more realistic analysis of what the "First Strike" policy will probably mean:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/medi ... in-how.htm

With regard to sanctions:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/medi ... ctions.htm

Thank Budda for Isreal, and there clear sighted indifference to the "rightious indignation" of totalitarian Arab states, (ALL of them, as there are no other democracies in the region) and their craven short sighted friends. Otherwise, Iraq would already have atomic weapons, like Pakistan, and this debate might be about nulear retaliation, not a first strike, most likely with conventional means.

Yep. Only Israel had the guts to take out that damned reactor. And everybody whined about it. "Oh, what a mean thing to do!"

If the Iraqis ever build a Death Star, we'll know who to turn to.