It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. 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. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.
In January 2007 a seminal article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, authored by Henry Kissinger, Bill Perry, George Shultz and Sam Nunn. These men were veterans of the cold-war era with impeccable credentials as believers in using nuclear weapons for deterrence. But they now reversed their previous position and asserted that far from making the world safer, nuclear weapons had become a source of extreme risk:
"The risk of accidents, misjudgments or unauthorised launches, they argued, was growing more acute in a world of rivalries between relatively new nuclear states that lacked the security safeguards developed over many years by America and the Soviet Union. The emergence of pariah states, such as North Korea (possibly soon to be joined by Iran), armed with nuclear weapons was adding to the fear as was the declared ambition of terrorists to steal, buy or build a nuclear device. Only by a concerted effort to free the world of nuclear weapons could the terrifying trend be reversed."
LONDON — As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, Iran was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes if it felt its national interests were threatened.
Without mentioning Israel directly, Mohammed Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, said on Tuesday: “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” Reuters reported
Originally posted by bknapple32
Honestly, the answer is simple here. Total worldwide nuclear disarmament.
Until we get to that point, we have a reason to fear. There's no argument. Sure the logistics of that are almost as complicated as trying to figure out how to travel faster than the speed of light. But with actual sane people making the decisions of the world, ya never know. But Im not holding my breath, just preparing to protect my wife when it all goes to hell.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
LONDON — As tension grew in its nuclear dispute with the West, Iran was reported on Tuesday to have struck an increasingly bellicose tone, warning that it would take pre-emptive action against perceived foes if it felt its national interests were threatened.
Without mentioning Israel directly, Mohammed Hejazi, the deputy armed forces head, said on Tuesday: “Our strategy now is that if we feel our enemies want to endanger Iran’s national interests, and want to decide to do that, we will act without waiting for their actions,” Reuters reported
Sooooo.. Since you dispute Irans intent, even though its clearly stated in the article, what do you think its means? That Iran is going to send Israel a big ole bouquet of ooopsy daisy's?
Iran is just awesome lol... So Iran says they will launch a preemptive action if they feel threatened. I guess that means Israel then is entitled to do the same. Even more so with Irans continued aggressive attitude towards Israel.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)edit on 21-2-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by WALDOP
I would suggest Russia get its act together and stop losing nukes first, and catch up with us in the disarmament of our own stockpiles. The Us roughly has 5000 and Russia is still at around 10,000. Since START, my numbers may be off. But how about taking our nuclear weapons that are on ready alert off and Russia do the same? Do we really need over 3,000 nukes at ready alert? In 1995, the US launched a test missile form a sub near Russia, no one apparently told Boris Yeltsin. He was literally 8 minutes away from having to launch counter measures and deploy their ready nukes as they thought a nuclear ICBM was headed towards Moscow.
We were literally 8 minutes away from worldwide destruction because someone forgot to inform Boris Yeltsin ( on a day where he happened not to be drunk) we were running a test.
Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by WALDOP
Are you calling Wolf Blitzer a nazi???? Welcome to ats I guess..
Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by EvolEric
EvolEric,
I think you might be misinterpreting the sentiments of those who see an attack on Iran as wrong. That doesn't translate to "Love for the Iranian Government." Nope. And as far as the Iranian people go, I've had much worse trouble out of some Americans frankly, from the people I've met.
American military officials have already stated that they are not 100% convinced of Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. While politicians continue to blindly accuse and flap their utterly gross lips.
I've believed for some time that Iran's best option is to strike first, if no one can put Israel on a leash. Israel is being utterly foolish. They think they are just going to waltz in there and bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran. But this time their cover will probably be blown by either Russia and/or China, the minute Israel moves to make that strike.
If Iran does strike first, it will probably be suddenly and with wide coverage. And it will be in preemptive response to a shown Israel attempt to make a military move towards them- gathered from Russian/Chinese military intelligence.
Iran's best hope is to make that strike as damaging and widespread as they can, so that they cause the biggest political mess possible- and put the bigger powers at odds against each other. Which is already happening to a degree.
Imagine the entire NATO force in all of Persia attacked viciously from all sides, and basically destroyed. A purging of American imperialism in the middle east, if you will. Basically daring the US, France and the UK to try and use their nuclear arsenals. Cause ultimately the Russians are much better prepared for that. At least they have made some serious moves to protect their populations. In contrast, the US government has only taken taxpayer money and built highly protected shelters for themselves, while leaving the population completely exposed.
It's just Blowback. Ask Ron Paul. He knows where this is headed. And it is why he wants us the hell out of their faces, and off their lands. And I agree.