posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:00 AM
Originally posted by THEBEARDEDGOAT
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I have a legitimit question. Would US premptively strike in case of an on-comming attack or would the US take the first hit before they unleashed the
Well, the doctrine through the end of Bush's term and starting many President's before him on that was clear. The U.S.
wouldn't simply sit and wait to confirm an ICBM was nuclear or other before retaliating as if it were.
However, there are two important things to note here. First, that was a policy born of the cold war where the attack wouldn't be A missile but dozens
if not hundreds of them coming at once. Assumptions in that case are luxuries no one has and it made sense. North Korea's whole arsenal, launched at
once, wouldn't amount to much in numbers. Not intermediate range or more, anyway. Short range is different but wouldn't be the retaliation you
Now? I don't think the U.S. would respond in that way with either Nuclear or the next step below it with Barometric /Fuel-Air weapons. War would, by
definition, already be started by ANY launch of an actual warhead....and as soon as it confirmed as tracking to a U.S. or allied land area? The
conventional counter-attack would be on the way, I imagine.
A missile or any nuclear attack back though? I don't see that happening without actually taking the hit to be absolutely sure. That's an unthinkable
decision for any President.
I'd actually feel truly bad for Obama, if put into that position. It'd be a lot of emotions ..conflicting ones.. but feeling sorry would be one of
them if missiles into Japan or Guam have anything but conventional explosive. The choices just shouldn't be what any man has to make.