should  the U.S. practice  A Preemptive defense Strategy?
821204
Absolutely. And I think you're going to get an example of that pre-emtiveness very soon. Watch Iran, N.Korea and Syria. But probably Iran first.
370433
Yes, a very valuable lesson, kill every Islamic Extremist before he kills you. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be placated, and we can't worry what other policy of the United States may offend these Extremists. The lesson is we need to exterminate every Islamic Extremist who threatens the United States...Looks like your question was right-on//////
97335
to exploit it in full.\nhow can they make it a safe place by using force and weapons is a way only americans know, or don't wanna know.
529138
It isn't a preemptive war, it's a continuation of the 1991 war. Iraq surrendered back then and since had not lived up to their promises. So the U.S. and its allies are there now to fix things.\n\nTo call the U.S. responsible for car bombings is just stupid. Most of the bombers aren't from Iraq. They are from other countries that see this as a way to kill Americans and defeat democracy.
41514
I don't know. They haven't involved in military activities since WW2 until recently. But I think we can give them a chance, besides do you think we can fully trust USA? It's a good way to make a balance of power (without having a cold war).
1176367
W seems to have tried "bomb first, ask questions later" twice now (Afghanistan and Iraq) -- and look at the mess he's in.  Not that I think he *learned* anything from those, just that we don't have enough troops to deal with Iran the way he'd want to right now.\nDiplomacy is almost always the best solution.  It's certainly the best one to TRY FIRST before bombing someone.  And if you think the US would use nuclear weapons on Iran, you're sadly mistaken (unless they used them first) -- that's just not going to happen.  Which means any attack would be a "conventional" attack, would lead to invasion/occupation, and...we'd have Iraq II to deal with.\nGive diplomacy a chance.
864766
The question is yes the US army is readily but unfornally, US ciztiens are not prepared for the end of the world by nuclear bombs, if any country including the US launched nuclear weapons, all other counties would then fire there weapons in case of attack plus everyone loses.
1146068
No it isn't a cheap tactic.\n\nThe reason is because you have to look at the bigger picture. Remember that movie 'Red Dawn' where the USA had been occupied and lost. There was a group of teenagers who setup roadside attacks. \n\nThat is what ppl do when they have been occupied by a country that is more powerful. I mean what do you expect? Do you think they will just say 'oh ok let me just give up my way of life and culture' and surrender to this all powerful boss.\n\nThat isn't human nature. They fight back in the only manner they can knowing they can't take us head to head. Would we not do the same?
28504
Of course, unless the USA (or Europe) bombs their reactors first. That would be a nice mess. It's a prestige thing, they feel inferior to Pakistan, India, China, and Europe...\n\nThe real question (as with N. Korea, or Israel) is how would you or they know for sure without a test? It is possible that there's an error in the calculations and the bomb will fizzle (see Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears", the book not the stupid movie.) The Americans initially avoided these technical problems by building a prototype the size of a truck - which is difficult to deliver a few thousand miles without intercept unless you have air superiority (which Iran doesn't).\n\nSo, (possible) possession of WMD is a mind game and a double-dare game, unless you're sure they work. GWB has proven with his invasion of Iraq that mind games only work on smart people. \n \nYou want people sufficiently sure that you have something ready for delivery that they don't dare attack - it's too late, too risky (like with N. Korea). With Iraq, the USA was very sure Saddam wasn't there yet.  \n\nFor better protection, you have to prove they work. After they're tested and proven, the trick is to have enough of them, scattered all over the country, to sufficiently retaliate if attacked. I.e., "attack us and Israel and the Saudi Oil fields get it, if we can't reach the USA."\n\nSo there's the answer: They'll play denial and mind games until they have a dozen or two, then they'll test one - they have lotsa desert to play with. Meanwhile, they'll work at other toys that can defeat the Patriot Missle systems.\n\nWill they give them to terrorists? Not likely (but it's always good for a threat, and rogue sympathizers are always a risk). An atomic bomb works best as a retaliation threat. As far as taking out actual armies and fleets, it's not that great and nobody's going to group together too close when the threat is there. \n\nThey also know that the moment one goes off anywhere outside Iran unprovoked, all bets are off- shock and awe from all directions. I think at that point, the USA would be happy to nuke the big bits, then give the rest of Iran to Russia or even China - "take the oil, just kill anyone associated with making the bombs or using them..."
346144
Of course.  Goodness, we have plans for invading Canada!  We have plans for invading every country in the world, as does China, Russia, etc., if they're smart.\n\nContingency plans are part of being prepared for every way things might change.  Careless leaders wait until the emergency happens.\n\nThis is why I find the whole, "President Bush had plans to invade Iraq" argument so silly.  President Clinton had plans to invade Iraq.  So did Ford, Carter, Reagen, Nixon, etc.  Like I said.  Silly to try to "blame" President Bush for something so obviously a necessary part of government.\n\nWe won't do it.  We will not invade a nation that is sovereign.  We invaded Iraq because we had a cease-fire with them after they attacked us while we were defending Kuwait.  Iraq agreed to certain terms for the cease-fire, and after a decade, they kept breaking their agreement; we invaded.\n\nBut we don't invade sovereign nations.  Iran will have to do something stupid.  We might even encourage them: "Go ahead and hit me, feel free!"\n\nIsrael is a natural source of a pre-emptive attack.  We'll see.
1066803
It would be a perfect opportunity for the Pentagon to test its new missile defensive system but they are face with some problems.  First, intelligence is not certain if this missile test is a actual warhead or a satelite that is intented to go to space.  Back in 1998 when North Korean launched its missile, it was a satellite that failed to reach space.  They are trying to launch a satellite because they think the U.S. is monopolizing space and is threatening an arms race in space.  Second, the missile defense system, first envisioned by Raegan, has some flaws.  The defensive system might miss its target and hit neighboring countrys.  I doubt the U.S. will be forced to use the missile defensive system because I think North korea will eventually back off because of internation pressure but it would be nice to see tax payers money at work.  STAR WARS!
1164842
A preemptive strike should be the last resort. A response from the North Koreans would be imminent. With the war in Iraq an adequate military response may not be feasible. The 2nd infantry division in S. Korea would be in harms way. It would not be a good scenario. Intercepting the missile if it threatens the U.S. or its interests would be justified.
575377
I think they only used them during the second world war to ultimately put them to the test in a live situation and its easier than losing troops.I do think they will on a place with lots of natural resources and gases,(Iraq-Iran)it will have to be something big for America to use it due to world opine on,if they were to attack us then yes but there is a 1% chance out of 100 that any one would be that stupid,but you never know.
588608
Why should we attack them, except in retaliation?\n\nAnd if we retaliate, especially to a nuke, we should have a bunch of boomers (nuke subs) off their coast and let fly. Turn it into a smoking radioactive hole.\n\nThat should settle the problem, no?\n\nBecause I'm tired of seeing American blood and money freeing ingrates the world over.
654569
First, this is not necessarily misguided, just not really feasible. Just as we were all up in arms on 9/12 because we were unprepared for such a disaster as planes flying into the Twin Towers, when an ICBM detonates over Sioux City we are going to be very angry again.\n\nWhile I do not disagree that we need missile defense as part of a comprehensive defense of the USA, until the technology is actually ready the idea of forcing money into it will not work. Because of the immense consequences and the relatively short time periods, this system cannot rely on human control as our current technology would require; this is not Atari's Asteroids game. We must have a system that can be able to monitor and control itself, and since we cannot master that sort of technology even for the telephone system yet, how are we supposed to trust a system with ion beams and nuclear weapons to not suddenly decide to 'kill all humans!' because it sees a flock of geese?\n\nIt is not a bad idea, just an idea that we cannot effectively put into place yet. If we were to put the technology into action that we posess now (as the President has suggested), it would not effectively protect the USA but will instead convince our leaders that we are indeed protected and that we can begin to threaten potential enemies with nuclear brinksmanship without any adverse consequences. If you think we are hated now, just wait!
162039
Shaping your military strategy for peace would be an oxymoron.  I think you're trying to ask if various military forces are developing weapons and tactics for missions beside that of conventional warfare.  The answer to that would be yes.  Preparing to fight unconventional warfare is the reality nowadays, and the US armed forces are definitely reshaping their structure, equipment, training, and tactics to do so.
270908
No , anything pre-emptive or otherwise has not been thought out. Stop. Listen. Read . Pray. Listen. Be quiet. (think about it) Iraq is is hardly over.... If you have a Bible, get it right now.