Reply #21: Mutually assured destruction [View All]

that idea stayed any notion of a "pre-emptive" strike during the cold war with the then USSR - only because we knew (or suspected) that the target would annihllate us completely in retaliation or at least damage us to a level that is unacceptable to any sane human being. Its all a matter of scale and some portion denial apparently. North Korea and Iran may (or may not) possess enough atomic weapons for a traditional "exchange" with us to survive the first second of such a war. We know we can "pre-emptively" strike those targets without fear of a "traditional" military retaliation, atomic or otherwise. The calculation is that even if missiles were launched against us, it will be no where near the hundreds of warheads that the USSR was once feared to be able to fire back at us, and therefore, easier to intercept (but with WHAT proven system?). So what the hell right? The denial (or ignorance) comes from the fact that there does not seem to be any thought placed on the after effects of such an act. I do not believe that once a pre-emptive action like this is under taken, that there will not be some other retaliation of some kind provided by others that may or may not be aligned with the original target - and in fact will now find common cause to hurt us. And around and around it goes. I am a stupid person, I do not have the training or practice that I assume that the people in government are supposed to have - but I do not have the confidence that there is anybody in those positions that are capable of any long term thinking beyond next years election poll or that a few short years later.