Quote:
Originally posted by gavinlit
Aside from the fact that Iraq wasn't about to invade anyone, and we still don't have any evidence of the wmd thing or their remilitarization (you're comparing to germany right) or there being a significant threat.
|
This exemplifies my point. The general perception in the 1930s was that Germany was not about to invade anyone either. The few voices that were proclaiming the risk (eg, Churchill) were denounced as deluded war-mongers. History treats those that fail to perceive and act against an emerging military threat very harshly: Chamberlain for example. But if pre-emption works (by removing an emerging military threat) you will never know if the threat WAS real or simply imagined.
Fail to act--history condemns you.
Act to remove a potential threat, and be successful--history condemns you.
Another question. You are President / PM / whatever. You are told that a certain group (be it nation or terrorist entity) MAY be preparing a "mass destruction"attack (ie, nuclear-biological-chemical) against one of your main cities. When do you initiate pre-emptive action? When the attack is possible? probable? almost certain? Or do you wait for the collapsing buildings, then take action?