COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes: America does not / should not do such things
This is an easy question, for me.
Voted : Yes: America does not / should not do such things
At least, I hope not...
Voted : Yes: America does not / should not do such things
What are you basing the question on? Ruling out a pre-emptive nuclear strike under any and all circumstances? Example: Iran has 10 nuclear missles and they launch 5 at targets in the middle east and have 5 left, but we do not know if they will fire one or all of the 5 at the USA or Europe. Are you asking if we should NOT use a pre-emptive strike in that case?
I cannot answer your ballot until you are more clear.
^ Well I voted anyway ;)
Beau: This specifically means 'in the absence of a provoking attack.'
e.g., If we nuked them 'as a deterrent to any potential nuclear weapon program they may have.'
Now, when was the last USA pre-emptive nuclear strike? I don't see that happening here.
Mr. Cathexis: It is unseemly for one to cast vote and make comment on one's ballot, particularly the first such comment. I consider it valid for the ballot author to respond to comments, but any comment by the author, it seems to me, should be included in the ballot explanation, dontchathink?
Voted : Yes: America does not / should not do such things
It is hard to think about a nuclear attack on any nation. I just can't comprehend it. Should we rule it out? I think so, with one proviso: Unless attacked by the nuclear devices/weapons of others.
What Beauregard said.
margaret: I disagree. I purposely refrain from injecting opinions (well, most of the time ... er ... some of the time?) ... in the ballot text becaus ethat is mor elikely to prejudice the ballot. Some ballots can't help but show the author bias, of course. But, as a rule, i find it much less objectyionable for an author to post his/her views in Comments than in Ballot text.
margaret: As to your proviso -- I'd agree completely. Responding to such an attack would definitely NOT be considered pre-emptive.
Voted : Yes: America does not / should not do such things
Of course, this is now Bush's America, and his rules of civilization more closely resemble that of a fascist dictatorship.
Frankly, I wouldn't put it past him.
My sad but true feelings, if we did launch pre-emptive nuclear strike , I don't believe the world would be a bit surprised 
Cranky's said it all, I myself wouldn't be suprised.
Wouldnt surprise me if they did after all they vetoed a UN resolution calling non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states, whats all that about?
by isay on Fri Sep 22, 06 2:31pm
[+]
Voted : Sort of: Rule out full-nukes, but not 'tactical nukes'
If someone makes a credible threat against you, you should have the right to attack them before they can attack you.
Voted : Yes: America does not / should not do such things
But I could see America doing it.
Voted : Yes: America does not / should not do such things
The idea is beyond ridiculous for so many reasons.
To the idiot neocons, no threat is a credible threat. 
I have labeled these actions "reverse logic" in that they have the opposite effect, that is, they make the case of why any Nation would want a nuclear weapon rather than be forever under the threat of the countries that possess them. any Country should think very hard before using a nuclear device as a means to keep others from doing the exact same thing. (pre-emptive strike)
Voted : Yes: America does not / should not do such things
But... If Iran does something that provokes the U.S.A., like sending terrorists to destroy the Sears Tower (Chicago) or the Library Tower (L.A.)... then my opinion may (and probably will change).
|
