Pre-emptive strike

[steve7150]

I was watching C-Span and the guy being interviewed was answering questions about the Republican primary. He said that Ron Paul was a dangerous candidate because he would refuse to initiate a pre-emptive strike no matter what. The hypothetical issue was that if the President knew for a certainty that Iran was imminently going to fire nuclear missiles at Los Angeles should he order a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities?
This is assuming there was somehow certainty about this, that is the assumption of this question, it is not whether it is possible to have certainty. The basis of the question is if there were a certainty of an imminent nuclear strike from a foreign enemy do you think as a bible believer the President should act first to protect US citizens.

[mattrose]

I don't think Ron Paul would fail to defend the country as President if it were absolutely certain (or even beyond reasonable doubt) that a bomb was about to come our way and he could take action to do something about it. I know that's not really what you are asking, but I just think Paul's foreign policy is mis-represented by the guy on C-Span you mentioned. Indeed, his foreign policy is mis-represented by the media almost every time they talk about him. I've heard...

He's an isolationist (not true, his just not an interventionist)
He hates Israel (not true, he wants to respect their sovereignty)
He would never go to war (not true, he was for the war in Afghanistan)
He wants to cut defense (not true, he wants to stop policing world and focus on our borders)
Troops find his policies scary (not true, he receives the most support from the troops)
His foreign policy is lunacy (how should we know? how's interventionism working for us now?)

[steve7150]

OK let's pretend we are talking about Candidate BB (Bible Believer) as President with the same information. As a Jesus following President, knowing an enemy is imminently going to fire nuclear missiles at L.A. , should he make a pre-emptive strike?

[darinhouston]

OK let's pretend we are talking about Candidate BB (Bible Believer) as President with the same information. As a Jesus following President, knowing an enemy is imminently going to fire nuclear missiles at L.A. , should he make a pre-emptive strike?

What is the purpose and target of and likely fallout from the strike?

[TK]

What would David do?

TK

[steve7150]

What is the purpose and target of and likely fallout from the strike?











The purpose would be to destroy the nuclear missiles before they are fired and destroy L.A. , the target would be military installations and the likely fallout is that civilians are killed as part of what they call collateral damage and in addition the country hit would deny everything and label the US as murderers and incite additional hatred against the US.

[mattrose]

OK let's pretend we are talking about Candidate BB (Bible Believer) as President with the same information. As a Jesus following President, knowing an enemy is imminently going to fire nuclear missiles at L.A. , should he make a pre-emptive strike?

I have some sympathy for a couple of answers to this question

1. Part of me wants to say that a Jesus-follower would be so pre-occupied with the Kingdom of God that he/she wouldn't even run for President of a worldly nation. Perhaps this would be trying to serve 2 masters.

2. Another part of me wants to say that a Jesus-follower could run for President and, as a national leader, would have an obligation to defend the country. If it were certain or even proven beyond reasonable doubt that an act of war were about to be carried out, I think the President would have a responsibility in his/her role as President to take defensive action (Which may include bombing the bomb development site).

But a Jesus-follower would realize that bomb for bomb will never solve the real issues. A Jesus' follower would look into what caused the situation in the first place. And since he/she cannot control other people/nations, he/she should do some self-reflection and consider what role our country has played in the situation.

[mattrose]

The purpose would be to destroy the nuclear missiles before they are fired and destroy L.A. , the target would be military installations and the likely fallout is that civilians are killed as part of what they call collateral damage and in addition the country hit would deny everything and label the US as murderers and incite additional hatred against the US.

I would think, though, that if the situation were 'certain' there would be actual evidence and the other country couldn't legitimately claim that the US was simply lying.

[jriccitelli]

I too am often ‘tempted’ to wait and see what may be, rather than to act irrationally on an educated guess. This is often an option in many areas of life, I am often tempted to let another less experienced employee go ahead and find out for them-self what may go wrong, yet when it does go wrong it often affects me and everyone involved, sometimes at great cost and time. So then, ‘generally’ I would vote for the most preventive measures, especially when the consequences and danger is the greatest to the most.

I worked with some Iranian immigrants along time ago who disclosed to me the hatred and disgust some Iranians and Muslims have for America, and combined with a little knowledge of Islam I have long considered Muslim countries as mild threats to freedom, and a ‘very’ dangerous threat if given the right weapons (Could you imagine a Muslim country with a military strength such as ours, what would they do!) Fortunately Muslim countries do not seem to have the stability and cohesiveness to form a big enough union to do much.

So when I saw the hit on the World Trade Center I thought well maybe the world will wake up to the reality of the evil Muslim fundamentalist, instead this lesson was turned into a trillion dollar waste of time and life in Iraq by a president who did not consider the religious zeal and control within Islam, nor consider his bible where it says, "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not 'first' sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? (Luke 14:28)
It seems to me that Historically the first country that 'runs out of money' loses the war, ruins the economy and is then at the mercy of real possible threats from Communist countries who have technology and resources.

It is easy to be undecided on this though, Muslim technology and Govt. order is so shaky I do not see them making more than one ‘attempt’ at a nuclear strike, and successful or not, would not be able to back it up with much. Then I would expect even Ron Paul to launch a military strike where I do not trust Obama would. (But this dissolves into decisions of ‘Launch before Nuclear Detonation’ LBND, LAND, RLBND, etc.)
To allow history to happen in order to establish the ‘fact’ of the enemies’ ability and intent ‘is educational’ in the long haul and I think this is what God has done, God allows things to go on yet at the ‘same time’ calls us to defend the defenseless. If someone tries to harm my unsaved unbelieving neighbor it should be left for me to decide to lay down my life or time for them, that’s what Jesus would do, and did.

(An 'Alpha attack' is an all out ground attack, where an 'Alpha and Omega attack' is when God comes back to clean house; Revelations 19:15, we 'could' wait till then)

[RickC]

What would David do?

TK

'Not sure.

Hide in a cave maybe?