[Poohbah]

Now... myself, I'd have to raise an eyebrow as well if one were to easily discard the facts regarding the hostile intentions of Russia, China, and their satellite allies. Each bent on causing harm to America and the free West. The facts are true and impossible to dispute regarding the nature of these countries.

When someone says, without supplying any backup, that something is "true and impossible to dispute," he's begging the question, not engaging in logical argument.

To disagree (in this case) is to discard the truth, is it not?

No, mostly because you haven't established that it IS the truth.

If we are truly all patriots, would it not be prudent to place strong pressure on our enemies if they are openly placing a deadly ultimatum on us?

Show me someone who's

In the 1960s and 1970s, when every analysis said that NATO would not be able to withstand a conventional assault from the Warsaw Pact, we threatened first use. Now, Russia is doing likewise.

They are worried--just as we were.

[Noswad]

The nature of Russia and China is that they have formed an alliance in July of 2001 and again this year promising to oppose the United States.

In the same summit that is the topic of this thread putin said Russia had "at her disposal a considerable... stockpile of heavy ground-launched strategic missiles...".

"Their combat characteristics, including the surmounting of any systems of anti-missile defences, are unrivalled," he said.

Now... who, besides Russia herself, has (or will have) a ballistic missile defense?

I had assumed you already had the facts regarding the nature of Russia, China, and their satellite allies (including Iraq, DPRK, Iran, Syria, and others) each having been (or previously) openly hostile to the United States.

One can't dispute that if they are informed.

In the 1960s and 1970s NATO used a policy of "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE" if I recall correctly-- not preemption.