"It's a subtle game, so "shoot first ask questions later" is not an obvious policy, as it is in the school-bomber example."
I don't think this game is subtle. I believe that once Radical Islam has a bomb, then the game changes. Who do we attack? It is like the RATS when they told us to chase Bin Laden and hunt down Al Queada? Where? Do we just go into a country and tear apart the place looking for Al Queada?
Fact is we know Iran is building a bomb so attacking Iran is the most logical solution. We set back Iraq almost 20 years. We shouldn't hesitate to do the same with Iran.
I essentially agree with you, I'm just saying that this is a bad analogy. It's *not* obvious what we should do. We don't know we can destroy Iran's nuclear capability in one attack. So: do we try to destroy the research sites? Do we take out the leadership? Do we foment an Orange Revolution-style uprising? What's the timeframe of them getting a bomb vs. us being able to take any of those actions? So, no, it's not the same as simply stopping the school bomber. The analogy is completely misleading.