Geez.
Undertsanding the military mind, I'll assume he is factoring the costs of the massive civilian casualties against the cost of Bush implementing a pre-emptive action against an enemy sworn to destroy us, in the current geo-political environment. And accepting that cost.
Too bad leftist liberalism and the Democrats have weakened us so much in the eyes of the world that these lillers do not fear us.
Guess I'll stear clear of any major cities or symbolic targets in the years ahead.
The point of the article as I read it is not Iran directly attacking the US but about proliferating states like China Pakistan Iran and North Korea and the US being attacked on some non-attribution basis by terrorists Hezbollah al Qaida, whoever, its unimportant...etc.
So this is not about a trade-off between pre-emption and being attacked overtly but how to preempt proliferation and covert attacks...when we probably or may not know what is going on beforehand.
I think this is the point of the article; how to adapt our deterrence strategy to countries like Iran having nukes with highly capable proxies and terrorists in the world.
The implication is that if an event happens, the USD may respond anyway against Iran North Korea China and lot of other people irrespective of what we know...that's why I like the argument...if it scares the crap out of these losers maybe they will go around and spend resources and prevent an attack on the US vice our having to do the lifting alone...
I think Iran would like to see the US destroyed but they risk being destroyed if a nuclear event occurs here under this strategy and that may or may not give us or force the cooperation and security we want.
Iran is not safe having nukes under this strategy.
The problem is this: You can establish the doctrine that the mushroom cloud, is a triggering event. But then you have to wonder who believes it and who doesn't. And then the biggest worry is those fanatics that would LIKE to see that happen so they can immanentize the eschaton.