Replies

The dynamics have changed 180 degress from where they were 40 years ago. Defense can be a proactive action as well.

Would you rule out a strike against Iran if they gain the ability to launch against us, or do we wait to see where it lands first. If we know a state has plans to deliver a nuke to agent of a terrorist group, would we wait and let it come, or knock out the source before it can even occur.

As far as your last remark, spare me the indignation, you know exactly the point to which I speak. You and the Paul crew keep telling us how "Unconstitutional" a proactive defense in the age of WMDs is. I think you would find the victims of such an act, be they military or civilian, some what at a loss for words when they found out we could have stopped the attack, but did not on some "Constitutional" point of law. I know and work with daily many individuals whom have born arms for this country, many willing over there in this "Unconstitutional" war now who would take issue with your stance. They know the score, do you?

I agree that the application of the libertarian principle of non-intervention must change since technology has diminished the defensive benefits of being located between two huge oceans. I totally agree with your statement that "Defense can be proactive," but I would emphasis the word can.

It can also be a subterfuge for government to get the country involved in wars for interventionist purposes when we are not seriously at risk.

Bringing it down to a personal level, if someone states an intent to kill me, gets out his gun, and starts to load it, I don't have to wait for him to get loaded and fire the first shot. I have sufficient grounds to shoot him DRT [dead right there], and my use of force would be defensive.

In fact, if someone has made a clear threat to kill me and is only waiting for the right place and time to act, I have the right to choose the time and place of my defensive use of force. I don't have to let him get the advantage.

The same principles are true with respect to national defense. But the evidence of the evil intent when there has been no overt action has to be clearly proven or provable and absolutely clear, no ambiguities. Just as I would have to prove intent if I just up and killed someone and claimed self-defense. I have the prove that the dead man was objectively a genuine, actual threat to me.