>
>Gabriel, you know, I think, that the advent of WMDs has complicated the
>"ancient rules" of jus ad bellum.
That's what Lesley Groves thought too. 2 months after Hiroshima, Genl
Lesley Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, said the same thing. He said
that nukes now meant that we had to in his words "destroy" the capability
fo any govt aside from teh US who was developing them. He proposed a
preemtpive doctrine. His ideas were dismissed as very very bad and
destabilizing. Truman and Ike both advocated for containment. JFK was the
first to start working on this seriously as a matter of policy iwth other
govts. LBJ furthered it and Nixon signed the treaties with other nations (I
blieve 7 other nations). It was a bipartisan effort. Then FOrd, Carter,
Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton all followed this doctrine. Bush Sr even told
Wolfowitz -- strong Zionist -- that his preemtpive doctrine was just
dangerous.
The precedent of attacking another country against the democratic wishes of
the world's governing body (ie illegally) without proper evidence
BEFOREHAND, is incredibly destabilizing. That's something that's been
recognized by the majority of govts, analysts (even today's US govt
analysts), and administrations since the rise of WMD.
CSpan has on its website an archive of a teach-out held in Virginia by
former CIA analysts who argue the foregoing. You should check it out.
|