pull down to refresh
You're suggesting to act based on fear, making an agression on fear to create a supposed peace. It's nonsense. "What if this" "what if that"
You make it sound like there's only one person calling the shots when the reality is there's intelligence, military strategy, state departments who spend years monitoring potential threats and calculating risk. Their knowledge is far greater than yours, or mine, or any one president.
No intelligence and resources are above the truth or any principles. Then your advocating in favour of utilitarism not on priciples and what is the right thing to do.
You're not wrong but geopolitics can't usually be simplified down to just what's right and wrong. There's an incredible amount of nuance and gray areas. If the 'right' thing to do is, say, not act now, you could be putting your whole economy at risk and countless lives on the line. Should that come to pass in the years to come it would probably be deemed that you made the 'wrong' choice those years ago, and your 'no war' philosophy was ruthlessly taken advantage of by your adversaries who don't share those quandaries.
So imagine a very serious and globally devastating conflict, let's just call it WW3. Would you not justify a limited conflict now if it reduces the likelihood of WW3? Or put another way, if you don't act now the death and destruction could be far greater in coming years. It's not pleasant, nobody wants war, but these are very real choices.