Is it legitimate for countries to preemptively attack the USA before it attacks them?

Question

They have, and have used, nuclear weapons - hiroshima
and biological weapons - agent orange

Answer 1

if we can legitamatly do it than it has to be...

Answer 2

Japan bombed the US 1st. Vietnam asked the US in. Do some research before you spout the line. Granted the US did a lot of stupid things during the cold war. If one is viewing those times without considering the cold war one would say the US is a crazy country. Even smart people go nuts when a war is going on. Much of war is choosing between 2 evils.

Answer 3

no, it's not legitimate. You're reference to preemptively using nuclear weapons is a bit odd. The US had been at war with Japan for four years when they dropped the bombs.

Likewise it's not legitimate, nor strategically advisable, for the US to lauch preemtive attacks.

Answer 4

No, we hold all the cards and you Dd are a fool for thinking it's ok to attack us first, do you remember Pearl Harbor? How about 9/11/01?

I think you should remember those and ask yourself should The United States wait and be hurt before we kick their ***? No, we should just kick their *** and tell the American people and the world that we declaired war about 24 hours after we started.

And we should everything we have to fight off any one who wants to kill America and our people even if that means using Agent Orange and nuclear weapons, we must kill them before they can kill us.

Answer 5

Yes it would be legitimate. Then we would legitimately crush them. I wish Iraq did strike the first blow. Then this left wing nonsense just to gain political power wouldn't be as harmful to our brave soldiers. On the other hand , isn't it ironic that Afghanistan is a slice of bread and Iraq is the other. Iran is a nuclear proliferation sandwich. Lets hope the Iranian president doesn't force us to take a bite.

Answer 6

From an objective sense, I think in war, attacks that would be considered 'legal' (military targets) are legitimate. Please know, that Hiroshima wasn't exactly pre-emptive. Although the war was basically won, it was a measure taken (along with Nagasaki) to demoralize the people of Japan, and to prevent loss of U.S. lives during a land invasion.

Like if South Korea was to attack it's aggressive neighbor to the North? That would be legitimate.

Answer 7

I know one example in International Law of Armed Conflict
about the 'preemptive strike' that of the state of Israel in
the war of 1967 with the Arabs and it strictly applies in
state against state situation and probably 'the principle of
hot persuit(applicable in the sea-but The Rhodesians and
the Turks applied it on land,without precedent, especially the Turks didn't raid into Irak but proceeded with the temporary occupation of northern Irak(against all precedent) illigally.

Answer 8

Hitler killed jews (with biological weapons), can we attack modern Germany for that?
Stalin killed Millions (with biological weapons), can we attack modern Russia for that?
England killed Americans in two wars, can we attack England or Canada for that?
Spain killed indigienous Americans (including biological weapons - Small Pox), can we attack them for that?
France invaded most of Europe, can we invade France for that?
Japan, Italy, Austria, etc (including biologics - Mustard Gas) have all attacked Americans, can we attack them for that?
Whatever your answer is to these questions, that is your answer to your question.
Did you even think through your logic on this one?

Answer 9

Yes, as long as they can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they carry a threat to their own country, as well as those of its neighbours and allies. Now, "reasonable doubt" is a loose term which is used loosely, so don't lose it when I say the US loosely had the right reasons to attack Iraq.

Answer 10

Put it this way.
If we were on the brink with Iran, don't you think the first thing they would do is target the "Green Zone" in Iraq????

Answer 11

Ask Japan how it worked out for them.