You had thousands of nuclear missiles pointing back at targets you could actually hit? You wouldn't even know what to hit if New York happened to be hit by a nuclear attack would you? You could blindly hit Islamic targets and achieve next to nothing but a guarantee that a nuclear attack would again hit your shores.
AQ isn't USSR, no. There was MAD, yes. My point was that the risk scenario with the USSR was >>>>> that with AQ. So, as I just said, display how this new threat requires these changes first, don't just tell me it's new and we don't have MAD so the old rules don't apply. The status quo is such, and was created in a time of far greater risk, so tell me what is new and why it must change with such a smaller risk. Do that and I'll agree. Your post didn't do that, it was a rant. A rant isn't convincing me of anything, and it's basically all I hear from proponents generally. I want proponents to give competent arguments that detail what it is about AQ that requires these changes other than knee-jerking nukes in NYC for the millionth time. I would appreciate it much since I hate only having one side of an issue.
Of course, I don't know if your rant was from a proponent or opponent since you didn't even address the issue once
Where are the nukes coming from anyway? The Taliban? How does this new Obama policy actually connect with the nuke issue? Are we just going to start detaining people
en masse and hope our dragnet catches the one that would have got the nuke 5 years later? Does not compute. You'd think the way to cracking a nuclear plot would be good investigative work, infiltrating cells, tracking dangerous individuals, watching potential suppliers. Where does indiscriminate imprisonment fit in?
I would respond to the rest of your post but considering how you shoved a lot of words down my throat I didn't intend or even imply and that are barely applicable, I don't think it would be appropriate. Find the guy you were talking to and ask him what he thinks...