>> How is that legal, are you invoking the Bush doctrine[0] of pre-emptive strikes, although to call that legal is a stretch. >The nuclear bombing of Japan was

>> How is that legal, are you invoking the Bush doctrine[0] of pre-emptive strikes, although to call that legal is a stretch. >The nuclear bombing of Japan was not a pre-emptive strike. Pearl Harbor was a thing. The OP is using the present tense(unless he edits his comments), perhaps he would like to edit what he wrote to suggest that in the past it was considered a legal action to drop a nuclear weapon on a nation the US was at war with, but if the OP continues to use the present tense I can only continue to believe he is INSANE to believe it is CURRENTLY legal to drop nuclear weapons on ally nations. The OP never responded to what he so clearly believes are "clearly-defined lines." and he will not respond to direct challenges of 1: clapper lying under oath, 2: US engaging in torture and refusing to prosecute. We can even give a historical example, was imprisoning US citizens of Japanese decent and confiscating their property within a "well defined line" no, it was simply a government run amok with fear and hatred trying to defend itself. Go read some more Hobbes and Locke.