How is bombing another country not an act of war?

[whttevrr]

If another country bombed us because we have chemical and nuclear weapons, wouldn't we consider that an act of war?

So, how can John Kerry bray into the camera for all to see and hear: "We are not going to war!"

We are just going to bomb this country...

Can someone explain the legal logic that makes bombing another country not an act of war?

[PoliticAverse]

1. You must have missed the extensive DU semantic debates on 'war' vs 'act of war'. n/t

[whttevrr]

2. No... I just want to keep the focus on the potential for war if we get hoodwinked into believing we

... can relax. There is still a threat of war on the table. It has not gone away. This is not over until the chemical weapons are gone.

Meanwhile, I have not seen anyone explain legally how bombing another country without the UN, NATO... or any other country asking the US to do so is not an act of war. An act of war starts war. I see no legal justification for unilateral action.

What legal premise allows a country to attack another country without it being an act of war?

Is "Might makes right" now a legal premise to validate acts of aggression?