Who Agrees with Pre-emptive Wars?

Should we attack countries before they attack us?

How do we know the countries will attack?

Should we be the police of the world?

What is the criteria for pre-emptive wars?

What if the tables are turned and it is not the US, but another country looking to Pre-emptively strike out?

Look at what happened to Japan when they bombed Pearl Harbor and the USA wasn't in the war.

My take is if your looking for a fight you will always find one and by todays rules no one plays by the rules, so IMO pre-emptive is not a logical solution.

[edit on 12-6-2007 by Realtruth]

As my University professor's favorite answer to tough questions was: "It Depends".

Its not an easy question, and it does depend on many circumstances without a set rulebook so to speak.

Could the Nazi buildup and WWII largely have been prevented if a major pre-emptive strike was launched against them?

ALSO...

If we did strike Germany and prevent their coming to military power, would another country take their place further down the road?

ON THE OTHER SIDE....

Would the war have turned out differently if Japan HAD NOT attacked us in Pearl Harbor?

One thing IS CERTAIN: Hindsight is 20/20

[edit on 6/12/2007 by greatlakes]

No.

You don't - you can't trust intelligence sources as has been proved countless times during every war.

By 'we' do you mean the U.S.A? - That would scare a lot of people.

To dangerous to even try - you can't legislate for this - every country would have different views.

Originally posted by johnb


By 'we' do you mean the U.S.A? - That would scare a lot of people.

We meaning any country, that thinks pre-emptive is ok.

Thinking about it, is the U.N. not meant to be policing the world anyway

Originally posted by Realtruth
Should we attack countries before they attack us?

How do we know the countries will attack?

...

What is the criteria for pre-emptive wars?

What if the tables are turned and it is not the US, but another country looking to Pre-emptively strike out?

...

My take is if your looking for a fight you will always find one and by todays rules no one plays by the rules, so IMO pre-emptive is not a logical solution.

Well, technically speaking, all wars start with a "pre-emptive strike," as I see it anyway. Someone always attacks first, followed by counterattacks, etc. If one of these "pre-emptive strikes" do not occur, then you are left with a "Cold War" situation, where both sides are mad / paranoid with each other, but not really enough to drag themselves into a large scale conflict.

The real question to be asked is are the actions of that country to be attacked really bad enough to pull them and "us" into a long drawn-out war?

The sad fact is, there will always be war, to some extent, wether it is truely justified or not.

As I see it, a first, or pre-emptive, strike costs you the high moral ground.
No-one has a problem with "hitting back", but few look favorably at the fight starters.
It hurts every time, but taking the first hit lets you strike back firmly and, hopefully, decisively, while retaining status as a "peaceful" nation.

If I was a believer in preventive war and I was China or Russia I would already gone against the US......

Look at what the US wants to do with Russia, the US wants to place missiles and radars as close as ten miles from Russias border.....

How would you feel if Russia were to place missiles 90 miles from US shores??????........ hummmmmm, I almost forgot.....remember Cuba and the Missiles crises??? and how the US almost went to war? there is your answer.

Originally posted by PONCE
If I was a believer in preventive war and I was China or Russia I would already gone against the US......

Look at what the US wants to do with Russia, the US wants to place missiles and radars as close as ten miles from Russias border.....

How would you feel if Russia were to place missiles 90 miles from US shores??????........ hummmmmm, I almost forgot.....remember Cuba and the Missiles crises??? and how the US almost went to war? there is your answer.

Actually, that's an answer to a very different question.

If the US was planning to put a few LGM-30s or BGM 109s (Minuteman IIIs or Tomahawks, if you like) near the Russian border, then your analogy to the Cuban Missile Crisis would be valid, and frankly, under those conditions, I wouldn't blame the Russian government from being more than a little hacked.

On the other hand, the missiles in question (Most likely Boeing GBIs with Raytheon EKVs) don't even have warheads in the conventional (or nuclear) sense. They are kinetic-kill interceptors, meaning that they are designed to physically hit a missile or warhead and destroy it by impact. They don't explode, and they certainly aren't 'city killers'. They'd be more analogous to SAM sites deployed in Cuba (which the U.S. did complain about, to the extent of sending a nasty diplomatic letter or two).

The Russian response is way out of proportion to the actual threat.

Well the October 1962 missile crises and then the Regan era deployment of SS-20 and Cruise missiles in the UK/Pershing II etc were examples of such tensions. They were resolved without threats.

If the question is about Iran then in that case there are threats being made. The country is also in violation of UN resolutions 1696, 1737 and 1747.

Who should implement first strike ?

A nation which is, or whose interests are directly and imminently threatened. International law permits this.

As the above poster pointed out, we came close to a Nuclear war many times in the past 50 years... but it never happened.
We are very lucky the "Hit them before they hit us" Warhawks didn't get their way.
Jumping into a War is never a good move when there is alternatives.

People always bring up the Appeasement of Hitler. Well, what if it had worked?
If some deal had been worked out and Hitler and Germany just remained some nasty dictatorship? No massive war. No millions of dead.
Surely even with a huge lose of pride and all the compromises of dealing with such a nasty regime, that would have been better.
Even Stalin and the USSR didn't last forever.

I Think a pre-emptive strike has the envitable double edged element to it whilst it "could" prevent a major conflict from reeking havoc in so many ways! the world view of an overly aggressive and some might view opportunistic nation could foster paranoia and a deep-seated resentment towards a nation, culture,peoples and way of life that could be avoided with the good old art of diplomacy.Wars fought for honor are rare in these times we live in and when the reasons for going to war are'nt transparent for all to see it can bring down a civilisation very swiftly! and usualy from within! Rome et al.