When is Pre-emptive/Preventitive War JUSTIFIED ??

[drdon326]

Burtworm and I had this discussion last night.

My post...

I do believe in a world without sticks and stones and rather nukes and chemical/biologic weapons , I think there will be times countries such as the US will have to make difficult decisions about pre-emptive war. Iraq , despite other views, did use chemical weapons at one point. This is a new era and countries, that had the luxury of security , no longer may have that option. Iraq will not be the last pre-emptive war. One wonders had a madman like Hitler been in power today with nukes, would pre-emptive war be justified??....I would say yes.

(I understand these were not present in iraq at the time.)

In addition the US cannot be the worlds policeman, but there may be times where US military action to prevent genocide ( see whats not happening in Darfur) on moral and preventitive grounds is warrented.

Sadly , even in these times of genocde , countries that talk about stopping genocide (see the flaccid EU) are a bunch of pathetic hypocrites....and dump it on the US.

Zhade commented...

You're describing PREVENTATIVE war, not preemptive.
World of difference - mostly the utter lack of an imminent threat (or, in this case, ANY threat).

It's easy to conflate the two, the corporate media and the USG do it all the time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3792798#3793445

................................................................

My thoughts and questions...

1. If a madman like Hitler been in power today with nukes, would pre-emptive war be justified??.(i would say yes)

2.What is the difference between a Preventitive WAR and a Pre-emptive war?....or is it just a matter of interpretation?

3.With the advent of countries having Nuclear( nuk-u-ler),chem and biologic weapons,HAVE THE RULES CHANGED? Do you still have to wait to be attacked and suffer devastating death before you can respond ?

4.And if a state with a history of supporting a terrorist group were to give a nuke to them, would that be justification in pre=emptive war? If Iran were to give a nuke to al-queda would you then feel a pre-emptive war was justified or would you wait and see if they have the guts to use it ?



I dont know the answers but it sure got me thinking.

[nightfox02]

1. simple its NOT

as long as the dogs of war are on the leash and the country in question stays within its geographical border war is NOT an option...

Anything less provokes WWIII with nukes in the long term...

[Postman]

2. When you're about to be invaded without cause or trumped up causes..

sound familiar?

[drdon326]

7. "Invaded" seems to be yesterdays wars....

I think a nuke brought in is more the future....and not out of the range of possibilities.

As i SAID, I think that previous sense of security may be a thing of the past.

[Protagoras]

3. At risk of triggering some other anxiety...

perhaps PREVENTING...or Invading in the case of extreme mass threats...genocide etc...might best be left to a well designed INTERNATIONAL body...rather than left to the questionable judgement of individual entities like Bushco.

Just a thought...

Yeah I know black helecopters with blue helmets is a scary thought too.

[Just Me]

17. Good thought.

Internationalizing the rule of law pertaining to belligerents is the best means of preventing wars for profit and promoting peaceful co-existence.

[indepat]

4. Pre-emptive war is justified whenever any Repug president says so EOS

[applegrove]

5. 1) humanitarian reasons 2) defensive That is it! n/t

[drdon326]

8. Let me ask you....

If a madman like Hitler been in power today with nukes, would pre-emptive war be justified??.

[applegrove]

9. If Hitler was gassing civilians and aggressively invading other

countries - that would be both humanitarian and defensive.

If he had not and was not invading other countries continuously and not killing or abusing certain populations and ethnically cleansing them - he would be exactly what we have in North Korea.

[drdon326]

12. And I assume that if a Hitler-type dropped a nuke on a neighbor,

you would be in favor of taking them out ?

[applegrove]

13. Aren't smart bombs smart enough to do the job?

[Don Claybrook]

10. There is a madman in power, and he has lots and lots of nukes

And he's interested in making more nukes, big ones, small ones, underground ones, jet-fighter-mounted ones.

And no, I'm not saying that Bush is equivalent to Hitler, but he's the single most powerful person in the world, with the biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons, and with a proven record of starting unjustified wars which kill 100,000 like they were never there.

Should another country attack us pre-emptively?

[CJCRANE]

14. Not logical -

if Hitler had nukes no-one would attack him. That's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and what stopped the US and USSR from attacking each other (just!).

[drdon326]

15. So...my question from above...

With the advent of countries having Nuclear( nuk-u-ler),chem and biologic weapons,HAVE THE RULES CHANGED? Do you still have to wait to be attacked and suffer devastating death before you can respond ?

[CJCRANE]

21. In a logical world

there may be an argument for preventative war as a last resort to stop weapons proliferation. But preventative wars based on no evidence and no diplomacy are likely to cause more problems than they solve.

Also who's gonna fight all these future wars? Those who want to sacrifice themselves for hypothetical future scenarios should be welcome to volunteer for duty.

[Toots]

18. How would you know he was a madman until he were to act

It is upon his actions that one would react. Just because Bush* says someone is a madman does not make it so. If Hitler had Nukes and had attacked Europe the way he did then I imagine the world would unite against him just as it did without nukes.

[Deep13]

6. When we know an attack is imminent.

For example if we know for a fact that Pearl Harbor was about to be bombed, preventative measures could be taken. Also, you have to be right. Reasonable mistake is no excuse. In Iraq there was not even reasonable error. Dubya and Blair made-up the whole damn thing.

[drdon326]

11. My trouble with that....

in this world of nuke,chem and biologic weapons, by the time you figure it out there may be extreme devastation that would make 911 look like a picnic.

I dont have all the answers....just something to think about.

[CJCRANE]

16. 9/11 was no picnic

but I can't see how wiping out 20,000 to 100,000 people in Iraq on a hunch is gonna prevent another 9/11.

on edit: you're right though, it could be worse next time but the reality is that the events of the past 4 years have been set-ups in one way or another and not exactly what they seem, so it's hard to know what the real risk is or where it's coming from.

[Toots]

19. I would think one must be threatened to Pre-Emptively act

India has nukes, why don't we attack? They have not threatened anybody other than Pakistan. Even if Saddam the madman had nukes exactly how did he threaten the US. Just by his being I would guess since he made no overt threats that I have ever heard of.

[nonconformist]

42. That's just life

Short of carpet bombing every country in the world to oblivion, there's no way to completely prevent something like that from ever happening. But you're still left with the danger of domestic terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers had been in America for quite some time.

Nobody anywhere is 100% safe 100% of the time. I could be shot during a robbery, but that doesn't justify killing everyone who might fit a statistical profile as a robber pre-emptively.

[MojoXN]

20. When is a preventive/pre-emptive war justified?

When there actually IS an imminent threat that nearly everyone in the world recognizes. You'll never get EVERYBODY to agree that something is a threat, but a large majority is fine by me.

"3.With the advent of countries having Nuclear( nuk-u-ler),chem and biologic weapons,HAVE THE RULES CHANGED? Do you still have to wait to be attacked and suffer devastating death before you can respond ?"

No, the rules have not changed. This is one of the biggest untruths that I hear bandied about on a regular basis. That and the 9-11 changed everything. It changed nothing. It made Americans more aware of Islamist terrorism, but the world DID NOT fundamentally change in its wake. A. Chemical, B. biological and C. nuclear weapons have existed for

A. At least a century

B. Millenia

C. Sixty years

respectively.

Would it have been morally correct to pre-emptively invade the Soviet Union in 1949, as soon as we found out that they had nuclear weapons? Of course not, unless you ask a Rightist. They seem to be the only ones still seeing the "red menace" lurking in every shadow. It would not have been justified, because they had shown no aggression, or intent to use the weapon against us. Same with Iraq, and incidentally, North Korea. Let's say that ol' Saddam WAS actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, which indeed he was, just not after 1991. Was there ANY evidence that he intended to use it, let alone against the U.S.? No. All of the evidence indicates that both Iraq and North Korea wanted the weapons for purely defensive purposes.

Do we deny a law-abiding American the right to own a firearm because he 'might' kill someone? No. If he kills someone, he must face the consequences of his actions. It is sad, but it is also the only way to ensure that everyone's rights are protected. Does it really matter if he kills his victim with a 5 round .22 revolver or a .50 caliber machine gun? No. The person is dead, just the same, and the law makes no distinction. A murder is a murder. The WMD thing is an analogous situation. Whether some madman were to kill thousands with chemical weapons or conventional explosives the result would be the same.

"But, but, but he was a threat to Israel!"

Then let Israel send its sons and daughters off to die. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to us, never a threat to Europe, and there is NO justification for our invasion and subsequent rape of Iraq.

MojoXN

[BurtWorm]

22. Do we have enough justification to attack North Korea, then?

Presuming they have nukes and are led by a madman?

2. Pre-emptive war or action is undertaken to stop an imminent threat, such as that taken from clear intelligence that a country is in the process of planning an attack. Preventive war or action is taken against a country or power that may or may not be getting ready to attack. Pre-emptive war may be justified, but there must be checks to ensure that no one person or party is making the decisions to launch it. Preventive war I don't think can ever be justified rationally.

3. The rules should change to make it easier to build a nuclear program in broad daylight and harder to build it secretly. The US doesn't have a leg to stand on when it argues against the acquisition of nukes by countries it doesn't approve of. If one country has nukes, it's irrational not to expect other nations to seek nukes as a defense (ostensibly) against that country.

4. That's why the rules for acquisition of nukes have to be changed. Only govt's should be able to have access to nukes and fissionable materials and an international commission should be in charge of making sure no nation breaks the laws. And there should be dire consequences for nations that break the laws, but the consequences should be in the hands of an international body, not just in one nation's--particularly not in the US's.

[LynnTheDem]

23. Never.

That's why it's illegal.

Was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor now an ok thing for them to have done? They had more valid reason then bush's war on Iraq, and they ONLY hit military targets and DIDN'T invade and occupy us.

Yet I doubt too many Americans would say hey sure, Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor. Hitler attacked Poland because Polish "terrorists" were attacking German border troops and planning to launch attacks on Germany. He said.

So who gets to decide who's telling the truth and who's doing a Hitler-Tonkin-Iraq? Every nation for itself?

Halalujah bring on the rapture!

No thanks.

Who gets to decide someone is a threat and preventive war is necessary? What is the definition of "threat"?

What if we suspect an imminent attack, so we slaughter millions of people...and there never was any imminent attack planned. Oh well better safe than sorry? Not for this chickie; I don't want people's deaths on my soul.

I'd rather stand by the rule of international law, and if that means I die because some nation has a window of opportunity to attack before the US can defend herself, oh well that's life.

I would rather die honorably than live dishonorably. Yes I know that's "quaint" nowadays. Oh well.

Preventive/pre-emptive war is immoral and illegal. Period.

[drdon326]

57. Pre-emptive war s not illegal

and at times ot may not bbe immoral.

[LynnTheDem]

58. Yes it is illegal unless self-defense from imminent attack.

There are only 2 legal ways to wage war:

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another.

The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule:

-when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

-when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. Comment

I'm arguing a similar point right now on this thread in LBN. Another DUer seems to think that if a madman possesses nukes that there's not much that can be done about it (at least not as long as the madman lives in the White House, which is the case under discussion there).

The argument on that thread is not over pre-emptive/preventive war, but war crimes trials.

Note that I am suggesting in that thread that war crimes indictments be used in conjunction with boycotts, divestment campaigns and diplomatic sanctions. If such tools are used effectively, we may not reach the level of a pre-emptive war.

A war with a nuclear power is not something to take lightly. It could get us all killed.

I would add for this discussion that there seems little point in discussing preventive war, which is illegal under international law. If the leader is mad and he possesses nukes, then the danger is imminent. All this thug has to do is say "boo" and any attack could be justified as pre-emptive.

Neither the UN Charter nor any other body of international law prohibits a pre-emptive strike. As some here have pointed out, the controversy about pre-emptive strikes today is not about the legality of a pre-emptive strike per se but rather about Mr. Bush's misuse of the term. What he calls a pre-emptive strike is in fact a preventive strike.

[drdon326]

26. I'm confused...that the exact opposite of Burtworm's interpretation.

"Preventive war or action is undertaken to stop an imminent threat, such as that taken from clear intelligence that a country is in the process of planning an attack. Pre-emptive war or action is taken against a country or power that may or may not be getting ready to attack. Preventive war may be justified, but there must be checks to ensure that no one person or party is making the decisions to launch it. Pre-emptive war I don't think can ever be justified rationally."

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Yes, that is

He simply has the terms backward. I went through this a couple of years ago when, like Mr. Worm, I was using the term pre-emptive war to describe a war to stop a vague threat from emerging some time in the indefinite future, because that is how Mr. Bush defines pre-emptive war (see his address to the graduating class at West Point, 2002); our fellow DUer, bpilgrim, pointed out that I had it that I had it backward. Subsequently, after some resistance on my part, I noticed that other commentators were using the terms as Mr. Pilgrim suggested and I have since adopted that usage.

[BurtWorm]

30. Then I shall correct my usage as well.

[BurtWorm]

29. It's probably my fault. I think I may have misassigned the modifiers.

Pre-emptive may be what I called preventive and vice-versa.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. The problem stems for Bush's usage of "pre-emptive war"

As usual with Mr. Bush, it's difficult to tell when he simply doesn't know what he's talking about and when he is deliberately muddying the waters.

[Bridget Burke]

25. Never.

If genocide is occurring, we need an international agreement to invade & stop it. Hey, we've got a UN! But our current president wants to cripple and/or destroy it, since he regards it as impediment to his vision of the future.

Hitler with an A-bomb? Hey--Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia & annexed Austria & the world let him do it. Both those actions would justify waging war by today's "rules." But he was appeased until it was too late.

What's next? Reasons to justify torture?

[drdon326]

33. Wow....

so even with an immenent threat, you still have to wait to be attacked and suffer devastating death before you can respond ?

[Jack Rabbit]

37. Ms. Burke seems to have stated her case poorly

As she says, we've got the UN. In the case of genocide, a resolution can get through. The ICC is now looking into bringing charges arising out of Darfur.

On the other hand, it should have been easier to get that through the UN than it was. Part of the reason is the reluctance of some states to condemn an Islamic state. However, another problem was the reluctance of the Bush regime to give any legitimacy or credibility to the ICC, something to which Ms. Burke alludes.

Digressing, another point on genocide is that it is very difficult to imagine a situation where it could be prevented beforehand by action. In the case of Darfur, the genocide was carried out by militias, not the regular army, and the Sudanese regime simply failed to stop it. As it turns out, these militias may have been trained by the regime and the genocide may very well have been carried out with the regime's tacit approval. The regime kept its fingerprints were off it. By the time the alarm was sounded, atrocities were already well underway. The same is true of Rwanda ten years ago and of the genocide in the Balkans at the same time. The same was true of the Holocaust; in fact, that systematic mass murder was taking place in the Third Reich only became a credible case to make when the death camps were discovered and liberated in the final days of the war.

However, Ms. Burke is wrong about the nature of pre-emptive war. Again, no body of international law, certainly not the UN Charter, says that a nation under an imminent threat has to sit around and wait to be attacked in order to justify defensive measures.

[drdon326]

41. I must say....

that my faith in the UN is a direct opposite of yours.

In a perfect world the UN WOULD be great but as you point out, even in the case of Darfur they were borderline useless.

[Bridget Burke]

48. Please give me an actual example from history....

And not something hypothetical.

[drdon326]

56. Hard to do ......

as I believe we are in a different time than the era of sticks and stones.

And that is the problem.

[Lithos]

59. Pre-emptive attack

That was based on a preventative notion that to strike first before the enemy attacked you?

China's intervention in the Korean War (Korea part II).
Israel in 1967.
World War I could be called that as well.

[LiberallyInclined]

27. as soon as you've been attacked or invaded...

in other words: it's not.

[drdon326]

43. But you cant be a sitting duck.

If there is an imminent threat from a nuke, its rediculous to say you should not attack pre-emptively.

[LiberallyInclined]

51. "imminent threat" from a nuclear missile would mean that it's airborne.

not just sitting in a silo.

WE have nuclear missiles, so who are we to say which other nations CAN'T have them?

[wuushew]

32. Look at war from an actuarial standpoint

The probability of a rogue state or terrorist organization using a WMD is much less than 1. While the bloody hammer that is American military might has a proven track record of killing thousands as it did in Iraq. Acting on the worse case scenario is wrong headed policy. Plan for the worst case but prepare for the most likely.


Total body count
1/1,000,000 chance * (100,000 America dead from WMD + 100,000-200,000 foreign innocents and military)= .3 persons dead

100% chance of Bush doctrine * 100,000 innocents = 100,000 dead


A true progressive would not bring nationalism into the debate but rather support the choices that result in fewer deaths on average.

The whole problem with the Neo-con mindset is that is arrogant and usually wrong in its presumptions which lead in turn to horrible policy mistakes like Iraq. The advantage responding to events near,as or after they have occurred is that one operates with more perfect knowledge. The response be it military, diplomatic or other can be directly proportional to the event.

[drdon326]

34. Thats amazing....

A true progressive would not bring nationalism into the debate but rather support the choices that result in fewer deaths on average.

I think a true progressive would support the choice that is morally right and not based on statistical probabilities.

[wuushew]

36. What is morally right?

I see very little evidence of it in post WWII American foreign policy.

[Colorado Blue]

38. I think I have to agree. It really bothers me, for example,

that we have done nothing to help in African genocides, nothing in Rwanda, nothing in Sudan.

Maybe they don't have nukes so if I'm off topic I apologize. But the principle of helping people, the principle of PREVENTING deaths, is important to a civilized society. And the principle of at least TRYING to do the right thing is fundamental to a civilized world.

I admit sometimes there's a great deal of ambiguity involved, of course the unknown, the factor of chaos.

I think, the human rights issues resonate with Jews. People scorn the idea of trying to help the people in Iraq, or Afghanistan - but for me the stories about the Kurds and the war crimes against Iran and the mistreatment of women in Taliban ideology and the possibility of Saddam (or a terrorist) getting ahold of WMDs was frightening.

That, for me, is DIRECTLY related to the fact that half the Jewish population was wiped off the map. So it isn't hard for me to react to stories about OTHER people being hurt and the possibility of massive catastrophe is a living reality, a waking nightmare and not an abstraction.

As human beings we at least have to TRY and make moral choices. Sheer body count reduces us to bundles of cordwood.

[CJCRANE]

35. Another assumption

is that pre-emptive or preventative war as defined by the neocons is actually the real reason for their actions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Almost all modern wars have been "pre-emptive".

Just ask the aggessors:

WWI: The Great Powers mobilized as a "preventive" measure. Austria attacked Russia "pre-emptively" to prevent Russia from attacking her. The dominoes fell and voila..millions dead.

WWII: Japan attacked China "pre-emptively" because, supposedly, Chinese troops were massing on the border of Manchuria. It later attacked Pearl Harbor and Singapore to "prevent" being completely cut off from it's material needs.

Latin America: A long list of "preventive" attacks by the US to spare Cuba, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Bolivia, etc, from becoming "Communist" (aka, democratic).

Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia: LBJ upped the stakes into full scale war to "prevent" the communists from swallowing SE Asia. Anybody remember the "domino theory"?

Southern Asia: The CIA engineered the overthrow of Mossa Degh to "prevent" Communism from spreading. Installed the Shah.

Africa: Another long list of "preventive" measures to "stop the spread of Communism". South Africa, Mozambique, Angola, Congo, Rhodesia, etc.

All justification for murder wrapped in "patriotism".

[Cleita]

40. What if none of those conditions you outlined above were

present, but we invaded anyway. I can think of Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. The first one ended in a stalemate, the second in defeat and the third one?????? The American public and world at large was lied to about Iraq because we weren't following the leader into war as easily as Korea and Vietnam.

Why haven't our leaders learned the lessons of the past?

It seems to me that having a military complex is to defend us in case we are attacked. Now I would have no problem sending in a force if our embassies or military were attacked in a foreign country, bbbut that happened in Saudi Arabia and we never attacked because they are our "friends".

Go figure.

[nonconformist]

44. Never. There is a reason why it is illegal.

Both domestically and internationally.

We're sitting on a plethoria of nukes right now. This administration is pretty scary to a lot of other nations out there and is becoming increasingly fascist. It could be easily argued that both Iran and Syria have been threatened by the U.S.

Does that justify a pre-emptive strike on the U.S. by frightened, concerned nations? Uh, no.

[drdon326]

45. Flat out NEVER ? No exceptions ?

if a state with a history of supporting a terrorist group were to give a nuke to them, would that be justification in pre=emptive war? If Iran were to give a nuke to al-queda would you then feel a pre-emptive war was justified or would you wait and see if they have the guts to use it ?

[wuushew]

47. That definition would also apply to us

throughout the Cold War and to this day the United States has been a major state sponsor of terrorism. You are laying the groundwork for legitimate attacks on us by individual or a collection of countries opposed to the policies of the United States.

[nonconformist]

49. How would invading Iran prevent al-qaeda from using said nuke?

That's the real question, since al-qaeda is nation-less.

So let's assume, for your analogy, that the terrorist group and nuke are IN Iran. If there was clear evidence of such a transaction, there would be significant international support. Then, such an invasion would be legal under international law as it would be in direct self-defense.

If the terrorist group and nuke were no longer in Iran, we frankly have bigger fish to fry - like locating the nuke and securing it. Iran would be punished I'm sure, with strong international support. Again, it would be legal under those circumstances.

[warsager]

50. NEVER!

How can it ever be legal or justified? If I am at a bar and arguing with someone and I fear that he/she is about to hit me, would that justify me hitting them first? When the cops come and I try to explain that I THOUGHT he was going to hit me because he was yelling, will they say, "Ok, you're right!"??

It is scary to think that a country possesses weapons and might use them against us, but I personally can not ever think of a time when pre-emptive/preventive (whatever you want to label it) war is ever justified.

Never.

Ever.

Are we cavemen? Have we not created languages and civilizations and culture and history? I can not understand how or why killing anyone is ever ok. I srtongly believe in defending yourself if attacked, I hate war but understand that the nature of human beings, being still extremely primitive, there will always be war.

But attacking another country because you think they might attack you, that is wrong. WRONG.

[CJCRANE]

52. Your very example

shows how much you're scaring yourself unnecessarily - Iran is a Persian Shia country and al-Qaeda is a predominantly arab Wahhabist (Sunni) organisation.

Your analogy is like saying: what if the (Catholic) IRA were to team up with the (Protestant) British govt.

You have to realise that not every slightly dodgy country is out to nuke the USA in the next 45 minutes.

on edit: a stray nuke is more likely to come from Russia anyway, since the collapse of the Soviet Union has led to less stringent safeguards.

[drdon326]

54. Not in my thinking.....

They both despise the US and Iran would like nothing more than to "treat the infidels a lesson".

And the real beauty would be an Iran with no fingerprints on the nuke.


Post-nuke explosions tend to leave veeeery little to follow the source.

[CJCRANE]

55. To be honest

this whole paranoia and pre-emptive idea goes back to, and is triggered by 9/11. Figure that out and a lot of these scary shadows and bugbears will go away.

[Zhade]

46. Preventative is not just a different interpretation, it's a legal one.

Proponents of preventative war argue about a POSSIBLE threat that has not yet materialized.

Preemptive war is what its name suggests: preempting an attack. If an attack is just about to be launched (and this can be proved conclusively, independent of any parties with ulterior motives to lie in order to justify a 'preemptive' attack), then attacking the would-be attacker is preemptive.

Preventative war is never justified. Preemptive is a grey area - it all depends on the reality of the threat and the ability to confirm such a threat exists.

In the case of Iraq, b*s* and company conflated preemptive with preventative with the purpose of confusing Americans into supporting what they thought was a pre-attack defense, when in actuality there was zero threat to this nation.

Hope that helps.

[CJCRANE]

53. Yes, makes sense -

I've also seen the term "war of choice" used in terms of Iraq too.

[leftofthedial]

60. If you engage in preemptive war, you damned well better be right

otherwise, it's war crimes.

[Behind the Aegis]

61. I think there are some occasions where preemptive is OK.

If a country has troops amassed on your borders and the leaders of said country is saying they are intending to destroy you, then a preemptive strike could be justified. In simple terms, you are walking down the street, and you are stopped. The person and you start talking, then arguing. The other person opens his jacket and shows you s/he has a gun, and says s/he will use it. You look down and see a 2X4, pick it up and whack him/her in the head...I would say that is justifiable and preemptive.