Rectitude of preemptive strikes.

[Deliciously_Saucy]

This topic is to debate the correctness, or "morality" (ignore that part Gono) of a country making a preemptive strike on another nation. Is it ethical to make the first strike in a war because of assumption that the opposition is planning an attack, or that they are simply hostile?

Going by the expectation of threat, with no immediate danger present, can a country justly attack another with it being considered "a defensive move", or is it a hostile initiation of war despite what evidence is had?

While I would like to see it as being just a correct, tactical move, I don't know if I can view it in that light.

[Elegy]

I don't think so, you can't assume that another nation is hostile, and even if they are hostile, that doesn't mean they would ever wage war.
For instance, I could threaten or express dislike with someone, that doesn't automatically mean I would go up and punch them.

Simple enough, any pre-emptive attack is a violation of the Geneva-convention, as it is a war of aggression.

[Holkeye]

I think that it depends on the scenario. Couldn't either side's strike be judged as preemptive? These days, nobody is going to sit down and decide on a time when they are both going to attack each other. War is war, and no matter how civilized a country wants to appear, if there is a threat of invasion or destruction then protective measures must be taken. You also have to remember that wars are fought differently for each type of threat. When fighting terrorists, people seem to be a lot more lenient to a first attack. When going head to head with another country's army, people are a bit more calculating.

[landofshadows]

Working in the basis a country could attack us there-fore they are a threat could apply to pretty much all countries... It's the insitement of fear within the public, if you drum into the masses that an attack could happen you get the backing of your people to wage war.

(I think people are going to say I am meaning the USA... But I am not)

It's like what's happening in most countries between two factions, each faction has their own backing by their people, as the people fear the oppersition...

The sad thing is in most cases the only things that seperate us and cause these disputes is Land, Faith and culture...

---- BUT ----

Elegy

I don't think so, you can't assume that another nation is hostile, and even if they are hostile, that doesn't mean they would ever wage war.
For instance, I could threaten or express dislike with someone, that doesn't automatically mean I would go up and punch them.

Using your above Quote and liken the attack on a simple fight

Say if your walking in  town and a person came up to shouting the odds with a raised fist, you know your going to get hit... So why not hit them first ?...

Doing so saves you, but as you hit first in the eye's of the law you was not defending your self, you intiated the attack...

It's an odd call...

(If I was a leader of a country and I had enough EVIDENCE that some thing was about to kick off and my country was a target I would at LEAST consider striking first...)

[Elegy]

I think that it depends on the scenario. Couldn't either side's strike be judged as preemptive? These days, nobody is going to sit down and decide on a time when they are both going to attack each other. War is war, and no matter how civilized a country wants to appear, if there is a threat of invasion or destruction then protective measures must be taken. You also have to remember that wars are fought differently for each type of threat. When fighting terrorists, people seem to be a lot more lenient to a first attack. When going head to head with another country's army, people are a bit more calculating.

Defensive measures yes, but that doesn't include invasion.

Say if your walking in  town and a person came up to shouting the odds with a raised fist, you know your going to get hit... So why not hit them first ?...

There are other things to do besides attack the other person, like move out of the way, or shield yourself from a possible attack.

[landofshadows]

There are other things to do besides attack the other person, like move out of the way, or shield yourself from a possible attack.

Moving out of the way of the 1st or shielding yourself wont help with the follow up hits afterwards, once they have engaded in hitting you it's hard for ypu to return.

BEST FORM OF DEFENCE IS OFFENCE... I studied JKD for 3 years.

[Deliciously_Saucy]

BEST FORM OF DEFENCE IS OFFENCE... I studied JKD for 3 years.

Yes, yes it is, but is it the just thing to do when no information of an incoming attack can be 100% certain?

[Ravenshade]

But the best form of Offence is a strong Defence. Neh, I'm a Taoist.

If you have a feeling you are going to be on the receiving end of an attack, build up the defences and construct ways out of a situation.

When I play chess, I take this into consideration. The objective of the game is to control your opponent rather than take his or her pieces, hence I don't play aggressively. Once the 1st strike is dealt you should have a back up plan for any follow up hits. That is why most Martial arts know more defending moves than attacking moves i.e. Judo, Aikido, Karate...eight extremities kung fu is the only one I know where defence is not imperative.

[Elegy]

Aikido doesn't have any offensive moves, it's pure defense.

[Ravenshade]

Everything has an attack and a defence in regard to martial arts. Even Tai Chi. (Tai Chi Chuan I mean). Aikido moves forwards doesn't it, therefore it has an attack.

[modern algebra]

I don't like the concept of pre-emptive attack, especially if you are the more powerful nation. While technically, I suppose that a nation has a duty to protect its citizens, and letting another country, even a weaker one, invade would be neglecting that duty, I don't think that it is morally correct to incite war when there is a possibility war might be evaded. I'm pretty sure about that. When a war is 100% certain, I still feel uncomfortable with it, but I can't really think of any particularly great reasons why you shouldn't logically. However, I do think, that in the long run it will aid the country if they have a reputation of not starting wars. So, if you are the stronger power (strong enough that there is no threat of losing), or war is not 100 % certain, I don't think it is morally correct to pre-emptive strike. Of course, the stronger power part gets a little nullified if the other side has nukes. I definitely think it is appropriate to stop countries aggressive to yours from developing nukes. But that doesn't have to necessarily start a war. i.e. you don't have to invade if you can get rid of the nukes without invading.

[Holkeye]

Lets be realistic though. In this latter half of the nuclear age that we live in, you can't be too careful. There are all kinds of ways for an enemy, (and keep in mind that everyone is an enemy to someone,) to do mass harm. As for dodging a blow, we can't really pack up our country and run out of the way. That would make us like France. I keed, I keed.

[Elegy]

Lets be realistic though. In this latter half of the nuclear age that we live in, you can't be too careful. There are all kinds of ways for an enemy, (and keep in mind that everyone is an enemy to someone,) to do mass harm. As for dodging a blow, we can't really pack up our country and run out of the way. That would make us like France. I keed, I keed.

Just on a sidenote, this is exactly what the problem in the world is.

[Holkeye]

I was speaking in universal terms. If you don't think the country you live in is yours, then get the fuck out. Nobody will miss you.

And why don't you say something productive once for fuck's sake?

[Elegy]

"Your" government doesn't care for you, so stop caring for it, mind your own fucking business and don't defend their stupid, heinous acts.

[Holkeye]

Considering what the topic of this thread is, if thats the way you feel maybe you shouldn't even be posting here.

[gonorrhea]

This topic is to debate the correctness, or "morality" (ignore that part Gono) of a country making a preemptive strike on another nation. Is it ethical to make the first strike in a war because of assumption that the opposition is planning an attack, or that they are simply hostile?

Why should I? It's perfectly normal to discuss the morality (that is, the moral code or whatever you'd call it) you have decided to follow of something as long as you don't look for some moral authority on it.

Going by the expectation of threat, with no immediate danger present, can a country justly attack another with it being considered "a defensive move", or is it a hostile initiation of war despite what evidence is had?

Sure, why not? It'd be much better to weaken your enemy before he weakens you. Although preemptive strikes often create problems with other nations (note Israel in the Six-Day War). Acting defensively gives you more credibility and victimises you- thus gaining you support.

I don't think so, you can't assume that another nation is hostile, and even if they are hostile, that doesn't mean they would ever wage war.
For instance, I could threaten or express dislike with someone, that doesn't automatically mean I would go up and punch them.

Simple enough, any pre-emptive attack is a violation of the Geneva-convention, as it is a war of aggression.

This was a good thread, why'd you have to post in it?
Also the Geneva Convention is silly, it looks good on paper but in reality shit doesn't work that way.

But the best form of Offence is a strong Defence. Neh, I'm a Taoist.

Look at preemptive strikes as defence then.

I don't like the concept of pre-emptive attack, especially if you are the more powerful nation.

Yeah, because wars should be fought fairly.

"Your" government doesn't care for you, so stop caring for it, mind your own fucking business and don't defend their stupid, heinous acts.

Oh man, this is going to make me laugh for a week!
Seriously though, throw away your anarchy fanboy shit, tear down the myspace and swap your emo/goth clothes for a good wardrobe. You really need to start thinking of these things in the context of reality.

[landofshadows]

gonorrhoea And others...
There's nothing wrong with Goth's or their look... There is no need to attack Elegy for having an opinion... Even if you think it may be wrong.  Elegy does have a point, I mean right now the USA and England along side the UN may be looking at attacking Iran, what if Iran desided to strike first ?

If we all agreed this wouldn't be a debate... it's a good thing some people with different opinions like Elegy are posting here.

Elegy is fairly intelligent, just as much as the rest of us, & should be free to do as he/she likes.

To be honest I am getting piss bored of seeing people on here getting singled out and attacked for having a different opinion.

Back on Topic

I think a Preemptive strike should be considerd as a method of stopping an inerment attack... If you take the attack or avoid it, it's only going to show you as being weak... In JKD I learnt destruction blocking, block a punch with an elbow, the top of your head or a Knee, smashing the limbs of the attacker and forcing them not to attack again... I think if we are to defend our selves we need follow up with some thing so bad it Kripples them.

[Deliciously_Saucy]

I have to disagree, it wasn't senseless flaming on Gono's part, it was a response. If Elegy, or any member is going to say something stupid, then it's only reasonable that a response of a certain kind will be said. I think it's great that there are people with different opinions, but it still has to be said in a proper manner. Most of what Elegy says is getting much better, it's just things like

"Your" government doesn't care for you, so stop caring for it, mind your own fucking business and don't defend their stupid, heinous acts.

that doesn't really do much and incites a rude response.

I think a Preemptive strike should be considerd as a method of stopping an inerment attack...

The whole point is, it comes down to hear-say. Until the missiles have been launched, you have no real "proof" that an attack is impending.

If you take the attack or avoid it, it's only going to show you as being weak... In JKD I learnt destruction blocking, block a punch with an elbow, the top of your head or a Knee, smashing the limbs of the attacker and forcing them not to attack again... I think if we are to defend our selves we need follow up with some thing so bad it Kripples them.

That seems to me being somewhat a god complex there, "do something wrong, no matter how small, and where going to ass rape you". It seems a little extreme and would give any superpower a bad name. Countries with large amounts of power shouldn't use it to play god by smiting their weaker enemies off the face of the planet.


I think it's fine to use information of an incoming attack to defend, but if you've attacked them first, landed the first blow, then your the one who initiated the war.

[Elegy]

I mean right now the USA and England along side the UN may be looking at attacking Iran, what if Iran desided to strike first ?

The important question is, what if Iran decides not to strike at all?
The president of Iran is a very intelligent person, far more intelligent than most heads of nations, I seriously doubt he would go to war, especially since Iran doesn't have the upper hand as far as weapons of mass destruction go.

Look at preemptive strikes as defence then.

But it's not.

Seriously though, throw away your anarchy fanboy shit, tear down the myspace and swap your emo/goth clothes for a good wardrobe. You really need to start thinking of these things in the context of reality.

Oh no, you're attacking me because of the way I look, you're the first person ever!! /sarcasm
For a personal attack to work I'd have to care what you think, and guess what.

I don't.

Seems like we are rather insecure in our masculinity aren't we, gon?
The only people who try to insult someone because of the way they dress are the people who are jealous and/or insecure in themselves.

And I am thinking of things in context of reality, just not here, this is the internet.
If I were to think of things in context of reality here, I might aswell just stop saying anything, because in reality, my opinion, aswell as the rest of the worlds, is worth nothing.

[landofshadows]

That seems to me being somewhat a god complex there, "do something wrong, no matter how small, and where going to ass rape you". It seems a little extreme and would give any superpower a bad name. Countries with large amounts of power shouldn't use it to play god by smiting their weaker enemies off the face of the planet.

If some one or attacks some one you care for and hurts them... For example some one breaks your mothers Jaw... What would you do...?

I would Break each of their limbs... Or at least break their Jaw.

Same if a country attacked our own, we should make sure that what they get in return is matched or hightend to the point they see no point in attacking again...

I am not saying abuse the power I am saying use it when needed... Just like the USA did after the twin towers (But there is still much bad air around that time, with talk of Bush letting it happen)... But in priciple it was right to use the level of power that he used in retaliation... If the USA did nothing, it would have heppend again and again by now.

And the only reason I reffer to a fighting style like JKD is it is one of the most efficent fighting forms there is, What's War if not a fight between countries...

I don't like War or fighting... But if you can stop many people being killed by disabling a country before the attack happens then why not take the iniative ?

(I do agree all the facts need to be established first and justification and proof to back those facts after the attack need to be proven).

I think the fact no weapons of Mass destruction being found in Iraq should see Bush/Blair and the cabinet facing charges of War crimes...

So if you act on poor or ill founded information the punishment should be high.

"Your" government doesn't care for you, so stop caring for it, mind your own fucking business and don't defend their stupid, heinous acts.

Englands goverment does not care about the people that took arms in the 1st / 2nd world wars... they get a shite pension and poor care should they be lucky enough to get a place in an old people's home... The Government only cares about you while your young and working and paying taxes, that's all they care about... MONEY, not people... Until it comes to people protesting that is... In a sense I feel the same way... There is always some way the Goverment is failing it's people, but I doubt that will ever change... Wrong topic for this debate though.

[gonorrhea]

There is no need to attack Elegy for having an opinion...

He's not thinking thoroughly, he's just being contradictory, and is flaming more needlessly than I've done here. I'd go on, but I have to go to work in a couple of minutes.

The important question is, what if Iran decides not to strike at all?
The president of Iran is a very intelligent person, far more intelligent than most heads of nations, I seriously doubt he would go to war, especially since Iran doesn't have the upper hand as far as weapons of mass destruction go.

I doubt we're going to get into a hot war with Iran.

But it's not.

Active defence.

Oh no, you're attacking me because of the way I look, you're the first person ever!! /sarcasm
For a personal attack to work I'd have to care what you think, and guess what.

I don't.

Of course you do.

Seems like we are rather insecure in our masculinity aren't we, gon?
The only people who try to insult someone because of the way they dress are the people who are jealous and/or insecure in themselves.

Not really; and you forgot to include those people who just realise how retarded you're being.

And I am thinking of things in context of reality, just not here, this is the internet.
If I were to think of things in context of reality here, I might aswell just stop saying anything, because in reality, my opinion, aswell as the rest of the worlds, is worth nothing.

What the fuck did you just say?

also, I haven't read LoS last response yet, I'll read it and respond to it later.

[Elegy]

Of course you do.

You're making my point for me.

[gonorrhea]

huh?
Also answer the question-

And I am thinking of things in context of reality, just not here, this is the internet.
If I were to think of things in context of reality here, I might aswell just stop saying anything, because in reality, my opinion, aswell as the rest of the worlds, is worth nothing.

What the fuck did you just say?

[Deliciously_Saucy]

Anymore flames by themselves will be deleted.

If your going to fight, at least put in something that has to do with the topic your in.