If preemptive strike is ok for national security of US, it is not ok for other nations?

Question

Is it ok for an individual to execute a preemptive strike against another or a group, if his/her evidence points clearly a threat to him/her?

Answer 1

Any nation that is under a treat should be able to do a pre-emptive strike. It only makes sense. Now you can (as we do) argue if the reason behind the strike were warranted and you may even hear the anger of the world to a certain extent, but if you were truely at risk who really cares what others say.

On a personal level, it is possibly a different story, at least here, if you had proof, for example someone was planning on murdering you. You could bring that proof to the police, you have a higher authority to go to. The UN is supposed to be the higher authority for nations but is is completely powerless and corrupt.

However, if after going to the police lets say they act just like the UN and talk and talk but do nothing and you are still under threat, I'd still do the pre-emptive strike. You may have to suffer the consequences but either way it better then being dead.

Answer 2

Of course it is okay for a nation (or an individual) to initiate a preemptive strike. However, the nation of person doing this must be willing to take the heat because there will be those who will name that nation or person as being in the wrong. You may have saved the lives of your family members (or nation) by many will line up against you.

It is interesting that while many nations have done this, it is the United States (and Israel) who get blamed even when they don’t do it. That is, they are blamed because they could do it. That they do this to save their countries doesn’t matter to some. In fact if they didn’t do this and the country they should have don’t the preemptive strike to then does do something, these same complainers would complain because the United States and Israel did nothing.

Answer 3

A preemptive strike can be a military necessity for a country that doesn't particularly want to fight a war.

However, more often it is justified that way by an aggressive country that does want war, despite its copious propaganda to the contrary.

The existence of Israel might be evidence that it was too soon in the evolution of the nations of mankind for there to be such a thing as "international law." Israel is a cheater on the very idea of international law, and it has made the US government into a cheater, also, by its political influence.

If you were playing Monopoly with somebody, and you discovered that that person was cheating and would not stop cheating just because you caught him doing it, what would you do? You'd get up and walk away from the game, at least. You might vow never to play with the cheater again.

Well, why aren't the world's other nations, besides the US and Israel, not walking away from the game of international law?

Because you can't walk away from the world.

When you can't get out of the game with the cheater, and the score in the game affects your odds of survival, then the cheaters must be destroyed. You might be overmatched already, but still you must fight because, if you delay, you will be even more badly overmatched later, after the cheater has stolen more of the world's land and resources for himself.

A preemptive stike on Israel or on the US government, by any party who was harmed by the cheating those entities do with respect to international laws, would be morally justified.

Answer 4

Preemptive strike is not good for any nation. Not even the US.

It's an authoritarian and militaristic non-democratic approach to foreign policy.

Bush used the US to preemptively invade Iraq. The evidence is lacking for the necessity of the attack.

No nation should ever be eager to get into war.

Don't believe me, look at these pictures. This is the face of war. Remember them when you hear people shouting for violence. Today they're Lebanese, tomorrow they'll be Israelis, and if Bush gets his wish, eventually, they'll be blonde haired blue eyed American children.

http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/

Answer 5

OF COURSE

case in point is israel's strike against iraq's nuclear reactor. but that one saddam's intentions for orisak were more transparent and it was more of a threat to Israel.

but because Israel destroyed the reactor, the following Gulf Wars were fought with a minimum loss of life.

Because of diplomatic pressure at that point in time, America had to publicly condemn ISrael, but quietly they were secretly pleased with Israel's actions, and though Arab countries won't admit it, they were pleased too tht Saddam's wish to be the leader of Arabs and the balamce of power in the middle east was brought back tto normalcy

so def preemptive strikes are necc, but only IF it is deemed entirely necc.

Answer 6

Well you can't believe anything the Bush Nazis tell you.They have lied from the beginning of this whole fiasco.I expect the Fuhrer Bush will orchestrate another terrorist attack on his own people and invoke the War Measures Act and dissolve Congress and then fulfil his destiny as the Antichrist.

Answer 7

The problem with a pre-emptive strike is what if your evidence is wrong?

This also works on the faulty assumption that it is right because America does it.