Act of War?

Question

Which is a more obvious act of war? Going to war under known false pretences or, seizing 15 foreign sailors?

Hi Rod C: I'm surprised the UK gov bring up the issue of broken UN resolutions, we wanted but didn't get a resolution to OK the invasion & occupation of Iraq- didn't stop us going in though did it!

Daz: I only use the phrase act of war because others on this site have said what the Iranians have done is one.

Pedro, Pedro ..... you mean like we did in Iraq? Great success that wasn't it!

Answer 1

I hate to be nit-picky, but I'm going to anyway. :-)

The definition of an 'Act of War' is an act, in the absence of an 'official' declaration of war, which, by it's nature, shows that a state of war is a de facto condition.

The shooting down of an aircraft over non-disputed airspace, for example. In this case the British sailors have been seized in a situation that is not totally clear. Were they in territory neutral to Iran ? Reports say they were 500 metres inside Iranian territory, in which case Iran has every right to detain them, and demand an explanation from the British Government, particularly in the recent climate of 'sabre-rattling' by the US and the UK.

If they were not inside Iranian territory then, technically at least, this could be construed as an 'Act of War', but it is not as clear a situation as the case of the Iranians carrying out some action inside British Territory.

The US currently arrogates the right to patrol the high seas and detain any vessel it wishes. These is clearly an 'Acts of Piracy', yet no-one raises a word. Should the US choose to detain a war-vessel of another nation, that would also, technically, be an 'Act of War'. Depending on the circumstances we might, or might not, agree.

Going to war under false pretences is, for me, rather a moot point, since the Geneva Conventions, sequential to the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunals declared that the commencement of aggressive warfare is, in and of itself, a war crime, then the pretenses are neither here nor there.

The invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal under International Law. Point.

Answer 2

Good question. You have received a couple of very good responses. Enforcing your nations sovereignty, seizing the sailors, is most definitely not an act of War. How they are treated is another story.

Answer 3

Seizing 15 foreign sailors.....

Answer 4

Seizing 15 foreign sailors. easy, a no brainer cos they are our sailors.

Answer 5

Breaking 17 U.N. treaty resolutions is hardly false pretense.

Answer 6

Going to war under false pretenses. The oil people in the current administration wanted to get their "hands" on the oil in Iraq.

Answer 7

If anything happens to those sailors i hope we bomb the crap out of Iran.