Is pre-emptive war moral? Is it ok to attack a country because they might be a threat someday?

Question

If you think pre-emptive war is a good idea, think about it again as if you and your family were peaceable citizens of the country that is about to be attacked, not as a citizen of the attacking country. Also, if the U.S. were not a world military power, would we be planning to pre-emptively attack other countries? If not, does that mean that we believe that Might Makes Right?

(Before you attack me as a liberal for this question, know that I am a retired family man, ex-military-Vietnam era, Republican, Conservative, business owner and tax-payer, so please keep your response to the question at hand).

I'm just asking questions here, I'm really not trying to expound on my own opinions so please leave me out of it and don't assume what I think.

Here's another thought... what if ALL countries in the world thought that they had a right to attack other countries and were in as much as a hurry as we seem to be?

btw, thanks to all of you for your thoughtful approach to this MOST important question facing our country today!

Answer 1

No it is not moral. Going to war based on an untested hypotheses (say the Domino Theory in the Vietnam War), based on unproven speculations (say Iraq), or in a pre-emptive fashion when the target has done no harm to the attacker's country (say Iraq and Vietnam) is very immoral and irresponsible.

Also, the US uses international institutions for their own interest all the time. So the US government believes in Might Makes Right, so it seems. They are demanding that Iran follow UN resolutions and guidelines about their nuclear programs. They are also demanding that more economic sanctions are put on them. But this administration, the same one attacking Iran with sanctions and demands to obey the UN, blew off the UN in order to attack Iraq, and they have disregarded other international agreements about torture. This administration has even disregarded the right for American citizens to have habeas corpus. They don't even allow prisoners in Guatanamo Bay to have a trial in our courts or in International Courts. This administration and its foreign policy has been all about Might Makes Right. It's very pathetic and more importantly very dangerous to the US and the whole world. What if China decides they have the right to pre-emptively attack Taiwan, as the US did to Iraq? Pre-emptive war is not only immoral but it's very dangerous, especially in the age of nuclear weapons.

The only presidential candidates who have denounced pre-emptive war in the debates have been Ron Paul on the Republican side and probably Kucinich and Gravel on the Democratic side. It's sad that pre-emptive war and its implications are not discussed more in the media and in journalism.

Answer 2

Of course it isn't ok.. Thats part of their doctrine which pretty much parallels fascism.

Here's a definition by Republican candidate Ron Paul

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1.

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
3.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
4.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
5.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.
6.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
7.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
8.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
9.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
10.

They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
11.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
12.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
13.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
14.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
15.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
16.

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Answer 3

As a business owner, you must realize that it is often much wiser to be pro-active than re-active. I believe that adage goes for countries as well.
I believe that if a country presents a clear and present danger to another country and it is very apparent that given enough time, that country will become strong enough to back up its threats and saber rattling rhetoric - that country should be given a swift attitude adjustment.
No, I am not a war monger - but I am realistic and I do know of a little history and countries that operate on a hatred and domination ideology have no place among civilized nations.
And I do have sympathy for the innocent citizens of such a country - especially the children - they are the ones who will get caught up in the cross fire all too often.
War should be a last resort - but the option must always be available for those who refuse to compromise, negotiate or are acceptable to diplomacy. The alternative of simply accepting their demands is not an acceptable solution.

Answer 4

I believe countries should conduct their affairs like I do. I generally bother no one, but if I am bothered then I will come after you with both barrels!! So, I don't believe in Pre-emptive wars. Until you commit an offense you have every chance to be good. What you talk about or even do to your own people is no concern of mine! Callous? I suppose so. But you know what? If you put up with jerks like that in charge then I feel you deserve the government that you get!! I will not clean up others mistakes! I have enough of my own to contend with!!

Answer 5

To consider whether pre-emptive strike is moral or not will largely depend on the person to whom you are addressing this question.

If you ask most Japanese even today, they still insist that the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was a pre-emtive strike. Most Americans however, view it as a treacherous act by Japan. For one thing, Japanese spies that were stationed in Hawaii at that time reported of the sudden massing of American warships and destroyers at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese military leaders in Tokyo interpreted this as an American preparation for war with Japan. This occured at a time when American and Japanese negotiations became bogged down, with neither the American and Japanese envoys willing to compromise. The rest of the events that followed is history, as we know it.

Answer 6

Your credentials don't mean spit, if you think we should sit around and watch those slime balls in Iran continue to send their evil around the globe, disrupting legitimate governments and killing innocent civilians.

I don't buy into your theory of attack after we recover from their attack on us. We've seen it twice in the last seventy years and I still don't like it.

FDR watched as the Japanese practically destroyed our Pacific fleet. Why, because of people like you who didn't believe in pre-emptive war. Even then, we knew that war against Germany and Japan was imminent, but we waited until we were badly crippled by the Japanese sneak attack.

Think about how much quicker the war in the Pacific would have been wrapped up, had we had those ships and veteran sailors to fight the war, there. But, I'm sure you don't agree because you think we should wait until they attack us.

Being a retired family man, ex-military, family man, who has a business and pays his taxes, gives you no right to preach your old man passive doctrine. The only thing that will get many Americans is dead. We watched this slime do it's deed on us on 9/11, and following your thinking, we should wait until they do it again, before we respond. You're out of your tree, bro !

Answer 7

Yes, and countries don't work on personal morals, anyway.
The IDF had good intelligence they were going to be attacked, so they took out the Egyptian Air Force an hour or so before the latter were to launch. Of course, your position in the aftermath is a lot stronger if your intelligence going in was correct, but one generally doesn't have the clarity of hindsight until it's hindsight.

Answer 8

You do realize that when we're talking about a "pre-emptive" strike, it isn't a nuclear bomb dropped on the most populated city in the country, right? You do understand that a pre-emptive strike is aimed at the means to be a threat, and not a wild shot in the dark?

Answer 9

You are sitting at a bar

I am sitting over a couple of stools -

You don't look friendly to me -

I decide that you are trouble so I go over and make a pre- emptive strike -

I later explain this to the police

What do you think their reaction would be to my pre-emptive strike ?

But officer the attack was impending I thought it was better for the safety of the entire bar room that I hit him before he hit me

Answer 10

Thank you for your service. to answer your question which is clearly based off of iraq with out brining politics into, The US is a military power and has a sphere of influence over smaller countries. If the smaller countries are endangerd, we are to protect them. MANY other countries have this type of sphere. if we were a smaller country, then we would have somone protect us. BUT as far as iraq goes, we were attacked, iraq, who was aided by USSR, was aiding our enemies. (mainly enemies friends) which brings up, cut the head off a snake and then body dies. iraq was not a good country to be allied with. by taking over thier government we have installed one that makes the people happy. if you want to adress the first part about making yourself in their shoes. These people now vote, go to school, get medical aid, etc. these people have said they do not like US presence but fear them leaving becuase of what good they are doing. I would love to liberated if i lived in iraq. Now iraq is a very good foot hold in middle east. it will help stop spread of communism, terrorism, and totalitarianism. Theres alot to it. there is so much more good to this war that no one sees. not so much becuase of news programs but because they just follow people. ask any why they think the war is badd. they will say oil. if we have the oil, why are we paying 4.00 a gallon? BUSH makes no money off this war. he makes no proffit, and money is the least of AMERICAS worries. So now askthem, they will nto believe you. they keep saying oil.