Are Pre_emptive strikes moral?

[Lord MJ]

Are you basing morality upon total loss of life? Do you factor national interests into the equation? If so, how do they compare to the importance of loss of life, and can you justify this inclusion? Etc.

National interests don't factor in enough to compare to the loss of life. They should be considered of course, but it's insignificant in comparison. It's repugnant for economic or political gain to take precedent over actual casualties.

Acutally loss of life is factored in. In a cost benefit analysis, it could be determined that the gains of a prosecuting a war, aren't enough to justify the loss of life that results.

[Nova Andromeda]

--My position can be found here in a thread I started about Bush's first strike policy over a year ago. Basically, a first strike option should only be used under certain dire conditions and when all other options have been exhausted....

[Howedar]

With all due respect, as far as I can tell, every single person in this thread has stated that he thinks it is either moral or immoral, without bothering to justify his answer. We are treating it not as a discussion of ethics, but rather, as an opinion poll.

So: anyone care to state which ethical school(s) of thought he subscribes to, and then show how it (or they) applies to this situation?

I believe I already did. Post #2 in thread.

[Lord MJ]

--My position can be found here in a thread I started about Bush's first strike policy over a year ago. Basically, a first strike option should only be used under certain dire conditions and when all other options have been exhausted....

What if, however, there is no way to satisfy National objectives without warfare? Would it then be ok to wait until your opponent attacks you and thus cause damage to your nation and loss of life on your side? Or should one take the initiative and attack when conditions are favorable minimizing damage to your nation?

[Xenophobe3691]

Alrighty then:

In general cases, no. Pre-emptive strikes against someone who currently shows no danger, but simply could in a remote future are very sketchy. Simple diplomacy could fix this, but in the example of France and a unified Germany, even the worst longe range predictions could easily be proven true, as the Franco-Prussian War, and its subsequent French smackdown(tm), proved.

In specific cases, it does depend. The German remilitarization of the Rhine, as well as the annexation of the Sudetenland, and Austria, and the incessant calls for Revenge against the French by Adolf Hitler painted a pretty grim future, one that was extremely close by (less than a decade.) A pre-emptive strike in these circumstances would have been well worth it, bringing Germany down a notch and setting back their hideously stupid plans for world domination.

[The Nomad]

Strange, that was exactly one of the main parts addressed by the 2h a week French/Philosophy program in my 1st year engineering preparatory class ( yeah we French freaks even have to study Philosophy in intensive scientific studies ).
Needless to say that the 12 h Math / 8 h Physics a week ( plus an Imperial Metric Assload ( TM ) amount of homework ) outweighed this by quite a margin. So I won't pull out all the nasty arguments I bothered to take down until... dunno .

End of off-topic .

Anyway, read some Kant, he has smoken some good shit on this subject ( Perpetual Peace Project or whatever the English title is ).

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Here's a question, are preemptive strikes moral?


Is there any case where it is morally justifiable to attack another nation before that nation fires a shot against you?

Answer yes or no, and explain your position.

That depends on how pre you are talking about.

If your diplomatic relationship is in the shitter, then no.
If they are building up a force on your border, then fuck yes.

[Nova Andromeda]

--My position can be found here in a thread I started about Bush's first strike policy over a year ago. Basically, a first strike option should only be used under certain dire conditions and when all other options have been exhausted....

What if, however, there is no way to satisfy National objectives without warfare? Would it then be ok to wait until your opponent attacks you and thus cause damage to your nation and loss of life on your side? Or should one take the initiative and attack when conditions are favorable minimizing damage to your nation?

--That entirely depends on the national objectives doesn't it? There is a difference between justification for war in general and justificaion for a first strike. Specifically, the justification for a first strike is a special case of justification for war in general.

[Lord MJ]

--My position can be found here in a thread I started about Bush's first strike policy over a year ago. Basically, a first strike option should only be used under certain dire conditions and when all other options have been exhausted....

What if, however, there is no way to satisfy National objectives without warfare? Would it then be ok to wait until your opponent attacks you and thus cause damage to your nation and loss of life on your side? Or should one take the initiative and attack when conditions are favorable minimizing damage to your nation?

--That entirely depends on the national objectives doesn't it? There is a difference between justification for war in general and justificaion for a first strike. Specifically, the justification for a first strike is a special case of justification for war in general.

National objectives refers to aims designed to ensure, increase, or maintain.

1.) Survival
2,) Security
3.) Power

[General Zod]

personally i would say a pre-emptive strike is only warranted if the opposing nation in question has shown obvious signs of being a threat and shows a definite cause, reason or willingness to use them.

although i can't think of any political reasons, examples from the above who hits who first examples might suffice:

say, for instance, someone's actively taunting you and appearing ready to duke it out, then hitting them first may be called for. even though doing so without knowing the other person's capabilities may be foolish. similar situation with a country, except the situations are slightly different due to the fact it's much more complex and political in nature rather than personal.

[Darth Wong]

National objectives refers to aims designed to ensure, increase, or maintain.

1.) Survival
2,) Security
3.) Power

Survival is a given. But what about "security"? Is it a reasonable rationale to annex a neighbouring country and cause hundreds of thousands of casualties in the process because you want to use them as a buffer zone against invasion? Does it extend to "economic security"? How about "power"? Isn't that why Hitler conquered territory? Can the desire for power seriously be said to be a legitimate moral justification for war?

[Kitsune]

Survival is a given. But what about "security"? Is it a reasonable rationale to annex a neighbouring country and cause hundreds of thousands of casualties in the process because you want to use them as a buffer zone against invasion? Does it extend to "economic security"? How about "power"? Isn't that why Hitler conquered territory? Can the desire for power seriously be said to be a legitimate moral justification for war?

This is more of possible historic example than modern. The argument for security might be that a pass through the mountains is held by a town which is not under your control. You try and negotiate with the city to position your troops and fortify but they are unwilling to. If you can take the pass and fortify if, you can hold the enemy. Otherwise, they could scatter and massive casualties would result. The same argument could probably be given for (for example) teh Romulans to seize teh DS-9 Wormhole and fortify it.

[Lord MJ]

National objectives refers to aims designed to ensure, increase, or maintain.

1.) Survival
2,) Security
3.) Power

Survival is a given. But what about "security"? Is it a reasonable rationale to annex a neighbouring country and cause hundreds of thousands of casualties in the process because you want to use them as a buffer zone against invasion? Does it extend to "economic security"? How about "power"? Isn't that why Hitler conquered territory? Can the desire for power seriously be said to be a legitimate moral justification for war?

Power can be considered a moral justification for war in some cases, because all relations between states are defined in terms of power. However this is not universal, and in most cases it is necessary to justify that not only is gaining that power needed for the continued advancement of the state, but also in the case of a power grab that changes the balance of power (imperialism) that the new balance of power would be better than the old.

If Hitler merely annexed the Sudentland and remilitarized the Rhine in order to increase Germany's position in the European system, the realist model could view that as acceptable. In the case of Hitler though, he desired to not only increase Germany's power, but also totally destroy the balance of power and make a new balance dominated by Germany. Add to that the Nazi's blatant racism and desire to exterminate entire races, the end result of such a campaign would be horrendous.

Also increasing power is necessary for increasing the prosperity of your state. And it is also necessary to ensure security.

Security is important because without security it is extremely difficult to increase power. Also security is also measured strategically. And whether it is justifiable to go to war in order to gain security is dependant entirely on whether it is strategically acceptable to not have that security.

Finally inability to maintain proper security can and will threaten basic survival of the nation state.

[Nova Andromeda]

National objectives refers to aims designed to ensure, increase, or maintain.

1.) Survival
2,) Security
3.) Power

Survival is a given. But what about "security"? Is it a reasonable rationale to annex a neighbouring country and cause hundreds of thousands of casualties in the process because you want to use them as a buffer zone against invasion? Does it extend to "economic security"? How about "power"? Isn't that why Hitler conquered territory? Can the desire for power seriously be said to be a legitimate moral justification for war?

Power can be considered a moral justification for war in some cases, because all relations between states are defined in terms of power. However this is not universal, and in most cases it is necessary to justify that not only is gaining that power needed for the continued advancement of the state, but also in the case of a power grab that changes the balance of power (imperialism) that the new balance of power would be better than the old.

If Hitler merely annexed the Sudentland and remilitarized the Rhine in order to increase Germany's position in the European system, the realist model could view that as acceptable. In the case of Hitler though, he desired to not only increase Germany's power, but also totally destroy the balance of power and make a new balance dominated by Germany. Add to that the Nazi's blatant racism and desire to exterminate entire races, the end result of such a campaign would be horrendous.

Also increasing power is necessary for increasing the prosperity of your state. And it is also necessary to ensure security.

Security is important because without security it is extremely difficult to increase power. Also security is also measured strategically. And whether it is justifiable to go to war in order to gain security is dependant entirely on whether it is strategically acceptable to not have that security.

Finally inability to maintain proper security can and will threaten basic survival of the nation state.

--The reason the above strategy is not viable is due to the fact that you must already have sufficient power to gain these "national objectives" before you can use it. The reason for this is simple. I can see right through your games and know you are an extremely high threat to me (some other nation) since you will use force against me at the first opporotunity in order to advance your agenda (which is probably not in my interest, btw). In cases such as this I may very well use my first strike option before you get the chance to use yours (which you have already said you are more than willing to use). Basically, you are saying: "It's my way or the highway." To which my response is: "Screw that shit!"
-On a side note, I don't agree with "Survival is a given."

Oh right, I'm not Resprez. I have to say why. If your survival requires a great deal of unecessary death or destruction it is not justified. For instance, there are many dictatorships whose survival cannot be morally justified in most systems of morality (Hitler's Germany for instance).

[Lord MJ]

Which is why according to the realist theory war is the least preferable option in satisfying objectives and or resolving disputes.

No where did I imply "using force at first opportunity."

In fact the most preferable option for achieving objectives (even for brutal dictatorships like Nazi Germany) is to achieve it in ways other than the battlefield.

Realism does say however that using force or initiating armed conflict to achieve goals, whether they be for survival, security, or power is necessary depending on circumstances.

[Nova Andromeda]

Which is why according to the realist theory war is the least preferable option in satisfying objectives and or resolving disputes.

No where did I imply "using force at first opportunity."

In fact the most preferable option for achieving objectives (even for brutal dictatorships like Nazi Germany) is to achieve it in ways other than the battlefield.

Realism does say however that using force or initiating armed conflict to achieve goals, whether they be for survival, security, or power is necessary depending on circumstances.

--The problem is that your goals (as far as I can tell) are simply incompatible with any other nation's goals unless they submit to you. Because of this and your willingness to go to war to acheive those goals I wouldn't wait around until you got tired of diplomacy. I would use my first strike option instead.
-The best you can hope to acheive (without having the power to simply take what you want either by force or by deciet) is a fair relationship and the objectively verified dismantling of both sides first strike options (with respect to each other only). This means you are going to have to give up aspirations of survival, security, and power at my expense. I would do the same, of course.

[Lord MJ]

The reason diplomacy even exists is because of competing objectives, and the enormous costs of using war all the time to achieve objectives. That's why man learned early on that diplomacy is necessary. However diplomacy only really works if you have the power to be able to stand up to other actors, because if you aren't powerful enough, and your ooponent isn't satisfied with diplomacy, that opponent might decide the best option is to simply elminate you.

Remember one of the highest principles of realism other than survival, security, power is that war is the least desirable outcome.

[Nova Andromeda]

The reason diplomacy even exists is because of competing objectives, and the enormous costs of using war all the time to achieve objectives.

--That is not the only reason. A nation that I lead would use it to negotiate fair relationships with other nations including: trade, defense, borders, security, etc.

However diplomacy only really works if you have the power to be able to stand up to other actors, because if you aren't powerful enough, and your ooponent isn't satisfied with diplomacy, that opponent might decide the best option is to simply elminate you.

--This statement suggests to me that you only plan on using diplomacy to bully other nations. What you fail to realize is that someone like myself can and will lead a weaker nation in crippling your powerful nation given how adament you are to bully and/or destroy my nation. You simply haven't left my nation any other acceptable option. That being said, I will of course use my first strike option.

Remember one of the highest principles of realism other than survival, security, power is that war is the least desirable outcome.

--If that is true, then I suggest reassessing your goals. Is it truly security and power you want or is that just a means to an end? If power and security are the ends that you seek then you should reassess your strategy for obtaining them because it is severly flawed.

[Lord MJ]

--This statement suggests to me that you only plan on using diplomacy to bully other nations. What you fail to realize is that someone like myself can and will lead a weaker nation in crippling your powerful nation given how adament you are to bully and/or destroy my nation. You simply haven't left my nation any other acceptable option. That being said, I will of course use my first strike option.

No it does not imply bullying. What it does mean is that you need a sufficient amount of power in order for diplomacy to be successful. Otherwise it's impossible for you to achieve your goals becuase you don't have the power to coerce for favorable terms, and the terms arrived at by diplomacy will be one sided on the part of the vastly more powerful adversary.

Power is needed as a leverage in diplomatic relations, otherwise it's impossible to achieve any objectives diplomatically, and you aren't powerful enough to achieve them with force, meaning that your nation will slowly wither and die.

And in the extreme case, if you don't have enough power, and you choose to reject one sided terms by your adversary, your adversary could choose to apply military preassure to force you to accept those terms, and there would be nothing you can do about it. This was the exact situation the Czechs were facing when the Germans dictated to them to give up the Sudentenland.


ALL interactions between nations are defined in terms of power, the increase or decrease in power of one actor will invariably have an impact in the level of power of the other actors in the international system.

Also the goal of every actor (besides fundie extremist states) is to maximize the power of the nation state. Thier ability to do so is limited by the power of other nation states in the system, and thier willingness to tolerate your power advancement.

Due to these power relationships, and the fact that war simply is not a viable method of achieving power except in limited circumstances, diplomacy is necessary not only for preventing mankind from killing each other, but also to satisfy any national interests.

** Note that when I use the term expensive, I not only mean economic factors, but also risk, human lives, and damage to your civilization. **

[Lord MJ]

What you fail to realize is that someone like myself can and will lead a weaker nation in crippling your powerful nation given how adament you are to bully and/or destroy my nation. You simply haven't left my nation any other acceptable option. That being said, I will of course use my first strike option.

This depends, on whether your smaller nation is sufficiently powerful enough to cause serious damage to may nation.

If it isn't then a first strike is suicide, since I could retaliate by annhilating your people.

If it is, then going to war with you will be an extremely expensive proposition, and I would either

1.) Try to leverage my position to get as much as I can out of the bargaining table.

2.) Decide that my objectives aren't worth a conflict and drop them.

War would be unacceptable for me in this case, since I would not want to fight you. Also in this case using your first strike option would be totally unjustified because I am not interested in fighting you, and also stupid because my retalitation could still cause great damage to your nation.


Also if you are powerful enough, *You* would have leverage to try to gain terms that benefit you and leave you better off, while satisfying at least some of my objectives.

The good thing about diplomacy is that if successful neither side gets everything they want, but both sides come out better off and happy.

[Nova Andromeda]

--This statement suggests to me that you only plan on using diplomacy to bully other nations. What you fail to realize is that someone like myself can and will lead a weaker nation in crippling your powerful nation given how adament you are to bully and/or destroy my nation. You simply haven't left my nation any other acceptable option. That being said, I will of course use my first strike option.

No it does not imply bullying. What it does mean is that you need a sufficient amount of power in order for diplomacy to be successful. Otherwise it's impossible for you to achieve your goals becuase you don't have the power to coerce for favorable terms, and the terms arrived at by diplomacy will be one sided on the part of the vastly more powerful adversary.


Power is needed as a leverage in diplomatic relations, otherwise it's impossible to achieve any objectives diplomatically, and you aren't powerful enough to achieve them with force, meaning that your nation will slowly wither and die.

--It is not enough to simply state that your actions are not bullying. The use of force to "coerce for favorable terms" as opposed to fair or equitable terms is the very definition of bullying. A nation lead by myself will not tolerate this unless there is no other choice in the matter (i.e., you have the power to anhilate my nation and take what you want regardless of my nation's actions). You should note that the power discrepency in this case will have to be extremely large since my nation would use a scorched earth policy to deny you the spoils of war.

And in the extreme case, if you don't have enough power, and you choose to reject one sided terms by your adversary, your adversary could choose to apply military preassure to force you to accept those terms, and there would be nothing you can do about it. This was the exact situation the Czechs were facing when the Germans dictated to them to give up the Sudentenland.

--This is a complex problem, but if the Germans knew that the Sudentenland would be destroyed before it would be surrendered do you think the result would have been the same?

ALL interactions between nations are defined in terms of power, the increase or decrease in power of one actor will invariably have an impact in the level of power of the other actors in the international system.

--Actually, those interactions are determined first by the goals of those nations which in turn is defined by the nature of those nations (i.e., the populations making up the nation, the government of that nation, etc.). Power is only taken into account when a nation is persuing its goal.

Also the goal of every actor (besides fundie extremist states) is to maximize the power of the nation state.

--I dispute this claim. Seldom is obtaining power a end as oppossed to a means to an end.

This depends, on whether your smaller nation is sufficiently powerful enough to cause serious damage to may nation.

If it isn't then a first strike is suicide, since I could retaliate by annhilating your people.

If it is, then going to war with you will be an extremely expensive proposition, and I would either

1.) Try to leverage my position to get as much as I can out of the bargaining table.

2.) Decide that my objectives aren't worth a conflict and drop them.

War would be unacceptable for me in this case, since I would not want to fight you. Also in this case using your first strike option would be totally unjustified because I am not interested in fighting you, and also stupid because my retalitation could still cause great damage to your nation.


Also if you are powerful enough, *You* would have leverage to try to gain terms that benefit you and leave you better off, while satisfying at least some of my objectives.

The good thing about diplomacy is that if successful neither side gets everything they want, but both sides come out better off and happy.

--If my nation doesn't have sufficient power to cause you significant harm it's options are limited, but it can still use a scorched earth policy to deny you spoils of war thus making your efferts futile in an attempt to deter you from going to war in the first place. Furthermore, if it does have such power it must be ready to use it to deter you. The first strike option would only be used if you cannot be detered. However, your first strike option may be able to totally cripple my nation. Since you would use a first strike option in this case once it became clear that diplomacy isn't going to get you anything (except a fair deal) my nation is forced to use its first strike option before you figure out what's going on. Knowing this your best course of action is to drop the threat of force, accept a fair deal, and agree to a verified dismantling of both sides first strike options.
-You suggest that if my nation has the most power that I could use it to bully your nation. However, my nation would not take this course of action unless your nation's goals cannot be reconciled with my nation's goals (in which case it is a contest of power). Instead, my nation would negotiate a fair and equitable deal with yours. This will almost certainly increase the power of both our nations while failing to make enemies or become an undue threat to other nations (who would also be dealt with fairly).

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

"When we fought the Yankies, and was faced with utter defeat, Who was it that burned the crops and left us nothinbg to eat?"
Jubilation T. Cornpone, a picture of remorse.
A scorched earth policy is HELL on your own citizens, and is only practiced on the bitterest of cultures, in the harshest of places. The Solviet Union come to mind here. Causualties of civilians would have been far less.
France,
USSR.
See who used what stratagy, and see who came off ther worse for wear.
Scorched earth only works for dictators, or SOME cultures.

Besides, if I want your land, for strategic perposes, you scorch earthing it will cost me more in rebuilding money, but saves my soliers lives, and assure I keep the land. That and remove any dissident/spy/sabotage potential from locals.
If I want land for strategic reasons, you helping me depopulate it, helps me keep it mine, it just makes my logistics harder in the begining.
I pay more, but you pay WAY more.
Use only as a last resort, when you think they will genocide you ANYWAY.

[Lord MJ]

--It is not enough to simply state that your actions are not bullying. The use of force to "coerce for favorable terms" as opposed to fair or equitable terms is the very definition of bullying. A nation lead by myself will not tolerate this unless there is no other choice in the matter (i.e., you have the power to anhilate my nation and take what you want regardless of my nation's actions). You should note that the power discrepency in this case will have to be extremely large since my nation would use a scorched earth policy to deny you the spoils of war.

Actually yes it is enough to state that my actions are not bullying, because otherwise ALL actions would be bullying. All interactions between rational nations are leverages of power. In any kind of negotation an actor would be able to get more favorable terms by leveraging power.

Also I may not have mentioned this before, but power is not limited to military power. In fact in the modern era military strength is becoming an increasingly diminishing part of power.

It is easy to leverage economic power by offering lucrative trade opportunities if you accede to my wishes, but offering those same opportunies to your enemies if you refuse.

--This is a complex problem, but if the Germans knew that the Sudentenland would be destroyed before it would be surrendered do you think the result would have been the same?

That depends totally if the actor in question will be willing to used scorched earth. The Russians did it twice, but they expected to be victorious in the end, thus the cost of scorched Earth was acceptable to Russia, because it would hinder the enemy. In the case of the extremely small nation, scorched Earth wouldn't gain you anything, since you're going to be destroyed anyway.

[quote
--Actually, those interactions are determined first by the goals of those nations which in turn is defined by the nature of those nations (i.e., the populations making up the nation, the government of that nation, etc.). Power is only taken into account when a nation is persuing its goal.
[/quote]

And all immediate goals of a nation are defined in terms of power (once again taking into acccount that power is not limited to military strength). Any action a nation takes is either taken to benefit that nation, or to prevent harm to the nation.

--I dispute this claim. Seldom is obtaining power a end as oppossed to a means to an end.

Notice I said maximizing power. Maximize means to become as powerful as possible, not becoming ALL powerful. Sri Lanka's goal is to become as powerful a nation as possible, but I don't think Sri Lanka has any designs on conquering India, or becoming a $50 trillion GDP state. Such goals simply aren't realistic.

--If my nation doesn't have sufficient power to cause you significant harm it's options are limited, but it can still use a scorched earth policy to deny you spoils of war thus making your efferts futile in an attempt to deter you from going to war in the first place. Furthermore, if it does have such power it must be ready to use it to deter you. The first strike option would only be used if you cannot be detered. However, your first strike option may be able to totally cripple my nation. Since you would use a first strike option in this case once it became clear that diplomacy isn't going to get you anything (except a fair deal) my nation is forced to use its first strike option before you figure out what's going on.

In this case however, my likelihood of wanting to go to war with you is dminished because the costs of that war will be greater. Thus my best option is to use my power as leverage to get what I want. But actually undertaking a war would not be the best choice if I were a rational actor.

-You suggest that if my nation has the most power that I could use it to bully your nation. However, my nation would not take this course of action unless your nation's goals cannot be reconciled with my nation's goals (in which case it is a contest of power). Instead, my nation would negotiate a fair and equitable deal with yours. This will almost certainly increase the power of both our nations while failing to make enemies or become an undue threat to other nations (who would also be dealt with fairly).

There is the possibility that the fair and equitable deal might not be compatible with your national interests. In that case you would try to leverage your power to get more favorable terms to your side.

Historical Example: Mexican War. America's national interest was to gain New Mexico and California. There was really no fair and equitable deal that would satisfy the US, and getting California was necessary to be a two ocean nation. Not getting California would mean not getting lucrative trade with Asia. So as a result America had to decide it had to get California one way or the other. The Mexicans didn't accept the US offer to buy California, thus war became the only option.