Are Pre_emptive strikes moral?

[Lord MJ]

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.

[Howedar]

Yes, if by preemptively striking you can reduce the total destruction. An example would be Israel's strikes that started the Six Day War.

[Xenophobe3691]

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.

Well, there are still numerous different situations leading up to this. If you were attacking someone who wasn't even threatening you, but only looked like he could do so a long while away, no. If it's like Germany reoccupying the Rhine and openly saying that they want revenge...yes.

[revprez]

Well, there are still numerous different situations leading up to this. If you were attacking someone who wasn't even threatening you, but only looked like he could do so a long while away, no. If it's like Germany reoccupying the Rhine and openly saying that they want revenge...yes.

It sounds like your argument implies degrees of imminence and a threshold separating moral and immoral preemption. Could you detail this further?

Rev Prez

[revprez]

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.

If it is moral to try and protect the lives of your citizens and the livelihood of your society, then any effort to genuinely achieve that aim is moral as well regardless of whether or not it objectively addresses a threat.

Rev Prez

[Wicked Pilot]

Answer yes or no, and explain your position.

You are asking for a black or white answer for an obviousily gray question. Perhaps you should give a specific situation and ask for our input on that instead.

[Gunshy]

If it is moral to try and protect the lives of your citizens and the livelihood of your society, then any effort to genuinely achieve that aim is moral as well regardless of whether or not it objectively addresses a threat.

Rev Prez

How are you protecting the lives of your citizens if you aren't addressing a threat?

[Lord MJ]

Answer yes or no, and explain your position.

You are asking for a black or white answer for an obviousily gray question. Perhaps you should give a specific situation and ask for our input on that instead.

"Yes and No" answers that vary on circumstance are permitted.

[The Aliens]

If there is clear and direct danger then a pre-emptive strike is moral, but that needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. You can't launch a pre-emptive strike for a military buildup, for example, but if that build-up is on your border with the leader of the other nations saying he wants to start a war, then it's moral. Massive amounts of grey here.

[Lord MJ]

My answer is based on the principles of Realism.

State actors have three main priorities in order of priority.

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

Survival and Security are required to have real power. However one may need security to ensure survival, and one may accquire power to guarantee security.

As such all actions by any state actor (with the exception of Fundie theocracies) are geared to achieving these aims.

As such if you are in a conflict and it is determined that attacking first will cause less damage to your own state, then waiting for the enemy to attack you. It is perfectly justifiable to attack first, and not only that if an action of your opponent causes you to make that determination, that opponent is responsible for the war.

Also in many cases it is neccessary to use force to increase power. While it should be obvious that there are many cases when attacking other nations to increase one's power is immoral.

There are times when it is perfectly justifiable to initiate hostilities to either increase power or maintain power. Espescially if there is no peaceful alternative that will satisfactorily satisfy your objectives.

[Robert Treder]

I'd say that in general pre-emptive attacks are immoral, though I won't say that there is no situation in which it would be moral to pre-emptively strike (though I can't think of one off the top of my head).

My reasoning is that it is immoral to punish someone (attack them) for something which they have not done, or have only threatened to do. I think this should be obvious, really.

Think of it on a personal level...if there's a bully you know at work or school, and he threatens to beat you up, and nothing you do (negotiation, appeal to others, etc.) stops him from threatening you, should you kick the shit out of him?
The answer, for those of you who are mentally retarded, is no.

[Lord MJ]

Think of it on a personal level...if there's a bully you know at work or school, and he threatens to beat you up, and nothing you do (negotiation, appeal to others, etc.) stops him from threatening you, should you kick the shit out of him?
The answer, for those of you who are mentally retarded, is no.

Analogies to interpersonal conflicts don't really compare well to conflicts between state actors.

There are things that state actors can do, that individual persons cannot.

[Knife]

Your standing in front of me. I punch you in the nose really hard.

I punched you because I thought you were going to punch me first. If I was right then my preemptive strike is justifiable and ethical and moral.

If you had no intention of punching me, then my preemptive strike is not justifiable nor ethical nor moral.

The preemptive strike is not the issue. Every war ever started had one side do a preemptive strike. Somebody has to shoot first. The real question is if the justification of the pre emptive strike is valid.

[revprez]

How are you protecting the lives of your citizens if you aren't addressing a threat?

I said "try and protect." The distinction is important. If you are objectively doing something to address the threat and you fail, are your actions immoral? If you believe on the basis of the evidence you have that you are addressing a threat and later information requires an objective reassessment of that threat or the efficacy of your course of aciton, is the act now immoral?

Rev Prez

[Darth Raptor]

Under almost all circumstances I would say no. But as noted above, there is a lot of gray.

Here's another question: What about a pre-emptive strike to stop a war? Example: Invade and occupy the Middle-East to put a stop to the incessant Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

[revprez]

Here's another question: What about a pre-emptive strike to stop a war? Example: Invade and occupy the Middle-East to put a stop to the incessant Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

An intervention, like Bosnia or Kosovo.

Rev Prez

[Darth Raptor]

An intervention, like Bosnia or Kosovo.

Yeah, that's another example. But is it moral?

[revprez]

An intervention, like Bosnia or Kosovo.

Yeah, that's another example. But is it moral?

If it is moral to take any action to bring an end to war, then a military intervention for the genuine purpose of doing so is moral as well.

Rev Prez

[Darth Wong]

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?

[Darth Raptor]

The OP didn't provide much info to consider, so it's not surprising most answers are "mostly no, sometimes yes, but it really depends". I would go on lost life, because that's really what wars are about isn't it? A government's chief concern is for the lives of its own citizens, the lives of other countries' citizens are still important but secondary. If the threat towards your own citizens is great, than the necessary action must be taken. However, if the threat is insignificant compared to the damage the pre-emptive strike will cause, the answer is no.

[Lord MJ]

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?

While I didn't produce an in depth answer, I believe I did answer that it could be moral or immoral based on situations, using the basic facts about the behavior of most states.

[Darth Wong]

The OP didn't provide much info to consider, so it's not surprising most answers are "mostly no, sometimes yes, but it really depends".

Missing the point. Even if the OP was extremely precise, an ethical question normally requires a more thorough answer than "yes" or "no". You're supposed to explain why it's either moral or immoral. 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.

[Queeb Salaron]

Analogies to interpersonal conflicts don't really compare well to conflicts between state actors.

But that didn't stop our fearless leader from making that comparison, did it?

[Lord MJ]

Analogies to interpersonal conflicts don't really compare well to conflicts between state actors.

But that didn't stop our fearless leader from making that comparison, did it?

Which either means that Shrub had to dumb things down so that the common man could understand (likely) or that Shrub is an idiot (even more likely).

[Darth Raptor]

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.