Pre-emptive war

[Yoshi]

Back in the day, debates on the Iraq War were centered on finding out what grounds a country could invade another, if there was any at all. The USA believed that it had clear, actionable intelligence on immediate threats and should have been allowed to strike in order to avoid catastrophe.

Whether or not the information was true is beside the point; as this kind of thing may become the norm with greater spying and surveillance abilities for an increasing number of countries. It seems that most of the publics mind would favor only a defensive battle, but at what point does a war become "defensive?" Would it need a clear act of aggression by another nation, or simply the buildup of arms? Should a nation be able to act alone if it feels especially threatened, or must they try to win over the United Nations and other similar entities first?

Is pre-emptive war ever justified?

[Enrique]

Maybe it works in Civilization IV with computer opponents; however, in the real world, by starting a "defensive war," the aggressing nation (the nation declaring war as "defensive") is sending the message to the defending nation that the aggressing nation is afraid of the defending nation, whether the reason deals with nuclear weaponry, utter economic domination, or whatever. Although maybe caught off guard, the defending nation will probably be better armed to strike back at the aggressing nation. Especially if that nation happens to have weapons of mass destruction. Then the whole MAD theory starts to come into play.

"...at what point does a war become 'defensive?'"

I would have to say that a "defensive" war has one of two criteria:

1.) Nation A declares war on Nation B and invades Nation B without the intention of taking any of Nation B's property; or

2.) Nation A declares war on Nation B and never fights outside of 500 miles of Nation B and without invading Nation B (given that Nation A and Nation B are close in geography.

"Would it need a clear act of aggression by another nation, or simply the buildup of arms?"

A clear act of aggression or formal declaration of war must occur. A nation can have a buildup of arms without ever intending to go to war. For example, the USSR and USA stockpiled weapons during the Cold War without actually going to war (albeit the threat was extremely high).

"Should a nation be able to act alone if it feels especially threatened, or must they try to win over the United Nations and other similar entities first?"

Other political entities are not required for this kind of action. If the nation is seriously concerned about utter destruction, intervening with the United Nations may even hinder the nation's ability to prepare for defending against another nation. Will the UN love you for it? No. But at this point, the UN is the last thing on your mind. In fact, I would say that there's a more than fair chance that you won't even be around to explain your defensive aggression anyway.

In addition, if, say, Nation C teamed up against Nation A against Nation B, Nation C has just an equal chance of being devastated as Nation A.

So... Is pre-emptive war ever justified?

No.

[Eddie]

Pre-emptive war is a stupid term. Someone always has to attack first, in any war. Therfore no/all wars are pre-emptive... I think we just use phrases like this because we can only see our wars from one viewpoint (the american one). hehehe
If Iraq had attacked the USA (which they never ever had any intention of doing under Saddam Hussein but thats not the point lol) then we would not call it a pre-emptive war, but the Iraqis would.

But if you mean "is pre-emptive defense ever justified" then the answser is no for the reasons that one above me said! Also, starting a war is probably the most counterproductive mothod of defence I can think of lol