Pre-emptive Strikes: good, bad or maybe?

[Hondo]

Are pre-emptive strikes ever permissible? I know Eki is against them and If I lived in a small nation I would probably be against them also. Basically you prepare your defense as best you can and hope the other guy goes away. Finland wouldn't have gained anything with a pre-emptive strike against Russia. Japan's pre-emptive strike against the US at Pearl Harbor backfired on them big time. Israel seems to have a great deal of luck with their pre-emptive strikes or does that have more to do with who the're striking?

What sort of proof is needed to justify a pre-emptive strike?

When I was 4 years old my family moved into a new house. The first day I was out in the backyard a neighbor boy, age 5, walked up to me and right out of the blue, never seen me before said "I'm Timmy, I know judo and can hurt you." . Judo was a big deal back then and I was scared. Although I had never been in a physical altercation before, it didn't take long for me to realize that judo couldn't prevent you from being smacked upside the head by someone with a large dirt clod in their hand. Timmy hit the ground screaming and crying and then got up and ran to his house. I figured I had better take it on the lam and stay out of sight myself which I did until I heard my mother calling for me using my full, complete name. Taken into custody with the firm hand to the back of the neck, I was led out back to face the inquisition. Timmy was there, looking smug, along with his mother who was looking pissed. I guess words had already been exchanged because my mother started to grill me..."Why did you do that?...You could have hurt him!... He already has a steel plate in his head... (he really did)...Why would you do such a thing?". I looked up at my mother and said "He said he wuz gonna judo me." Well.....that changed everything! Right there before my eyes Timmy's mother yells at him "WHAT HAVE I TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT JUDO NONSENSE...WHEN ARE YOU GONNA LEARN...", and while apologizing in abundance to my mother, starts slapping Timmy about the head and shoulders, steel plate and all. They went home and that was the end of it. Turns out Timmy already had a reputation as a neighborhood bully and he continued to be one after that. But he always left me and any friends I had with me alone.

My pre-emptive strike worked out pretty well for me.

[SOD]

there was pre-emptive strike on Al Qaeda (in Afghanistan) in 1998. didn't do much against them :\

[harsha]

i would have loved it if the indian government had enough guts to order a pre-emptive strike against pakistan :( ,but the bill would just about be stuck up in parliment :p :

[Eki]

"Why did you do that?...You could have hurt him!... He already has a steel plate in his head... (he really did)...Why would you do such a thing?".
It worked for you, but your mother was right. You may have possibly even blinded him. I think you could as well have waited until he actually tries judo on you. I know it's too much to be asked from a 4 year old, I threw a brick at someone who I thought was insulting me when I was 6, luckily I missed. The real problem is that grown up leaders of some nations seem to behave like 4 year olds too.

[Hondo]

It worked for you, but your mother was right. You may have possibly even blinded him. I think you could as well have waited until he actually tries judo on you. I know it's too much to be asked from a 4 year old, I threw a brick at someone who I thought was insulting me when I was 6, luckily I missed. The real problem is that grown up leaders of some nations seem to behave like 4 year olds too.

Mom was right, but at 4 years old facing a kid a whole year older (that counts for something when you're young) that was threatening judo. Tell you what, in 1959 nobody had really heard of karate but judo was some heavy-duty mystical kind of hurt you stuff. Also, in 1959, that was pretty much the way things were settled.

[Ian McC]

It worked for you, but your mother was right. You may have possibly even blinded him. I think you could as well have waited until he actually tries judo on you. I know it's too much to be asked from a 4 year old, I threw a brick at someone who I thought was insulting me when I was 6, luckily I missed. The real problem is that grown up leaders of some nations seem to behave like 4 year olds too.

Indeed so, we have all done things when we were young that if had happened slightly differently could have resulted in a very different life. As someone once said, never start a fight, but if one starts, make sure you finish it.

[Sleeper]

If you know with absolute certainty that you're going to be attacked then I have no problem with a pre-emptive strike. Beyond that I believe that all should be done to prevent the need for any kind of conflict (not that that seems to likely in this world :rolleyes :)

[Gannex]

I'd say that a pre-emptive strike is justified if the striking nation has a reasonable belief that it will soon come under attack. There need not be certainty of it, because often it is too late by the time certainty sets in; all you need is a belief that is reasonable.

It is the obligation of the threatening nation to give the enemy no grounds for reasonably believing an attack is imminent; if they fail in that obligation and are struck pre-emptively as a result, the responsibility for the war having begun lies with the attacked, not the attacking, party.

[odykas]

Brilliant idea, only if the pre-emptive strike is against George W. Bush.

[Eki]

I'd say that a pre-emptive strike is justified if the striking nation has a reasonable belief that it will soon come under attack.
So, if I walk on a dark alley and see a biker type with prison tattoos, and since I'm easily scared I believe he's going to attack me, do I have the right to kill him? I'd have about as much, probably even more, proof he's going to attack me as Bush had on Iraq going to attack the US.

[Gannex]

So, if I walk on a dark alley and see a biker type with prison tattoos, and since I'm easily scared I believe he's going to attack me, do I have the right to kill him?
Not under my test, you wouldn't. You said it yourself; you're a man who is easily scared. A reasonable man wouldn't believe, under the circumstances you describe, that he was about to be attacked. My rule isn't a license to kill anytime something looks dangerous or threatening. The right to pre-emptively strike only kicks in when you have every reason to believe, and any reasonable person would agree with you, that you are just about to be attacked. That's a pretty high threshold, and a lot higher than your "dodgy bloke in an alley" standard.

I'll give you an example from real life where, in my opinion, the test is passed. You are Israel. It is June, 1967. The armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan have mobilised, and almost all three armies have arrived at your borders. At that moment, you reasonably believe you are about to be attacked. Thus, a pre-emptive strike is allowed you, under my rules.

[Hondo]

So, if I walk on a dark alley and see a biker type with prison tattoos, and since I'm easily scared I believe he's going to attack me, do I have the right to kill him? I'd have about as much, probably even more, proof he's going to attack me as Bush had on Iraq going to attack the US.


Remind me to stay away from you when I'm out and about on the Harley. Uh...you don't know any judo....do you?

[Eki]

Remind me to stay away from you when I'm out and about on the Harley. Uh...you don't know any judo....do you?
No, don't worry. Besides Gannex said it wasn't allowed.

Gannex, I agree Israel had much more reason to be afraid of its Arab neighbours were going to attack them than Bush had reason to be afraid of Iraq, but I don't think waiting until the Arabs start the war would have made much difference to the outcome of the war but at least there would have been a chance that an all out war won't start after all.

[Mark]

Doesn't it depend what you meen by pre-emptive strike? To me it means hitting someone before they have the chance to hit you.

Thus Japans attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't really a pre-emptive strike as America at the time had no plans to attack Japan?

[janneppi]

Americans hitting the Japanese fleet just as she was about to send planes out would be a pre-emptive strike.
Japans strike was a simple first strike.

[Hondo]

Doesn't it depend what you meen by pre-emptive strike? To me it means hitting someone before they have the chance to hit you.

Thus Japans attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't really a pre-emptive strike as America at the time had no plans to attack Japan?


I consider it a pre-emptive strike because it's purpose was to keep the US from at the least, interfering with Japanese expansion south and at best, to keep the US from doing anything at all. They really thought if they could nail the fleet, America wouldn't have the stomach to go to war.

They might have gotten away with it nowadays.

[Knock-on]

I consider it a pre-emptive strike because it's purpose was to keep the US from at the least, interfering with Japanese expansion south and at best, to keep the US from doing anything at all. They really thought if they could nail the fleet, America wouldn't have the stomach to go to war.

They might have gotten away with it nowadays.


I agree with Mark here. It was a first strike and not a pre-emptive one.

Japans plans meant that they needed to neutralise any potential threat from the US but that threat was not imminent unless they initialised it.

As it was, the strike backfired and brought the US firmly into the conflict and ultimately lead to the defeat of Japan and the axis.

[Hondo]

Well, ok. I concede the point.

[luvracin]

First of all, I agree with Mark and Knock-on about the definition of a pre-emptive strike.

Secondly, you guys need to read "The Art of War".

Thirdly and because I have read it, a Pre-Emptive strike doesn't necessarily mean taking up arms. It could mean using any means to destabilise your opponent to prevent them carrying out a strike on you.

So, Yes, I agree with the Pre-Emptive strike if there is irrefutable proof a strike is being planned against you. Also, my pre-emptive strike may or may not involve the taking up of any arms......