At what point is a preemptive strike actually justifiable?

[Cecil]

I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.

Thus, I think most of us would agree that the American pre-emptive attack on Iraq was not justified by the available intelligence. That is, although Hussein may (big MAY) have had large-scale destructive weaponry, he was most likely not in the process of readying an attack against the US.

But what about when one nation credibly threatens the very existence of another? Several months ago, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." Since then the Iranians have demonstrated stealth MIRVs, the world's fastest sonar-evading torpedo, stealth hovercrafts, and of course, enriched uranium. Now, Ahmadinejad has repeated his threat to annihilate Israel, along with again denying the reality of the Holocaust.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.
...
The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

Question: What would it take for the US (or any other country, for that matter) to justifiably invade? Are there any threats Iran could make that would vindicate a preemptive strike or should aggression be restricted to retaliatory only?

 

[Kerberos]

I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.

Thus, I think most of us would agree that the American pre-emptive attack on Iraq was not justified by the available intelligence. That is, although Hussein may (big MAY) have had large-scale destructive weaponry, he was most likely not in the process of readying an attack against the US.

But what about when one nation credibly threatens the very existence of another? Several months ago, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." Since then the Iranians have demonstrated stealth MIRVs, the world's fastest sonar-evading torpedo, stealth hovercrafts, and of course, enriched uranium. Now, Ahmadinejad has repeated his threat to annihilate Israel, along with again denying the reality of the Holocaust.

Question: What would it take for the US (or any other country, for that matter) to justifiably invade? Are there any threats Iran could make that would vindicate a preemptive strike or should aggression be restricted to retaliatory only?

None of the amazing groundbreaking new systems the Iranian military is supposed to have created have been verified by any party other than Iran itself, and at least for the super-torpedo independent military experts were extremely sceptical of the claim when it was announced. So while we should be concerned over their nuclear program, I don't think you necessarily need to lose sleep over stealth hovercrafts, super-torpedoes and breakthroughs in rocket-technology.

As for the main question I believe that Iran could be deterred, but if the Israelis or the US don't want to run that risk I'd certainly understand that, so yes preventive attacks can definitely be justified.

 

[Whoracle]

When the administration in charge isn't too incompetent to handle it.

 

[Zep]

Ummm, just a thought or two.

Even if they existed, what threat are super torpedoes and stealth hovercraft to Israel from Iran? How would they be deployed? Against what? How many of them are there?

The Israelis will likely have no trouble dealing with Iran's threats on their own, the same way they dealt with Iraq in 1981.

The Iranian speech is rhetoric at its most flamboyant. Why people take the letter of such speechs and not their intent so seriously continues to puzzle me.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't see an eminent threat to the US, that would warrant a strike. Just because someone might try to harm you does not give you the right to harm them.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that there needs to be a legitimate threat of imminent danger in order for a preemptive invasion to be condonable.

I don't think this is a very tennable position. Forget for a moment the particulars of Iraq, or Iran, because you don't necessarily need to agree to preemptive strikes on either in order to acknowledge that preemption could be justified even without imminent danger.

Suppose, for example, you knew for certain that an enemy state was preparing nuclear weapons. They were approximately ten years away from getting those weapons, but once they had them, they would use them. Suppose that although we know that they're approximately 10 years away, it could vary from 8 to 12 years before they had the weapons, and we wouldn't be able to tell during that period whether or not they had already aquired nuclear weapons. Furthermore, suppose that it was easy to strike at their nuclear facilities now, but that they would progressively build up air defense capabilities which would make it harder and more costly to strike at those facilities. Is the danger imminent? Not at ten years away, it isn't. But is a strike now justified? I would say, in this hypothetical, that yes it is. Waiting until the threat becomes "imminent" is a mistake in this situation, and we would not know when the threat was actually "imminent" anyways (after 8 years, we couldn't tell if they had the bomb and were about to use it or were 4 years away still).

I understand fully that this hypothetical does NOT represent the situation in Iran or Iraq, and you can agree completely with this assessment and still consider the invasion of Iraq as unwarranted. My point is simply that the concept that a threat MUST be imminent in order to justify a strike in not actually morally or practically tennable. Imminence certainly helps clarify a threat, and may justify taking greater risk, but it is foolish to treat it as an absolute requirement in all cases.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ummm, just a thought or two.

Even if they existed, what threat are super torpedoes and stealth hovercraft to Israel from Iran? How would they be deployed? Against what? How many of them are there?

The threat isn't against Israel directly, it's against the US navy, as well as potentially the global supply of oil which travels through the Persian gulf. Israel can strike at Iran, but it cannot topple the mullahs - that would take US intervention, and that requires out navy in the Gulf.

Not that I really believe they've got super torpedoes, but that's the issue.

The Israelis will likely have no trouble dealing with Iran's threats on their own, the same way they dealt with Iraq in 1981.

I wish it were that simple. Osiraq was a single above-ground site, whose destruction halted Iraq's program completely. Iran has multiple sites, some of them buried underground, and I'm not even sure if we've identified all of them. Taking out Iran's nuclear weapons program might be within Israeli capabilities, but it won't be nearly as easy for them as Osiraq was.

The Iranian speech is rhetoric at its most flamboyant. Why people take the letter of such speechs and not their intent so seriously continues to puzzle me.

Funny thing, but I find that when people talk about what amounts to genocide against the Jews, it's better to take them at their word. I cannot know for sure what their "intent" was, and trying to divine that as something distinct from what they actually say is like Kremlinology (a doomed attempt to try to extract information from a closed and secretive system, which is more likely to confuse you than give you any insight). But I DO know what they said, and if they don't want me to interpret what they said as meaning what they said, then the answer on their part is quite simple: don't say it. So there's really no reason not to take them at their word when they talk about wiping out Israel.

 

[Mephisto]

First, I'd like to ask why we (the U.S.) deserve nuclear weapons, but other countries do not? Of course Iran is acting crazy, we've (pre-emptively) invaded Iraq under false pretenses AND we're in Afghanistan. Sounds like Iran talking big is a situation we ourselves created.

It's not much beyond schoolyard politics - we're the bully that pushes people around so to make sure we don't bully the weird kid that is Iran, he starts to act a little psycho when we surround him.

I think we can FINALLY admit that Dubya's "war on terrorism" hasn't made the world a safer place at all!

 

[Just thinking]

Dancing David: "Just because someone might try to harm you does not give you the right to harm them."

Zep: "Why people take the letter of such speechs and not their intent so seriously continues to puzzle me."

Ziggurat: "Imminence certainly helps clarify a threat, and may justify taking greater risk, but it is foolish to treat it as an absolute requirement in all cases."

Hypothetical ... you are waiting in line to go through a detection screening at an airport and a person in front of you jokingly proclaimes that he has some sort of weapon on his person or in his luggage. Would anyone be supportive of the statements highlighted above in regard to the situation? Would anyone be comfortable if nothing was immediately and pre-emptively done? Without 100% assurance? (Actually it's damn near 0% assurance wise.)

 

[Just thinking]

When the administration in charge isn't too incompetent to handle it.

Like the Bay of Pigs invasion of Kennedy?

Like increasing US involvement in Viet Nam of Johnson?

Like the helicopter disaster to rescue the Iranian hostages of Carter?

Point: these "failures" can only be seen with 20/20 hindsight. All of history is ripe with "failures".

 

[Ziggurat]

Hypothetical ... you are waiting in line to go through a detection screening at an airport and a person in front of you jokingly proclaimes that he has some sort of weapon on his person or in his luggage. Would anyone be suportive of the statements highlighted above in regard to the situation? Would anyone be comfortable if nothing was immediately and pre-emptively done?

I'm a little confused. The way you framed this suggests to me that the three highlighted statements support not doing anything during your hypothetical, while you think something should be done. While I agree that something should be done in your hypothetical, and that this conclusion contradicts the first two highlighted statements, I don't think the third statement you highlighted (mine) argues against acting in this case (and I know I didn't intend for it to). Perhaps that wasn't what you meant by comparing the highlighted statements, perhaps you read my statement differently than I intended, or perhaps there's something else I'm just overlooking, so I wanted to ask for clarification.

 

[BPSCG]

The Iranian speech is rhetoric at its most flamboyant. Why people take the letter of such speechs and not their intent so seriously continues to puzzle me.

Well, one thing the Jews have learned the hard way over the last four thousand years is that when someone with weapons says, "Let's kill the Jews," it's prudent to believe he means it, and will try it the minute he thinks he can get away with it.

 

[Just thinking]

... Perhaps that wasn't what you meant by comparing the highlighted statements, perhaps you read my statement differently than I intended, or perhaps there's something else I'm just overlooking, so I wanted to ask for clarification.

It was your emphasis of in all cases regarding pre-emptive action that I was responding to. Once a threat is made (on any level) there becomes a need for responsible counter action -- it would be foolish to ignore it. You clearly indicated that threats must be imminent in order to respond, yet the situation I described would have little assured imminence, yet I believe that you would support counter action -- even at the risk of jeopardizing the safety of those in the immediate vicinity. So when do verbal claims become enough to be taken seriously? When do physical actions become enough? Who draws the line? And then afterwords are we going to blame those that did draw it, drew it in the wrong place if there were mistakes (and there are almost always mistakes made)?

 

[Ziggurat]

First, I'd like to ask why we (the U.S.) deserve nuclear weapons, but other countries do not?

"Other countries do not"? That's never been the position of the US. Plenty of other countries have nuclear weapons. A number of our allies have nuclear weapons. And while we would have liked it had the USSR never aquired them (it's simple foolishness to want your enemies as well-armed as you), we never took the position that they could not be allowed to get them. So your question doesn't make any sense to begin with, unless you add a rather critical disclaimer: namely the word "specific", as in "specific other countries".

Now, why does the US think that Iran doesn't deserve nuclear weapons? Well, first off, because they voluntarily agreed not to acquire any, and still nominally abide by that agreement. So in one sense, it's merely about insisting that they abide by their word in act as well as in name.

Second, though, are you really so clueless as to not be able to draw a distinction about what nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime means compared to nuclear weapons in the hands of the US, or (say) France? Do you honestly not see a difference?

Of course Iran is acting crazy, we've (pre-emptively) invaded Iraq under false pretenses AND we're in Afghanistan.

Iran has acted "crazy", violating and disdaining the sovereignty of other nations, on a regular basis since the mullahs came to power. And their clandestine nuclear program started well before Bush even took office. This argument amounts to nothing more than making excuses for them - you've become a useful idiot to them, without even realizing it.

 

[Ziggurat]

It was your emphasis of in all cases regarding pre-emptive action that I was responding to. Once a threat is made (on any level) there becomes a need for responsible counter action -- it would be foolish to ignore it. You clearly indicated that threats must be imminent in order to respond, yet the situation I described would have little assured imminence, yet I believe that you would support counter action -- even at the risk of jeopardizing the safety of those in the immediate vicinity.

I'm not sure why you read it that way, but I was trying to argue against the use of such categorical, absolute criteria. The point I was trying to convey was precisely the opposite of how you read it, and was instead in agreement with you that there are situations which require action but do not qualify as imminent. That's why I asked for clarification - because it sounded like there was some misinterpretation somewhere, and I wanted to make sure whether it was regarding my original post (which seems to be the case) or whether I was misinterpreting your post (I think I understood it).

If you're still confused as to what I meant before, or don't think what I said earlier does mostly match your position, I would ask that you read through that first post of mine and consider what the minimal changes to my phrasing would be so that you would agree with what I said. That kind of close parsing may either show you where you misinterpreted what I said, or reveal whatever inconsistencies in my writing that gave it a meaning I didn't intend.

 

[Cain]

The problem with prevention (which is under discussion) is that the logic wraps back around itself. Country A claims it has the authority to pre-empt B; recognizing Country A's national strategic outlook, Country B conspires to pre-empt A's pre-emption, and so on.

Also (and I've just done it here) we shouldn't confuse pre-emption with prevention. Prevention is attacking an enemy while she's still weak (but can pose a credible threat in a few years). Pre-emption is attacking a country right before she strikes (i.e., imminent threat). Saddam was never about to strike(45 minutes away) -- that was completely fabricated. The administration's "gathering threat" claims, incidentally, did not hold up either.

Finally, if we're good moral universalists (Republicans charge the rest of us with moral relativism), then we cannot say that pre-emption/prevention is a uniquely American privilege. Here's where another danger arises, especially in Kashmir situation with India and Pakistan possessing nukes n' all. Russia and China are also fashioning their own "pre-emptive" policies.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, we should not take Iran at their word. This is probably mostly saber-rattling.

Country's often have to "kick some ass" every once in demonstration of military might, projecting power, showing whose boss. This was probably one of the lesser motivations for war. Unfortunately, when opponents see that the mighty United States cannot prevent looting, cannot get electricity running, and cannot stop attacks, then it encourages to view us as a "paper tiger."

 

[Just thinking]

I'm not sure why you read it that way, but I was trying to argue against the use of such categorical, absolute criteria. The point I was trying to convey was precisely the opposite of how you read it, and was instead in agreement with you that there are situations which require action but do not qualify as imminent.

Ah ... there's the rub. I took the quote in all cases the wrong way, so it was I that was confused.

All clear now -- thank you.



I do however believe the questions I posed are important.

 

[Rob Lister]

Unfortunately, when opponents see that the mighty United States cannot prevent looting, cannot get electricity running, and cannot stop attacks, then it encourages to view us as a "paper tiger."

But this sentence assumes a country as an intellegent entity: a error in logic. People make such determinations. They can make them wrongly or rightly, depending on their own criteria.

Pick a person. Select his criteria. What might his determination be?

Pick the HMFIC of Iran, for example. Does he think we are a 'paper tiger'?

 

[Mycroft]

Finally, as mentioned earlier, we should not take Iran at their word. This is probably mostly saber-rattling.

This makes no sense. When someone threatens violence, you should pay very careful attention.

Unfortunately, when opponents see that the mighty United States cannot prevent looting, cannot get electricity running, and cannot stop attacks, then it encourages to view us as a "paper tiger."

Paper tiger: One that is seemingly dangerous and powerful but is in fact timid and weak: “They are paper tigers, weak and indecisive” (Frederick Forsyth).

http://www.answers.com/paper+tiger&r=67

We conquered two nations in response to a terrorist attack. Who is it, exactly; that you believe sees us as a “paper tiger”?

 

[Mephisto]

"Other countries do not"? That's never been the position of the US. Plenty of other countries have nuclear weapons. A number of our allies have nuclear weapons.

So what we're aiming at instead of assured mutual destruction is the destruction of those we consider our enemies? What makes us any different than Iran?

Now, why does the US think that Iran doesn't deserve nuclear weapons? Well, first off, because they voluntarily agreed not to acquire any,

Didn't we also agree to that deal that limited the attainment of nukular weapons?

"At Bush's urging, Congress voted to lift its 10-year-old ban on research and development of small, "tactical" nukes, bombs ranging up to a third the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945. (The differences in the House and Senate bills still must be reconciled.)"

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/09/ED237571.DTL
_____

Second, though, are you really so clueless as to not be able to draw a distinction about what nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian regime means compared to nuclear weapons in the hands of the US, or (say) France? Do you honestly not see a difference?

Of course I don't think it's a great idea that anyone has nukes, but if you look at it from Iran's point of view, you have to admit that it's a tactical move that makes sense. It's not like the world didn't notice that we left North Korea alone to invade Iraq - and found no WMD. I see much of what Iran is doing as posturing and don't consider their nuclear capabilities an immediate threat. If they get "too far" in their technology, I'm sure Israel will take care of the threat - they are, after all, the ones openly threatened.

Iran has acted "crazy", violating and disdaining the sovereignty of other nations, on a regular basis since the mullahs came to power. And their clandestine nuclear program started well before Bush even took office. This argument amounts to nothing more than making excuses for them - you've become a useful idiot to them, without even realizing it.

We certainly not the ones to be pointing fingers about "acting crazy and violating the sovereignty of other nations," are we? And about those mullahs - aren't they in power now because they deposed the Shah whom we supported? Aren't they fundie Muslim because of our meddling in their political affairs in the first place?

And please, Zig - don't call me an idiot. I've know you long enough to have developed a deep respect for you and your tendency to "keep me on my toes." Iran is reacting to a situation we created and it's easily a circumstance we could have foreseen.

You can't walk into a bar, insult a man and then hit him because it looked like he was going to swing at you. There is NO WAY you're defending yourself if you start a fight AND throw the first punch.