At what point is a preemptive strike actually justifiable?

[Ziggurat]

I love how this becomes 'what justification would the americans need to start blowing the crap out of another country'. But you can't go down this path without looking at the other sides point of view.

At what stage based on US threats can Iran justifiably launch a preemptive attack on the US?

Looking at an issue from multiple perspectives makes sense. But it doesn't make sense to assume that all perspectives are equivalent, and without that assumption, your questions really aren't nearly as important or relevant as you seem to think.

In this case, I cannot consider the Iranian regime's existence to be justified. It is not. It is a totalitarian, violent and cruel regime which has harmed the people it claims to represent far more than it has helped them. From the perspective of the mullahs, preemptive attacks will become justified if they prevent the regime from being toppled. But I'm not them, and I want them toppled. I care about whether or not they WOULD do that, I care about how we could stop them from doing such a thing, and I care about how we would respond if they ever did. But I most certainly do NOT care about how they would or would not justify something like that to themselves.

The conditions under which I WOULD consider preemptive strikes by them against us as being justified are so hypothetical (such as their government being an enlightened democracy and ours being a repressive theocracy) that they have no practical relevance to the current situation.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've always used the example of two guys arguing on the street. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER considered appropriate unless the person doing the pre-emptive striking can PROVE that his life was in immediate danger.

You just can't legally punch someone in the face just because you think he might punch you!

On the level of analogy with individuals, why does it have to be your life that's in immediate danger, if the preemptive strike your contemplating doesn't take life?

Furthermore, at the level of nations, it's just plain stupid policy, and no country in the world has ever, will ever, or should ever bind themselves to so narrow and restricted a criteria. For example, how do you define "immediate"? There is no operational definition for the word in this context which makes any sense. If the likely attack is going to be in one day, is that immediate? What about one year? Where's the dividing line? If the likely attack is going to come far enough in the future that it isn't considered an immediate threat, why should a country necessarily have to wait for it to become immediate? What if waiting for it to become immediate raises the cost for both the country doing the preemptive strike AND the country getting hit by the preemptive strike - does it really make sense to wait under those conditions?

It's one thing to say that the immediacy of a threat justifies taking greater risks (and preemptive strikes are risky), but it's quite another to make it a categorical requirement in all cases. Your criteria are undefined, unworkable, and don't even provide any moral advantage.

 

[CapelDodger]

Say it looks as if the other guy is going for a gun. In fact he's stood around the neighbourhood making rants about how when he gets a gun he'll blow you/your friend away.

Fortunately Iran doesn't have The Bomb, insists it has no intention of getting one, and isn't threatening to blow anybody away with what they haven't got and aren't trying to get. So, by this analogy, they should be safe.

 

[Belz...]

But I do not accept the idea that the sovereignty of a dictatorship is in any meaningful way comparable to that of a democracy

Why the hell not ?

 

[Giz]

Why the hell not ?

Because morally the right of soveriegnty derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic cermony... uh, I mean, not from the barrel of a gun.

When a countries soveriegnty is violated (you can think of Iraq here if you want), I'd judge the 'righteousness' on two points:

1) The practical: an amoral 'ends justify the means' measure of whether the situation will end up better for the intervention, than without it.

2) The moral: If the country was a functioning democracy then we would have thwarted the wishes and self determination of x million people. If it was a dictatorship then we have thwarted ONE man's freedom of action, and in the process perhaps liberated many millions of his subjects. In such a situation it might be more accurate to say that an intervention has created national soveriegnty for 20 million people where non existed before.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why the hell not ?

Sovereignty for a dictatorship means that the dictator can do whatever he wants to his people (which generally means putting the screws to them) without outside interference.

Sovereignty for a democracy means that the people of that democracy are not governed or controlled by external forces to which they have no recourse, but only by a government in which they do have a say.

That's a world of difference, from where I'm sitting. Your phrasing ("Why the hell not?" rather than simply "Why not?") suggests that you disagree, that you consider the ability of a dictator to decide the fate of his country to be somehow equal to the ability of a population to decide its own fate. Would you care to clarify your position on the matter?

 

[gnome]

The question becomes whether it is better for the world to establish a precedent of countries respecting each others' borders, even if some are not democracies, than to forego that to reserve the right to invade anyone whose government we do not recognize.

I'm not sure which side i'm on.

 

[Giz]

The question becomes whether it is better for the world to establish a precedent of countries respecting each others' borders, even if some are not democracies, than to forego that to reserve the right to invade anyone whose government we do not recognize.

I'm not sure which side i'm on.

I'd find that view more compelling if I thought there was a snowflakes chance in hell that dictators would find the lack of precedents half as constraining as democracies would.

 

[Ziggurat]

The question becomes whether it is better for the world to establish a precedent of countries respecting each others' borders, even if some are not democracies, than to forego that to reserve the right to invade anyone whose government we do not recognize.

I'm not sure which side i'm on.

Let me propose a different, though related, question: should democratic countries consider the sovereignty of other democratic countries to be more important and inviolable than the sovereignty of non-democratic countries? I've got absolutely no problem with that.

 

[CapelDodger]

The question becomes whether it is better for the world to establish a precedent of countries respecting each others' borders, even if some are not democracies, than to forego that to reserve the right to invade anyone whose government we do not recognize.

I'm not sure which side i'm on.

One problem is how "the world" can establish anything when it's divided into hundreds of sovereignties (I'm not sure of the exact current count, I lost track in the 90's when they were springing up all over). The UN was founded on a principle that all sovereignties are equivalent and absolute, and that nothing - including the UN - supercedes sovereignty. It couldn't have got off the ground on any other basis.

It has evolved since, but slowly. Sovereign acts which do not impinge on other sovereignties are no business of the UN unless they can be classed as genocidal. That's progress (although genocide is ill-defined).

Should the UN, or "the world" in some other guise, impose certain minimum standards of human rights on sovereign governments? That's a can of worms opened on a slippery slope. What's next to be judged, trade policies?

Personally, I'm in a favour of an international body that does indeed impose minimum standards, actively over-riding sovereignty. Much as the Johnson administration did in the Southern states. Perhaps the UN could become, in time, such a body but there's a lot of work needs doing.

 

[CapelDodger]

Let me propose a different, though related, question: should democratic countries consider the sovereignty of other democratic countries to be more important and inviolable than the sovereignty of non-democratic countries? I've got absolutely no problem with that.

Dragging the discussion back to pre-emption, if it's justified by a threat the political system of the target is irrelevant. (It might be relevant when calculating the threat.)

 

[Ralph]

Excellent point, pjh!

I've always used the example of two guys arguing on the street. A pre-emptive strike is NEVER considered appropriate unless the person doing the pre-emptive striking can PROVE that his life was in immediate danger.

You just can't legally punch someone in the face just because you think he might punch you!

(edited to add) Welcome to the forums.

As a handgun owner....you're probably familiar with the Tueller Drill.

It takes about 1.5 seconds for a reasonaby competent shooter to put 2 rounds into a target at 7 yards.

It takes about the same 1.5 seconds for a knife-wielding attacker to cover that same 7 yards.

Normally-gun beats knife--UNLESS the guy with the gun lets the guy with the knife get within that 7 yard range.

If you shoot too early--you could be charged with murder yourself. Shoot too late--and it could cost you your own life.

Once Iran has developed them...I'd think it would then be too late to stop them. Eventually they'll develop a missle that could reach the US (although there's always "delivery via terrorist") and they could play MX style "hide the missle" and probably always be in a position to subject the US to the loss of several large cities.

You have to make a judgement call on that guy with a knife that MIGHT--or might not be a threat.

If's he's acting crazy & in a threatening manner (like Iran)---do you risk letting him inside that 7 yard zone---where it it's too late to stop him no matter what?

 

[CapelDodger]

Once Iran has developed them...I'd think it would then be too late to stop them. Eventually they'll develop a missle that could reach the US (although there's always "delivery via terrorist") and they could play MX style "hide the missle" and probably always be in a position to subject the US to the loss of several large cities.

How is Pakistan different from Iran? Pakistan was the first modern Islamic state, is clearly a failed state currently ruled by the military, announced its intensions of building The Bomb and subsequently built it, was the sponsor of the Taliban and indulged Al-Qaeda, and has facilitated terrorism in Kashmir for decades. It has missile technology from North Korea and its own technological resources. Did it not slip inside the 7-yard zone a while back?

One difference is that Iran denies that it has a nuclear weapons program.

You have to make a judgement call on that guy with a knife that MIGHT--or might not be a threat.

At least Iran doesn't have a knife.

If's he's acting crazy & in a threatening manner (like Iran)---do you risk letting him inside that 7 yard zone---where it it's too late to stop him no matter what?

Isn't it too late to stop Pakistan? Where in the real world, right now, are nuclear weapons closer to the hands of Islamist millenarians? What's the average life-span of a Pakistani regime? Why the obsession with what Iran might do ten years down the line?

 

[Mycroft]

How is Pakistan different from Iran?

Great question! How about a few more?

How comfortable are you with Pakistan having nukes?

If you could go back in time and stop them from building them, wouldn't you?

Is the region better off with just Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Iran?

 

[CapelDodger]

Great question! How about a few more?

How comfortable are you with Pakistan having nukes?

If you could go back in time and stop them from building them, wouldn't you?

Is the region better off with just Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Iran?

As a child of the 50's, I'm not comfortable with The Bomb. Could I rewrite physics to preclude them, I would. I'm not less comfortable now that Pakistan has The Bomb, that was close to inevitable once India had one way back. If I could go back in time and make a difference, there never would have been a Pakistan.

As to your last non-answer, is the world better off with only Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Israel?

 

[Mycroft]

As a child of the 50's, I'm not comfortable with The Bomb. Could I rewrite physics to preclude them, I would. I'm not less comfortable now that Pakistan has The Bomb, that was close to inevitable once India had one way back. If I could go back in time and make a difference, there never would have been a Pakistan.

Oh yawn. You can’t rewrite the laws of physics, oh dear, how terrible, how cruel the world is.

Of course, the question asked wasn’t if you could rewrite physics or un-make Pakistan, but if, given the chance, if you would have prevented Pakistan from building the bomb. You know, like today we have the opportunity to prevent Iran from doing so?

As to your last non-answer, is the world better off with only Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Israel?

That’s lovely sophistry and I’m sure I’m supposed to feel it’s keen poignant bite, but I remember when you first mentioned Pakistan you raised some specific issues about that country that seemed to be important issues that just don’t apply to Israel:

”…Pakistan was the first modern Islamic state, is clearly a failed state currently ruled by the military, announced its intensions of building The Bomb and subsequently built it, was the sponsor of the Taliban and indulged Al-Qaeda, and has facilitated terrorism in Kashmir for decades. It has missile technology from North Korea and its own technological resources. Did it not slip inside the 7-yard zone a while back?”

I don’t see the parallels with Pakistan and Israel. Maybe with the missile technology, but the “7-yard zone” implies it might be a danger, for which there is no evidence.

So let me ask you again; Is the region better off with just Pakistan having nukes? Or Pakistan and Iran?

 

[Belz...]

Because morally the right of soveriegnty derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic cermony... uh, I mean, not from the barrel of a gun.

Uh-huh. So a democratic government has the absolute right to invade autocratic countries and blast 'em all to bits because they don't have a mandate from the masses ?

Don't misunderstand me. I think there are plenty of reasons to topple many a dictatorship. Because of what they DO. But JUST because they're not democraties ? Isn't that taking it a little far ?

 

[Belz...]

That's a world of difference, from where I'm sitting. Your phrasing ("Why the hell not?" rather than simply "Why not?") suggests that you disagree,

Nah, I just like to say "hell" whenever I can.

 

[Belz...]

As a child of the 50's, I'm not comfortable with The Bomb. Could I rewrite physics to preclude them, I would.

Wouldn't russia and the US have gone to war after WWII without that threat ?

 

[Kerberos]

Wouldn't russia and the US have gone to war after WWII without that threat ?

that's quite possible, but obviously not certain. that's really the dillemma of the Bomb, it help prevents war, but it also opens the door to armegeddon. Given the choice I don't think I'd allow nuclear bombs to exist either, despite the benefits.