Talk:Preemptive war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] merging with pre-emptive strike
these two articles should be merged and pre-emptive strike should be redirected here. i know that it can be argued that a pre-emptive strike is different from a pre-emptive war, but in every context that i've seen, they can almost always be used interchangeably. these two articles are rather short anyway and i think they can be consolidated into one. i plan to make the changes but i wanted to post this notice so people have a chance to comment if they whish. uri budnik 19:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should be merged. Also definitely needs something on the Caroline Case, where Daniel Webster enunciated the universally accepted standards for considering a preemptive strike legal. Do it myself if no one else does.--John Z 04:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with preventative war
Should merge this with preventative war - difference only slight, and mostly in rhetorical, not in legal or practical meaning, hence no justification for separation ATT. Maybe when theres enough material a split would be is warranted. -SV|t 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It may be natural to discuss preventative and preemptive wars together, but there emphatically is a genuine legal and practical difference. If a war or strike really is preemptive, then it is very probably legal. If someone is flying bombers over a border, it is legal to shoot them down before they cross it, and there are long accepted criteria for judging whether a strike is preemptive. Preventative is almost certainly illegal in modern international law.--John Z 03:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not a fan. "Preemptive war" and "preventative war" have enough different connotations. The former has been used frequently enough in recent propoganda to justify keeping it separate. samwaltz 16:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be merged because whereas the two terms are not identical, their understanding requires the studying of both. Also, the differences need to be stressed, which would most efficiently be done in a "preemptive vs preventive wars" section in a merged article. gwnn 23:53 GMT, 10 September 2005
I agree, good reasons.John Z 10:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not think they should be merged. Preemptive war is waged upon a country that has the ability to attack a state militarily and poses a security threat. Preventitive war is waged upon a country that has no means of attacking militarily but in the future could possess this threat.
The difference between preemtive and preventive wars is most critical, among other reasons since one is currenctly considered acceptable and one is not according to common understanding of international law. Although nothing hinders that both articles refer to eachother, it will be a substantial blow to Wikipedia's credibility and value if they are merged. /Ruhrjung 14:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi; I agree with retaining separate articles, given the many different connotations of each topic. My two cents ... E Pluribus Anthony 17:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Agree with separate articles; the articles betray the differences between the two concepts in their first sections. There would be value on a page outlining their differences, as suggested by gwnn -- John of New Yawk 23:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Let G. W. Bush argue the issue at his trial at The Hague on crimes against peace. I personally believe these should be separate. Petri Krohn 07:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please don't merge
Please don't merge these subjects.
Even if voices here are right (I don't know) that these terms when measured against actual, empirical events; they don't address the same point of reference for taking military action. Preemptive war, to put it bluntly, means, from an intellectual point of view, that "We don't need or care about other states'/nations' views on the matter", whereas preventive war in theory needs some consolidation from other states or nations or similar interested parties. The actions that follow the declaration of either type of war may be the same, the results may become the same but there mere fact that the justification for starting a war will differ. In theory, a preventive war is a war started because a group of states or nations want to strike first, or consolidate such a strike, to avoid being struck at. Preemptive war means "We can go to war against anyone because we want to/because God told me to/etc. Preemptive war is more likely to be gratuitous and capricious.
At least consider this before merging. A cross-reference is enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredrikmo (talk • contribs).
[edit] Do not merge!
Definitely cannot be merged. In fact, there may be the requirement of a further separation - more than just hair-splitting and semantic. Why? There is a fundamental difference between a STRIKE and a WAR. A STRIKE is an action, like a battle, in a WAR, which is not an action but a series of ongoing events. Moreover, there is a difference between the terms pre-emptive and preventative. A pre-emptive strike may not be a preventative strike. For example, Saddam's invasion of Iran was a "pre-emptive" strike because he claimed Iran was going to invade Iraq. It did not prevent the war. So it was not a "preventative strike" (did not prevent the war) nor did it pre-empt the war because (and this is semantic) you cannot pre-empt something that you don't know is going to happen!
Effectively, there are "pre-emptive strike", "pre-emptive war", "preventative strike" and "preventative war". A pre-emptive war is caused BY a pre-emptive strike. A preventative war MAY be caused by a pre-emptive strike, but what exactly is a preventative war? It is not a war that prevents a war - its a war that prevents something else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boojam (talk • contribs).
A quote by Noam Chomsky that pretty much makes the point:
- Pre-emption means something in international law. A pre-emptive attack is one that is taken in the case of an imminent, on-going threat. For example, if planes were flying across the Atlantic to bomb New York, it would be legitimate for the US Air Force to shoot them down. That's a pre-emptive attack. [1]
It is obvious that the meaning of "pre-emptive" is significantly more narrow and more restricted than "preventive". GregorB 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Apt quote. But the difference isn't only one of degree, with "pre-emptive" being more narrow than "preventative". As suggested by Chomsky and by the person above who said: "but what exactly is a preventative war? It is not a war that prevents a war - its a war that prevents something else.", the term "pre-emptive" is descriptive - but "preventative" exists more in the realm of propaganda - it's a term used to justify military action. Pinkville 16:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
They are atwo different things. I have been studying nuclear arms control and disarament, and we were explictly told that these are two different things. My prof is an expert in the field and is very specific on these types of clairifcations.
[edit] Pre-emptive strike
To clarify: If one adopts the Bush-Adminstration's interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, it makes little sense to say that the opposition against pre-emptive strikes only comes from pacifists, previously invaded/occupied countries, and countries caught in the cross-fire of the Cold War. The standard interpretation of Article 51 does not allow for such "pre-emptive strikes" that the Bush-Administration speaks of (see e.g. Malanczuk, pp. 311-314, "Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law", 7th Ed). PJ 10:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Bush-speak is newspeak. The term "preemptive war", means (or is widely believed to mean) preventive war. That is what all the fuss is about. Petri Krohn 07:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article 51
I just realized that this entry on Preemptive War does not mention Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter at all. This is the Article that regulates the right to self-defence, which is the basis for this issue. PJ 11:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality of this article
Rather than equally addressing all opinions on this subject, this article seems to express a strong bias, and even that bias is left unjustified. In fact, the article reads almost like a rant. It is difficult not to have an opinion about preemptive war, but it ought to be attempted for the purposes of an intended reference. 12th March 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kimberly.Z (talk • contribs).
[edit] Removed Kerry
The following seems quite insignificant, especially since Kerry lost the 2004 election, so I removed it.
and was also supported by Senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic nominee for the office of President of the United States.
Captain Jackson 06:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Preemptive?
"The Soviet Union's aerial attack on Finland on June 25, 1941, as an answer to the German attack on Russia of June 22 (Operation Barbarossa leading to the Great Patriotic War), can be argued to be an example of such a preemptive attack, although failed, and though the bombing of residential districts has to be attributed a psychological aim rather than a tactical. Finland's army was mobilized and prepared for both defense and offense, its government had declared its intention to remain outside of the war, and its parliament was assembled to confirm the status of nonbelligerence when attacked. The following Continuation War led to a three year long Finnish occupation of Russian Karelia."
How is that preemptive when the Soviets had already attacked the Finns years earlier and initiated a Winter War in 1940? In all my years, never have I come across this as an example of preemption but in terms of the Great Patriotic War, the only "preemption" one could argue is Europe rallying behind the Nazis against Bolshevism or even the campaign itself from a German POV; many historians have commented that a conflict between the two European and extra-European powers may have been inevitable, so this certainly stands as an example. There is greater dispute over the USSR's pre-war intentions, but the fact that the preemptive strike figures so prominently in propaganda should not be ignored...in fact, it remains extremely relevant as the Old Trick - regardless of its legitimacy - continues to be used (Iraq). --Hohns3 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Finns had already decided to attack and were fully prepared for attack. (See War-responsibility trials in Finland) Petri Krohn 07:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There is a big difference between a war and strike and a big difference between preventive and preemptive!
It is silly to argue that all these articles should be merged. A case could be made for merging war and strike, because a strike could turn into a war.
Juridically there is a big difference between pre-emptive and preventive. In a preemptive strike the attack of the enemy is imminent. The enemy troops are at the border, enemy planes are in the air, etc. There can be no doubt that the enemy will attack within a small time frame. The Six-Day War is a preemptive stike, if you leave out all complexity. Often, in a preemptive strike the war has already started. It is just a strategical suprise attack. Actually, in the case of the Six-Day War you can see how complex this all is. Though Egypt was blockading the Straits of Tiran and that Nasser was trying to provoke Israel, it was not clear if they actually were to attack Israel. It seems they tried to deceive Israel into believing they would, trying to defeat an attacking Israel in the Sinai.
- Actually, a blockade is an act of war - so the Israeli attack was not pre-emptive of war - it was pre-emptive of actual combat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.61.221 (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
In a preventive war there are two powers that are imminent to clash, both politically, economically and military. It is believed that this can only lead to war. If one does not want to risk war then one will lose in diplomacy. So one of them decides to try to take care of this by starting a war before this can happen. Examples are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Though one tries to justify a war like this, it is an act of aggression. Also note that though the Bush doctrine tries to claim preemptive strike, it actually claims the right to attack anyone when they want. I mean, calling the attack on Iraq a preventive war is silly. Iraq never had the power to oppose the US. Iraq only had one third the military buget of Kuwait and the Iraqi army collapsed in the face of conflict because the moral was so poor. Iraq was by far the weakest military power in the region. It could not even attack Kuwait. How could they threaten the US, and thus also their NATO allies?
This article claims that people confuse 'preemptive' and 'preventive'. Merging them will make the confusion bigger. Actually, it seems that the people that support merging either are confused themselves or they want to merge them for political reasons. To modify language in an [[Orwellian] way, just as was done with 'Liberal'.
I propose an article on 'preventive war', an act of aggression, and a 'preemptive strike', launching a suprise attack on enemy forces about to attack you. A 'preemptive war' is an oxymoron. Just like a 'preventive strike'.( 212.187.69.100 17:27, 26 April 2006)
- Both these articles have problems and IMHO should be merged. I won't be able to do serious work for a week or two on them. Saying that they should be merged is not saying they are the same by any means, just that confusion is much less likely if they are put together, to put each other in relief. The more important difference is between preemptive and preventive, I do not like the idea of getting confusing by worrying about strike vs. war, which the articles do too much already. The important point is how and why the wars start.
- The distinction is sometimes between anticipatory vs. pre-emptive rather than pre-emptive vs. preventive, where in the first pair, "pre-emptive" is used like "preventive" here at Wikipedia. The O'Connell paper has good footnote on this. This is another argument for merger, so we can explain how people use the 3 words for 2 concepts. If there are two articles, this one should be renamed anticipatory self-defense, and preemptive should be a disambiguation page pointing to "anticipatory" and "preventive."
- Some difficulties are illustrated by the example of the 6 day war above. While Israel claimed to be preempting an imminent Egyptian attack, most scholars nowadays think that Egypt was not going to attack and did not want war or to provoke war, and that Israel knew this. That was the US belief at the time. Israeli cabinet discussions sound more like they were thinking of a preventive war. So this was probably a preventive but not unprovoked war, that of course was claimed to be legitimately preemptive/anticipatory, but because of the complicated background was not a clear case of aggression, like the US war on Iraq, or Hitler's attack on Poland, or Japan on Pearl Harbor. John Z 4.234.102.166 07:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pre-emptive strike Not As Politically Charging
It looks like someone already took a pre-emptive strike and already merged the articles. They are two different things. Look at the attack on Iraq's nuclear capabilities by Israel in the early 80's...that is a pre-emptive strike. Operation Iraqi Freedom is viewed as a pre-emptive war. It is pretty cut and clear and it seems to me the only reason to urge that these two articles be merged is for political bias to be rammed down the throat of the reader as the "negatives" for pre-emptive war start flowing in. Quotes from John Kerry? Come on now. [2] unsigned posted by anon 70.229.247.214, 2006-07-25 08:09:28
- I see. Another loss for Orwell.
- --80.56.36.253 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
