Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Are pre-emptive attacks justified?

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Preemptive Strikes

    Please respond to the following discussion topic and submit it to the discussion forum. Your initial post should be 75-150 words in length. Then, make at least two thoughtful responses to your fellow students' posts.

    Do we have the right to attack on a preemptive basis? What do you see as the standards we should use in making that decision? Do you think other nations have the same right and what standards should they use?

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 5:07 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Do we have the right to attack on a preemptive basis?

    International law permits pre-emptive self-defence when a threat is serious and looming close (Gorener, 2012).In such a case, the victim cannot wait till the attack has started. The Bush government however did not follow this principle. The National Security strategy of USA reserves the right to attack pre-emptively without an immediate major threat. When the war on Iraq was launched, the threat was at best highly subjective and without the requisite standard of proof required for a preemptive attack.

    However Bush made a forceful case for such attacks by saying in an address "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants ...

    Solution Summary

    The paper looks at the standards that justify pre-emptive attacks of one nation against another. It looks at the case of the US attack on Iraq and goes on to question whether other nations possess the same rights as the US to make pre-emptive attacks.