Isn't it strange how people and military targets can be in the same place?

Don't worry, we use only smart bombs, which don't hurt anyone who isn't guilty guilty guilty. Trust me.

Have someone - preferably the same person - KILL both Ahmenidjad and Shrub?

Although I was born after WWII, some of my childhood haunts were "dust and ashes" in that they were bomb sites left over from the London Blitz. If a pre-emptive strike against Nazi targets had been able to prevent that - and the consequent strategic bombing campaign against German cities - would that have been so wrong?

That's a big if, Ian.

Ian,
Lets suppose that someone -- anyone at all, maybe Putin... okay Putin decides that the US is in a bad way right now and since people dislike Bush and his administration to a high degree, so he will bomb 400 sites in the USA, perhaps with nuclear weapons, perhaps just huge bombs and missiles (because then the American people will rise up in anger and get rid of Bush). Would that work? Would your reaction be "let's get rid of Bush?" Mine wouldn't, and I really don't like the guy and esp. what he and his cronies have done to my country. But if a foreign power dropped bombs on 400 sites in the USA I'd view it as an act of war and I'd be mad at the guys who dropped them. Wouldn't you?

And tell me how a strategic strike would've taken out Germany's pre-WWII military. I mean that is an incredibly big "if". I'd need to change fonts to get an "if" that big. Unless you're saying that a strategic strike that took out Hitler -- the guy Germans elected to be their leader -- would've not made them mad enough to use their armed forces. Why do people assume that other people in the world would not react as we would to a deliberate, unprovoked act of war?

Technically, IIRC, Hitler was elected to be A leader, not THE leader. To accomplish the latter, some extra-electoral hanky-panky was required...

Ian,
Shhhhh...you're gonna upset PZ. It's not what he wants to hear. "Pre-emptive strike" are bad words around here because you arrogantly assume to know that it will work out just as you planned. No, no, no. It's far better to do nothing and then complain that nothing was done to prevent the disaster that followed. Or else wait until everything is said and done, and then start the Monday morning quarterbacking. You're always on the right side either way.

The people who live in reality, which is where I live, understand that you make your decisions based on the evidence you have and then deal with the good or bad that comes later.

To say that nobody should order a pre-emptive strike is just plain ignorant. Tell that to the rape victim turned non-rape victim because the police caught the guy before he could act.

Shhhhh...you're gonna upset PZ. It's not what he wants to hear. "Pre-emptive strike" are bad words around here because you arrogantly assume to know that it will work out just as you planned. No, no, no. It's far better to do nothing and then complain that nothing was done to prevent the disaster that followed. Or else wait until everything is said and done, and then start the Monday morning quarterbacking. You're always on the right side either way.

You're right. It's far better to attack anyone that anyone has ever said might maybe attack us or Israel someday, just to be on the safe side. And also, it's always best to believe whoever your leaders tell you is dangerous regardless of whether they have any evidence, or whether they've lied about just that sort of thing in the past. For example, the Bush White House told us that Iraq had WMD's and probably nukes, and they were certainly going to use them on us some day. Now while none of that turned out to be actually, like, true, it certainly many of us feel a lot better to attack their country and spend the next several years occupying it just to show the world that IF Iraq had actually been a threat to the world, we could have done something about it. Now Iran is the same thing -- I think tens of thousands of dead Iranians and the hatred of that country and much of the middle east for decades to come certainly seems justified in light of the fact that the same people who warned us about Iraq are now warning us about Iran. It seems awfully petty and small minded of you to assume that they'd ever lie to us or be horrendously wrong like that again, no?

Also, if diplomacy had been allowed to run its course with Iraq, it certainly would have failed there. This seems to be more than enough evidence to me to indicate that diplomacy won't work with Iran, either. So why bother?

Although I was born after WWII, some of my childhood haunts were "dust and ashes" in that they were bomb sites left over from the London Blitz. If a pre-emptive strike against Nazi targets had been able to prevent that - and the consequent strategic bombing campaign against German cities - would that have been so wrong?

You seem to have this odd idea that the US didn't bomb Germany, and that if it had, it would have won World War 2. In fact, the bombing started on both sides as soon as the war began, and while it made a difference, it was not decisive in winning the war. As an example of how true this is, note that in 1944, at the PEAK of the US/UK bombing campaign, German armaments production reached levels it had never acheived in peacetime. It actually quardupled from 1941-1944. Sure the US bombed Germany plenty. It didn't win the war, or stop Hitler, any more than Germany bombing the UK won the war for them or 'stopped Churchill'.

Sure the US bombed Germany plenty. It didn't win the war, or stop Hitler, any more than Germany bombing the UK won the war for them or 'stopped Churchill'.
Agreed. That was the mindset back then. We use to fire-bomb whole cities. There's no way that compares to what we do now.

True, it takes far fewer modern bombs than it did back then. And they're smart... so smart.

We use[d] to fire-bomb whole cities. There's no way that compares to what we do now.

I doubt that is any comfort to the people of Dresden.

Ah, but don't you see, if we'd firebombed Dresden in 1937 we could have prevented the war... by starting it first?

For some reason, whenever anyone says "preemptive strike", I hear "Pearl Harbor".

Because, you know, that was totally effective at keeping the U.S. out of war and getting it to accede to everything the Japanese wanted. There's certainly no denying the universal and unfailing effectiveness of preemptive attacks!

It's a cunning plan that cannot fail!

NelC wrote:

That's a big if, Ian.

Agreed, but I am only asking whether pre-emptive action is wrong in principle or whether there are occasions when it is justified.

QrazyQat wrote

Ian,
Lets suppose that someone -- anyone at all, maybe Putin... okay Putin decides that the US is in a bad way right now and since people dislike Bush and his administration to a high degree, so he will bomb 400 sites in the USA, perhaps with nuclear weapons, perhaps just huge bombs and missiles (because then the American people will rise up in anger and get rid of Bush). Would that work? Would your reaction be "let's get rid of Bush?" Mine wouldn't, and I really don't like the guy and esp. what he and his cronies have done to my country. But if a foreign power dropped bombs on 400 sites in the USA I'd view it as an act of war and I'd be mad at the guys who dropped them. Wouldn't you?

Quite probably, but the proposed action against Iran is - as far as we know - not intended to bring down the current regime but simply to cripple their nuclear weapons programme.

Because once a country *has* nukes (see North Korea, Pakistan) America will do anything to avoid conflict with it.

Sweet, merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, you people are stupid.

george cauldron wrote:

I think tens of thousands of dead Iranians and the hatred of that country and much of the middle east for decades to come certainly seems justified in light of the fact that the same people who warned us about Iraq are now warning us about Iran. It seems awfully petty and small minded of you to assume that they'd ever lie to us or be horrendously wrong like that again, no?

I doubt if the majority of Iraqis were sorry to see Saddam and his regime go. There is also evidence that a lot of Iraqis want Coalition forces to stay for a while at least because, bad as things are, the situation would get a lot worse if they were to leave.

And a large part of the Middle East hated the the US and UK long before the Iraq war for their suppport of Israel. Should we allow the Israelis to be driven into the sea in order to appease them?

Also, if diplomacy had been allowed to run its course with Iraq, it certainly would have failed there. This seems to be more than enough evidence to me to indicate that diplomacy won't work with Iran, either. So why bother?

We should always try diplomacy - even President Bush has said so - but we should be under no illusions that diplomatic solutions are always going to work. And if they don't, what else are we to do?

george cauldron wrote:

You seem to have this odd idea that the US didn't bomb Germany, and that if it had, it would have won World War 2. In fact, the bombing started on both sides as soon as the war began, and while it made a difference, it was not decisive in winning the war. As an example of how true this is, note that in 1944, at the PEAK of the US/UK bombing campaign, German armaments production reached levels it had never acheived in peacetime. It actually quardupled from 1941-1944. Sure the US bombed Germany plenty. It didn't win the war, or stop Hitler, any more than Germany bombing the UK won the war for them or 'stopped Churchill'.

I am well aware that the US took part in the strategic bombing campaign against Germany, otherwise, I agree with what you wrote.

My purpose - as I have already said - was to raise the question of whether or not there are occasions when pre-emptive action might not be justified. My own view is that it probably only works in the context of an operation with limited tactical objectives - such as the disruption of Iran's nuclear weapons programme. There is also little doubt that such action would arouse a great deal of hostility in the region - some of it violent and directed at Western targets - so a judgement would have to be made as to whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Chris wrote:

For some reason, whenever anyone says "preemptive strike", I hear "Pearl Harbor".
Because, you know, that was totally effective at keeping the U.S. out of war and getting it to accede to everything the Japanese wanted. There's certainly no denying the universal and unfailing effectiveness of preemptive attacks!

The attack on Pearl Harbor came very close to being successful. Had the American carriers not been at sea they would almost certainly have been sunk and with them would have gone US naval power in the Pacific. The Japanese would have had a virtually free hand in the region for some time to come.

It is also worth noting that the Pearl Harbor operation was influenced by the night attack on the Italian fleet at Taranto by the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm. A few obsolete Fairey Swordfish biplanes managed to cripple Italian naval power in the Mediterranean in a single blow.

These things can work as long as you don't expect too much of them.

As some have pointed out elsewhere, there are times in international law when preemption of a sort is legally justified. This is by far not one of them.

You know, Ian, I don't think there are any circumstances where a peace-loving nation is justified in attacking first. It's very seductive to speak of pre-emptive attacks that almost succeeded, but it blinds one to the consequences of failure, and more importantly it just isn't something a civilised nation should do.

If you make a pre-emptive attack, you're the bad guy. It's as simple as that. No-one will trust you after it. Why should they? You've just lied and made secret schemes and launched an unprovoked attack, all while making nice at the conference table. Trust, for all its intangibility, is one of the most valuable things to possess, and willingness to throw it away repels everyone from your camp except those who lack enough human empathy to trust anyone in the first place.

Focusing on the weapons is a bad idea. Lots of countries have nuclear weapons and only one has ever used them; a non-nuclear war is a hell of a lot more destructive than a country sitting there not using its nukes.

Political stability should be the main goal. Hypocritically claiming that (insert nation here) can't be trusted with nukes while other nations keep theirs is arrogant and silly, and therefore provokes resentment.

Of course, since it's now exposed that the reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq were 100% *deliberate* lies, the U.S. is kind of lacking in global credibility. I'm surprised the U.N. hasn't condemned the invasion and occupation yet - or maybe they did and U.S. media just refused to report on it.

CrazyQat: "I'd need to change fonts to get an "if" that big."

LOL! That's always the problem, isn't it? The reality is, it takes more than "ends" (that is, intentions) to "justify the means". It takes results, and you can't count on results. At this point, even if you actually believed that we invaded Iraq because it had something to do with 9/11, the plain fact is, they didn't -- and not only did ShrubCo screw up the Iraq war, but by diverting the troops, he abandoned the field in Afghanistan....

QrazyQat: True, it takes far fewer modern bombs than it did back then. And they're smart... so smart.

Are you saying we still fire-bomb cities? That's the way you phrased it.

Are you saying we still fire-bomb cities?

no, mostly you guys have switched to cluster bombing cities these days. it usually works out much the same way after the dust settles, though.

no, mostly you guys have switched to cluster bombing cities these days

Do you even know what a cluster bomb is? The name sure is scary, isn't it? It's like assault rifle. Surprisingly your link is pointing to various sites that are biased.

It's always amazing to me when someone thinks that offering biased "facts" will refute a biased view. Is it like a joke? Don't you think that a site called "notinourname" would be suspect?

NelC wrote

You know, Ian, I don't think there are any circumstances where a peace-loving nation is justified in attacking first. It's very seductive to speak of pre-emptive attacks that almost succeeded, but it blinds one to the consequences of failure, and more importantly it just isn't something a civilised nation should do.

One of the most foremost duties of any government is to protect its people. If such a government has good reason to believe that another state poses a threat to its people it would be derelict in that duty if it did not take action to defend itself. Defensive action could arguably include pre-emptive strikes to forestall that threat.

The obvious objection to such a position is that any aggressive action could be justified as pre-emptive unless there are strict limits placed on what are acceptable reasons for so acting. But that objection does not absolutely preclude pre-emptive action. Just as you or I would be justified in shooting someone who was about to shoot us then so would a state be justified in acting pre-emptively against a clear and immediate threat to itself. The grey area is just how clear and immediate does that threat have to be?

That's short term thinking. Imagine we're in a game of the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma here -- yes, you can act crazy and unpredictable, you can be vicious in retaliation, and it will win you a little breathing space, but in the long run you die as all the other players learn that cooperating with you isn't worthwhile. And that is a betrayal of the government's duty to protect the people.

I do not want this country to follow a strategy that slightly increases the probability of my survival now, at the cost of greatly diminishing my grandchildren's probability of survival. That's just stupid.