Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Dec 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: There is a difference between offensive actions inside of a defensive war and pre-emptive war....
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

There is a difference between offensive actions inside of a defensive war and pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is, by definition, not defensive. It initiates the acts of aggression against another country. Again, I'd bring up the analogy of shooting a neighbor "pre-emptively" because you think that he might be a threat to you in the future.
--hide--

A pre-emptive strike, by definition is an offensive action. That does not mean that side that launches it is involved in an offensive war.

Your example does not cover the point in question. Nobody is arguing that every pre-emptive attack is moral. The argument is simply that they are not all necessarily immoral.

Let's say that N. Korea develops its nuclear weapon program to the point where it can get a warhead small enough to fit in an artillery shell. Furthermore, let's say that N. Korea decides it's going to take out the South, paving the way with nukes aimed at Seul. Continuing on our hypothetical journey, let's say the Allies have thoroughly penetrated the NK communications grid and has good human assets in key places. All of these report on the NK war plans. Normal recon shows the mobilization of the NK military taking place. A couple highly placed NK players defect to the south because they are horrified at the human slaughter about to be unleashed.

While there is a chance we might be able to stop NK planes or missiles armed with nuclear weapons, there is 0 chance we are going to defend against nuclear artillery shells. But our intell shows those nuke shells are still in a depot, and we have the time and capability to attack it before they are moved.

According to you logic, the only ethical choices here are for S. Korea to surrender unconditionally, or for S. Korea to accept millions of dead civilians in the opening minutes of the war because it is somehow inherently unjust to launch a pre-emptive attack.

Dec 13th 2012 new

(Quote) John-746882 said: Why is it that we as human beings spend our time and energy on fruitless argument? When I say we I includ...
(Quote) John-746882 said: Why is it that we as human beings spend our time and energy on fruitless argument? When I say we I include me. In my experience argument is the least successful way to change minds and hearts. Each side has a view and both are convinced of their correctness. It's been said that weapons destroy what is outside but man destroys what's inside through evil. That's the true enemy---evil. Only weeks ago I was full force in the political discussions being tough on people who made the mistake of not agreeing with me. What did that accomplish? Nothing. In fact the opposite of what I wanted happened. I don't see joy or hope in these discussions. Only Christ can provide joy, hope and true peace. He and Our Lady are the ones to help us to victory. They are what we need. Mary Queen of Peace, pray for us.
--hide--
Amen to that, John. theheart

Dec 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Peter-449116 said: I don't really give a rat's patoot about all the expertise here defending new and creativ...
(Quote) Peter-449116 said:

I don't really give a rat's patoot about all the expertise here defending new and creative ways of killing people. Eisenhower warned us about the "military industrial complex," but no one listened. This defense industry monster we created is now too massive to be controlled- a great beast that must constantly be fed. Bought Congresspersons are fighting for jobs in defense industry locations in their district. We've all read the stories of planes being pushed on our military that they don't need or want. You won't get an argument from me that we require a powerful military without equal, but that strong military does not require the 234 golf courses it maintains throughout the world: www.salon.com

Afghanistan is arguably the last necessary war we fought since World War II, and there's serious domestic and foreign pressure to get us into the next one in 2013. Do we need to hunt down those bent on our destruction? You bet. But along the way we don't need to demonize an entire people to accomplish that goal. We should eliminate our ineffective State Department and replace it with the National Geographic Society. They have been interacting famously with people in some of the most inhospitable places on earth for 125 years.

That's it from me- over and out.

--hide--


I could not agree more, Peter.



Dec 13th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: A pre-emptive strike, by definition is an offensive action. That does not mean that side ...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

A pre-emptive strike, by definition is an offensive action. That does not mean that side that launches it is involved in an offensive war.

Your example does not cover the point in question. Nobody is arguing that every pre-emptive attack is moral. The argument is simply that they are not all necessarily immoral.

Let's say that N. Korea develops its nuclear weapon program to the point where it can get a warhead small enough to fit in an artillery shell. Furthermore, let's say that N. Korea decides it's going to take out the South, paving the way with nukes aimed at Seul. Continuing on our hypothetical journey, let's say the Allies have thoroughly penetrated the NK communications grid and has good human assets in key places. All of these report on the NK war plans. Normal recon shows the mobilization of the NK military taking place. A couple highly placed NK players defect to the south because they are horrified at the human slaughter about to be unleashed.

While there is a chance we might be able to stop NK planes or missiles armed with nuclear weapons, there is 0 chance we are going to defend against nuclear artillery shells. But our intell shows those nuke shells are still in a depot, and we have the time and capability to attack it before they are moved.

According to you logic, the only ethical choices here are for S. Korea to surrender unconditionally, or for S. Korea to accept millions of dead civilians in the opening minutes of the war because it is somehow inherently unjust to launch a pre-emptive attack.

--hide--
John, in a situation like that with an unstable NK I would support a preemptive attack in tandem with the South Korean military, as long as the intelligence was genuinely sound- unlike our phony intelligence on Iraq in 2003. It would also be wise to keep the Chincoms in the loop to avoid a disastrous wider war.

Dec 13th 2012 new
(Quote) John-336509 said: A pre-emptive strike, by definition is an offensive action. That does not mean that side that l...
(Quote) John-336509 said:



A pre-emptive strike, by definition is an offensive action. That does not mean that side that launches it is involved in an offensive war.



Your example does not cover the point in question. Nobody is arguing that every pre-emptive attack is moral. The argument is simply that they are not all necessarily immoral.



Let's say that N. Korea develops its nuclear weapon program to the point where it can get a warhead small enough to fit in an artillery shell. Furthermore, let's say that N. Korea decides it's going to take out the South, paving the way with nukes aimed at Seul. Continuing on our hypothetical journey, let's say the Allies have thoroughly penetrated the NK communications grid and has good human assets in key places. All of these report on the NK war plans. Normal recon shows the mobilization of the NK military taking place. A couple highly placed NK players defect to the south because they are horrified at the human slaughter about to be unleashed.



While there is a chance we might be able to stop NK planes or missiles armed with nuclear weapons, there is 0 chance we are going to defend against nuclear artillery shells. But our intell shows those nuke shells are still in a depot, and we have the time and capability to attack it before they are moved.



According to you logic, the only ethical choices here are for S. Korea to surrender unconditionally, or for S. Korea to accept millions of dead civilians in the opening minutes of the war because it is somehow inherently unjust to launch a pre-emptive attack.

--hide--


Maybe we are just not on the same page with our definitions. If there is an explicit and irrefutable threat (someone is pointing a gun in your face), defense is justified, even if they haven't pulled the trigger yet. I don't consider this case pre-emptive. The threat is real, existent and explicit.

Pre-emptive war is the initiation of war when there is no such threat (ie. Iraq). It's a clear violation of Just War Theory.
Dec 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: Maybe we are just not on the same page with our definitions. If there is an explicit and irref...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

Maybe we are just not on the same page with our definitions. If there is an explicit and irrefutable threat (someone is pointing a gun in your face), defense is justified, even if they haven't pulled the trigger yet. I don't consider this case pre-emptive. The threat is real, existent and explicit.

Pre-emptive war is the initiation of war when there is no such threat (ie. Iraq). It's a clear violation of Just War Theory.
--hide--


Actually Charles, a Pre-emptive war is a war that is commenced in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes.


It is always a sticky situation. Take WWII for example. Should Hitler have been stopped when it was discovered that he was building up for war or wait until he is powerful enough to invade all of Europe and kill millions. Seriously, it's a tough decision because we, as a civilized Nation do not want to start a war but we can't look forward and accurately predict what these dictators will do, so we perceive the right thing to do is to let them fire the first few shots and then defend ourselves with many more casualties on both sides.

Dec 14th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: Maybe we are just not on the same page with our definitions. If there is an explicit and irref...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

Maybe we are just not on the same page with our definitions. If there is an explicit and irrefutable threat (someone is pointing a gun in your face), defense is justified, even if they haven't pulled the trigger yet. I don't consider this case pre-emptive. The threat is real, existent and explicit.

Pre-emptive war is the initiation of war when there is no such threat (ie. Iraq). It's a clear violation of Just War Theory.
--hide--

Definitely not on the same page with definitions. If there is no threat in existence, there is nothing to pre-empt, therefore no pre-emptive war.

The case you are citing (weapon aimed at you) is clearly a pre-emptive strike- you're attacking before the other guy does, the very essence of pre-emption.

The initiation of war where there is no threat is simply a war of aggression and has nothing to do with pre-emption.

Dec 14th 2012 new

Marianne-


I actually agree with almost everything you've posted. What I should do is wait until I fire off a post (I should have learned that by now). I've given this much much thought.

For me, 9/11 was the scariest day of my life. In addition, when all the planes were grounded, I was unable to get a drug necessary for me to live for 4 days. A terrible frightening time. Anyhow, my point is essentially that we don't know how difficult the decision is or removed the person is who makes that decision unless we've been there.

Dec 14th 2012 new

I've always regarded a terrorist as someone that tries to inspire fear and targets innocents. As far as I know, the U.S. has never done that. I hope there is a difference. To me there is. Jeeps! I need to look this up in a dictionary.


And another thing. That army psychiatrist in Texas killed a whole bunch of soldiers yet that is defined as "workplace violence" That's officially how it was defined. What is that? I could go on and on about that one.

Dec 14th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: They say there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity. Is it actually coward...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

They say there is a fine line between bravery and stupidity.

Is it actually cowardly to sit a desk and run a drone, or would it be stupid to refuse to do so?

The consensus here, and I agree with it, seems to be that there certainly is nothing brave or heroic about sending in a drone. Where I'm parting company with a lot of people is that it doesn't bother me.

The point of a just war is not to prove how tough, manly, or brave you are. It's to stop something even worse from happening. If that can be done faster, easier, and with less risk than by pushing a button, so be it.

I think it is important to wage war with honor and dignity (to the extent that that is not oxymoronic), but the big picture is to bring the conflict to an end with the fewest dead bodies possible, not with the most possible medals for valor being earned. (That last comment should be taken figuratively, not literally; I don't think anybody is advocating being a medal chaser.)

So while I agree that it would be braver and more courageous to go stick a bayonet into the bad guy than to blow him up safely from a distance, is that really more ethical? Is it more just to risk a whole platoon (or whatever) going behind the lines to get a high value target just to boast that we did it face to face?

I'm perfectly willing to respect the person who would rather go hand-to-hand, but I disagree that it is more ethical. Brave? Certainly. Just? I don't see the difference.

--hide--
I am with you if you are talking about just getting the bad guys. I was thinking more about the warrior ethos. the Spartans or Maori would not think much of sitting safe while blowing thinks and people up.www.youtube.com

Posts 71 - 80 of 98