targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

"The Ends Justify the Means." -Machiavelli. Resolved:Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. I will be affirming this resolution. Targeted Killing is hereby defined as "the intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force, by States or their agents acting under colour of law, or by an organized armed group in armed conflict, against a specific individual who is not in the physical custody of the perpetrator." (this is the official definition from the UN) Morally permissible - permitted by the standards concerning right and wrong. Foreign Policy -The diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations. Foreign Policy tool - a specific mechanism used by a nation in its interactions with other nations. The greatest value is that of Life. Therefore, my Value Premise is the preservation of life. Life can only be preserved when peace reins, and National Security is insured. Therefore, my Value Criterion is International peace, and National Security. Contention 1. By implementing Targeted Killing As a foreign policy tool instead of openly declaring war on a country, nations can remain on a peaceful level, while still dealing with the threats. Targeted killing is the only way that a nation can eliminate a threat from that country without declaring war, thus damaging the relationship with that country. a great example of this is in the case of Anwar Al-Alwaki. He began threatening the U.S. while in Yemen. The U. S. had a few choices. One, they could ask Yemen to extradite Al-Alwaki, but that would not eliminate the eminent threat, and it also risked a situation where Yemen might not have extradited him. The Next Choice America had, was to Openly Declare War on Yemen, invade, and take care of Alwaki personally. this was obviously not desireable. The third option the U.S. had, was to implement targeted killing. thereby eliminating teh threat, while staying on peaceful terms with Yemen. Contention 2. By implementing Targeted killing instead of resorting to conventional warfare, the overall cost of life, is incredibly diminished. Just imagine. Instead of using Targeted Killing to attack terrorist threats, a country sends military personnel into the city, the residential areas, or the market place. so much life would be lost. just imagine troops running through a densely populated area, throwing hand grenades, and firing machine guns, chasing down terrorists who are fighting back with similar weapons. think of the collateral damage! hundreds of lives could be saved if the military had waited for an opportune moment, and taken them out one by one in places where their would b the least amount of collateral damage. consider WWII. how many lives would have been saved, if Hitler had been targeted right at the start? Contention 3. By preemptively striking Terrorist before they have a chance to carry our their heinous deeds, hundreds ,if not thousands of lives could be saved. Terrorists have killed so many people. and Conventional warfare doesn't work. Terrorists don't wear military uniforms, they don't travel in military transport vehicles, and they don't congregate out in the open. they wear civilian clothes, the travel in ordinary vehicles, and they hide. Because of the asymmetrical structure of terrorist organizations, Targeting them individually is the only possible way to hinder them. i give an example. In May, 1987, British intelligence units began monitoring several well-known and active IRA terrorists who were planning an attack against the royal ulster constabulary station in loughall, northern ireland. in anticapation, they prepared an ambush at the targeted site. When the unsuspecting terrorists started on their way to attack site, the ambush fired more than 1,200 rounds at the terrorists, killing all nine of them. although part of the terrorist's attack did succeed, no one was injured, except for one civilian who happened to be in the area. and the damage that would have been done was greatly diminished. this attack was only inhibited, because of the preemptive targeting of the terrorists under question. Conclusion. Targeted killing is the only way we can ever defeat the terrorist threats in the world today. conventional warfare causes severe collateral damage, declaring war on a country will cause international discomfort, and the most efficient and safe alternative, is to eliminate terrorists before they do damage. conventional warfare may be more "morally correct" to some. but when comparing conventional warfare to Targeted killing, it proves the opposite. the policy that has the smallest death rate, the mot peaceful outcome, is Targeted killing. therefore, Targeted killing is the most moral option. targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.