Talk:Preemptive war

message: Corrected "Carolina case" to "Caroline affair," the correct name as well as the Wikipedia article dealing with that matter.--sinfony 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: merging with [[pre-emptive strike]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. 
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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with [[preventative war]] 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrikmo (talk • contribs) 
You don't know wtf you're writing about. 152.65.94.167 (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't merge 

message: 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Do not merge! 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I agree.   Preemptive war, preemptive attack, premeditated attack, or sneak attack all mean the same thing in the common vernacular; and sounds exactly like what Japan did at Pearl Harbor. DuBose (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-emptive strike 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article 51  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Kerry 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  How is "preemptive attack" different from what Japan did at Pearl Harbor?  DuBose (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well - in the Pearl Harbour case, there was no sign of imminence of an American attack, in fact, the US had vowed to stay out of WWII. Lets use Wild-west analogies: pre-emption is like shooting someone because they have a gun pointed at you; prevention is like shooting someone because they have a gun.  Pearl Harbour was a preventive attack. (I think this has already been established elsewhere in this discussion page) Tabed (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preemptive? 

message: 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.  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)
thread_title:  Pre-emptive strike Not As Politically Charging 

message: I admit that I did put my foot in my mouth in my edit comment. I meant that "native" English words, as opposed to recently borrowed words, did not use diacritics. But I was unaware of the older and mostly obsolete usage of the diaeresis (see umlaut (diacritic) for a better discussion of the trema or diaeresis). See English language#Written accents and English words with diacritics. But the usage in "preempt" is almost completely deprecated (to use the computing term) and is considered an affectation. See wiktionary. --Justanother 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diacritics 

message: I am assuming that this section refers to "Abraham D. Sofaer", Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy and National Security Affairs, and not "Abraham Sofaer", the Burmese-Jewish actor from Star Trek. The link points to the latter, and may cause some confusion with those looking for the scholar. I changed the link yesterday, but it seems that it has been changed back, perhaps as there is no page concerning the former. I don't know much about Abraham D. Sofaer other than what i have already mentioned, but I suggest someone create a page about him, so that we can link his name in this article there. --24.235.139.113 20:40, 12 June 2007
Sorry, I changed the link back after I saw the link was referring to a non-existant article. I agree with you that the link is referring to the wrong person. Therefore, I will remove the link now. By the way, in future, please sign all your changes in the discussion page with four tildes, as instructed at the top of the edit page. This applies only to talk/discussion pages, though. --Tecky 23:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham Sofaer 

message: The article specifies Iran's unpopularity in poll findings, but when has Iran engaged in a pre-emptive war?  I thought the Iran-Iraq war was initiated by Iraq?  --mathewannis 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran?

message: I just removed the passage about PH possibly being a Pre-emptive strike. Actually nothing could have been more contrary to US interests than a war with Japan. The US administration was busy expanding the undeclared war with Germany. In that context another war was seen as an unwelcome distraction. See G.W. Prange “At dawn we slept” for details. Markus Becker02 11:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PH is entirely unrelated to the subject. The Japanese did not intend to attack before they handed over their declaration fo war to the SecState. PH was a timetable gone bad. Lastdingo (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pearl Harbour

message: Didn't Nuremberg Tribunal rule preemptive strikes were war crimes? Seems very pertinent to this topic. Above paragraph about Pearl Harbor is dead wrong btw. The actual history of PH is very complex and while preemptive strike doesn't fit, it's not true to say it didn't serve Roosevelt's interests.Hypatea 12:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where's Nuremberg?

message: Shoplifter, Like it or not, Osirak has been cited as an example of preemption. I note that your contributions thus far to this article are singularly focused on Israel to the exclusion of everything else and consist mostly of reverts of sourced material.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found at least half-dozen reliable sources, with very little difficulty, that cite Osirak as an act of preemption. I have found at least four sources that discuss Osirak in the context of a debate about preemption with pro and con arguments posited. Without question, Osirak belongs here and your revert of an entire sourced section was wholly inappropriate. What I find interesting is that you completely ignore cited examples of preemption such as the Soviet attack on Finland, the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran and the German attack on Norway, and focus exclusively, almost obsessively, on Israel.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the sources already cited in the Osirak example, see The Osirak option (New York Times) and Congressional Record. And take a look at what former President Bill Clinton had to say about the Osirak attack So you see Shoplifter, believe it or not, there are views out there that entirely reject your position. People with, sorry to say, greater intellect and experience than you have taken positions that are diametrically opposed to yours. If you have another view, by all means include it as Dailycare did, but blanket revert? I don’t think so.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

text: In sum, there is no shortage of sources from respected scholars, jurists and academics that support the view that Osirak was a clear cut case of anticipatory self-defense. If you have sources that say otherwise, by all means include them. But first explain why the sources that I've included don't comply with WP:RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been off-wiki for a while, hadn't seen this. Jiujutsuguy, your problem historically has been a notable unwillingness to conform to WP:NPOV. Your strenuous partisanship in Israel-related articles even led to you being banned for a significant period. Furthermore, you have on previous occasions repeatedly ignored attempts by me to contact you on your talk page. Consequently, I would think it wouldn't be suprising to you that I among other editors initially may view your edits with a fair bit of skepticism. It seems to me, however, that you've adapted to the rules and that this particular case is not an example of favouritism, even though I do think you understate the considerable opposition to the Osirak strike which still lingers in the scholarly discussion. Nonetheless, I concede that I was too quick in rendering judgement. Shoplifter (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I think--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Osirak

message: I restored the cited parts of WWII examples. The claim that they were Military campaigns is flawed, as undoubtedly both the Iranians and Norwegians must have considered that a war of aggression was unjustly waged against them, not just a military campaign. As well, the Germans were charged with the offence "War of aggression" for their invasion of Norway, so it can hardly have been a mere "military campaign" any more than the bombing of pearl harbor was a "military campaign" in the ongoing Japanese war with China.--Stor stark7 Speak 22:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your reasoning, and I agree with you.  Just to harmonize the section a bit better with the overall logic of the article, I've tweaked that section a bit more.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WWII

message: (Discussion continued from the 'Preemptive strike' discussion above....) Shoplifter, I would certainly support a move and merge to 'Anticipatory self-defense', if a general consensus of other article editors also supported this.  The other articles on preventive war and preemptive strike could be merged there too. I think that could be a good article title to avoid all of the various confusions that might arise out of the use of the words 'preemptive' or 'war' in an article title.  Such an article could then more easily deal with any type of 'anticipatory self defense' that we wanted, ranging from an all-out war, to a mere single-event raid, rather than having to create separate articles for each of these various activities.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: After a little further thought on this, I'm thinking that perhaps in order to clarify the scale of 'Anticipatory self-defense' that the article would address, it should be titled, Anticipatory self-defense (military).  Thoughts?  Scott P. (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What other types of anticipatory self-defense are there, except military? It strikes me that the term "self-defense" could be problematic, since claims of acting in self-defense are often used as a cover for aggression. On the other hand, if we make the proper definitions clear, as understood in contemporary scholarship, then it's probably the best title choice. Also, do you agree that we should change the focus on Bush and 9/11 in the subtitles in favor of something more universal, and less focused on US politics? Shoplifter (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging the 'preemptive' and 'preventive' articles into a single article?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Preemptive war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014101219/http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/lawregulatingresorttoforce.html to http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/lawregulatingresorttoforce.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified