Can a Preemptive Strike Be Self-Defense?

[theestevearnold]

Yes. The initiation of force is evil, but a preemptive strike can, in certain contexts, be considered retaliation.

Example: Live On Fox News, Kim Jong Un declares war on the U.S., and live video then shows him ordering his military to fire on the Hawaiian island of Oahu.

While his missiles launchers are moving into position, a U.S. Destroyer off the coast launches a preemptive strike, destroying the missile launchers.

The initiation of force was when Kim Jong Un gave the order to attack.

I recognize that when I don't have a government and media I trust, I can be fooled into thinking that a preemptive strike is justified. And since Hussein's WMDs were probably just hawkish politicians, populism, and faulty intelligence, I should be very careful before supporting a preemptive strike. But unless you prove it violates principles, I'll keep it in my self-defense bag of tactics.

[New Buddha]

There would be nothing morally wrong with starting a war with North Korea -- regardless of whether or not the current leader-in-charge initiates a specific provocation.  The people of North Korea should (and Jefferson would say that it is their duty to other nations) overthrow the horrid dictatorship that is causing instability in the region and the deaths of many innocent North Koreans.

 

The reason we do not initiate the overthrow of the regime is not a moral one -- but rather it is because we feel that the cost of such an action would be to high.

[Hairnet]

   This is anecdotal I know, but this what I understand. My biological father was a Major in the US Army and was a member of the Inspector General's office stationed in South Korea. I asked him when I was young why the US couldn't just take down the North Korean government. He explained that the South Koreans did not want that to happen. While many South Koreans are just uncomfortable with the idea of killing their northern counterparts wholesale, the leadership is concerned with economics. They simply do not want to undertake the cost of caring for so many refugees and dealing with the headache of integrating an impoverished nation into their modern capitalist economy. 

 

   I do not know if this is true, but this is what most of the officers believed to be the political situation during the mid 2000s. 

 

   I am not sure what to think about that though.   

[Repairman]

For what it's worth, we are technically still at war with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (North Korea). United States lead the effort to secure an armistice in 1953, but so far, there has never been a formal treaty ending the conflict.

In the realm of hypothetical situations, the scenario of a preemptive strike might be justified. I would not wish to construct such a hypothetical. Brinksmanship has been the order of the day, with the exception of the numerous invasions undertaken by the US. Full-scale war with a power armed with nuclear weapons has been the nightmare of strategic planners since the atomic bomb became a reality.

I have many thoughts of the Cold War, and the recent crisis in Syria, but I don't think those thoughts directly relate to the question. But the short answer is, yes, in certain circumstances.

[softwareNerd]

I do not know if this is true,... ...

I think the main reason is: China.

When Chinese put on their long-term military and Machiavellian hats, they see a unified Korea as a strategic threat. If something happens in the North so that it voluntarily opts for unification, the Chinese will be in a tough position publicly, but forced reunification is a red-line for them. One might ask: what would they do if the South and the U.S. move in; will they dare risk destroying their own economy with a war against the U.S.? Answer: nobody really knows, but nobody wants to find out either. (For one, the Chinese would see an invasion of Taiwan as fair game, if they're going to take on the U.S. anyway.)

Edited December 28, 2013 by softwareNerd

[theestevearnold]

There would be nothing morally wrong with starting a war with North Korea -- regardless of whether or not the current leader-in-charge initiates a specific provocation. The people of North Korea should (and Jefferson would say that it is their duty to other nations) overthrow the horrid dictatorship that is causing instability in the region and the deaths of many innocent North Koreans.

The reason we do not initiate the overthrow of the regime is not a moral one -- but rather it is because we feel that the cost of such an action would be to high.

Dearest New Buddha, I should've used a different example because AR proved the morality in destroying tyrannies (in certain contexts).
New example: A hypothetical foreign government that protects rights, aka a non-tyranny, elects a man who goes crazy with power, declares war on the US, and is rolling his nuke launcher onto the tarmac........
Would it be justified if the US blew him and his nuke launcher to smithereens before he pulled the trigger (like a quickdraw showdown)? Edited December 28, 2013 by softwareNerd
Merged posts

[New Buddha]

Dearest New Buddha, I should've used a different example because AR proved the morality in destroying tyrannies (in certain contexts).

New example: A hypothetical foreign government that protects rights, aka a non-tyranny, elects a man who goes crazy with power, declares war on the US, and is rolling his nuke launcher onto the tarmac........

Would it be justified if the US blew him and his nuke launcher to smithereens before he pulled the trigger (like a quickdraw showdown)?

Since I won't be the one picking up the phone and ordering an air strike or flying the plane to drop the bombs, I think the question could and should be tweaked to  "would it be moral for me to support the leadership and the military men who make the decision and participate in the action?"  This is an important distinction - because each and every agent in the action must reach his own conclusion regarding the morality of the act.  Morality cannot be share, nor can it be determined by a vote and majority rule.

 

Would it be moral to you?  Your answer is the only one that matters.  What others think has no bearing on your beliefs.

[softwareNerd]

Steve, you'r absolutely right, and I think most people would agree on the general principle. i.e. If you observe a threat that is going to harm you, you have the right to stop that threat, even if it means hurting the person making the threat. If someone makes a credible threat to kill you, actions you take to stop that threat are self-defense.

 

Even though people use the term "pre-emptive" strike, I think most of the time they're not arguing about the right to respond to credible threats. Often, they're debating what constitutes a credible threat. For instance, when candidate Ron Paul said he would not launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, he said "they do not threaten our national security". Presumably, if they did, he would. 

Edited December 28, 2013 by softwareNerd

[theestevearnold]

Since I won't be the one picking up the phone and ordering an air strike or flying the plane to drop the bombs, I think the question could and should be tweaked to  "would it be moral for me to support the leadership and the military men who make the decision and participate in the action?"  This is an important distinction - because each and every agent in the action must reach his own conclusion regarding the morality of the act.  Morality cannot be share, nor can it be determined by a vote and majority rule.

 

Would it be moral to you?  Your answer is the only one that matters.  What others think has no bearing on your beliefs.

     What others think has bearing on my beliefs. Here's why: Although I understand the validity of Objectivist principles, my knowledge of the world has gaps, so I don't know many of the important implications related to the application of principles. There are wise philosophers on this site, including you, New Buddha, who share my principles but have a much greater understanding of this world. So when I'm unclear as to whether a specific issue violates my principles or not (because I don't know all the implications), I come to this site and ask for help. If I feel confident enough to make an assertion on an issue, I start the forum by answering what I suspect is correct. I'm new here but I've been corrected more than once, by philosophers who have taken the time to prove the truth. I've stood corrected and learned why I was wrong. All the forums I started were regarding issues I wanted to know the answer to, not to show how smart I am. Every single time I gained the value I sought, thanks to you and the rest of you on this glorious oasis.

[theestevearnold]

     After I've been given the proof, of course it's me who decides whether or not I wanna believe it or blank out.

[theestevearnold]

     And I pay y'all back by chimin' in to one of y'alls forums when I think I have something interesting to add.

[New Buddha]

     What others think has bearing on my beliefs.....

Perhaps I could have worded it better.  A better way of stating my position would be "What others believe, or tell you, has no bearing on the responsibility that you must assume for your actions."  And I see that you agree with this, per your post #10.

[theestevearnold]

     If enlarging the part of a quote I wanna address is bad form, I assure you I didn't mean to be improper. I don't know how to single out a specific line yet but I'll figure it out.    

     Somebody please tell me, does OP stand for Objectivist principles?

     And who besides Peikoff and Brook are "official" Objectivist spokesmen?   

[New Buddha]

     If enlarging the part of a quote I wanna address is bad form, I assure you I didn't mean to be improper. I don't know how to single out a specific line yet but I'll figure it out.    

     Somebody please tell me, does OP stand for Objectivist principles?

     And who besides Peikoff and Brook are "official" Objectivist spokesmen?   

OP means "Original Post".  

 

And I should add that I was responding to what appeared to be in your OP your "quest" for a Universal Answer to the question of preemptive strikes -- as though there is some God in the sky rendering such decisions. There is no Universal answer to this question.  Each individual must reach a conclusion based upon the information available to that person.  It is fully possible for two rational people to reach different conclusions regarding a specific preemptive-strike scenario. Someone might think that a specific preemptive strike is morally justified, while another person may disagree.  Is one more-right than the other?  Who is to decide?  A third-party?  Well, who is to decide that the third-party is correct? Ad infinitum.  Per Objectivism, the buck always stops with the individual.

 

And this leads to a response to your question "Who,,, are official Objectivist spokesmen?"  That's a scary question -- and not a very Objectivist one.  You are the "official" spokesman for whatever you believe.  Kill the Buddha.  

[theestevearnold]

And this leads to a response to your question "Who,,, are official Objectivist spokesmen?"  That's a scary question -- and not a very Objectivist one.  You are the "official" spokesman for whatever you believe.  Kill the Buddha.  

[theestevearnold]

I see nothing wrong with Miss Rand deciding who she wanted to speak for her philosophy in her stead, which she did when she left her estate to Peikoff. Otherwise I could go on TV claiming to be a spokesman for Objectivism while misrepresenting it due to my lack of knowledge.

[theestevearnold]

post 15 was an attempt to single out New Buddha's quote.

[theestevearnold]

Let's remember, this is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. She never said I could go on the Sunday morning talk show circuit as a spokesman for her philosophy. And think how her enemies could set up a straw man by sending out a so-called Objectivist spokesman to deliberately misrepresent her philosophy, in order to discredit it. 

[theestevearnold]

     Imagine if y'all saw Steve Arnold on Meet the Press this Sunday, claiming to be a spokesman for Objectivism, with all the mistakes I make trying to apply Objectivist principles to the concrete issues-of-the-day.

     I am an Objectivist. I didn't snatch bits n' pieces of it and make my own personal philosophy, theephilosophy. No. I've chosen the flawless work of Miss Rand to guide my actions, and I would never presume to officially speak for her in public events. I wanna show the world her philosophy because if everybody followed Objectivist principles this world would be a way better place for me. I just wanna be real careful who goes out there, into a mostly-Kantian world, to argue Miss Rand's to her detractors and to represent it to individuals who are interested in it. 

[DonAthos]

Imagine if y'all saw Steve Arnold on Meet the Press this Sunday, claiming to be a spokesman for Objectivism, with all the mistakes I make trying to apply Objectivist principles to the concrete issues-of-the-day.

     I am an Objectivist. I didn't snatch bits n' pieces of it and make my own personal philosophy, theephilosophy. No. I've chosen the flawless work of Miss Rand to guide my actions, and I would never presume to officially speak for her in public events. I wanna show the world her philosophy because if everybody followed Objectivist principles this world would be a way better place for me. I just wanna be real careful who goes out there, into a mostly-Kantian world, to argue Miss Rand's to her detractors and to represent it to individuals who are interested in it.

Ayn Rand is many years dead. Nobody speaks for her, and that includes Leonard Peikoff. Leonard Peikoff speaks for Leonard Peikoff.

Objectivism is a philosophy. It cannot be owned in the manner of property. Insofar as it can be "owned" or otherwise possessed, it is owned by everyone who subscribes to it. I speak for myself, and my beliefs. If I am an Objectivist -- if my philosophy is Objectivism -- then so be it. Who is authorized to judge whether that's the case -- whether I identify myself correctly, or present Objectivism intelligently? Every individual according to his own best judgment. There are no shortcuts.

If you appeared on Meet the Press, I would evaluate your arguments as I would those of Peikoff, or Rand, or any other person -- on their merit. Do I care who lays claim to being "official," or what their supposed pedigree is? I do not. I do not recognize a pope over my mind. If you and Peikoff disagreed as to some interpretation of a passage of the Romantic Manifesto, but you presented the better or the proper case, I would adopt your position over his.

And if Rand did intend to appoint someone to "speak for her" or for Objectivism -- were that possible in any sensible manner -- we must then confront the question of what it means that she should do such a thing, but no longer be in a position to re-evaluate whether it continues to be proper. I think we have evidence that Rand gave similar sanction to certain entities at one point, but then revoked the same at a later time. So with Rand dead and gone, upon whose judgment ought we rely to determine whether those who speak for Objectivism in some "official" capacity are still fit to do so? Or whether they misspeak at any given point?

Everything depends on one's own judgment. The Ayn Rand Institute may well have an "official spokesman," but the philosophy of Objectivism does not. Ayn Rand has the singular, historical position of having defined what Objectivism is. But once done, it is done, and Objectivism is what it is regardless of what anybody says. That includes Leonard Peikoff, or anyone else that he appoints in the future.

[StrictlyLogical]

I think it is clear that a pre-emptive strike is appropriate in some circumstances, read "context".

 

When the threat is real and sufficiently imminent so as to raise the probability of actual harm it becomes necessary to strike.  Like waiting to see if  you should abandon your home while a tornado approaches there will be a level of certainty when the decision to flee must be taken.  Unlike a tornado threatening your home with which you actually cannot engage in discussions, attempt to educate, persuade, or threaten, to alter its course, other individuals have volition and it is of the utmost importance, especially as the threat increases, to attempt all of these in an effort to avert disaster rationally and peacefully.

 

Every Objectivist would agree it is better to trade ideas, goods, and services rather than corpses, destroyed cities, and calamity.  

Edited December 28, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Skylab72]

Kudos SL on firing up this thread. It has turned out to be quite interesting. Just as one more 2cents. I find it a little unsettling how many folks try to provide some justification scenario for preemption. Maybe I misunderstood something, but it would seem to me you all understood the AR assertion that the initiation of the use of force against another is immoral. You can play all you want with the quickdraw scenario, but it is the challenge "slap leather" or the weapon bound twitch of the wrist that is the initiation. I do not care if I detect the "twitch" with visual acuity or a computer that sees a three microsecond burst of RF energy, there is always a threshold that marks the initiation of the use of force. As a combat vet my english explanation of the process is this. Any sequence of behaviors that convince me as a skeptical observer that you are both able and intend to cause me mortal harm, is adequate initiation of force for me to retaliate. Yes we can go on refining what a "skeptical observer" is but suffice it to say I trust a bunch of self described Objectivists to understand. Preemptive NEVER meets my criteria for moral.

 

I would suggest however that basing any "morality example" inside an existing system, known to be deficient [such as our planets politico/diplomatic infrastructure] is fraught with more potential for error than I care to discuss.

[Skylab72]

Oh, and Harrison, for the record I have read The Quran, The Gita, The Torah, The Roman Catholic Bible, The King James Version, Jefferson 'Bible', and an equal volume of other derivative works with various esoteric slants, and best I can tell, they are all talking about the same thing. Moreover, the followers of every particular persuasion all make the same error. The "I know 'God' and you don't." logical fallacy, then assume they have the mandate to initiate the use of force to 'help out' an all powerful' all knowing' deity who really does not need their help. The followers are the problem not the religion. You touch on the real issue, metaphysics, but seem to miss that a consistent metaphysics demands the acknowledgment that your framework is incomplete. Ref: Kurt Gödel

[Harrison Danneskjold]

All rightful preemptive action is self defense, from nuclear warheads right down to clubs and knives.

Posthumous self-defense is a contradiction in terms.

[Nicky]

Kudos SL on firing up this thread. It has turned out to be quite interesting. Just as one more 2cents. I find it a little unsettling how many folks try to provide some justification scenario for preemption. Maybe I misunderstood something, but it would seem to me you all understood the AR assertion that the initiation of the use of force against another is immoral.

You're misunderstanding everything. Ayn Rand's Ethics is meant to empower good people to act against evil, not to paralyze them into inaction and indifference up until the second before it's finally their turn to be raped, killed or have Allah shoved down their throats. 

Yes, initiation of force against another is immoral. That is exactly why Objectivism is a philosophy that affords NO MORAL PROTECTION OF ANY KIND to Saddam Hussein, Khamenei, Kim Jong Un, or Bashar Assad. Because they're homicidal tyrants. Ayn Rand explains why what they're doing is evil and why we are justified to take a stand against them, and you've somehow twisted than into "we should stand by and do nothing, because they're not bothering us at the moment".

 

How can you take the statement "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others." and conclude: "Right. There's a guy killing and enslaving millions. I best stay out of it.". Did you not just hear Ayn Rand say that "no man may"? Seriously, what do you think that means? No man may or else we're gonna look at them sideways? No man may or else we're gonna post about how it would be immoral for us to do anything about it?

 

Or did she mean, "no man may or else"? No man may or else the might of the collective effort of every peace loving, productive, moral individual will descend upon them in the form of the US military, or NATO, or whatever alliance free nations can muster, and wipe them from the face of the Earth so that the phrase "no man may" can actually mean something: that it can mean that peace loving people have a place in this world, and homicidal maniacs don't?

Preemptive NEVER meets my criteria for moral.

And recognizing evil, but arguing for allowing its continued existence, on moral grounds no less, doesn't meet my criteria of rational. 

Edited January 25, 2014 by Nicky