# It's Absurd to Have the Right To Start a Pre-emptive War.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-absurd-to-have-the-right-to-start-a-pre-emptive-war/646169>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [January 5, 2013, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-absurd-to-have-the-right-to-start-a-pre-emptive-war/646169 "2013-01-05T16:26:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2013, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-absurd-to-have-the-right-to-start-a-pre-emptive-war/646169/18 "2013-01-06T12:01:16Z")

</div>

> [@pchaos](#):
>
> I wish that the U.S. had decided against the pre-emptive war in Iraq. These type of wars have been fought in the past but it is clearly bad precedent.

Iraq wasn’t a pre-emptive war. It was a preventive war.

> [@pchaos](#):
>
> If the right to a pre-emptive war became an established rule of public international law, we would have the possibility of 3 to 4 different wars breaking out around the world in the next week.

Pre-emptive war already enjoys centuries of acceptance.

> [@pchaos](#):
>
> It’s interesting with Iraq, the logic was we can defend ourselves by attacking. To me, this is warped logic.

The thing you’re missing is a clear definition of pre-emptive. that allows you to make the distinction between Iraq and pre-emption.

In order for there to be pre-emption, the other country must actually be about to launch an attack.

> [@Rumsfeld caught lying (i know, it's nothing new, but i thought you should know)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-caught-lying-i-know-its-nothing-new-but-i-thought-you-should-know/234908/21):
>
> From the [Center for Contemporary Conflict](http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/aug02/middleEast.asp), the research institute of the Naval Postgraduate School’s [Department of National Security Affairs](http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/nsa/index.asp):  
> Preventive War vs. Preemption  
> Although the terms often are used interchangeably, “preventive war” and “preemption” are different strategic concepts. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war. Preventive war thinking seems to dominate U.S. planning about Iraq: it is better to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime now then to deal later with a regime armed with nuclear weapons. Preventive war thinking, however, can turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy (treating war as inevitable helps make it inevitable). It also can lead to unnecessary conflict because few things are inevitable: Saddam could die of natural causes next week, producing a significant opportunity for the United States and its allies to shape Iraqi politics and policies.
> 
> Preemption is nothing more than a quick draw. Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike. Preemption or launch-under-attack are strategies that can be adopted by states that fear preventive war.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-absurd-to-have-the-right-to-start-a-pre-emptive-war/646169)._