That isn’t the issue. In order to effectively deny a “right”, there must be some mechanism to enforce that “denial”. A “general consensus” lacks teeth unless some nation or nations are willing to give it some, right?
This is indulging in semantics. Assume the “threat” in question is the threat of an impending attack, and address the actual argument.
If I recall correctly, sovereign authority in US stems from decision of Congress? Which means, POTUS cannot start a war without Congress authorization, pre-emptive or any other kind. The problem with Iraq war is not that it was pre-emptive, the problem was that it was not authorized by Congress. Which makes a debate like this superficial. But that’s me :o
Which reminds me. I understand that Canada amassed about 75% of its entire population within 161 kilometers of its border with the US. I think it is important for the US to retain the right to counter whatever threat this poses.
When you say “semantics” it sounds as if you’re trying to say that there is no practical difference between a nation which will imminently wage war and a nation which is not going to do so.
I can’t buy that.
Imho, the practical differences are so vast that I can’t overcome them to reconcile the two conditions as being same or essentially so similar that the differences between them are negligible.
You wish to discuss a scenario like this:
As in this scenario:
-State A is a threat launching an attack on State B;
State B in return is planning a preemptive war to eliminate that threat prevent or lessen the impact that attack;
States C, D. and E, plus say the UN, wishes to prevent warfare by preventing State B from launching a preemptive strike with which to defend itself.
When we change it to that sort of a scenario as you suggested, it becomes very hard to imagine the UN coming down on the side of a nation not having the right to defend itself. I suspect that the right of a nation to defend itself is recognized in a UN document or two.
So, I don’t see that scenario as any more relevant than the one w/o a pre-emptive attack.
Because I think it lack relevance, I don’t wish to address it at this time.
Whatever the motivation was for attacking Iraq, it’s unrelated to the fact that though the U.S. has lots of nukes, that didn’t stop Al-Qaeda from attacking them.
Bring it!
Though in practice, exploitation of Canadian resources (U.S. resources, too, incidentally) is already underway by various corporations. A military incursion isn’t likely to make this more efficient, and almost certainly quite the opposite. Right now, you buy lots of stuff from us. It’ll cost you quite a bit more to try to take it, for “free”.
If I was to give this serious thought, I’d be more concerned about a demagogue American leader who doesn’t care at all about the economic costs to his country, but sees attacking Canada as politically profitable for himself.
Emphasis added.
What was the Iraq AUMF of 2002? Chopped liver?
Actually, we do have such a body, and quite a relevant one, too, in that we all have a say in its decisions. The body which can stop the US from waging unjust war is the government of the US itself. It makes perfect sense for us to debate what makes a war “right” or “just”, because that’s the criterion we’ll use to decide (via our elected representatives) whether to do it.
Except the part, which you actually quoted, where I said: “if the US wants to start a preemptive war”. So, no, we don’t have such a body.
Yes. No matter who rules and whether “we” like them or not, pretty sure an overwhelming majority of Iranians would get behind said effort. If anything, that’s the clear lesson learned* from Bush’s infamous “Axis Of Evil.”
If anything, any Iranian Gov would be irresponsible to its own people not going forth with their nuclear program, as that makes them sitting ducks.
*see Iraq
Admittedly, but then AQ never presented the kind of existential threat that would warrant the use of nukes in the first place either. So in that sense, I’ll agree that nukes aren’t a deterrent for any attack. Just the ones that actually matter.
Your implied line of demarcation intrigues me.
Yes, perhaps “important” was not the best choice of words…
What I meant is that, while I hate to sound callous about it, the US could have suffered one 9/11 per year since then, and it still wouldn’t have been significantly affected - not in its wealth, strategic goals, resources… even its population. It’s not the stuff that can “destroy America”, no matter Bush et al’s apocalyptic rhetoric.
Nukes are there to deter state actors, with the military, financial and manpower means of state actors, from employing them. The kind of threats that could conceivably destroy it in any meaningful sense - or invade it, whatever. Its a question of strict firepower, and the message is “we have more boom than you could ever dream of and could annihilate you thrice over even if you managed to disrupt 99% of it - which you can’t”.
Whereas for non-state actors, that are a little more discreet and elusive, the deterrence isn’t found in firepower (considering even the Vatican can bring more to bear than the average terrorist cell) - but in information. “We know who you are, we know where to find you, and we know what you’re up to. Yes, that includes you, third from the right in the garish polo shirt”.
That’s the dominion of spooks and diplomacy, not the military. Certainly not Strike Command.
Not so. I’m in no way saying that there is no practical difference. You are reading that into my argument when it is not there.
How can it not be relevant? It’s the very question raised by the OP! To wit:
My post was intended to explain why the OP was incorrect in this resolution. The explaination was two-fold:
(1) There exists in the modern world no ultimate arbiter of such “rights” other than force; and
(2) It is obvious that, if forced was used to prevent the exercise of such “rights” it would be unjust (and acknowledged as such by “a UN document or two”).
Naturally, there is going to be some practical uncertainty as to whether a war is truly “pre-emptive” or merely “preventative” - more of a sliding scale than an obviously binary situation. Certainly, there are examples that are clearly one or the other and some uncertainty in the middle. Therefore, the answer to the OP’s proposal is never going to be more satifactory than “it depends on the circumstances”.
Heck, a few years back I suggested (I forget my exact phrasing) that 9/11 might have been a hit worth taking. I recall some objection, but what I meant was if 9/11 was the indirect and years-delayed result of arming the Mujaheddin, and arming the Mujaheddin had the goal of weakening the Soviet Union, then… yes, it was worth it, because the USSR’s defeat in Afghanistan arguably hastened the end of the USSR, and their rivalry with the U.S. really did have “destroy America” (indeed, “destroy civilization”) potential.