Talk:Preemptive war

Untitled
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)

merging with pre-emptive strike
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)

Should be merged. Also definitely needs something on the Caroline Case, where Daniel Webster enunciated the universally accepted standards for considering a preemptive strike legal. Do it myself if no one else does.--John Z 04:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Strike article dump-merged. Requires edit. -SV|t 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge with preventative war
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)

It may be natural to discuss preventative and preemptive wars together, but there emphatically is a genuine legal and practical difference. If a war or strike really is preemptive, then it is very probably legal. If someone is flying bombers over a border, it is legal to shoot them down before they cross it, and there are long accepted criteria for judging whether a strike is preemptive. Preventative is almost certainly illegal in modern international law.--John Z 03:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not a fan. "Preemptive war" and "preventative war" have enough different connotations. The former has been used frequently enough in recent propoganda to justify keeping it separate. samwaltz 16:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be merged because whereas the two terms are not identical, their understanding requires the studying of both. Also, the differences need to be stressed, which would most efficiently be done in a "preemptive vs preventive wars" section in a merged article. gwnn 23:53 GMT, 10 September 2005

I agree, good reasons.John Z 10:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not think they should be merged. Preemptive war is waged upon a country that has the ability to attack a state militarily and poses a security threat. Preventitive war is waged upon a country that has no means of attacking militarily but in the future could possess this threat.

The difference between preemtive and preventive wars is most critical, among other reasons since one is currenctly considered acceptable and one is not according to common understanding of international law. Although nothing hinders that both articles refer to eachother, it will be a substantial blow to Wikipedia's credibility and value if they are merged. /Ruhrjung 14:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi; I agree with retaining separate articles, given the many different connotations of each topic. My two cents ... E Pluribus Anthony 17:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with separate articles; the articles betray the differences between the two concepts in their first sections. There would be value on a page outlining their differences, as suggested by gwnn -- John of New Yawk 23:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let G. W. Bush argue the issue at his trial at The Hague on crimes against peace. I personally believe these should be separate. Petri Krohn 07:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't merge
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)

Do not merge!
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)


 * 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)

They are atwo different things. I have been studying nuclear arms control and disarament, and we were explictly told that these are two different things. My prof is an expert in the field and is very specific on these types of clairifcations.

- Don't merge, although the articles should be aligned more. Similar structuring and extensive cross-referencing is necessary to understand the subtleties of the concepts, allowing for the distinction between their meaning in ordinary or political terms (which admittedly is nearly identical), and under international law.Tabed (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive strike
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Article 51
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)

Neutrality of this article
Rather than equally addressing all opinions on this subject, this article seems to express a strong bias, and even that bias is left unjustified. In fact, the article reads almost like a rant. It is difficult not to have an opinion about preemptive war, but it ought to be attempted for the purposes of an intended reference. 12th March 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberly.Z (talk • contribs)

Removed Kerry
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)

Preemptive?
"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)


 * 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)


 * How is "preemptive attack" different from what Japan did at Pearl Harbor? DuBose (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

"The United States attack and invasion of Iraq is a recent example of Preemptive War."

I removed this, because the United States attack was more accurately an example of Preventive War. Spenking (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a war and strike and a big difference between preventive and preemptive!
It is silly to argue that all these articles should be merged. A case could be made for merging war and strike, because a strike could turn into a war.

Juridically there is a big difference between pre-emptive and preventive. In a preemptive strike the attack of the enemy is imminent. The enemy troops are at the border, enemy planes are in the air, etc. There can be no doubt that the enemy will attack within a small time frame. The Six-Day War is a preemptive stike, if you leave out all complexity. Often, in a preemptive strike the war has already started. It is just a strategical suprise attack. Actually, in the case of the Six-Day War you can see how complex this all is. Though Egypt was blockading the Straits of Tiran and that Nasser was trying to provoke Israel, it was not clear if they actually were to attack Israel. It seems they tried to deceive Israel into believing they would, trying to defeat an attacking Israel in the Sinai.


 * Actually, a blockade is an act of war - so the Israeli attack was not pre-emptive of war - it was pre-emptive of actual combat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.61.221 (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

In a preventive war there are two powers that are imminent to clash, both politically, economically and military. It is believed that this can only lead to war. If one does not want to risk war then one will lose in diplomacy. So one of them decides to try to take care of this by starting a war before this can happen. Examples are the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Though one tries to justify a war like this, it is an act of aggression. Also note that though the Bush doctrine tries to claim preemptive strike, it actually claims the right to attack anyone when they want. I mean, calling the attack on Iraq a preventive war is silly. Iraq never had the power to oppose the US. Iraq only had one third the military buget of Kuwait and the Iraqi army collapsed in the face of conflict because the moral was so poor. Iraq was by far the weakest military power in the region. It could not even attack Kuwait. How could they threaten the US, and thus also their NATO allies?

This article claims that people confuse 'preemptive' and 'preventive'. Merging them will make the confusion bigger. Actually, it seems that the people that support merging either are confused themselves or they want to merge them for political reasons. To modify language in an [[Orwellian] way, just as was done with 'Liberal'.

I propose an article on 'preventive war', an act of aggression, and a 'preemptive strike', launching a suprise attack on enemy forces about to attack you. A 'preemptive war' is an oxymoron. Just like a 'preventive strike'.( 212.187.69.100 17:27, 26 April 2006)


 * Both these articles have problems and IMHO should be merged. I won't be able to do serious work for a week or two on them.  Saying that they should be merged is not saying they are the same by any means, just that confusion is much less likely if they are put together, to put each other in relief.  The more important difference is between preemptive and preventive, I do not like the idea of getting confusing by worrying about strike vs. war, which the articles do too much already.  The important point is how and why the wars start.


 * The distinction is sometimes between anticipatory vs. pre-emptive rather than pre-emptive vs. preventive, where in the first pair, "pre-emptive" is used like "preventive" here at Wikipedia.  The O'Connell paper has good footnote on this. This is another argument for merger, so we can explain how people use the 3 words for 2 concepts.  If there are two articles, this one should be renamed anticipatory self-defense, and preemptive should be a disambiguation page pointing to "anticipatory" and "preventive."


 * Some difficulties are illustrated by the example of the 6 day war above. While Israel claimed to be preempting an imminent Egyptian attack, most scholars nowadays think that Egypt was not going to attack and did not want war or to provoke war, and that Israel knew this. That was the US belief at the time. Israeli cabinet discussions sound more like they were thinking of a preventive war.  So this was probably a preventive but not unprovoked war, that of course was claimed to be legitimately preemptive/anticipatory, but because of the complicated background was not a clear case of aggression, like the US war on Iraq, or Hitler's attack on Poland, or Japan on Pearl Harbor. John Z (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pre-emptive strike Not As Politically Charging
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)

Diacritics
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 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)

Problems with article
I think that it is not OK to say only that preemptive war is maybe OK (or not) because of UN charter and state thinking. If we want that this article be honest we must write that only 2 states (or 3) of 192 support preemptive war. If 180 -190 states are against there is no discussion if this strategy is legal or not. In the end I want to put in this article that only Israel, U.S.A. (and maybe UK) support preemptive war. This way article will be clear to everybody who will read. What you think ? --Rjecina 16:37, 30 march 2007 (CET)


 * Pertinent information, but not exactly written in good English and should be more relevant, linking the ideas of supporting preemptive war to unstable world relations more effectively.

"Today only U.S. and Israel support policy of "preemptive war" in difference to all other members of U.N. This policy is very good shown in polls where people from all countries think that this two states are more dangerous for world peace of any other. In last poll of 2007 democratic Israel is in first, fundamentalist Iran second and democratic U.S. on third place. " -70.2.55.161 05:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There were many nations who participated in the invasion of Iraq. Therefore, the claim that only the United States and Israel supported the policy of a preemptive war seems very incorrect to me. For this reason, I think it would be best to remove this claim. --Tecky 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article (and claim in question) is about Preemptive war and popular thinking. Article is not about Iraq war. --Rjecina 03:40, 9 April 2007 (CET)
 * The fact that so many nations participated in the invasion of Iraq shows that Israel and the United Staes are not the only nations supporting the policy of preemptive wars. Therefore, your claim is, in my opinion, false. I do, however, find the fact very interesting, that the global poll found the United States and Israel to have very negative ratings. This fact is definately worth mentioning in the article. --Tecky 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

From my looking of this sort of polls facts from that are even very good US. In years before that Iran has been on lower places but because of really great propaganda against this state they have come to second place. In this polls only things which never change are place of Israel and US which always take 2 of 3 medals.

About which states support of preemptive war what to say ? Israel and US support it 100 % (when they attack because in this thinking Pearl H. has been preemptive attack). State which has attacked Iraq with US has vasals which will never alone start this type of war. Maybe this part of article we can write another way. We will not write :

"Today only U.S. and Israel support policy of "preemptive war" in difference to all other..."

but:

"Today only population of U.S. and Israel support policy of "preemptive war" in difference to people in all other....." Why this ? If you look Iraq war all other states which has entered this war has done this against popular thinking (Israel population support preemptive war). Do you remember Bush speaking about brave leaders (which has entered war against people wishes)

What you think ?

--Rjecina 04:37, 9 April 2007 (CET)

Such a formulation would be better. But I doubt that most of the U.S. population still supports preemptive wars, after the Iraq war. I think that now, after the Iraq war, most of the population of the U.S. would be against another preemptive war. The U.S. President Bush has lost a lot of public support in this respect, in the last few years. With regard to Israel, what you say may be correct, I don't know.

I do believe, however, that one can't simply say whether a state (or population thereof) supports the policy of a preemptive war or not. If, for example, one state announced it would build nuclear weapons in order to wipe out several other states, most members of the U.N would favor a preemptive war against that state. For this reason, I don't think it is meaningful to say who favors the policy of a preemptive war and who doesn't.

However, as I said before, I consider the results of the global poll very interesting, since the perceived negative influence of Israel and the U.S. on the world is significant. This fact should stay in the article, because this is very likely a result of preemptive wars those two countries have fought.

--"Very likely"? Fact or opinion? In fact, it has nothing to do with the article. The whole Global Poll section tells the reader *nothing* about preemptive war, simply that a BBC World Service Poll of *12 countries* names the USA & Israel as "perceived to have the greatest negative influence on the world". And what has that to do with preemptive war? Nothing. Stick to an article about preemptive war & leave out POV.ScottMo 15:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

--Tecky 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that you make 1 very great mistake about US population. Even now you have more of 30 % americans which support preemptive war against Iran so that he do not make nuclear bomb. With very little propaganda action I am sure that 60 % americans or more will support air attack on this state. This numbers you will never have in Europe. --Rjecina 19:52, 10 April 2007 (CET)

What you say may be correct. However, this is your personal opinion, not a generally accepted fact. Wikipedia defines a fact as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." Therefore, your claim in the main article violates Neutral_point_of_view and Attribution. I have therefore removed it from the main article and have reformulated the remainder of your paragraph. I hope my new formulation is acceptable to you? --Tecky 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Abraham Sofaer
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)

Iran?
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)

The point is that the United States and Israel (who both have often started preemptive wars) are perceived to have a similar negative influence as Iran. It was not my intention to imply that Iran had participated in preemptive wars. Maybe my formulation should somehow be changed to clarify this? --Tecky 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK maybe I have make mistake in changing article so that is not speaking about Iran. You can return this back or you can clarify text. My thinking of clarify can be only to add political sistem of country. Example: racist and apartheid regime of Israel is on 1 place, Iran with ethical democracy system on second and democratic USA on 3rd. If you write something like that important if that you put that " when you say fundamentalist because this is only western thinking --Rjecina 14:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reformulated the sentence and I used the term "rogue states" instead of "fundamentalist". --Tecky 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pearl Harbour
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)

someone put it back, i've removed it again. please don't add unsourced material of this nature. pearl harbor was, at best, preventive, theres no way it could be consider preemptive. SJMNY (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Where's Nuremberg?
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)

Unqualifed use of "preemptive" to describe Israel's attack on Egypt
There is currently an on-going, exhaustive debate in the talk page for Six-Day War on whether Israel's attack on Egypt is generally accepted as preemptive, or if this is disputed. Until that debate is resolved, it should be made clear that the Israeli attack as an example of a preemptive strike is not an accepted fact. (Signed by Shoplifter, from another computer) 213.132.112.86 (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, there's an ample supply of credible sources that, not only qualify Israel's 1967 attack as preemptive, but regard the attack as the most cited example of preemption.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are one of the people involved in the discussion, it's quite dishonest to revert this edit knowing that we are currently involved in a serious debate on the issue. I suggest you take a look at WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus, and allow for the debate to finalize before making further edits. Shoplifter (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we've gotten into an unfortunate edit war over the description of Israel's attack on Egypt, I'd like for other editors to pitch in so we can reach a consensus/compromise. Here's the way I see it:

1) The article on the Six-Day War is the relevant backdrop to the description of the war in this article. It seems to be precedence at WP that entries on other pages should match the description in the main article. In the lead to that article, the issue of preemption is described as follows:

(a) ''The Six-Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war, an "inadvertent war", and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, among other things. Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor.''

This wording is the result of an extensive discussion in the Six-Day War talk page on how the war should be described to comport with WP:NPOV. The wording reflects the consensus reached, which in part says that an unqualified statement of the war being preemptive violates WP:NPOV.

2) Me and Jiujitsuguy have two different phrasings, for the description of the war in this article, which we've been warring over. Mine reads:

(b) The Six-Day War, which began when Israel launced an attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967, has by some been characterized as preemptive.

J-guy's reads:

(c) ''The Israel Defense Forces, in light of Arab military buildups on its border, famously launched a devastating preemptive strike on Arab forces at the start of the Six Day War in 1967. Israel's preemptive strike of 1967 is perhaps the most cited example of preemption.

Both use the same inline cites. I'm not married to my formulation, but in line with the consensus in Six-Day War, I oppose any statement of unqualified support for the Israeli viewpoint. Shoplifter (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It seems to me that a, the consensus version from Six Day War is the most appropriate. Generally speaking, when we discuss subjects that we have full articles on, we should to use the descriptions used there, this ensures that such descriptions have been agreed upon by editors involved in the article proper. Unomi (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping on May 22–23 was the initial act of war by Egypt. If there were not so many "reliable sources" that characterized the Six Day War as preemptive it would not belong here. Fred Talk 18:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing for its removal? If not, are there any of the version above you prefer or do you have an alternative wording in mind? Unomi (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can remove it when it has been repeatedly been used as as an example of a preemptive war. Just saying... You have to play it out and imagine an Israeli ship trying to run the blockade and being fired on to understand this. Fred Talk 18:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that our article on the six day war spells out a series of interactions and escalations that led to the war, there are a number of places where one can start from to reach a variety of conclusions. I don't think this is the right place to have that discussion though, though I respect your opinion and find your view in-line with many renditions. To my mind, the question is if we should follow the description used at the main article or not? If we find that we don't agree with the main articles description, isn't that the place to change it? Unomi (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In that article a narration of events is more appropriate than application of a label such as preventive war. Here, the Six Day War is included as a prominent example when it may not fall into the category. However it IS considered to be so by a number of usually reliable sources. I don't see any way out of this error as it results from the Wikipedia policy of reliance on reliable sources rather than quality original work. Wikipedia is a summary of the canon of knowledge, not a search for truth. Fred Talk 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (I was prompted here from the I-P collaboration page). Based on the discussion on the Six-Day war page, I don't think we can deviate from the consensus reached there. This doesn't mean that we can't deviate from the wording used there, as long as the substance is similar. How about
 * The Six-Day War, which began when Israel launced an attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967, has been characterized both as preemptive and preventive.
 * FWIW. here is a source where the Israeli PM of the time characterizes the Six-Day war as a "war of choice" which the source roughly equates with "preventive war". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(un-indent) I think mixing the two versions presented above is acceptable as long as it conforms to what is being said on the Six-Day War page. For example: ''The Six-Day War, which began when Israel launched an attack on Egypt on June 5, 1967, is perhaps the most cited example of a preemptive strike. [These groups] dispute the claim that the attack qualifies as preemptive however ''. Obviously the citations and the names of those disputing the claim should be added first. The first citation should be a reference not only to the Six-Day War being described as preemptive but also that it is "perhaps the most cited example of a preemptive strike" otherwise that bit has to go as original research. The groups disputing the claim should be added to avoid weasel words. Colincbn (talk) 09:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Dailycare's proposal is the best so far. This would clearly delineate between preemptive and preventive, voicing both sides of the issue, and giving due weight to the concern that the attack was not preemptive under the applicable customary law standard (which would be the Caroline test). For example, in Assessing Claims of New Doctrine of Pre-emptive War, James Thuo Gathii writes: "The closest case that might have, but is now regarded as not having met the Caroline test, was Israel's first strike against Egypt in 1967. Few regarded it as a good example of a permissible anticipatory attack under the Caroline test, especially after it became clear following the attack that there was no overwhelming threat that justified the attack to ensure Israel's survival." Shoplifter (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After re-reading this section I think I like Dailycare and Shoplifter's proposed entry better than my own. I was worrying about compromise between the two versions, but Dailycare's version above covers all salient points of the issue in a more elegant and succinct way. If there are no objections I think we can go ahead and add it. Although as always a few refs should be attached as well. Colincbn (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fine with that solution as well. un☯mi 10:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

With no activity over the last few days, I'll go ahead and implement the compromise suggested by Dailycare. Shoplifter (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jumping right in regardless ....... I read in a newspaper a few years back that the Soviet Union had told Egypt not to attack Israel. This had come around by a request made to the Soviet Union by the US which had been, in turn, acting on a request made by Israel. Thus Israel went to war knowing that Egypt was unlikely to attack and was merely sabre rattling as a reaction to Israel incursions into Egypt's allies. From reading Segev, it appears that the Israeli premier was stuck in between the Americans, who had told Israel not to strike the first blow, and the Israeli generals, who knew that the country who struck first, destroying the other's air force, would win any war. Segev said that Israel struck first and tried to lie that they hadn't. The lie was so transparently untrue that it had to be abandoned quickly.    ←   ZScarpia  15:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Osirak
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

See also, Colonel Guy B. Roberts (Deputy Assistant Secretary General for WMD, NATO), THE COUNTERPROLIFERATION SELF-HELP PARADIGM: A LEGAL REGIME FOR ENFORCING THE NORM PROHIBITING THE PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, ''27 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 483,'' where he states the following;

"'''Few legal scholars argued in support of the Israeli attack. 216 Of course, subsequent events demonstrated the perspicacity of the Israelis, and some scholars have re-visited that attack arguing that it was justified under anticipatory self-defense. 217"

"There is compelling evidence that the nuclear reactor bombed by Israel would have been used to produce plutonium for weapons purposes even though Iraq had repeatedly denied it had a nuclear weapons program. 224 Subsequent events have definitively established what Israel through its intelligence sources discovered; Iraq's intent to make nuclear weapons and to use them against Israel. 225"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Thank you, I think--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WWII
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)


 * 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)

Preemptive strike
preemptive strike currently redirects to this article, so the article should contain a section on preemptive strike.


 * I was mistakenly thinking that perhaps the strike on Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike, but then realized it was more likely part of Preventive war.--Stor stark7 Speak 22:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have started a new article under the name Preemptive raid, as I think that there is a clear difference between a military action that is expected to merely be the first strike of a protracted war, and a 'mere military raid', for which there is little or no expectation of an immediate escalation into war. Scott P. (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're going to make this delineation, then I believe the correct term would be "preemptive strike". "Preemptive raid" does not seem to be widely used. Also, Operation Opera is not a good example of a preemptive strike; scholarly consensus is that the attack was at most preventive in nature. Here's a case where it's very important to keep the technical definitions in mind - as follows from the article on Operation Opera; "Although most agreed that Iraq was years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon, the Iranians and the Israelis felt any raid must occur well before nuclear fuel was loaded to prevent radioactive contamination." Pretty clear cut case of prevention as opposed to preemption, there was no imminent threat posed by the Iraqi reactor development. Shoplifter (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * After doing a few googles on various terms, I agree, and have moved the article. Still I don't know if we're ready yet to shave down differences even further, distinguishing between 'preemptive strikes' and 'preventive strikes', which would require creating such an article.  I don't think that that distinction is made by the general public at this point. Scott P. (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The distinction between preemptive and preventive is common knowledge in scholarship on the topic, so I think that should definitely be reflected. Look for example at Shue and Rhodin, Preemption: Military Action and Moral Justification which is cited in the beginning of this article. They refer to the Six-Day War as preemptive, and the bombing of Osirak as preventive. I think it's very important that we make the difference clear.
 * Does a preemptive raid/strike even exist? In the article you say "A preemptive raid does not anticipate the likelihood of immediate retaliatory action". Would that mean it is actually a preventive raid/strike, given the definitions of preemptive war and preventive war? Yoenit (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC


 * I think that was Scottperry's WP:OR (please don't take offense, it happens). The difference between preemption and prevention lies in whether the threat is imminent or not. It's important that we get the difference straightened out. I might get back on it later, but if anyone wants to take a stab at it I'd be delighted. There's plenty of good sources available that clarifies the distinction.


 * I also think that this article has an improper focus on American politics (Bush, 911 etc). The article should relate the worldwide view, and those topics should be discussed in a global context. Shoplifter (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've looked at a few notable writings on the topic (Shue and Rhodin, Goldstein, Cohen) and it seems to me that the separation of "war" and "strike" is not justified in this case. Preemptive strike is mentioned in the context of war, see for example p. 44 and  p.  42. This has been discussed previously on this talk page, and it seems to me that the right call was made earlier to keep everything in this one article. Shoplifter (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the intention and anticipated results of these two types of military strikes ought to place them in either one of two very different categories. When the Israelis took out Okiraq, they almost certainly did not intend to ignite a fuse to start an immediate war.  Their strike was surgical in its precision, and in fact, it did not ignite a war.  When GW Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his intention was of an entirely different magnitude with an entirely different expected result.  To classify these two very different military actions as having no difference between them, seems to me to muddle them both.  When one takes a military action intending to start a war, and when one takes a military action with the hope of forestalling or preventing a war, seemed to me to be two very different things, thus their treatment in two different articles in Wikipedia. I agree with you that in your cite of Shue and Rhodin, Goldstein, Cohen, these authors seem to me to have muddled and mixed the two types of military action indiscriminately, but others have taken better care to discriminate more carefully.  See Gray of the Strategic Studies Institute.  Scott P. (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the article by Gray, and it seems to me that he makes the same distinction that the authors I've cited do. He writes: "

"Preemption is not controversial; legally, morally or strategically. To preempt means to strike frst (or attempt to do so) in the face of an attack that is either already underway or is very credibly imminent. The decision for war has been taken by the enemy."

His view of it being uncontroversial is certainly not uncontroversial (:-)), but he puts forth the same technical description as do the others. Regarding preventive war/strike, Gray writes:

"By way of the sharpest contrast, a preventive war is a war of discretion. It differs from preemptive war both in its timing and in its motivation. The preemptor has no choice other than to strike back rapidly; it will probably be too late even to surrender. The preventor, however, chooses to wage war, at least to launch military action, because of its fears for the future should it fail to act now.

and further below

"A precautionary war is one waged not out of strong conviction that a dangerous threat is brewing in the target state, but rather because it is suspected that such a threat might one day emerge, and it is better to be safe than sorry."

Notice that he mentions "strik[ing] first" in discussing the nature of "preemption" and "preemptive war". It's apparently all-inclusive. He also makes the clear distinction from preventive war, within the same context. See for yourself, pages v-vi. I think that we should keep all discussion of preemption in one article and, if necessary, make the delineation between strike/war here. But again, it's very important to clarify the difference between prevention and preemtion. Shoplifter (talk) 09:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree with you in your read of Gray's paper. He takes the 'uncontroversial' (controversial) stand that preemption is a wholly acceptable and legitimate type of military behavior.  When I first suggested his paper, I must confess, I had not entirely read it, but merely skimmed it.  I've since entirely read it myself as well.  Here are some other things that I believe are at play.  As far as I can tell, it was only after the US preemptive invasion of Iraq that all of these questions about preemption first began to be widely discussed and questioned.  As far as I know, prior to 2002, few people, if anyone, questioned the meaning of UN Article 51.  I.e.  prior to 2002, when the charter said, self defense was only justified, 'if an armed attack occurs', meant exactly as stated, and not 'if a decision for an armed attack appears to have taken place on the part of another, but no shots have yet been fired by that other'.
 * Now, obviously during the Bush administration, several authors, including Gray, have argued for the latter re-interpretation of Article 51. I have not yet been able to find any of, what I will call non-partisan authors who supported this reading, either during the Bush administration or since.  Personally it seems to me that making such a radical 'read-into' of UN article 51 is a bit of a stretch, designed to legitimize post-factum, Bush's and Israel's aggressive military postures and actions.  Actually I think that you would probably agree that Gray, being in the pay of the Bush Administration Pentagon when he wrote the paper, could be argued to have been a 'partisan author'.  There are numerous 'left-leaning' and 'right-leaning' think tanks out there whose authors are quick to re-interpret things to suit their own tastes.
 * The differences between the words preemptive, preventive, and in Gray's article 'precautionary' do not yet seem to me to be universally understood, or even agreed upon definitions. I think that a simple dictionary definition of the word 'preemtive' is probably the only truly clear and fairly universally understood word, and therefore should be the only word included in any Wikipedia article titles about this subject.  Unfortunately the perpetrators of nearly all wars claim that their initial strikes are 'preemptive', and/ or defensive, and if these wars are at least nominally successful and the perpetrators and their supporters live to write the history books, then so they become.
 * It seems to me that if you wanted to accurately represent your view that there should be a single article about all preemptive military actions, that it should not be titled, 'preemptive war', but rather 'preemptive strike'. The term 'preemptive war', to me necessarily signifies a full-scale war, and therefore it seems to me to become a little confusing when attempting to fold in discussions of other types of preemptive actions into an article that claims to be about war itself.  Thus the need I see for two separate articles.  Scott P. (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be opposed to changing the title to "preemptive strike", as long as the discussion is kept below one roof, so to speak. I think it serves the reader to have all the relevant material and the concomitant discourse (such as the one we're having, concerning the proper definiton) readily available in one place. At the very least, I think we should start by focusing on improving this article. But yes, I'm fine with changing the title. I do believe that the preemptive/preventive delineation is important, and it seems to me, widely upheld in the relevant scholarship (it's observed in all the above noted writings on the topic). Would you agree that a good first step would be to improve the preemptive/preventive war articles, possibly changing the titles to preemptive/preventive strike? Shoplifter (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would support moving the article, and all relevant redirects to 'preemptive strike', if this seemed to be the general consensus here. I would appreciate input from others here on this question too, of course.  I think I understand some of the various differentiations made between preemptive and preventive.  Still, I think that in a discussion of preemptive actions, things do not necessarily break down neatly into predefined categories.  Rather there seems to me to be more of a continuum of various shades of preemptiveness, vs: preventiveness, and not all definitions are fully consistent with one another.  Then there are the claims from those with political agendas and spin doctors that I think this topic should address as well.
 * This question on the legality of a preemptive war seems to me to be another 'slippery topic', with well written opinions on it ranging all over the board on it. At its crux is the redefinition of the UN Article 51 Charter phrase "armed attack occurs," which some have tried to redefine to mean "preparations for an armed attack occurs".  Quite a different meaning in the way I read these two very different phrases.  At any rate, I'm open to a move of the article if a consensus would support it.  My only question would be, what then would you think should be done with the preventive war article?  Merge it into preemptive strike?  I would think that would make the most sense.  It seems to me that prevention is a subcategory of the dictionary definition of preemption (though not of the military theorist's definition).  Scott P. (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think merging the preemptive and preventive articles would be fine, if an all-encompassing title was used, such as "anticipatory self-defense". Having studied international law as part of my curriculum, I agree with you that the shades can be murky in this area. A single article might be the best choice, wherein we could gather all relevant information and then sort out the issues. I think the line between preventive and preemptive is fairly clear, or at least there's a sufficient amount of reliable sources to buttress separating definitions. But a mege would make things easier to overlook, and allow us to focus our efforts. Good idea. Shoplifter (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Legality of a preemptive war
While the Bush administration did argue that what most would call its preemptive war in Iraq was justified under the UN Charter, even the Bush administration made the legal claim that it had been authorized by an earlier Security Council resolution, therefore making this war legal. Outside of a preemptive war authorized by the UN Security Council, I know of no other scholarly claim that the UN Charter authorizes such wars under any other circumstance. If you know of any, could you please list it in the legality section of the article? I don't know about UN policy towards preemptive raids, but as far as I know it is pretty clear about preemptive wars. Could this difference be what is causing some difficulty here? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not qualified to answer your question, but it did however remind me of a tangential issue that is borderline to trivia, but its implications might merit inclusion in this article if proper sources are available. See the end of Legal status of Germany. This is from memory, so the details can be a bit hazy. After the war the United Nations (as the Allies of WWII then were known) did some rather atrocious deeds, they conspired to annex large segments of Japanese territory (I think promised to the Russians by the US in exchange for their participation in the war), and almost a full quarter of German pre-war territory. They were also complicit in forced population movements 1944 - 1950, in modern parlance "ethnic cleansing", of roughly 14 Million Germans from the eastern quarter of Germany to be annexed and elsewhere in the east, of which perhaps 1 million were killed in the process, and of 400,000 Japanese from south Sakhalin and the Kuril. They also used POW's as forced labor for many years after the war etc.


 * Most of this, and probably all of this, was in violation of the Atlantic Charter and of the developing Charter of the UN, so to make sure the Allied hands were technically clean they incorporated articles 53, 77 and 107 in the charter which makes relevant provisions of the UN charter that protect the rights of states and their populations partly inapplicable to the "enemy countries" of WWII. Since the articles are still apparently valid (the Japanese keep requesting their removal) this means that formally military action can be taken against these countries (Japan, Italy, Hungary, Germany, Finland etc), they can be subjected to "peace enforcement actions" without need for UN security council approval. The articles are still in the charter, unmodified. The UN General assembly called the articles "obsolete" in December 11 1995, but afaik anyone using the articles can probably get away with it since as long as they remain in the charter they should technically be valid, and this type of things have been justified with legal technicalities before.


 * So, long answer on a tangential issue, and not very hard on sources. We probably need a separate article on those UN charter articles though.--Stor stark7 Speak 00:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree here too. While the primary purpose of the UN was the prevention of future wars, unfortunately there were a whole lot of 'secondary purposes', such as the sweeping under the rug, of the murders of a few million here or there (just as you have suggested).  There were few differences between Stalin and Hitler, in so far as I can tell.  Hitler's 'thing for Jews' translated in Stalin into a 'thing for anyone inside the Soviet Union who didn't prostrate before Stalin'.  Both Hitler and Stalin were responsible for the deaths of millions.  Only one was allied to the Allies, one to the Axis.  Now as far as those obscure sections of the UN Charter, I would think that their protracted existence does tend to weaken the whole structure of the UN.  But that is probably exactly why they, and so many other weird things survive within the UN.  All of the permanent members of the Security Council prefer to leave the UN as weak, so they won't be able to interfere with them when they might want to have their little 'flings', such as the US in Iraq.  Sad to see such a noble idea as the UN turned into a such a pathetic play-thing of people like Bush.  Scott P. (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Merging the 'preemptive' and 'preventive' articles into a single article?
(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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

External links modified
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)