Preemptive Attack Personal

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

Edited October 23, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

I vaguely remember being taught in ROTC that the longer you allow an enemy to prepare for a battle, the more casualties you will have when you finally go to war. We should have learned that after Roe vs. Wade.

If I know that someone is going to attack, I'd get my family the heck out of Dodge.

[Sternhauser]

Not being there is the first best thing. What if they gave a war, and you didn't come?

The second option is to defend yourself with every moral means at your disposal. You have no moral obligation to wait until someone pulls the trigger on a handgun he has pointed at you. Of course, one mustn't get taken in by lies offered by functionaries of the State who "Tell them [the people] they are under attack, then denounce the peacemakers for a lack of patriotism and for putting the country in greater danger," as Goering said. Because you know, "The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." <cough>

~Sternhauser

[Vincent Vega]

I engage in preemptive personal attacks all the time, you stupid so...

oh.

[Axias]

Hello Dairygirl,

Are you looking for the point at which you can take action against someone or something? I'm not positive about the intent of your question. But here are some thoughts:
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[b] If you attack now, they'll fail [/b]
[/size][/font][/color]
-Sounds like we attack now.. But I don't think you meant for your question to be that simple.

[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[b]an army is forming up to kill you and your family, with every indication they will.[/b]
[/size][/font][/color]
North Korea has been posturing and threatening to kill us all for decades, we are still technically at war with them (we signed a cease fire only agreement). They threaten often and they have given every indication that they will attack, but they don't. They could do substantial damage, including the destruction of Taiwan and maybe a few american cities, but we would annihilate them in under 10 minutes (with some justification) if they did. However, if we attacked them first, a land war would be ruinous to us, they would likely overwhelm our ground forces until european forces were moved into place. If we simply nuked them, China and others would likely counterstrike, leading to a doomsday scenario. These are examples of detente and MAD. And it's strange, but it does keep a semblance of peace.

My point is, until someone has attacked, it's merely a threat. Attacking every threat would be self-destructive.

[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[b]context: society with no police or other protections.[/b]
[/size][/font][/color]
Where such things do not exist, they quickly form. (A good example is modern Somalia). Warlords arise, they fight and bicker, and we see little progress without some greater type of unification. (Another good example of this is the Dark Ages). So under this pretext, how can/could you even preemptively attack? That would require intelligence assets, long range strike capabilities, troop transport and logistics, an existing arsenal, etc. So your question in this regard is counter to logic. If you DO have these assets, then you are engaged in a type of cold war, where advantage is uncertain (and logically leads to proliferation scenarios). If you do not have these assets then you are unable to strike.

Walk softly, but carry a big stick, good advice for survival I think. Anyways, kind of interesting question. I would like to see you refine it. Consider what you WOULD or SHOULD fight for..
That's where you are going to find out when you can 'hit back'. And not to oversimplify it, but the good guys usually don't throw the first punch (without an imminent or conclusive reason).

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Where such things do not exist, they quickly form. (A good example is modern Somalia). Warlords arise, they fight and bicker, and we see little progress without some greater type of unification. (Another good example of this is the Dark Ages). So under this pretext, how can/could you even preemptively attack? That would require intelligence assets, long range strike capabilities, troop transport and logistics, an existing arsenal, etc. So your question in this regard is counter to logic. If you DO have these assets, then you are engaged in a type of cold war, where advantage is uncertain (and logically leads to proliferation scenarios). If you do not have these assets then you are unable to strike.[/quote]

i could imagine a scenario where police or protectinos would form. even if unrealistic. as long as it's possible though, it's a valid question in my mind.
id have to think of way back in yonder days, little house on the praire, or a more primitive earth. where it's impractical at best to form like that. more realistic, just ain't gonna happen.

we can say 'with every indication they will', we have to assume that they are forming up, getting the weopons locked and loaded, that sorta line of reasoning. continaul threats.
and more minor attacks? maybe leave this one out, but it's anothe variation.
war
we do know that traditional chrisitan theology at least usually gives shout out to hte common secular legal argument that 'we have to wait till they throw the first punch' or imminently so. but should we say this is always the case gotta be true?
id lthink the natural law isn't like the law we have it... our law is only a matter of practicality, we dont want people going out and taking things into their own hands. natuiral law might say otherwise.
and another twist on my hypothetical is that this isn't a 'just war' scenario, given there's no 'authority' as is usually required to say it's okay. (to meet just war criteria)
if not just war justification, and not other traditional 'self defense' justification.... what do you do?
im giving fodder to hte idea that we shouldn't be so dogmatic in our approach to these things.

Edited October 28, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

many say that we have to have imminent punches thown, so to speak. or of course an actual punch thrown.

[Axias]

[size=2]I'm still not positive what you are looking for?[/size]
[size=2]
[/size]
[size=2]Right to throw the first punch? Are you familiar with Casus Belli? [/size]
[size=2]
[/size]
[size=2]When it is advantageous to be non-dogmatic in conflicts? Are you familiar with game theory?[/size]



[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]Quote (edited): "We do know that traditional chrisitan theology usually gives 'shout out' to the common secular legal argument that 'we have to wait until they throw the first punch'. But should we say this always has to be true?"[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=2]It's not really a secular argument to not be the aggressor. It's the CORRECT argument. The rationale for this is simple: being the instigator or 'bad guy' has serious disadvantages, especially to those running the war. Lack of support can quickly undermine any war effort. I'm sure you're familiar with what they use to counter that sentiment, but its too early for me to get into those dark topics..[/size][/font][/color]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][color="#595959"][size=2]
[/size][/color][/font]

[Winchester]

So I know the future. I will use this power to position myself in an ideal location to ambush them once they have commenced their attack.

[dairygirl4u2c]

we can play pretend all ya'll want. if there's even a 'very high degree' that they will attack, what do you do? we can't know specific percentages, but we can 'effectively know' to a 'very high degree'.
if you fundamentally think we we should just wait till they attack, at least you're being principled. my guess, is most who wouldn't attack, are just noting that we 'never really know for sure until they do', to justify their preconceived notion that we shouldn't attack first- being unrealistic. when we effectively know they will attack, it's not about 'knowing the future', it's about being realistic.
'we don't know the future'... i can see this playing out in real life, until the people about to be attacked, realized that they effectively know they will be. and then reality hits them

Edited October 28, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288286241' post='2183236']
So I know the future. I will use this power to position myself in an ideal location to ambush them once they have commenced their attack.
[/quote]

Yeah, we can't mind reads, because for all the Germans knew, the Brits and Americans were going to have an LST and LCT regatta sometime in June, 1944.

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288292315' post='2183266']
Yeah, we can't mind reads, because for all the Germans knew, the Brits and Americans were going to have an LST and LCT regatta sometime in June, 1944.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
[quote]If you attack now, they'll fail, If later they'll succeed. to what degree can you preemptively attack?[/quote]

[WarriorForJesus]

[color="#800080"]I would make no attack whatsoever. I would ask my family to join me on our knees in prayer for the souls of those who are wanting to make war on us. I would ask God to protect my family and to hold us in His hands through the worst of it.

Perhaps, only perhaps, God can change hearts. I know killing people, maiming people, is not doing the work of God. For God is love.

Janice[/color]

[Winchester]

[quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1288331936' post='2183409']
[color="#800080"]I would make no attack whatsoever. I would ask my family to join me on our knees in prayer for the souls of those who are wanting to make war on us. I would ask God to protect my family and to hold us in His hands through the worst of it.

Perhaps, only perhaps, God can change hearts. I know killing people, maiming people, is not doing the work of God. For God is love.

Janice[/color]
[/quote]
[quote]And when Moses lifted up his hands, Israel overcame: but if he let them down a little, Amalec overcame. [12] And Moses' hands were heavy: so they took a stone, and put under him, and he sat on it: and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands on both sides. And it came to pass that his hands were not weary until sunset. [13] And Josue put Amalec and his people to flight, by the edge of the sword. [/quote]
I shall add that the decision to not fight unjust aggressors, while it can be admirable, leaves unjust aggressors to attack other innocents. Killing evil men can be a good work.

[SaintOfVirtue]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1288351503' post='2183418']
I shall add that the decision to not fight unjust aggressors, while it can be admirable, leaves unjust aggressors to attack other innocents. Killing evil men can be a good work.
[/quote]

+1