Word: emption
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...that the case? At first sight, Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive attack seems frightening. True, Administration officials have said that pre-emption can take nonmilitary forms. But it still seems as if the U.S. has arrogated to itself the right to go to war whenever it sniffs danger from a regime it doesn't like. And Bush's speech seems inconsistent both with the very narrow Caroline principle and with Article 51 of the United Nations charter, which allows self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs" (not "is likely to occur") against a nation. Yet pre-emptive strikes...
...similar way, pre-emption can be justified by the nature of today's threats. The only way to challenge the enormous strength of the American armed forces is with unconventional warfare--terrorism or the use of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. edge in tanks and warplanes counts for nothing against such threats, so other methods need to be found. Moreover, some serious dangers come not from national armed forces but from groups like al-Qaeda, against which conventional doctrines won't work. How are we supposed to deter Osama bin Laden when we can't find...
Fine; but if pre-emption is to be adopted as a doctrine, it has to encompass more than one rogue state. Will its use be limited to those nations--like Iraq--that possess weapons of mass destruction? Or can it be used whenever an Administration feels like it? And what happens if other nations follow the lead of the U.S. and incorporate pre-emption into their strategic thinking? (Imagine nuclear-armed India deciding to attack terrorist camps in nuclear-armed Pakistan.) That way lies international anarchy...
...similar way, pre-emption can be justified by the nature of today's threats. The only way to challenge the enormous strength of the American armed forces is with unconventional warfare - terrorism or the use of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. edge in tanks and warplanes counts for nothing against such threats, so other methods need to be found. Moreover, some serious dangers come not from national armed forces but from groups like al-Qaeda, against which conventional doctrines won't work. How are we supposed to deter Osama bin Laden when we can't find...
...Fine; but if pre-emption is to be adopted as a doctrine, it has to encompass more than one rogue state. Will its use be limited to those nations - like Iraq - that possess weapons of mass destruction? Or can it be used whenever an Administration feels like it? And what happens if other nations follow the lead of the U.S. and incorporate pre-emption into their strategic thinking? (Imagine nuclear-armed India deciding to attack terrorist camps in nuclear-armed Pakistan.) That way lies international anarchy...