Preemptive attack: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "]]" to "") |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{PropDel}}<br><br>{{subpages}} | ||
{{ | |||
'''Preemptive attack''' is a military doctrine in which an actor uses military force on an opponent that it believes it is about to attack the actor. It is a spoiling attack to disrupt the preparations for offensive warfare, and implies a response to an ''immediate'' danger.<ref name=CRS>{{citation | '''Preemptive attack''' is a military doctrine in which an actor uses military force on an opponent that it believes it is about to attack the actor. It is a spoiling attack to disrupt the preparations for offensive warfare, and implies a response to an ''immediate'' danger.<ref name=CRS>{{citation | ||
| author =Grimmett, Richard F. | | author =Grimmett, Richard F. | ||
Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
| id=CRS report for Congress, RS21311 | | id=CRS report for Congress, RS21311 | ||
| url = http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21311.pdf | | url = http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21311.pdf | ||
}}</ref> Preemption is considered an action of | }}</ref> Preemption is considered an action of self-defense within the scope of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.<ref name=UNC-Ch8>{{citation | ||
| title = United Nations Charter | | title = United Nations Charter | ||
| publisher = United Nations | | publisher = United Nations | ||
Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
| contribution = Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threat to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression, Article 51 }}</ref> | | contribution = Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threat to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression, Article 51 }}</ref> | ||
It contrast, a | It contrast, a preventive attack is intended to spoil a ''capability'', not being readied for immediate attack, which presents a long-term threat. A preemptive attack may or may not be intended to completely stop a potential war. Patrons of a country receiving such an attack are wise to move cautiously until it is determined if the attack is part of a larger offensive campaign.<ref>{{citation | ||
| title = The Soviet Union And The Six-Day War: Revelations From The Polish Archives | | title = The Soviet Union And The Six-Day War: Revelations From The Polish Archives | ||
| id =CWIHP e-Dossier No. 8 | | id =CWIHP e-Dossier No. 8 | ||
Line 32: | Line 31: | ||
}}, p. 157</ref></blockquote> | }}, p. 157</ref></blockquote> | ||
For an attack to be preemptive, it must comply with three criteria, first established by | For an attack to be preemptive, it must comply with three criteria, first established by Daniel Webster in the ''Caroline'' case of 1942. The ''Caroline'' was a U.S. ship in Canadian waters, sunk by the Royal Navy because it was believed to be supporting rebels. The criteria, to give the act ''legitimacy'' are:<ref>Western, pp. 44-46</ref> | ||
#imminence: There was an immediate and plausible threat. Self-defense does not require taking the first blow. | #imminence: There was an immediate and plausible threat. Self-defense does not require taking the first blow. | ||
#proportionality: the amount of force must be appropriate to neutralize the threat, but not more. | #proportionality: the amount of force must be appropriate to neutralize the threat, but not more. | ||
Line 38: | Line 37: | ||
The ''National Security Strategy of the United States'',<ref name=NSS2006>{{citation | The ''National Security Strategy of the United States'',<ref name=NSS2006>{{citation | ||
| author = | | author = George W. Bush | ||
| title = National Security Strategy of the United States | | title = National Security Strategy of the United States | ||
| contribution = III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends. C: The Way Ahead | | contribution = III. Strengthen Alliances to Defeat Global Terrorism and Work to Prevent Attacks Against Us and Our Friends. C: The Way Ahead | ||
| year = 2006 | | year = 2006 | ||
| url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionIII.html}}</ref> as stated by the | | url = http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionIII.html}}</ref> as stated by the George W. Bush Administration, does consider preventive war as one of many grand strategy|grand strategic options against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. <ref name=Reiter>{{citation | ||
| title = Preventive War and its Alternatives: the Lessons of History | | title = Preventive War and its Alternatives: the Lessons of History | ||
| url = http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub651.pdf | | url = http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub651.pdf | ||
Line 49: | Line 48: | ||
| date = April 2006}}, pp. 2-11</ref> | | date = April 2006}}, pp. 2-11</ref> | ||
The term suggests that the opponent has immediate hostile intentions to the actor. Examples would be the Israeli attack on Egyptian and Syrian airfields where aircraft were massing for the | The term suggests that the opponent has immediate hostile intentions to the actor. Examples would be the Israeli attack on Egyptian and Syrian airfields where aircraft were massing for the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. | ||
While prevention is usually assumed to start from a condition of relevant peace, the term has been used to describe attacks against operational military facilities, of an overt opponent, such as the Allied attacks, as part of | While prevention is usually assumed to start from a condition of relevant peace, the term has been used to describe attacks against operational military facilities, of an overt opponent, such as the Allied attacks, as part of Operation CROSSBOW, against launching ramps and actual V-1 cruise missiles. <ref name=>{{citation | ||
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=5GMoWyUd41cC&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=%22Operation+crossbow%22+launching+-movie+-dvd+-cd&source=web&ots=sMjOSU2SW_&sig=d9xyKf7dRkCMwPnHkDqs4mI2SDE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result | | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=5GMoWyUd41cC&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=%22Operation+crossbow%22+launching+-movie+-dvd+-cd&source=web&ots=sMjOSU2SW_&sig=d9xyKf7dRkCMwPnHkDqs4mI2SDE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result | ||
| title = Masters of the Air: America's Bomber Boys Who Fought the Air War Against Nazi Germany | | title = Masters of the Air: America's Bomber Boys Who Fought the Air War Against Nazi Germany | ||
Line 57: | Line 56: | ||
| publisher = Simon and Schuster | year = 2006 | | publisher = Simon and Schuster | year = 2006 | ||
| ISBN=0743235444 | | ISBN=0743235444 | ||
}}, pp.297-298 </ref> In contrast, the major Briticsh bombing raids against the German long-range | }}, pp.297-298 </ref> In contrast, the major Briticsh bombing raids against the German long-range guided missile development center at Peenemunde were ''preventive''.<ref name=Peenemunde-GS>{{citation | ||
| title = Peenemunde - 1943 | | title = Peenemunde - 1943 | ||
| url = http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/peenemunde.htm | | url = http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/peenemunde.htm | ||
| journal = Globalsecurity}}</ref> Both were in the context of an ongoing war, and indeed a larger operational plan against missile threat. | | journal = Globalsecurity}}</ref> Both were in the context of an ongoing war, and indeed a larger operational plan against missile threat. | ||
In the contemporary context, the term is accepted for an attack on a terrorist group about to stage an operation, or a | In the contemporary context, the term is accepted for an attack on a terrorist group about to stage an operation, or a weapon of mass destruction actively being prepared for use. The Iraq War, however, is usually described as ''preventive'' rather than ''preemptive'', although the George W. Bush Administration asked Congress for an authorization for the use of military force, in part, as a security measure against terror and WMD. It was not suggested Iraq was likely to use, in the immediate future, terrorism or WMD against the United States. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} |
Latest revision as of 17:08, 1 April 2024
This article may be deleted soon. | ||
---|---|---|
Preemptive attack is a military doctrine in which an actor uses military force on an opponent that it believes it is about to attack the actor. It is a spoiling attack to disrupt the preparations for offensive warfare, and implies a response to an immediate danger.[1] Preemption is considered an action of self-defense within the scope of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.[2] It contrast, a preventive attack is intended to spoil a capability, not being readied for immediate attack, which presents a long-term threat. A preemptive attack may or may not be intended to completely stop a potential war. Patrons of a country receiving such an attack are wise to move cautiously until it is determined if the attack is part of a larger offensive campaign.[3] Charles Western[4] quotes Nye's definition that
For an attack to be preemptive, it must comply with three criteria, first established by Daniel Webster in the Caroline case of 1942. The Caroline was a U.S. ship in Canadian waters, sunk by the Royal Navy because it was believed to be supporting rebels. The criteria, to give the act legitimacy are:[6]
The National Security Strategy of the United States,[7] as stated by the George W. Bush Administration, does consider preventive war as one of many grand strategy|grand strategic options against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. [8] The term suggests that the opponent has immediate hostile intentions to the actor. Examples would be the Israeli attack on Egyptian and Syrian airfields where aircraft were massing for the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. While prevention is usually assumed to start from a condition of relevant peace, the term has been used to describe attacks against operational military facilities, of an overt opponent, such as the Allied attacks, as part of Operation CROSSBOW, against launching ramps and actual V-1 cruise missiles. [9] In contrast, the major Briticsh bombing raids against the German long-range guided missile development center at Peenemunde were preventive.[10] Both were in the context of an ongoing war, and indeed a larger operational plan against missile threat. In the contemporary context, the term is accepted for an attack on a terrorist group about to stage an operation, or a weapon of mass destruction actively being prepared for use. The Iraq War, however, is usually described as preventive rather than preemptive, although the George W. Bush Administration asked Congress for an authorization for the use of military force, in part, as a security measure against terror and WMD. It was not suggested Iraq was likely to use, in the immediate future, terrorism or WMD against the United States. References
|