Anticipation of War
When War of Anticipation is Permissible This paper will argue that under extremely restrictive conditions a nation may justifiably throw the first strike upon an enemy nation for reasons of self-defense. To determine when a war of anticipation is permissible one should consider when a nation is morally allowed to launch an armed battle with another nation in order to thwart foreseen danger upon its own sovereign power. ... This argument is based on the grounds that war is hell and attempts must be made by all parties to avoid war. War brings death to human life, which is always sacred and must be protected within all regions. ... Walzer believes that, “states may use military force in the face of threats of war, whenever the failure to do so would seriously risk their territorial integrity or political independence” (p85). ... The nation must wait upon and respond to all acts of adversary and choose war only as a last resort. ... War to preserve these rights is to be used only as a last measure and nothing else because the preservation of human life should not lost. Any war decision that is not ultimately intended to protect life and nations’ rights is devoid of moral judgment and sound reasoning. ... A pre-emptive strike is permissible if waiting in anticipation would drain resources until the nation can no longer defend itself against the anticipated attack. ... The main differences between Walzer’s and Webster’s view is the time for deliberation in time of imminent war and the timing of the attack itself. ... Walzer, however, states that “Webster doesn’t address his argument usefully to the experience of imminent war. There is often plenty of time of deliberation, agonizing hours, days, even weeks of deliberation, when one doubts that war can be avoided and wonders whether or not to strike first.