Tenets Of Preventive Force

Over the course of history, the strategic environment has changed rapidly and is now more complex than ever before – it is currently characterized by unpredictability and disorder, and may yet manifest itself in the collapse of nuclear armed nations, destabilizing conflict in geo-politically vital regions, and humanitarian crises. A world of disparate actors – not all nation states – now exists. Unpredictable events will continue to cause strategic surprise. The widespread effects of past conflicts such as World War II, Vietnam and the Iraq war are still being felt and have created significant strategic repercussions. The failures of these conflicts are the result of our military and political leaders’ failure to quickly adapt to wartime conditions. This occurs because of a general refusal to commit to a military culture of learning that encourages serious debate, critical assessments of our military operations, and challenges to our doctrine in the face of emerging change. Additionally, leaders have struggled with the critical responsibility of forecasting and providing for a ready force, one that is well-resourced and prepared to conduct future operations. It is the responsibility of our military and political leaders to send our military to war with a ready force, and a strategy that will ultimately result in victory. But understanding war and warriors is critical if societies and governments are to make sound judgments concerning military policy.

Major events have crafted the United States and other nations into what they are today. Going from world wars in the 1940’s, to civil rights movements in the 1960’s, to extravagant national debt today, have all played a part in shaping our nation. Being from rural Mississippi, world news being made here is uncommon. We see all of our major news from televisions or newspapers, and this “news” is all happening elsewhere, far from here. Whether it is a good thing that we do not make the big news or not, the fear of uncertain events still lingers. From shootings in schools to bombings in cities, we are fortunate for being seemingly far from these dangers. Even though no physical effects pertain to me, mental pain and fear stays and leaves doubt

Weapons of mass destruction are ‘weapons that can devastate large areas and kill huge numbers of people’. There are 3 types of WMD’s; Nuclear Weapons, Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons. In the world there are only 8 counties that own nuclear weapons and these include USA, Russia, UK, China, France, India and Pakistan and unofficially Israel. In this essay I will be looking at whether or not Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) can be justified, we can link this to the just war theory. I will also be looking at the 1945 Atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima and whether or not it can be justified.

The American “way of war” can be seen politically through the evolution of military policy as political perspectives changed. Post-World War II reveals primary and consistent policies that lead American military policymakers to avoid major international conflict. Coined the Cold War, Americans began waging war

Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)

Today’s strategic environment, whether government or corporate, is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) often times characterized by “wicked problems” or unsolvable problems. Compiled during the early 19th century, Clausewitz’s manuscript “On War” arguably posited the same conclusion in relation to the strategic level of war. He described war as uncertain, unpredictable, and marked by chance. The more the scale moved from the tactical realm to the strategic realm, the more complex war became due to the aforementioned variables. Society today must contend with the impacts of globalization, which has led to significant changes in economic, social, and cultural norms. These changes have resulted in compressed timelines and reduced decision space. With so much information available, the risk of information overload has presented challenges to how individuals approach problem solving. As a result, society has become over reliant on what Guy Claxton defines as deliberate mode (d-mode), “a way of knowing that relies on reason and logic.” (Claxton, p2)

Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.

According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be

The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. The circumstances of Just-War Theory must be of: Last Resort, Legitimate Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Right Intention, Proportionality, and Civilian Casualties.

Dr. Land’s first criterion of the “just-war theory” is just case. In a justified war, there must be a valid reason for participation (Land). This criterion states that “War is only permissible to resist aggression and defend those victimized by it. Only defensive war is defensible” (Land). Such wars are publicized in 1 Samuel 15:3 and Joshua 4:13. In these Bible passages, God commands His people to go to war against the people of Amalek and Jericho (“What Does the Bible Say about War?”). In more recent history, the bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were actions within the first criterion("02.03.01: Just War Theory and the Wars of the 20th Century”). Had the bombs not been dropped, the numbers of lives lost would have been even greater

A preemptive attack is an attack that is taken against an imminent threat, which means that a state has a strong belief that the threat, whether it be a terrorist organization or state, is going to attack soon. This attack is not a defensive move undertaken in response to an attack that has already occurred from the enemy, which would be classified as self-defense, but is instead an strike that takes place before the enemy has the opportunity to harm. There is a difference between preemptive and preventative attacks in their definitions that makes them distinct strategies. As previously stated, preemptive attacks are ordered when the attack is imminent, whereas preventative attacks are defined as strikes that are ordered when the threat of an attack is more long term or the possibility of it occurring is farther away in the future. However, both preemptive and preventative attacks are elements of power-based strategy

Fear of various dangers, hazards, and the unknown have constituted the most basic of human experiences, drives, emotions, etc. In your book Risk Society, you argue that "the driving force in the class society can be summarized in the phrase: I am hungry! The movement set in motion by the risk society, on the other hand, is expressed in the statement: I am afraid! The commonality of anxiety takes the place of the commonality of need." Could you say more about fear as a driving force in risk society? How does fear in a risk society differ from its formulations in other kinds of societies--for example, feudal-agrarian societies? Do you agree with Anthony Giddens statement that "Our age is not more dangerous--not more risky--than those of earlier generations, but the balance of risks and dangers has shifted." (1)

people are fearful of highly unlikely events, such as terrorism and air accidents. Such exaggerated fears