Starman of Stardust wrote:Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:"Okay... but why? Why shouldn't member nations be allowed to use military force pre-emptively to defeat attacks in the preparation stage, before they materialize? Why should the people of member nations be legally required to suffer before they can react. Most theories of self-defense include the idea that a person may act proactively to diffuse imminent threats before they materialize into harm. Why should this one be different, and who is benefiting from that?"
"The possibility of frivolous pre-emptive wars, such as where a nation wages war on a nation claiming falsely -- whether knowingly or not -- that they were about to be invaded, outweighs any benefit in nations merely having to wait until aggression actually occurs before attacking. Nowhere does this prevent member nations from, for example, preparing for attack if they believe that they are about to be invaded."
"Well, if we're worried about false claims of impending attack... seems to me that the same nations that would falsely claim to be reacting to an impending attack would also falsely claim that they have already been attacked. It's not like false flag operations are unheard of. What do we gain by disempowering all member nations in their self-defense simply because of the possibility of bad faith by some wicked member nations, who would probably find ways to fix up an excuse for war anyway."
"Why we are stopping a member nation that reasonably believes it faces impending attack from using all means at its disposal in self defense remains a mystery to me."
"Our delegation will happily support any effort to reduce worldwide military spending. But we do believe that failing to make reasonable accommodations for pre-emptive military strikes in self defense will make this an easy target for a future repeal effort. If it passes in the first place."