First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #973?
ejmowrer: Is a pre-emptive strike ever justified?

Woelf: Generally no, but there are probably a few exceptions.
Narlgoth: If someone looks like they are going to take your doughnuts, yes.
PandoraCaitiff: It could be. If the intelligence is good, the target is valid, the threat is imminent and real, civilian casualties can be avoided, and the strike is preventative not a trigger for retaliation
Shamurai: YES!
djbrickhaus: Depending on an extremely stringent set of circumstances, yes.
DasViktor: rarely, I would say.
xofour: So basically what in truth you are asking is "do the ends justify the means?" Which gets down to basic morality, and ethics then we have to decide whether those are subjective, or absolute. It's gonna be a long night henry.
ricardofo: No. But somtimes yes like in 1967 or in the Iraq war.
ForbiddenDonuts: Yes, but rarely
vandemonium: Yes, but not often
Boot2daHead: Ever heard the expression "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."?
Abruk: Not
samidha: Oh god, not politics
jpat: Yes, but not so far.
blindspot: I think they are always justified...eventually.
goldenboat: I like to get my retaliation in first.
w0rf: Yes.
Der Ubermolch: Apparently not to George Lucas.
DHEK: Possibly, in certain circumstances and under certain stringent conditions.
Butterbane: Only when answering your questions
POvidiusNaso: I thought Han Solo's shot of Greedo was justified. Now take that and analogize it to whatever scenario you need.
bear23: no
martybjsg: Yes. Especially, if you really just don't like someone - that's a good reason, right?
BethR: of course!!
PsyJam: That's a new buzz word for, "starting war". Doesn't sound justified to me. Didn't Germany 'pre-emptively strike' Poland? Uhmm.
mpw182: always
aleo09: only if I am doing the striking
Dryfus: yes
Frankenfletch: Yes if you are Chuck Norris.
Boraxia: yes, when you can tell by your oppoents beady eyed stare thathe is about to gig your Titan
Csigs: In boardgames? Absolutely.
everlong205: absolutely. how could a game player even ask that question?
SisyphusX: In a game, sure. In RL - um, no.
JonBen: probably sometimes
dmomo: Perhaps. I can't think of a reason off the top of my head.
ZombyDawg: The Seven Days War comes to mind (but then again I wasn't one of the Arab countries getting ready to simultaneously invade Israel).
brainrob: No
mats-k: Yes
jasta6: yes.............................................................
Big Bad Lex: What are you pre-empting
Gizensha: No. An offensive defence of another entity, however, is. And for this question I've assumed real life circumstances rather than in-game circumstances.
Nekura: Sure - if we had a chance to take out Hitler early in the war, we could have saved a lot of lives
dralius: More so in games than in real life, but yes!
bigbadsteve: sure
Debate: yes, when someone's pointing a gun directly at your head
rawdawg: depends on the situation
janiera: Yea
ctalbot: If you want to win the game, sure. ;)
Megadev: In Supremacy, absolutely.
HamsterOfFury: I'd have to say no.
javelin98: Yep.
puffinge: of course
obob: after the fact, the victor gets to write pretty much all the 'justifications' anyway. So if you're gonna do it, do it right
jellospike: nope
skrutsch: no imho, but there might be an exception I haven't thought of.
Redneon: Certainly.
Lord_Prussian: Yes
The Unbeliever: 42
Gecko23: 'pre-emptive' is just spin-speak for 'we felt like it'.
shotokanguy: Possibly, if the evidence is overwhelming. But it doesn't feel right, does it?
Igmatto: Yes
arkibet: Yes, when it's a game. Someone's gotta throw down the guantlet.
glookose: sure
rawk: yes
Ivan: No.
jimchris: Depends on the clarity of the threat. In a boardgame, however, if you win, it is.
snoozefest: yes
gnomehome: In games - sure.
xlorp: Only if the CRT favors the attacker
kennyb: only if the threat is real
steadym: Sure, as long as your intelligence is sound.
pronoblem: That depends on who you ask. If it the strike is against me then I will say no.
fellonmyhead: What kind of pre-emptive strike? If you're talking nuclear war then probably not; if anything else it depends on the situation.
fanboy: yes
heli: n
2amp: yes
Wintergoblin: Not usually
AlorielLelyn: Never
hibikir: ever? yes. In Irak? no
-Johnny-: yes, but only in games!
Dante_Cubit: Yes. If war is imminent, it offers a tactical advantage by inflicting the first casualties.
Jim_P: No
HBGlover: Yes.
m_r_tyler: Certainly
Wernazuma: yes
Cavedog_pdx: Ohhh look over there! THWAP!!
Blackwind: sure
threlicus: Yes. But it needs more than Bush II had!
Mordachai: If, for instance, playing A game of thrones - then yes!
Bluenose: If you're sure that it was definitely going to stop something terrible, then yes. If not, then that makes you the aggressor. Rarely a good thing in historical terms.
MisterCranky: In games? Almost always.
DangerMouse: Yes
Mozbink: Yes. If you are the type to go around the school yard punchin kids in the face, I am the type to knock you out should you come near me.
chaddyboy_2000: I dunno.
djlg: Yes.
fsumarc: if you piss me off enough.
haraggan: No
shumyum: That doesn't seem to matter any more.
louiseh: No.
skelebone: Usually not, unless you want to intimidate rather than resolve through negotiation and diplomacy.
CDRodeffer: Yes
netfilterz: Going by the pure wording of the question, sure in some cases it can be justified.
Flyspeck23: Ever? Yes. Usually? No.
Claytonius Maximus: Depends which game we're talking about.
ynnen: In gaming, yes. In the real world, no.
BobDodgerBlue: Yes
jttm: Never
game_boy: Define "justified".
Shakar: Never.
Torbin_Bequette: sure
CortexBomb: Ask Hitler
ValJor: I think so, but to be sure, ask the Israelis, they are masters of this.