Pre-emptive nuclear strikes

[sferrin]

The author also appears to be advocating pre-emptive nuclear strikes against NK and other nuclear powers, which would be irresponsible if it were not laughable.

Just out of curiosity, what would be the "responsible" way to remove NK's nuclear weapons program while it's still in it's cradle? A way that would work I mean.

 

[bobbymike]

The author also appears to be advocating pre-emptive nuclear strikes against NK and other nuclear powers, which would be irresponsible if it were not laughable.

Just out of curiosity, what would be the "responsible" way to remove NK's nuclear weapons program while it's still in it's cradle? A way that would work I mean.

Seeing that everything would be 'pre-emptive' up until you see a mushroom cloud over Tokyo or Seoul is every single 'pre-emptive strike' irresponsible? It would seem not being pre-emptive in some cases would be irresponsible?

 

[sferrin]

The author also appears to be advocating pre-emptive nuclear strikes against NK and other nuclear powers, which would be irresponsible if it were not laughable.

Just out of curiosity, what would be the "responsible" way to remove NK's nuclear weapons program while it's still in it's cradle? A way that would work I mean.

Seeing that everything would be 'pre-emptive' up until you see a mushroom cloud over Tokyo or Seoul is every single 'pre-emptive strike' irresponsible? It would seem not being pre-emptive in some cases would be irresponsible?

Yep. "We could have avoided millions of deaths in Tokyo but we preferred to be "responsible"."

 

[DrRansom]

By the same logic the US should have launched pre-emotive nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union during the 50s...

 

[sferrin]

By the same logic the US should have launched pre-emotive nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union during the 50s...

Why?

 

[AeroFranz]

Other great luminaries have proposed this approach...

View: https://youtu.be/o-zoPgv_nYg

 

[bobbymike]

Other great luminaries have proposed this approach...



https://youtu.be/o-zoPgv_nYg

Do you foresee ANY military contingency or crisis situation in which pre-emption would be required to avert a larger conflict or loss of life?

 

[sferrin]

Other great luminaries have proposed this approach...

Such as Truman, MacArthur, LeMay, etc. As I recall, Germany and Japan never built any nuclear weapons after losing WWII. Funny that.

 

[marauder2048]

Other great luminaries have proposed this approach...

Such as Truman, MacArthur, LeMay, etc. As I recall, Germany and Japan never built any nuclear weapons after losing WWII. Funny that.

All true. Moreover, a preemptive nuclear strike on a power preparing for an imminent nuclear attack on the US or allied forces (i.e. "Launch on Strategic Warning") has been an integral part of US war planning since at least 1947. The capability to actually do so didn't
exist until much later and there was always doubt that elected officialdom would approve it but it would have been irresponsible *not* to have that option available.

 

[AeroFranz]

Do you foresee ANY military contingency or crisis situation in which pre-emption would be required to avert a larger conflict or loss of life?

I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion that pre-emption implies attacking a nation state without being in a declared state of war. That makes you an aggressor, which a lot of civilized societies frown upon (I know, go figure).


Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations"


Anyway, I try to live in the real world as well, where gray areas exist. A surgical strike like the Osirak prank the Israelis played on Saddam in 1981 is one thing. A NUCLEAR pre-emptive strike an entirely different one.
As a side consideration, if you are initiating hostilities, even if the purpose is pre-emptive self-defense, then your justification is based on intelligence that may or may not be accurate (See the WMDs in Iraq). I would hate to be the jackass with the finger on the red button that creates mushroom clouds and being told that "oops, bad intel. LOL. J/K. Our bad."

Such as Truman, MacArthur, LeMay, etc. As I recall, Germany and Japan never built any nuclear weapons after losing WWII. Funny that.

??? Not sure i follow... what preventive strike was involved there? If anything, as opposed to military occupation of the Ruhr and the humiliation of Versailles, which led to Nazi Germany, the policy of economic assistance (Marshall plan) led to the economic boom in Japan and Germany and turned them into prosperous strong allies, protected by the US and NATO, and with zero/zip/nada/nichts interest in spending money on nuclear deterrent. That seems like a pretty good way to keep peace and avoid proliferation.

 

[sferrin]

If anything, as opposed to military occupation of the Ruhr and the humiliation of Versailles, which led to Nazi Germany, the policy of economic assistance (Marshall plan) led to the economic boom in Japan and Germany and turned them into prosperous strong allies, protected by the US and NATO, and with zero/zip/nada/nichts interest in spending money on nuclear deterrent. That seems like a pretty good way to keep peace and avoid proliferation.

A little thing called WWII happened first. They didn't just airlift a supply of money to Hitler and Hirohito to buy/appease them.

 

[marauder2048]

Do you foresee ANY military contingency or crisis situation in which pre-emption would be required to avert a larger conflict or loss of life?

I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion that pre-emption implies attacking a nation state without being in a declared state of war. That makes you an aggressor, which a lot of civilized societies frown upon (I know, go figure).


Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations"


Anyway, I try to live in the real world as well, where gray areas exist. A surgical strike like the Osirak prank the Israelis played on Saddam in 1981 is one thing. A NUCLEAR pre-emptive strike an entirely different one.

Does your real world include gray areas where the subtle but vital distinction between preventative war and preemptive war exists? Recklessly abusing/misusing the terms doesn't help your argument.

 

[AeroFranz]

A little thing called WWII happened first. They didn't just airlift a supply of money to Hitler and Hirohito to buy/appease them.

Once again, honestly confused. Are we still talking about pre-emptive strike? The US intervention was legitimate under all aspects, given that it was a result of aggression. I think we can all agree to that. I was making the point that creating economic ties and co-dependency has worked very well in preventing conflict. It gets trickier when you're dealing with people with non-rational motives (religion, race,...), but there's a very tractable subset of nations that does not fall in that category.

 

[AeroFranz]

Does your real world include gray areas where the subtle but vital distinction between preventative war and preemptive war exists? Recklessly abusing/misusing the terms doesn't help your argument.

Well, for starters you shouldn't assume that all members of this forum are native speakers (I'm not). And while we're on the subject, i prefer "preventive" to "preventative", you know, for economy of letters.

But for the sake of clarity, do tell the distinction. Are we talking in both cases about attacking another nation while no state of war is declared?

 

[marauder2048]

Does your real world include gray areas where the subtle but vital distinction between preventative war and preemptive war exists? Recklessly abusing/misusing the terms doesn't help your argument.

Well, for starters you shouldn't assume that all members of this forum are native speakers. And while we're on the subject, i prefer "preventive" to "preventative", you know, for economy of letters.


But for the sake of clarity, do tell the distinction. Are we talking in both cases about attacking another nation while no state of war is declared?

Well you invoked a legalistic argument based on the language of treaty text which generally presupposes familiarity with the underlying terminology.

But since you are keen on such legalistic arguments: a legal state of war existed between Israel and Iraq so the Osirak strike was neither preventative (economy of letters? does your ISP charge by the character?) nor preemptive. North Korea, mentioned in the article, nullified the armistice back in 2013. So where does that legally leave Allied forces and the DPRK?


You are also operating on the assumption that a formal declaration of war must be made before hostilities commence. This is flatly untrue under international law.

The Hague Convention (which predates the UN charter and is still in force) requires no declaration of war before commencement of hostilities only an ultimatum with a conditional threat of war. Provided you set out your red lines (they must be of a military nature as opposed to say something about tariffs) upfront any subsequent preemptive military action is perfectly legal. Example: Kennedy's red line during the Cuban missile crisis.

 

[bobbymike]

Do you foresee ANY military contingency or crisis situation in which pre-emption would be required to avert a larger conflict or loss of life?

I'm assuming for the purposes of this discussion that pre-emption implies attacking a nation state without being in a declared state of war. That makes you an aggressor, which a lot of civilized societies frown upon (I know, go figure).


Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations"


Anyway, I try to live in the real world as well, where gray areas exist. A surgical strike like the Osirak prank the Israelis played on Saddam in 1981 is one thing. A NUCLEAR pre-emptive strike an entirely different one.

Does your real world include gray areas where the subtle but vital distinction between preventative war and preemptive war exists? Recklessly abusing/misusing the terms doesn't help your argument.

Personally anyone who quotes the UN Charter attempting to make a point about the nature of war and nation states has disqualified themselves from further commentary because we all know we have lived in total peace and harmony since that institution was founded. Heck I'm still waiting for the Kellogg-Briand Pact to kick in.
=======================================================
Scenario:

2025 tensions in the Middle East have never been higher. Iran's president along with the new Ayatollah have announced the time of the 12th Imam is upon us...........

The President of the US is sitting across from his national security team who outline the following.
1) Iran has moved several IRBMs into the central part of the country
2) We have tracked military convoys from known nuclear sites that have rendezvoused with these missiles
3) Warheads have been integrated with these missiles
4) We cannot be sure with 100% confidence they are nukes but are highly confident they are
5) We believe the targets are Tel Aviv, Riyadh and somewhere in Turkey
6) Potential death toll - 2 million
7) Based on the activity we believe we have 1 to 2 hrs. until launch
8) The ONLY WEAPON available to strike in that timeframe is a D5 from an Ohio stationed in the Gulf
9) Death toll from our strike (Iranian missiles are in remote region of Iran) 2000 mostly Iranian military personnel plus potentially more from radiation.

What do you do Mr. President?

 

[phrenzy]

Scenario:

2025 tensions in the Middle East have never been higher. Iran's president along with the new Ayatollah have announced the time of the 12th Imam is upon us...........

The President of the US is sitting across from his national security team who outline the following.
1) Iran has moved several IRBMs into the central part of the country
2) We have tracked military convoys from known nuclear sites that have rendezvoused with these missiles
3) Warheads have been integrated with these missiles
4) We cannot be sure with 100% confidence they are nukes but are highly confident they are
5) We believe the targets are Tel Aviv, Riyadh and somewhere in Turkey
6) Potential death toll - 2 million
7) Based on the activity we believe we have 1 to 2 hrs. until launch
8) The ONLY WEAPON available to strike in that timeframe is a D5 from an Ohio stationed in the Gulf
9) Death toll from our strike (Iranian missiles are in remote region of Iran) 2000 mostly Iranian military personnel plus potentially more from radiation.

What do you do Mr. President?

You kick the CIA/NSA/DIA/NRO et.al in the ass for not picking any of this up fast enough to fly out conventional LRS-B's from European or other bases. You also put a brick in the face of whoever canceled conventional prompt global strike programs. You also hopefully let your missile defence, hopefully much advanced after large investment following confirmation of Iran's new nuclear capability and integration with IRBM systems, so that they can do something about 3 missiles.

I'm not saying I wouldn't launch the D5, but it would be hideous incompetence that leads to a situation where you only found out about it 2 hours before the launch without actual verification that a nuclear launch is about to happen and the only strike option is an SLBM.

 

[bobbymike]

Scenario:

2025 tensions in the Middle East have never been higher. Iran's president along with the new Ayatollah have announced the time of the 12th Imam is upon us...........

The President of the US is sitting across from his national security team who outline the following.
1) Iran has moved several IRBMs into the central part of the country
2) We have tracked military convoys from known nuclear sites that have rendezvoused with these missiles
3) Warheads have been integrated with these missiles
4) We cannot be sure with 100% confidence they are nukes but are highly confident they are
5) We believe the targets are Tel Aviv, Riyadh and somewhere in Turkey
6) Potential death toll - 2 million
7) Based on the activity we believe we have 1 to 2 hrs. until launch
8) The ONLY WEAPON available to strike in that timeframe is a D5 from an Ohio stationed in the Gulf
9) Death toll from our strike (Iranian missiles are in remote region of Iran) 2000 mostly Iranian military personnel plus potentially more from radiation.

What do you do Mr. President?

You kick the CIA/NSA/DIA/NRO et.al in the ass for not picking any of this up fast enough to fly out conventional LRS-B's from European or other bases. You also put a brick in the face of whoever canceled conventional prompt global strike programs. You also hopefully let your missile defence, hopefully much advanced after large investment following confirmation of Iran's new nuclear capability and integration with IRBM systems, so that they can do something about 3 missiles.

I'm not saying I wouldn't launch the D5, but it would be hideous incompetence that leads to a situation where you only found out about it 2 hours before the launch without actual verification that a nuclear launch is about to happen and the only strike option is an SLBM.

Including your first paragraph you are talking using a pre-emptive strike either way one of them is just conventional and obviously preferable.

 

[phrenzy]

Scenario:

2025 tensions in the Middle East have never been higher. Iran's president along with the new Ayatollah have announced the time of the 12th Imam is upon us...........

The President of the US is sitting across from his national security team who outline the following.
1) Iran has moved several IRBMs into the central part of the country
2) We have tracked military convoys from known nuclear sites that have rendezvoused with these missiles
3) Warheads have been integrated with these missiles
4) We cannot be sure with 100% confidence they are nukes but are highly confident they are
5) We believe the targets are Tel Aviv, Riyadh and somewhere in Turkey
6) Potential death toll - 2 million
7) Based on the activity we believe we have 1 to 2 hrs. until launch
8) The ONLY WEAPON available to strike in that timeframe is a D5 from an Ohio stationed in the Gulf
9) Death toll from our strike (Iranian missiles are in remote region of Iran) 2000 mostly Iranian military personnel plus potentially more from radiation.

What do you do Mr. President?

You kick the CIA/NSA/DIA/NRO et.al in the ass for not picking any of this up fast enough to fly out conventional LRS-B's from European or other bases. You also put a brick in the face of whoever canceled conventional prompt global strike programs. You also hopefully let your missile defence , hopefully much advanced after large investment following confirmation of Iran's new nuclear capability and integration with IRBM systems, know so that they can do something about 3 missiles.

I'm not saying I wouldn't launch the D5, but it would be hideous incompetence that leads to a situation where you only found out about it 2 hours before the launch without actual verification that a nuclear launch is about to happen and the only strike option is an SLBM.

Including your first paragraph you are talking using a pre-emptive strike either way one of them is just conventional and obviously preferable.

Not all pre emptive strikes are created equal. My major concern would not be the pre-emptive nature of the strike. A single nuclear strike significantly shifts the worldwide perception that nuclear weapons aren't actually for using and lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by any country faced with a scenario for their employment.

The preemptive bit isn't my objection, at least not in this situation.

This is why there should be a high-supersonic or hypersonic tomahawk replacement. A sub on patrol in the Gulf wouldnt be significantly slower in responding to a threat like this than a D5 launched from basically anywhere, particularly given that you would likely lose additional time with a nuclear strike on triple checking intelligence, getting release authority and the like. Obviously the D5 is faster but both would work for this scenario.

I suppose this highlights the necessity of basing options for LRS-B given that it's subsonic. I know they were losing their minds here today when they thought B-1's were going to be based in Australia for the purpose of containing China. Have to wonder if it's clarification as a tactical platform might make it a little more politically palatable for turkey/Italy/Germany to host them.

 

[LowObservable]

The President of the US is sitting across from his national security team who outline the following.
1) Iran has moved several IRBMs into the central part of the country
2) We have tracked military convoys from known nuclear sites that have rendezvoused with these missiles
3) Warheads have been integrated with these missiles
4) We cannot be sure with 100% confidence they are nukes but are highly confident they are




If we know all these things with sufficient confidence to toss a bucket of sunshine into Iran, we have assets that could and should each be carrying a quadpack of SDB2.

 

[bobbymike]

The President of the US is sitting across from his national security team who outline the following.
1) Iran has moved several IRBMs into the central part of the country
2) We have tracked military convoys from known nuclear sites that have rendezvoused with these missiles
3) Warheads have been integrated with these missiles
4) We cannot be sure with 100% confidence they are nukes but are highly confident they are




If we know all these things with sufficient confidence to toss a bucket of sunshine into Iran, we have assets that could and should each be carrying a quadpack of SDB2.

I would be happy to have CTM's what's your opinion on those??

 

[AeroFranz]

Personally anyone who quotes the UN Charter attempting to make a point about the nature of war and nation states has disqualified themselves from further commentary because we all know we have lived in total peace and harmony since that institution was founded.

What can i say, I'm a dreamer. I still think the UN has a place. Look at it this way: it's only slightly less dysfunctional than the US congress. Can we function without congress*? Anyway, we don't have peace and harmony, but we haven't started WWIII or blown ourselves into the stone age either.


I think others, Phrenzy in particular, have expressed in far better terms parts of what i felt, and that is that conventional pre-emptive strikes per se, while not desirable, are at least justifiable. Nuclear pre-emptive strikes are an entirely different matter. That's a pretty powerful precedent to set. The use of nuclear weapons has a stigma associated with them that is rapidly eroded as soon as somebody uses them. Remember, (hopefully) you still have to live in the world after that crisis has passed. But now the dynamics of the use of nuclear weapons have changed, and not for the better.


* i'm joking of course, as tempting as trying the alternative might be.

 

[merriman]

All this word-play as to how to deal with an entity (person, nation, state, terror group-without-boarders) that promises you harm and has, or is working to attain, the capability to do so.

You don't ignore it; you don't evoke UN resolutions (what a toothless, troublesome POS that organization is); and you don't wait for someone else to act on your behalf. You obliterate the one who promised you harm. You permit their settling ashes to serve as a glowing object lesson to all others.

There. Was that so hard?

How vacant all this chit-chat will be once we are hit. Again.

The world will never like us. We should never have tried to get the world to like us. We should settle for abject fear ... if we are to be truly free from aggression and interference.

David

 

[AeroFranz]

Well, you can't say that's too subtle...


We're all entitled to our opinions. I'm going to live in Lala land where people talk their differences out and hold hands singing Kumbaya. Others can stock up their nuclear shelters and learn to like squirrel stew, waiting for our simian overlords to take over.


Here, Glenn Beck's got you covered (at least for the first 72 hours, then it's S.O.L.)

 

[sferrin]

Well, you can't say that's too subtle...


We're all entitled to our opinions. I'm going to live in Lala land where people talk their differences out and hold hands singing Kumbaya. Others can stock up their nuclear shelters and learn to like squirrel stew, waiting for our simian overlords to take over.

History suggests those living in Lala land will eventually become extinct.

 

[sferrin]

All this word-play as to how to deal with an entity (person, nation, state, terror group-without-boarders) that promises you harm and has, or is working to attain, the capability to do so.

You don't ignore it; you don't evoke UN resolutions (what a toothless, troublesome POS that organization is); and you don't wait for someone else to act on your behalf. You obliterate the one who promised you harm. You permit their settling ashes to serve as a glowing object lesson to all others.

There. Was that so hard?

How vacant all this chit-chat will be once we are hit. Again.

The world will never like us. We should never have tried to get the world to like us. We should settle for abject fear ... if we are to be truly free from aggression and interference.

David

Well said. China, Russia, NK, and Iran are presently showing us how "effective" talk is. Those who allow themselves to be pushed around tend to get pushed around.

 

[AeroFranz]

History suggests those living in Lala land will eventually become extinct.[/size]

Suits me. I would rather become extinct than live in the nuclear wasteland. Or eating Glenn Beck's survival backpack.
Like i said, to each his own.

 

[bobbymike]

All this word-play as to how to deal with an entity (person, nation, state, terror group-without-boarders) that promises you harm and has, or is working to attain, the capability to do so.

You don't ignore it; you don't evoke UN resolutions (what a toothless, troublesome POS that organization is); and you don't wait for someone else to act on your behalf. You obliterate the one who promised you harm. You permit their settling ashes to serve as a glowing object lesson to all others.

There. Was that so hard?

How vacant all this chit-chat will be once we are hit. Again.

The world will never like us. We should never have tried to get the world to like us. We should settle for abject fear ... if we are to be truly free from aggression and interference.

David

Well said. China, Russia, NK, and Iran are presently showing us how "effective" talk is. Those who allow themselves to be pushed around tend to get pushed around.

What I've never seen explained in answer to my inquiries at different arms control and disarmament sites is this;

In the early 90's Russia and the US embarked on massive mutual disarmament programs through a series of treaties that has brought deployed strategic arsenals down by close to 90%.

As the arsenals were incrementally reduced, at each stage, the arms controllers said, in effect, "Keep going by showing the world you are disarming the rest of the world will realize nukes are useless" They said this at every level of disarmament the US and the Russians just disarm, disarm and disarm.

But today we have 'Superpower' arsenals at the lowest levels in 60+ years and no other nuclear or nuclear wanna-be nation (other than Libya who did it out of fear of Iraq II) has changed their behavior ONE IOTA and has continued to research, develop and modernize their arsenals completely independent of what the US is doing.

Now, of course, the response is 'keep going' we only need 1000 warheads, oops I mean 500, wait did someone say 300 is an effective deterrent AND this time we guarantee the rest of the world will follow our lead, ya right!

 

[jsport]

Russia warns it will see any incoming missile as nuclear

Russia will perceive any ballistic missile launched at its territory as a nuclear attack that warrants a nuclear retaliation, the military warned in an article published Friday.

www.militarytimes.com

As I have warned on this forum for years.

 

[jsport]

Russia slams US arguments for low-yield nukes

The U.S. State Department argued in a paper released last week that fitting the low-yield nuclear warheads to submarine-launched ballistic missiles would help counter potential new threats from Russia and China.

www.defensenews.com

 

[_Del_]

Kind of ironic criticism from a regime who believes (probably correctly) in their own policy of "nuclear de-escalation."

 

[apparition13]

But for the sake of clarity, do tell the distinction. Are we talking in both cases about attacking another nation while no state of war is declared?

I'm a bit late, but:

Pre-emptive attack/war: an attack is imminent, so you attack first, preempting the attack. Israel, 1967. They were a few hours too late to preempt in 1973.

Preventive attack/war: an attack may be planned or in the planning stages, or a threat may be emerging, but an attack is not imminent. You act to prevent something from occurring in the future. Israel, Osirac.

 

[Archibald]

Do we really need to bring back that jingoistic shit -packed thread ? some opinions expressed here, I need to vomit... 2015 ? no suprise some bad events happened the year after... leading to the present shitstorm tunned to 11. Don't allow to be pushed by a virus... or masks. yeaaah !

 

[jsport]

How is it that pre-emptive war especially w unconventional wpns not a contemporary issue?

 

[Fluff]

But for the sake of clarity, do tell the distinction. Are we talking in both cases about attacking another nation while no state of war is declared?

I'm a bit late, but:

Pre-emptive attack/war: an attack is imminent, so you attack first, preempting the attack. Israel, 1967. They were a few hours too late to preempt in 1973.

Preventive attack/war: an attack may be planned or in the planning stages, or a threat may be emerging, but an attack is not imminent. You act to prevent something from occurring in the future. Israel, Osirac.

@apparition13 I think you failed the interview for our launch controller vacancy....'a bit late.....'

I speak english as my first language, I can even if I squint not see much difference between your definitions.

Anything happening before they attacked, is in my book pre-emptive, preventative appears to have pretty much the same meaning, i.e. act before. Tomato/tomato....

I'm pretty sure the USA can hit a target with enough oomph to make it look like the dozy iranians lit the wrong fuse on their firecracker.......without actually using their own nuke.

Indeed I'd take a bet they have a neutron suppressor field magnetron that would actually trigger their device.........

 

[marauder2048]

Russia warns it will see any incoming missile as nuclear

Russia will perceive any ballistic missile launched at its territory as a nuclear attack that warrants a nuclear retaliation, the military warned in an article published Friday.

www.militarytimes.com

As I have warned on this forum for years.

Does anyone believe their* declaratory policy? Their doctrine, exercises and procurement decisions speak much louder.

* I don't believe our declaratory policy

 

[edwest4]

The United States never fully trusted the Russians. The order to begin cracking Russian codes was issued in January 1943. Strike scenarios were the primary thing I saw for decades in the defense literature during the Cold War. Although there are many possible trigger events, they are finite and are modified as needed. North Korea should just get fair warning from the United States, something like, "Hello, North Korea? This is the United States. We are monitoring everything you do. If we notice XYZ we will destroy your military with conventional weapons. Nothing personal."

 

[marauder2048]

The United States never fully trusted the Russians. The order to begin cracking Russian codes was issued in January 1943.

It long predated 1943; VENONA was just the first effort that was really successful.

 

[apparition13]

@apparition13 I think you failed the interview for our launch controller vacancy....'a bit late.....'

I speak english as my first language, I can even if I squint not see much difference between your definitions.

Anything happening before they attacked, is in my book pre-emptive, preventative appears to have pretty much the same meaning, i.e. act before. Tomato/tomato....

I plead not seeing the thread until it got resurrected. And I like understatement a wee bit.

Try this. You're out in the woods, and you see a bear. It charges you. Fortunately your rifle is at the ready, and you shoot it. You have preempted the bear's attack. If it falls dead or wounded, or runs away, you've also prevented the attack. If it keeps coming and eats your face, you've still preempted the attack, but you haven't prevented it.

You're out in the woods, you see a bear half a mile away on top of a hill. It looks in your direction. You think it might be considering earing your face, so you shoot it. It drops dead. congratulations, you have prevented it from attacking you, whether it would have or not, but you didn't preempt it because it didn't try to attack you.

Preemptive war is acting in self defense. You see an attack about to happen, so you preempt it with your own attack in order to forestall the attack on you.

Preventive war is when you see a potential threat, so you attack it in order to prevent it from becoming an actual threat. The threat may or may not emerge, an attack may or may not come if it does emerge. This is problem because unlike seeing a bear charging at you, the situation is uncertain.

 

[edwest4]

See the book Winning Armageddon by Trevor Albertson.