Pre-emptive Warfare-or Preventative?

A nuclear weapon pointed at Israel would amply justify pre-emptive military action. But does that justify a bunker buster bomb on Iran's Fordo base?

Pre-emptive War – or Preventative?

Any wise, civilised human being hates war and its tragic destruction and loss of human life. Yet those who trumpet from that fairly obvious emotion that we should therefore disarm unilaterally- true pacifists - are nearly always in reality focusing on themselves and their own virtuous detestation of warfare. That self-regard trumps any possible humanitarian benefit which may in reality come from warfare. Pacifism is simplistic, obvious and self-regarding. Arms, in my view, are the balance of peace.

International law, as recognised by the UN lays down when it is right to go to war- in self-defence, in pursuit of overwhelming human rights and for a variety of very complex legal reasons- the casus belli. America has a different legal opinion about ‘pre-emption’- the right to strike when you believe that your own country is under immediate, urgent and overwhelming threat. If some else’s armies are massing on your border with obvious aggressive intent, it is perfectly reasonable to attack them before they do. ‘Attack is the best form of defence’ as Sun Tzu (and George Washington) remind us.

Yet what is the difference between a ’pre-emptive’ and a ‘preventative’ strike? If we believe that an enemy is starting build up their weapons of war (especially their weapons of mass destruction) for a planned attack which may well be months or years in the future, when does the aggressed-against nation have the right to attack to ‘prevent’ that build-up? International lawyers disagree about that, the US arguing that prevention and pre-emption are closely allied and equally justified.

That, I think, is what lies behind current discussions about the use of the (still) British airbase at Diego Garcia for American B2 stealth bombers to take off with their lethal bunker-busting 32000 pound bombs (WW11 bombs were up to 500lbs, so this thing is 60 times more powerful and destructive) on the Iranian nuclear installation at Fordo. If the Iranians had nuclear weapons pointing at Israel then that would be fine. However, if it is anticipated that these deep underground bunkers are preparing for a nuclear strike at some stage in the future, when does it become legitimate under international law to strike them; and when may it become impossible to do so.

In 2013, the House of Commons voted against striking Bashar al Assad when he had used chemical weapons against his own people. Had we struck then, as PM Cameron had wanted to, many years of agony and many hundreds of thousands of Syrian deaths would have been avoided. If we do not strike now to prevent Iran completing their nuclear weapons, we may similarly deeply regret it when Israel is obliterated by a nuclear bomb (as Iran have often boasted to be their ambition.) The lawyers will debate it deep into the night; but preventing a future nuclear holocaust by using our military assets to pre-empt and prevent it must now be the right thing to do.

Photo by Matt Artz on Unsplash

,