Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
If the power to order a preemptive strike falls into the wrong hands it can be used to garner political, economic, and strategic strength when no actual threat of terrorism existed.
With regard to the retaliation policy, the U.S. can benefit from it because it allows a reaction to terrorist attacks, that will in turn serve as worldwide notification that attacks on the U.S. will not be tolerated. The problem with a retaliation policy is that even though it may seem like the right move, it could also trigger another world war if there is a global disagreement about the retaliation.
Both the retaliation and preemption policies have strengths and weaknesses. As long as the government officials charged with using the policies are fair, objective and human in...
well.
The use of preemption can mean the difference between the United States people being safe or being the victims of another 9-11 attack. A retaliation policy served the U.S. well following the attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the more recent events of 9-11. The policy sends a clear message to the world that the U.S. will answer back with power and strength if anything tests its resolve to maintain its way of life. The policy helps protect the U.S. through not only actual events, but the promise of military events if a terrorist attack occurs.
REFERENCE
Beres, Louis, Rene (2002) the newly expanded American doctrine of preemption: can it include assassination? Denver Journal of International Law and Policy
The use of preemption can mean the difference between the United States people being safe or being the victims of another 9-11 attack. A retaliation policy served the U.S. well following the attack on Pearl Harbor as well as the more recent events of 9-11. The policy sends a clear message to the world that the U.S. will answer back with power and strength if anything tests its resolve to maintain its way of life. The policy helps protect the U.S. through not only actual events, but the promise of military events if a terrorist attack occurs.
REFERENCE
Beres, Louis, Rene (2002) the newly expanded American doctrine of preemption: can it include assassination? Denver Journal of International Law and Policy
North Korean Weapon Issue North Korea has been intimidating the United States with a series of nuclear threats since October 2002 when U.S. officials stopped the supply of heavy oils to the North in retaliation of its confessed production of nuclear warheads violating agreements signed in 1994. Shortly after, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NTP) and agreements with the United Nations. While there is little proof that North
Of course, the timeline for the defensive line of attack or its initiation during the armed assault is also a determinant of whether the line of attack can be called defensive or a new attack. A good example of this could have been 9/11 where the U.S. government could have reacted with an armed line of self-defensive attacks if they feared that the first attack on the World trade
Terrorism What are the best plans that this nation can make in order to counter the threat of terrorism? Is negotiate with terrorists an option? Can a nation preempt a planned terrorist plot? Is retaliation a reasonable idea when counterterrorism is on the table? These issues will be addressed in this paper. Counterterrorism Strategies Scholars point to several ways in which governments respond to or prepare for potential terrorists attacks. Helen Fenwick,
Anarchy is but one aspect of the Realist paradigm. Anarchy is the impetus for all other components of the Realist theory to come into play. Elements such as power, security dilemma's, balance of power, polarity and alliances and ultimately war are all outcrops of the existence of any real centralized power and an absence of true legitimacy in the form of a well established, respected, influential central government. Each
(MACV Dir 381-41) This document is one of the first confidential memorandums associated with the Phoenix Program, which details in 1967 the mostly U.S. involvement in counterinsurgency intelligence and activities and discusses the future training and development of South Vietnam forces to serve the same function, that had been supported by the U.S. In civilian (mostly CIA) and military roles. The document stresses that the U.S. role is to
President Bush's War On Iraq President Bush feels the United States should launch a preemptive strike on Iraq, rather than waiting for sanctions by the United Nations. He has received support from some political groups while facing opposition from others. Each side presents valid arguments on why they believe the U.S. should or should not go to war with Iraq. Sanctions In 1990, the United Nations imposed sanctions on Iraq after it invaded Kuwait.