the dangerous precedent

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

In year 2002, the National Security Strategy as outlined by US came out for the first time with a new approach to deal with the arms control issues. This was the ‘pre-emptive strategy’ that has graually solidified into what we now refer as pre emptive doctrine.

It seems as if it will slowly and gradually become a norm and incorporated in the law of the nations. What will be the consequences of adopting such a strategy to deal with issues pertaining to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?? Had it been limited to that, things would have made sense (questionsable though) but a news item today in which the Russisans have vowed to carry out pre emptive strikes against terrorists networks around the world is indeed alarming.

This dangerous precedent set by the United States would indeed provide other states to follow suit and sort their matters out by going the easy way, i.e., carrying out strikes against alleged terrorists networks.

How feasible is this option and what would be the repurcussions if such a policy indeed takes effect in the coming months.

2

Exactly, America has given green light to contries like Israel to attack alleged terrorist. After Iraq war, Israeli has increased attacks on Palestinian military leaders without having any prior knowledge of planned attacks. But it’s working against Israelis because retaliatory attacks have also increased as well.

3

When you have a Uni-polar world you have such injustices. The British for 200 years. The Germans - WW1 and WW2 etc. It is the norm of any leading society to prove its worth and dictate to others. Its worse when the country is extremely arrogant about its power and believes it is the defender of all that is holy and righteous. That applies to all countries i am not using the US as an example.