Theology of the Sneak Attack?

[_EAllusion]

Almost everyone believes in preemptive war. There are hardcore pacifists who do not, but they are a odd minority. What seems to have recently come up post-Iraq war is people who have a looser set of criteria for when preemptive war is justified. Traditionally, preemptive war required things like an enemy that had the intent and capability to inflict great harm, was imminently planning on doing so, the preemptive attack being the last realistic resort to prevent that from happening, the anticipated harms caused by the war being proportional to the risk of not striking first, there being a reasonable chance of success, etc.

The Bush administration mostly attempted to argue it was following classic principles of just war theory, given that people have so universally internalized them. However, in reality they were more about preventative war than preemptive war. Neo-cons like those that ran the Bush administration's foreign policy are willing to go to war with nations/groups they perceive as a future threat rather than to head off an imminent attack. That's what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.

My best guess is that this preventative strategy typified by attacking Iraq despite it not really posing an imminent threat, which many people rightfully find appalling, is being confused with the idea of preemptive war in general.

[_Maksutov]

Almost everyone believes in preemptive war. There are hardcore pacifists who do not, but they are a odd minority. What seems to have recently come up post-Iraq war is people who have a looser set of criteria for when preemptive war is justified. Traditionally, preemptive war required things like an enemy that had the intent and capability to inflict great harm, was imminently planning on doing so, the preemptive attack being the last realistic resort to prevent that from happening, the anticipated harms caused by the war being proportional to the risk of not striking first, there being a reasonable chance of success, etc.

The Bush administration mostly attempted to argue it was following classic principles of just war theory, given that people have so universally internalized them. However, in reality they were more about preventative war than preemptive war. Neo-cons like those that ran the Bush administration's foreign policy are willing to go to war with nations/groups they perceive as a future threat rather than to head off an imminent attack. That's what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.

My best guess is that this preventative strategy typified by attacking Iraq despite it not really posing an imminent threat, which many people rightfully find appalling, is being confused with the idea of preemptive war in general.

To add to the murkiness of the situation, the USA binds itself to other nations in often classified treaties which can allow for actions up to nuclear first strikes. I think St. Augustine is out of his depth these days.

[_moksha]

The thought of apologists swooping down and yammering, "Tora, Tora, Tora" is rather scary.

[_palerobber]

with all the writing and thought already out there on Christian Just War Theory, why was a specifically LDS Theory needed?

[_Gadianton]

A commenter called Borson M. Hugilhoff has this to say, although I wouldn't put any money on him being for real:

We presently live in a society and time when whole groups of people denigrate their Creator and openly transgress His laws... If one refuses the atonement, then they will have to suffer to some degree for refusing the atonement. In addition, God can instigate wars to inflict a just punishment upon whole groups of people for their unrepentant, unredeemed behavior – thus shedding their blood as an act of atonement for their reduced level of salvation within the eternal worlds.