Although preemptive strike does promote war, it can be justified in situations where an attack is imminent because by striking first it can prevent the loss of many lives compared to the few it destroys.
My topic is whether or not preemptive strike promotes war and whether or not a preemptive strike could ever be justified
Justified/Justifiable: can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted
Preemptive: taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive
Preemptive Strike: an attack against a possible enemy to prevent an attack by that enemy at a later time
Imminent: about to occur; impending
Preemptive strike can be justified when an attack is imminent because by striking first it can prevent the loss of many lives compared to the few it destroys. By striking first we can prevent the loss of many lives of our own people compared to the few enemies it destroys. My example of this is the 1981 Israeli bombing of an Iraqi nuclear power plant said to be producing weapons of mass destruction. Since both were at war by attacking first the Israeli government was able to prevent a possible weapon of mass destruction to be used against them which saved millions of innocent lives. And using the same example, we see how the loss of a few lives (10 Iraqi military deaths, and 1 French researcher death) was able to save the lives of many more innocent lives.
A possible response could be that a preemptive strike could create a war that kills many more lives total than the preemptive strike was able to prevent. For this we use the example of the Cold War where a preemptive strike could have been justifiable, but the U.S. government decided against it because it would have led to a nuclear war and led to many more deaths than it could have prevented. The key is deciding whether or not it is justifiable. Another response could be that preemptive strike could lead...