Pre-emptive strike

[Pinnacle_of_Reason]

Pre-emptive approach

A accidentally hits B, knowing B will retaliate. A pre-emptively hit B again.

[NoelyG]

What about it? Is this single line supposed to stimulate discussion?

[ShadowandLight]

Im…so…lost. Maybe it’s me?

Surely this is one of those time’s where elaboration is needed.

[Pinnacle_of_Reason]

that’s my understanding of pre-emptive strike against another state.

[Pope_Lanky_Wanky_KSC]

The Tiger attacks
Destroy, kill and consume prey
Not for protection

[fly_on_the_wall]

@Pinnacle of Reason

Pre-emptive approach

A accidentally hits B, knowing B will retaliate. A pre-emptively hit B again.

…

[hermes_the_thrice_gr (hermes the thrice great)]

@Pinnacle of Reason

Pre-emptive approach

A accidentally hits B, knowing B will retaliate. A pre-emptively hit B again.

By this Logic, we would be at war with China after we accidentally bombed their embassy in Belgrade

[sntpqr]

"Pre-emptive approach

A accidentally hits B, knowing B will retaliate. A pre-emptively hit B again."

Actually I would say:
A hits B because A perceives that B will inevitably attack A
A therefore attacks B while A still has the leisure of attacking B unattacked.

But, what are you driving at here, just the definition of preemption? or do you want to debate if/when it’s justified to preempt, or if preemption is ethical?

[fly_on_the_wall]

@sntpqr

"Pre-emptive approach

A accidentally hits B, knowing B will retaliate. A pre-emptively hit B again."

Actually I would say:
A hits B because A perceives that B will inevitably attack A
A therefore attacks B while A still has the leisure of attacking B unattacked.

But, what are you driving at here, just the definition of preemption? or do you want to debate if/when it’s justified to preempt, or if preemption is ethical?

No, this is just one of his many pointless threads.