First-Strike Military Aggression

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how the question of under what circumstances does one sovereign nation have the moral authority to initiate military aggression against another sovereign nation is a question that has been debated since the beginning of human civilization. In particular, it analyzes the use of military aggression against Iraq during the United States invasion of 2003 and whether it establishes a radical precedent in modern times that violates the previously recognized principles of moral justification for war and inaugurates the adoption of a ?first-strike? policy by the United States in international relations.

From the Paper:

"In the new war against terror, it is a mistake to focus primarily on the means possessed by the enemy. The attack of September 11 shows the overwhelming devastation that can be wrought with incredibly little means, when there is sufficient planning and motivation. Terrorists do not need a crazed dictator to provide them with extraordinarily lethal chemical and biological weapons. These can easily be made with minimal laboratory equipment using readily-known methods. And the means to deploy them can be found by exploiting the technology of the free world. Plan of action as well as intent are therefore of great importance to consider when evaluating a threat."

More papers on First-Strike Military Aggression:

• Research Paper # 100562 : "Military Influence in Pakistan"
• Term Paper # 129615 : "Understanding and Controlling Workplace Aggression"
• Essay # 86942 : "The Windsor Strike"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: