Of course, any nation is entitled to use force to defend itself against an attack by another nation. It might also be acceptable under international law to initiate violent defensive measures in response to an imminent attack by another nation, altho there may be disputes about exactly what constitutes imminence.

But an attack cannot be justified by a claim that the victim has acquired the means for attacking another nation. This would, under any reasonable interpretation of international law, be considered an act of aggression. Such an argument would legitimate an attack on the US by any nation[Emphasis is mine], since we obviously are capable of attacking any other nation. Of course it is even more indefensible to attack a nation on the grounds that it is planning to acquire the means for attacking another nation a few years from now.

Labels: philosophy, politics

# posted by Squach : 11:56 AM   |