Your analogy doesn't hold Sob. You're describing a situation in which there is an imminent threat. It is perfectly legal under international law to carry out a "pre-emptive war" if there is an
imminent threat of attack.
Quote:
[Iraq was] not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack.
The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States [...] has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.
link
|