You are on page 1of 3


Benjamin Wagner
Affirmative case

The backstory of Batman.

Preemptive Warfare: An attack to preempt another attack.
One ethical expert (Michael Walzer) has put forward some conditions that
he thinks must be satisfied in order to know that an attack is imminent:
• an obvious intention to do injury
• active preparations that turn that intention into a positive danger
• a situation in which the risk of defeat will be greatly increased if the fight is
Morally Justified: Delineated to be in consonance with morality.
Value: Deontological Ethics: the belief that actions ought to be judged based
on the moral principals behind them and not based on the outcome.
Resolution Analysis: Action
“Preemptive Warfare” In the context of this resolution is being used as a
verb because it is a scenario in which action is being taken, I think we can all
agree on that. So, when we look at “Preemptive Warfare” we are going to look at
the action of preemptive warfare, not the causes or effects of it because those
would then be nouns such as “causes of preemptive warfare” but rather the
action itself.
Contention 1: Government’s duty
The moral duty of a government is to protect it’s citizens and their rights.
When the government denies its residence the right to life, freedom and security
it has failed its moral duty as their governing body. Thus, when a government
attacks an imminent threat they are protecting their citizens and their rights
which fulfills the governments duty.
Application 1: Uganda—Tanzania War
During this war the leader of Uganda was a dictator named Idi Amin, who
had reportedly killed an estimated 300,000 people. A group of rebels had
attempted to over through him with military force several times but was

unsuccessful. When Idi Amin planned to send troops to end the Tanzanian rebels
they received news of the operation and as a result they preemptively attacked
Idi’s forces. This gained momentum for the rebellion and eventually crippled
Amin’s forces and eventually lead to the end of his regime. https://
Application 2: Stuxent
Israel and America used a computer virus to incapacitate Iranian isotopic
enrichment equipment, thereby disrupting Iran’s nuclear program and
protecting Israeli and American. The New York Times says
“Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where
Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the
effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears
to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay,
though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.” http://
Application 3: Operation Opera (Don’t read this unless you have enough time)
In 1976, Iraq bought a reactor from France which was mutually agreed to
be used for peaceful research. The French assisted the Iraqis with maintaining
the facility, but the Israeli's were skeptical of the true motives of the reactor.
There was strong evidence that the reactor was being used for the development
of nuclear weapons and so Israel devised a plan to attack the facility. On June 7,
1981, the Israeli Air Force launched their attack on the Iraqi reactor. It was
destroyed which eliminated Iraq’s access to nuclear weapons. If the factory had
not been bombed it is quite likely that Iraq would have attacked Israel with the
nuclear weapons they were developing in that factory. http://
Contention 2: failure to act demotes deontological ethics
When there is an immediate threat that goes unaddressed we put lives at
stake. If we choose to absorb the first impact there is no guarantee that we will be
able to fight back after that because our military strength will have been
decimated due to the blow which our enemy has felt us. Standing by and letting

people die because we aren't willing to strike and protect the rights of our citizens
is never morally justified.
Application 3/4: Rwanda Genocide
In 1994 a huge Genocide occurred in the country of Rwanda where the
Hutus attempted to kill all of the Tutsi population. The E-International Relation
Students Organization say “The major international actors — policymakers in
Belgium, the U.S., France, and the U.N. — all understood the gravity of the crisis
within the first twenty-four hours even if they could not have predicted the
massive toll that the slaughter would eventually take. They could have used
national troops or UNAMIR or a combined force of both to confront the killers and
immediately save live(s).” What this means is that if we had been willing to
preempt the attack of the Hutu population then we could have saved at least
some of the estimated 800,000 people that died as a result of this genocide.