Can a country preemptively attack another if it considers it a risk to its security without the UN agreeing?
152717
Of course, Clinton did it before.\n\nhe went into Yugoslavia without going before the U.N. and members of his own Party claim Bush should have had U.N. backing before going to War yet never criticize Clinton.\n\nNot to mention Clinton didn't even try to get U.N. approval to go to War but Bush did try and told them we were going to War with or without U.N. support.
776216
yes i agree. war can be avoidable & have parmanent alternative.
677002
There is a "coalition of the willing" that include more than this...however, most of these countries have the resources to only show "token support" These countries should also be acknowledged appreciatively.\nThere are however many countries who prefer to reap the benefit of this coalition's efforts (ie future security and freedom)without sharing in the responsibility.\nThere are also so-called world powers like Russia that want to keep American power in check. Of course they do not want war with America ... but snicker when America suffers casualty in it's response to World threats.\nIran is an example.  Iran is taunting America...America must respond. Russia is poking each with a needle while giggling on the sideline.\nOf course....Should Iran show any serious signs of a threat...Russia will necessarily join in the melee on the side of responsibility (US, Great Britan and coalition)
1123867
we've gone to war with countries that were backed by nuclear countries, but never directly with a nuclear power.  we can't and won't ever do it because of a doctrine called MAD - mutually assured destruction.
592707
Of course there is no ight or wrong answer to this question, but I don't think that evaluation is right. Particularly in this nuclear imbalanced world created by NNPT, a country like USA that holds atomic weapons can easily defeat another country that does not have nuclear weapons (though I can't think of any country militarily strong enough that USA won't attack without nuclear weapons yet has no nuclear weapon itself). The presence of nuclear weapons can also radically affect the course of war between two nuclear countries. For example, France is militarily weaker than USA but USA may well think twice before attacking France because just before falling a desparate government may well decide to fire off those warheads.
581161
Yes, the UN does have limited legal personality (Reparations Case) as functional neccessity requires. It it not a State, but has standing to bring a claim against sovereign States.
999817
it is a threat to internional security for ANY ONE to have nukes .\niran ,the usa ,any one that has them is a threat to the world
414208
They will either comply with the United Nation's orders or they will receive some form of censure.  Invasion is not in the plans as of yet.
581923
Depends on the circumstances.\n\nFor example: if country 'A' declares war and attacks - then country 'B' had better do something.\n\nHowever there have been times when a country has declared war and been ignored (such as the three times Iran has declared war on the US).
27880
The U.N. will not be passing any resolutions anytime soon that would involve actual military action against any government or nation anytime soon. I doubt the EU would either since for that organization to pass any resolution that authorizes military force would require a general consensus among its member nations--you can count on them not act in such a way. Also, some member nations would be in the line of fire were Iran to complete its assembly of a nuclear weapon. Thus, considering that fact as well, they would be apprehensive. Thus it would down to us since it is unlikely that other nations would be bold enough to act with force premptively until they are directly threatened or attacked. So would I, right now, support U.S. military action against Iran? No, I would not: I believe our forces are spread too thin right now, domestically and across the globe where they are stationed in other countries. Also, it would be, in general, a bit too hasty to simply invade until we have secured Iraq. In an added note, I would respond to the last part of your question by asking you that if we did invade, why would we not take the time to topple the regime? In the event of an invasion, it would be the wisest choice to do that and not simply to "destroy" or dismantle the nuclear reactor facilities. To leave them in power would be like amputating the finger that has ganggreen, but not sterilizing it completely thus allowing it to fester and grow once more. Another problem with your final annecdote, it would not be so simply just to "destroy" a reactor. Such action would have massively negative reprocusions, i.e. a high civilian casualties. To dismantle it might prove just as tricky and it would surely take time and maintenance by specialists familiar with the workings of nuclear reactors. Additionally, were we to invade (and it is clear that if we did such an action must include toppling the religious-extremist regime as well)--for this reason it would be necessary for us to leave troops stationed their while the next government is installed as in Iraq. So finally, in order to do this most effectively were it to be done, Iraq would have to be secured and our troops pulled out of that region first. Before that happens, our hands are tied even if Rumsfeld or Bush will not admit it: we are chained to the options of diplomacy through the U.N. for now and/or to economic sanctions (which I believe have already been imposed). Logistically speaking, from a man-power and resource perspective, as well as a domestic approval view (whether or not both congress and the american people are in favor on such an action), it would not be in our best interest to take such action. I would not support it at this time.\n\nackerson87@yahoo.com if you would like to continue this discussion or have any other questions we might discuss.
179397
If you're really interested in this question, read about international law.\n "The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII)."\n\nA google search on international law and the Iraq war will yield an abundance of information.
835088
No, we won't attack either of them.  We'd win a war against either country, but it would degenerate into a hell of a mess after that.  Kind of like what we're seeing in Iraq right now.
189964
I would not, because in general I am against foreign wars.  Someone comes to attack us, of course we defend ourselves.  Otherwise, I prefer we stay out of trouble.\n\nBut what's Spain done lately?
364202
Unfortunately yes. We will not suffer another country (that is so full of terroristic groups) to possess nuclear weapons. The threat to our country would be too great, considering we are not well liked (for various reasons). I think a pre-emptive strike will happen in the near future, though the cost of it (economically, politically, and diplomatically) will be immense.
679064
Not a chance. Look at that country's history. They're need the threat of nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip so they can continue to squelch human rights.
244806
If that were the case does it give India, Pakistan, Isreal and all the other nuclear powers the right to attack us because we have nuclear weapons - I think not.\n\nAnd who are we to dictate to other countries whether they should have nuclear weapons or not.  We expect the world to accept that it's OK for us to have weapons but then have the hypocricy to condemn other countries who acquire or want to acquire them.\n\nTo my mind it would be much better if no-one had them.
20185
Only if we're hit first, then there will be no choice. Getting nuked and not sending one back would send the wrong message to other nuclear armed countries.