does preemptive war reduce terrorism? Anticipatory self-defense, or the doctrine of preemption, holds that it is acceptable for a state to attack a known hostile enemy before that enemy can attack it.

At Issue is the question, does preemptive war reduce terrorism? Anticipatory self-defense, or the doctrine of preemption, holds that it is acceptable for a state to attack a known hostile enemy before that enemy can attack it. Although prohibited by the United Nations Charter in 1945, anticipatory self-defense was necessary throughout the twentieth century, and it continues to be into the twenty-first. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to wait to be struck first could be devastating. Many in power believe that preemptive war is thus key to the security of the United States and is a legitimate option to reduce global terrorism.

The Bush Doctrine, as promulgated by President [George W.] Bush following the events of September 11 [2001, when terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon], contemplates preemptive use of force against terrorists as well as the states that harbor them. If the United Nations Charter is to be believed, however, carrying out that doctrine would be unlawful. In your essay, take a position pro or con the belief in the correctness of preemptive war. Fully explain your reasoning. Provide examples. Include responses to the following three questions within your response.
* • When might a country be justified in attacking another country?
* • Why might a country claim self-defense before attacking another country?
* • How might the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States lead some to conclude that the United States needs to anticipate potential threats and then act on them before they can possibly take place?