Imminent Attacks

Hannah Bowers

September 28, 2011

                I really enjoyed reading the article by Alan Deshowitz, I found it interesting and I learned a lot from reading it.  In the article it said that the change in Article 51 should say that a nation should be free to take proportional military action against an “imminent” attack if no other means are available.  The word imminent is key here in the change of the article.  From what I understand a nation can take charge of and attack only if an attack is close to happening.  But the article also says that preventative self-defense against more distant, though equally certain, threats require approval by the Security Council. This leaves lots of loose ends or as Deshowitz says a vast “black hole.” How does a nation know when to clearly act immediately or wait and ask approval of Security Council first.  I think there needs to be a clearer understanding of what a nation needs to do when imminent or close to immanent attacks are in the midst of happening.  I also agree with the article when it points out the no matter what nations will do what is necessary to protect the lives of their citizens from catastrophic threats.  Nations will not wait around for Security Council if there is a large threat to their citizens which describes the imminent attack concept. 

                The article then later mentions the problem of either creating new laws or changing and keeping the old laws.  I think that in these times the old laws do not apply to the world today and there should be new laws created.  The world is obviously in a new spot today and should have new laws to keep up with the current times.  These laws will hopefully clear up some of the “black holes” and smooth out some of the bumps in the road that deal with democracy, leadership, and terrorism just to name a few.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.