Are preemptive attacks moral even if innocents are harmed

>>2352336
I don't know about MORAL, but if the killing of non combatants furthers a quicker and potentially less destructive end of the conflict in question, I think it's fine. Especially in these days of industrialized warfare where non combatants help the opposing side's war effort.

>>2352344
Preemptive attacks that kill civvies fucking starts hostilities, not ends them

File: stirner.jpg (233KB, 1425x1540px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1425x1540px

>>2352336
>moral
>innocents

>>2352344
Civilian casualties are part of the reason why Iraq and Afghanistan hate the US so much.

>>2352344
>potentially less destructive

"Russia is about to nuke us I think lol, in order to further a quicker and potentially less destructive end of the conflict in question, we'll nuke first lol"

Brilliant

>>2352358
All those deaths that were a result of sectarian infighting being blamed squarely on the Americans is a bit of a stretch no? KSA and Iran never catch any flak even though they were respectively funding and the various Sunni and Shiite groups.

>>2352336
Killing people is never moral, but no one cares.