On the Spot: Should preventive strikes have a place in foreign policy?
By Mnemosyne McKay and Marlys PughManley
“I personally don’t think so because now we are in the situation that we have the threat of World War III in place now because someone was killed. Historically that’s how World War I happened, so that’s a whole thing.”
First-year, business management
“No, because instead of striking back you could probably just build up defenses, instead of attacking.”
First-year, political science
“I don’t think that preventative strikes should have a place in foreign policy because as we’ve seen in U.S. history with the Iraq war in the past that was done off of bad intel and bad information and for a lot of imperialist reasons, and it really wasn’t a just war or a just way to start a war. So I feel that doing a preventative strike, based off of information that may actually be faulty, like was done in the past and led to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in that region, and then casualties of Americans themselves; I feel that that’s not a proper cause to actually go and prevent, or try to prevent something that could not be even actually happening.”