Hypothesis on preemptive war

[lastchance]

I don't think Kerry knows himself what he plans to be doing on preemptive war, or Bush for that matter. I don't think anyone knows unless they are put to that specific situation.

There are certain basic premises everyone sticks to, but in the end, it's all an EV calculation. If preemptive war is +EV based, you should do it, otherwise, you shouldn't.

Of course, what makes something +EV or not is the situation and your beliefs. Obviously, an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life is worth more than $1000 dollars (understating the last one to make a point).

But these things are worth different amounts to different people, which changes your numbers and your decisions, but generally speaking, most people can come up with values pretty close to each other (human life, basics of sustaining it, etc).

Now, obviously, you also have different interpretations of the situation, leading to different decisions.

Kerry and Bush both have situations that they both would go to preemptive war, even right now with the troops streched as they are.

At the same time, Bush isn't looking to go in and invade every single country, despite what some liberals think. He simply doesn't have the power to do it, so, he, like Kerry, has to pick his spots.

The key here is the range of situations that Kerry and Bush would go to war here. I think Bush's range is larger, but he will not go to war when Kerry will because of a different set of values.

Very small differences, such as a few thousand extra troops to bring in, can mean all the difference in the world.

Either way, there are too many factors to take in to say exactly when and where you are going to war preemptively, or exactly what your preemptive stance.

But it comes down to this. You do not have the information to make a decision about preemptive strikes right now, so you should not make that decision. Easy, huh?