Test missile shot down - act of war?

[bengangmo]

OK, all bluster aside and please stick to the hypothetical.

TIMBUKTOO tests a long range military rocket. Said rocket is shot down. Is the shooting down an act of war or not?

Now I understand that its hard to make an evaluation devoid of context, but please do so (or if you want to add context, be short, sweet and specific) - and please no "its an act of war if I say it is"

If it was a member of NATO doing the "testing", even if other countries protested, woul dthat stop them if they felt it was a genuine need to test?

[takowasakun]

Well, the problem with this question is it depends on your definition of "act of war." Do you mean acceptable casus belli within the context of international law? Or casus belli as defined by individual governments?

If TIMBUKTOO lays out and considers the shooting down of their missile as a casus belli, than it is one. The UN and international community might disagree, but that doesn't mean a thing to TIMBUKTOO. They had warned that it would be treated as a casus belli.

It's not an act of war if I say it is, but it can be an act of war if the offended country says it is.

If we're talking about international law, then there are generally only three acceptable casus belli:

1. Internationally sanctioned wars (peacekeeping and the like)
2. Defense of oneself
3. Defense of one's allies

If TIMBUKTHREE shot down TIMBUKTOO's test missile, I don't think any of these casus belli could be applied to the situation. One could make an argument for self-defense, TIMBUKTHREE did use military force against TIMBUKTOO's military property. But I don't think that would be terribly convincing.

[bengangmo]

Originally Posted by seodoa

Well, the problem with this question is it depends on your definition of "act of war." Do you mean acceptable casus belli within the context of international law? Or casus belli as defined by individual governments?

If TIMBUKTOO lays out and considers the shooting down of their missile as a casus belli, than it is one. The UN and international community might disagree, but that doesn't mean a thing to TIMBUKTOO. They had warned that it would be treated as a casus belli.

It's not an act of war if I say it is, but it can be an act of war if the offended country says it is.

If we're talking about international law, then there are generally only three acceptable casus belli:

1. Internationally sanctioned wars (peacekeeping and the like)
2. Defense of oneself
3. Defense of one's allies

If TIMBUKTHREE shot down TIMBUKTOO's test missile, I don't think any of these casus belli could be applied to the situation. One could make an argument for self-defense, TIMBUKTHREE did use military force against TIMBUKTOO's military property. But I don't think that would be terribly convincing.

Then to modify a little, if North Korea shot down an American Missile test, would America consider it an act of war do you think?

I don't buy the argument "an act of war is what {insert country} says it is", but at the same time, if I personally was the prime minister, and somebody shot down my test missile I would very definitely consider it an act of war.

[takowasakun]

But that's how acts of war work. In the Six-Day War, Israel cited the blockade against Israeli ships in the Straits of Tiran as a casus belli and thus, justification for their attack against Egypt.

Israel was the belligerent (so not self defense) and their attack was not UN-sponsored. But it's still what caused the war. And so the blockade became the casus belli. These things are subjective by their very nature.

If an American test missile was shot down by North Korea, the US government could choose to view it as an act of war/casus belli. But only if they were willing to go to war over it. I don't think the United States has any interest in going to war with North Korea if it can be avoided, so something as insignificant as that would not be viewed as an act of war.

For North Korea, however, these long range missile tests are very important, as their developing nuclear arsenal is one of their few bargaining chips in the international community. Having their test missiles shot out of the sky would be a serious enough setback for them that I can understand why they would threaten war over the matter.

[sailor]

I *hate* the term "act of war" because it has been abused so much by the American jingoists to whom any other country looking at America or any of its friends sideways is an "act of war" which justified America invading and killing everybody.

In fact, as explained in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli , the only thing that can be legitimately considered a justification for war is self-defense. Now, I doubt that shooting down a missile would be grounds for declaring war on the country who shot it down but I suppose it would just depend on who was president.

The problem is that people who would say any other country shooting down an American rocket would be an act of war which would justify a declaration of war, those same people would defend the right of America to shoot down someone else's rocket with impunity. And to me that is where the reasoning fails because the reasoning has to remain the same when you turn the tables or it fails.

Another term which I hate because it has also been much abused and misused is "war crimes". People use "war" as an intensifier of crimes just to make them sound worse. It's like "Nazi", just a word to throw around to make things sound worse.

[takowasakun]

sailor, acts of casus belli do not have to be universally recognized as such. A casus belli is merely a nation's justification for war, as your Wikipedia article explains.

Wikipedia also explains that self-defense (or a UN-sanctioned war) are the only acceptable casus belli as determined by international law. But just because a country's casus belli is not acceptable to the UN does not mean it is not casus belli. It becomes casus belli the second that nation uses it as an excuse to attack. The difference being, of course, is that that country will not have the support of the UN and may, in fact, find themselves on the receiving end of a UN-sponsored shitstorm.

[sailor]

seodoa, yes, I understand that. It is just that it irritates me when I see Americans saying "Iran did what? That's an act of war!" like the smallest slight would be justification for America to start a war. They really believe that anything done to America would justify America declaring war on another country. But, of course, the same people would recognise America's right to mess with other countries (like military operations inside Iran or Pakistan) and that is not an "act of war" because it was done by America.

As I say, certain terms, like "act of war", "war crimes" and other just bug me because they are used merely to condemn others without regard for their strict meaning.

I would say an act of war is an act done with the intention of initiating hostilities and anything else is not an act of war.

[Morgenstern]

We might go to great lengths to justify such a "defensive" action as shooting down a missile, however, let's reverse the situation.

If the USSR had shot down one of our missiles 30 years ago, would we have accepted it as anything but a hostile act of war?

[Uthrecht]

Personally, I see the flipside of this as: if someone is able to shoot down your missile, do you really want to go to war with them?

[KidVermicious]

I think there's a strong argument for self-defense, especially if Timbuktoo has a history of aggression vs. Timbukthree.

[declan]

Originally Posted by bengangmo

OK, all bluster aside and please stick to the hypothetical.

TIMBUKTOO tests a long range military rocket. Said rocket is shot down. Is the shooting down an act of war or not?

Now I understand that its hard to make an evaluation devoid of context, but please do so (or if you want to add context, be short, sweet and specific) - and please no "its an act of war if I say it is"

If it was a member of NATO doing the "testing", even if other countries protested, woul dthat stop them if they felt it was a genuine need to test?

In reference to the Norks firing that missile, it passed over Japan and had Japan shot it down, it would have been an act of self-defense. As far as I know , the Norks had no permission to overfly an experimental rocket over a populated area, and I doubt that they issued a notam for everyone else.

As for Nato, the only incidents that I can remember was the cruise missile tests over Canada and stationing the cruise missiles and pershing missiles in Europe, both were protested heavily by the respective populations , but with the consent of the host nations , so it was sorta a draw.

As well, an act of war is a mindset not a trigger. US destroyers were escorting convoys before 41, it was deemed that Hitler would have been the one to decide if that was an act of war.

Japan bombed several American gunboats in the late thirties with the USA doing nothing in retaliation, concidering these were flagged US naval vessels.

Operation praying mantis, a fair amount of Iranian property was destroyed by the US Navy, no war was declared by Iran even though it was effectively an act of war by the USA.

Declan

[takowasakun]

Originally Posted by declan

the Norks had no permission to overfly an experimental rocket over a populated area

We could get into another debate over whether the Touhoku region really counts as a populated area.