PREEMPTIVE STRIKE ON A BIOLOGICAL TARGET: CHOICES AND CONSEQUENCES

Virginia Harris

Department of Molecular and Microbiology, Biodefense Program, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

Abstract

Along with many legitimate state entities, some nonstate actors have reportedly developed biological weapons programs. This broader offensive capability could be a threat to the United States. In response to that threat the U.S. has developed a defensive strategy that includes the option to execute a preemptive strike against a WMD target - if that target poses a clear and present danger to the U.S. or its interests. Recently President Bush has made it clear that such a preemptive strike is a real option, not just a threat.

While the International Court of Justice has issued rulings that applied stringent criteria on what constitutes an armed attack and legitimizes a self-defense response, in other rulings they have been unwilling or unable to rule out the use, or threat of use, of force as self-defense. With the lack of specific and clear criteria on the use of anticipatory self-defense in the international community, individual nations are left to develop their own interpretation of preemptive strike legality.

The U.S. has historically reserved the right of anticipatory self-defense, and exercised that right when needed. Large advances have been made and the U.S. has the ability to conduct a preemptive strike if it is necessary. While concerns, such as state sovereignty, collateral effects, and the response of the targeted nation, will prevent the use of a preemptive strike on a biological target in most situations, the U.S. has the legal right to use this capability in certain circumstances.
However, to exercise this option successfully, the U.S. must ensure that the decision maker tools used offer the best situation analysis available.

[Read entire articile]