Taking out boats laying mines in Hormuz and shooting down drones (and their launch sites) attacking oil tankers should be considered "Offensive Strikes" and not retaliatory?
Nope. When dealing with aggressors, taking out their offensive capability, it can indeed be called defensive strikes.
In the USA, there is a thing called Stand Your Ground in most states, which is different to the Duty to Retreat that many nations, and sadly some blue states, enforce. There is also a thing calle Acting in Defense, which can be of oneself or others. Those tennets hold for multiple spectrums of American culture and law.
It is totally permissible to use force (up to and including deadly) in defense of yourself and others if you feel threatened. The amount of force used should be somewhat proportional to the threat. Often more force, especially if needed to end the threat, is needed, understood, and acceptable to the law.
Expounding on examples:
If someone slapped you, shooting them is excessive force. However, If you genuinely feel your life (or others) is threatened, for example they have a visible weapon, they say they are going to kill you and then advance to perform said action, especially if you are a twig and they are a ripped 250lbs. dude, then yes, taking their life is acceptable in defense.
In wartime, it is much easier. If you are protecting something or someone, and someone else attacks, yes you can defensively neutralize the offense. War is so much deadlier, killing the offensive /aggressive force, is almost always the acceptable countermeasure/defense.
There is no state where you can legally go to a persons house and kill them because they were planning on and preparing to kill you. That is a military thing.
LOL... "Defensive Strikes". Thats a new one for me. Kind of falls into the "mostly peaceful protests" as the fire rages in the background.
u/#ummwhat
Taking out boats laying mines in Hormuz and shooting down drones (and their launch sites) attacking oil tankers should be considered "Offensive Strikes" and not retaliatory?
Nope. When dealing with aggressors, taking out their offensive capability, it can indeed be called defensive strikes.
In the USA, there is a thing called Stand Your Ground in most states, which is different to the Duty to Retreat that many nations, and sadly some blue states, enforce. There is also a thing calle Acting in Defense, which can be of oneself or others. Those tennets hold for multiple spectrums of American culture and law.
It is totally permissible to use force (up to and including deadly) in defense of yourself and others if you feel threatened. The amount of force used should be somewhat proportional to the threat. Often more force, especially if needed to end the threat, is needed, understood, and acceptable to the law.
Expounding on examples:
If someone slapped you, shooting them is excessive force. However, If you genuinely feel your life (or others) is threatened, for example they have a visible weapon, they say they are going to kill you and then advance to perform said action, especially if you are a twig and they are a ripped 250lbs. dude, then yes, taking their life is acceptable in defense.
In wartime, it is much easier. If you are protecting something or someone, and someone else attacks, yes you can defensively neutralize the offense. War is so much deadlier, killing the offensive /aggressive force, is almost always the acceptable countermeasure/defense.
I think maybe you meant to reply to the other, because I agree with you.
There is no state where you can legally go to a persons house and kill them because they were planning on and preparing to kill you. That is a military thing.
Really???? So we should just do nothing when we're attacked...DURING A CEASEFIRE?
Launching drones into the strait is definitely not "defensive." I suppose we should just let them drone strike as they please?