Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3

Traditionally,  there is no first-strike in karate or Taekwondo.  Gichin Funakoshi, the father of Japanese karate , empathically stated "karate ni sente nashi" or "There is no first attack in karate." Funakoshi made the principle the second of his Twenty Precepts, second only to the directive to not forget that “karate beginsand ends with courtesy.” Shoshin Nagamine, respected founder of the Matsubayashi school of Shorin-ryu karate, wrote that, “This phrase [. . .] embodies the essence of Okinawan karate.” Masatoshi Nakayama, longtime head of the Japan Karate Association, stated that, “[. . .] it is not an exaggeration to say that it is these words that succinctly and fully express the spirit of karate-do”

Supporting this tradition, most Taekwondo patterns begin with a block. However, not all!  Some patterns, such as Gwang-gae, begin with a strike. Is this tradition still viable in today's society? America has also has a tradition of no first-strike, however, this tradition was challenged in 2003 in the second war with Iraq when the United States attacked Iraq with no prior attack or direct threat of attack from Iraq. Since action is faster than reaction and it is important to seize the initiative in a threatening situation, some argue that a pre-emptive strike is imperative. So is first-strike ethically wrong or is it sometimes necessary?

In his book Karate-do Kyohan, Gichin Funakoshi wrote, "When there are no avenues of escape or one is caught even before any attempt to escape can be made, then for the first time the use of self-defense techniques should be considered. Even at times like these, do not show any intention of attacking, but first let the attacker become careless. At that time attack him concentrating one's whole strength in one blow to a vital point and in the moment of surprise, escape and seek shelter and help."  In his book Wado-Ryu Karate, Otsuka wrote, "There is nothing as unfortunate as finding one's self in a situation where he must utilize martial arts to protect himself. The objective of martial arts training is to train hard and yet search for a state where martial arts need not be used. Hence, one must seek the path of peace and desire that path as well." However, first-strike also has an history in the martial arts. In the classic text on strategy Go Rin No Sho  (The book of the five rings), Miyamoto Musashi tells of three methods to forestall the enemy, one of which is, "attacking on the enemy's preparation to attack."

In Taekwondo we train to avoid a fight if at all possible, but what should we do when it is inevitable? Some say you should still wait until you are attacked and then use self-defense. However, when does an attack actually occur. The law says you have been assaulted when a threat is made with a clear intent to carry out the threat, there is the present ability to carry out the threat, and there is an overt act toward carrying out the threat. If an angry person threatens to punch you and raises his fist, an assault has occurred whether or not the punch is actually thrown. So legally, you may defend yourself against the attack by making a first-strike. However, you may only use force appropriate for the situation and you may not continue the attack after the threat has been neutralized.

Television and movies have popularized the "no first-strike" philosophy. In them, police will talk to a criminal who is pointing a gun at them, instead of shooting the criminal. It is considered "politically correct" to let the criminal make the first move. If you had a gun pointed at a criminal and the criminal raised and pointed his gun at you, would you wait and let him take the first shot? The no first-strike philosophy came to international attention with the United States' preemptive strike against Iraq in 2003, but this was not the first time international first strikes have been made; Japan's 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor is a major case in point. Both these examples international first-strikes illustrate a problem with all preemptive strikes—sometimes they do not achieve the intended goal—instead of defeating the enemy, they only awaken a sleeping giant. Sometimes a criminal may only be posing, not intending to actually attack you, and when you attack first and are not successful, you enrage the criminal and he or she then becomes intent on killing you.

In a self-defense situation the longer the confrontation lasts, the greater your chances of serious injury or even death. Therefore, you must end the confrontation as quickly as possible. This is best accomplished by striking the attacker first, fast, and hard enough to neutralize the threat. By launching the first strike suddenly and unexpectedly, you use the element of surprise to demolish the attacker's defenses, gain superiority, and ultimately end the threat.

First strike does not mean one strike, which is the principle of delivering one quick and powerful strike in the hope that it will end the confrontation. Even if you believe in the one strike principle, it has no place in a self-defense situation where your life is in jeopardy. When you are defending your life, do not waste time "feeling out" the attacker or counting on one strike stopping the attack. When you strike, it is with a flurry of quick, powerful, accurate, strikes that overwhelm the attacker.

If you wait for the attacker to strike first, you start out on the defensive. If your defense fails to completely stop the attack, you may be injured and unable to mount an offense. By attacking first, you are acting rather than reacting. You are controlling the situation and putting the attacker on the defense, which is not what the attacker wanted, so the attacker will probably seek the fastest way out of the situation. When an attack is inevitable and imminent, do not be timid or sorry about any legal ramifications. Just do what you have to do, or die.

First strike does not mean you may attack with impunity. You must never use force against another person unless it is absolutely justified and the force used must only the amount of force that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have used to suppress the attacker. The decision to launch a preemptive strike must always be a last resort, where all other means of avoiding and defusing violence have been exhausted. Even then, you run the risk of having a criminal complaint or a civil suit filed against you.

So when may you reasonably think that an attack is imminent and reasonable defend yourself? Reasonability depends on two factors: the environment and the circumstances.

Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3