When is war justified?
- Thread starter Tahuti
- Start date
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,588
When there is no other choice in resolving an issue that demands global attention or endangers the safety of your people.
As long as there is a peaceful solution, pursue it. Once peaceful options run out, use enough physical force to remove the issue, set a stage for the war-torn state to get back on its feet, and leave.
As long as there is a peaceful solution, pursue it. Once peaceful options run out, use enough physical force to remove the issue, set a stage for the war-torn state to get back on its feet, and leave.
Berzerker
Deity
self defense
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Whenever a nation's collective security is threatened by an outside power or group.
This could be through an attack on the country, it's citizens, it's infrastructure, or through a verbal or physical threat from another nation.
This could be through an attack on the country, it's citizens, it's infrastructure, or through a verbal or physical threat from another nation.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrZkHKANrNw&feature=related
Sing a long a Edwin:
War! Phwaorrrr! Y'all.
What is it good for?
Absolutely, nuttin!
Say it again.
bis
But maybe this isn't taking the OP as seriously as it deserves. Fun though.
Sing a long a Edwin:
War! Phwaorrrr! Y'all.
What is it good for?
Absolutely, nuttin!
Say it again.
bis
But maybe this isn't taking the OP as seriously as it deserves. Fun though.
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Elaborating on self-defense and adding other-defense, roughly these:
(A) When your nation is invaded, a defensive war is justified.
(B) When an allied nation is invaded, provided that ally hasn't been committing genocide or such, joining its defense is justified.
(C) When a nation is committing genocide or mass murder on its own or another people, and your nation/alliance can effectively stop it, and there are no competing better opportunities to stop similar genocides, and your nation democratically approves the intervention. Call this the "the only thing worse than 2 armies fighting a war, is 1 army fighting a war" rule.
I think that covers the biggies.
(A) When your nation is invaded, a defensive war is justified.
(B) When an allied nation is invaded, provided that ally hasn't been committing genocide or such, joining its defense is justified.
(C) When a nation is committing genocide or mass murder on its own or another people, and your nation/alliance can effectively stop it, and there are no competing better opportunities to stop similar genocides, and your nation democratically approves the intervention. Call this the "the only thing worse than 2 armies fighting a war, is 1 army fighting a war" rule.
I think that covers the biggies.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,588
Ayatollah So
the spoof'll set you free
Other than Rwandan genocide (which wasn't stopped, and was hardly intervened in) and Bosnia, when in recent history has "stopping mass murder" been used to justify a war?
Actually "self defense" is used more often than "stopping mass murder" as a justification to start a war.
Which shows that we need to distinguish between self defense and "self defense". And if we can do that, we can also distinguish between mass murder and "mass murder". Get it?
One of the reasons of Iraq invasion in 2003, Libya.
The same can be used in Syria.
And how can we do this?
Political actions are in most cases pragmatic. If country is protecting itself against aggression, it doesn't have choice to enter war or not - on the other hand, "stopping mass murder" assumes that the country has some moral reasons to start war. Which totally sounds like a false pretext. For example nobody cared much about mass murders in Sudan, simply because no one country has economical interests there, substantial enough to start intervention.
Berzerker
Deity
Self defense aint vague, its very specific... You gotta be attacked.
Stopping some dictator from killing opponents or committing genocide doesn't justify war, it justifies killing the SOB - but war is a different animal. I lack the moral authority to compel you to fight and die for causes I believe in...
Stopping some dictator from killing opponents or committing genocide doesn't justify war, it justifies killing the SOB - but war is a different animal. I lack the moral authority to compel you to fight and die for causes I believe in...
Berzerker
Deity
shall we use a dictionary?
we know what it means
we know what it means
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Yes, let's use a dictionary. Now, where did I put mine.
I have:
i.e. someone here meaning a nation state (?) attempting to injure or kill you.*
Now what does the you refer to here?
Can you see how tricky this can get?
edit: *no that's not right - here, I believe, you want to substitute your nation state for "a person or animal" Tsk!
I have:
So these are the only reasons for entering a war - if someone attempts to injure or kill you. (following your logic)
i.e. someone here meaning a nation state (?) attempting to injure or kill you.*
Now what does the you refer to here?
Can you see how tricky this can get?
It is the most specific from all the other proposals in this thread. But it is not always clear too, for example try to define for which major powers WW1 was justified?
In practical sense, all what we have today, to define such thing is UNSC approval (or condemnation) and maybe international tribunals. Far from perfect.
Your intervention will not be justified, according to your pacifist views
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
You're saying that the stubborn refusal of South Korea to evict the US military presence, a self-evident threat to the North Korean people, justifies North Korea taking military action against them?
