When is war justified?

[carmen510]

I meant if the invaded nation's government has abused their population.

 

[Dachs]

I meant if the invaded nation's government has abused their population.

You're still running into the problem of the definition of a nation. Or do you mean a state?

 

[general_kill]

It's justified if I have something to gain from it and I risk nothing to lose from it. Kind of like the current wars we are in. If they ever enact the draft, I will put all my resources into ending the war.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Well.. it could be justified when the need for it is greater when the expenses behind it. That all includes present and future needs. Alternatively, in the Christian sense, war is only really justified when the war is in self-defense; though nowadays that might be a bit too simplistic in the modern day and age.

 

[carmen510]

You're still running into the problem of the definition of a nation. Or do you mean a state?

How about we just say an area controlled by a sovereign government? I think that definition suits your tastes, no?

 

[Dachs]

How about we just say an area controlled by a sovereign government? I think that definition suits your tastes, no?

How does one determine what is sovereign and what isn't? What if the country invading does not recognize the country being invaded as sovereign?

This has nothing to do with 'my tastes' and everything to do with "there are too many loopholes in conventional definitions for a panacea".

 

[carmen510]

Dammit all Dachs, you know what I mean, at least somewhat.

If I try to close all the 'loopholes', I'd probably be banned for spam.

 

[silver 2039]

1. When a nation is a threat to another nation so for self-defense
2. When a nation is a failed state and order needs to be restored for security purposes (Somalia, Pakistan etc...)
3. When a nation is committing genocide (Sudan, Rwanda, etc..)

Those are the main one's I can think of.

 

[Berzerker]

self defense

 

[Defiant47]

War is a justification onto itself.

This makes no sense, it makes my head hurt.

 

[MobBoss]

self defense

If this is the case, then the vast majority of wars done by man were not justified.

And fwiw, I disagree with you. Whether or not a war is justified is going to be answered differently to different people. In that way, it is largely subjective. This 'justification' is also very dependant upon victory...or defeat.

War is justified if it ensures your nation/states survival or ultimately strengthens the nation/states ability to survive in its current environment. As such, its hard to tell whether the war justified or not based upon only immediate results. Potential ramifications are so complex as sometimes not to be realized decades or possibly centuries later. A war that is won is hardly going to be 'justified' if it sets off a chain of events that results in the nation/states downfall in mere decades.

 

[Dachs]

Question for persons who stated 'self-defense' to be a legitimate casus belli: what about preemptive self-defense? Such as this conflict.

Not meant to be a trap or anything fwiw, just interested in seeing whether the definition is flexible or not.

 

[Arwon]

If this is the case, then the vast majority of wars done by man were not justified.

Well, yeah. Duh.

Now you're starting to get it.

I doubt there was a truly morally defensible war before about 1900. Most were royalist or imperial power games, or just wars of conquest.

 

[Kerozine]

War is justified so long as the people that declared it are still supporting it.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

As an absolute last resort. I cannot stress "absolute" enough.

 

[Dachs]

I doubt there was a truly morally defensible war before about 1900. Most were royalist or imperial power games, or just wars of conquest.

What about the wars of classical Greece and Rome? The war Chremonides exploded against Antigonus Gonatas surely qualifies; the Macedonians held the Piraeus, after all.

 

[Arwon]

I don't know what most of those nouns mean, but you'll have a hard time convincing me any classical wars were particularly moral. Lemme guess, a king and a bunch of people who had no choice about being there fought against another king and another bunch of people who had no choice about being there?

 

[MobBoss]

Well, yeah. Duh.

Now you're starting to get it.

I doubt there was a truly morally defensible war before about 1900. Most were royalist or imperial power games, or just wars of conquest.

Who are you to dictate morality? If country A sees expanding its territory as a 'moral imperative' that makes its nation stronger in comparison to its neighbors, who decides that decision to be 'immoral'? You? Dont make me laugh.

While such may be viewed by you as 'immoral' that may not be the case of those prosecuting those wars. What could be more moral than ensuring land, food and resources (and ultimately survivability) for your tribe/nation/people?

 

[Leonel]

Never! Even resistance is inhumane as it kills the fathers and mothers of families of the invading country!

 

[Arwon]

What could be more moral than ensuring land, food and resources (and ultimately survivability) for your tribe/nation/people?

Um, not killing people and raping and pillaging and taking their stuff so your king can feel like he has a big dick?