NationStates Jolt Archive

As the title said, under what circumstances is war acceptable/permissible/&c.?

You can play the idealist, the realist, the nationalist, whatever.

I blantly don't agree with War because it'll lead to social strife, political instability and redundant circumstances.

When you have the balls to say it's for personal gain, and not all this freedom and democracy bullshit. :rolleyes:

whenever our economy needs a boost ^

Only if these criteria are met:

1) You need to save more lifes by going to war then you would if you didn't. In other words, to prevent genocides and the like.

2) You do not have a national interest in the country you attack. You should not go and invade another country because it happens to be in your national (or business) interest.

3) You need to adhere to the rules of war.

4) It should always be multilateral - that helps legitimise it in the eyes of the world, and helps cancel out any interests people in your specific country might have in going to war.

Note how I'm excluding preventive wars for defensive purposes. Even if you know that your neighbour might attack you, you shouldn't attack first. There is always a chance of war to be averted.
You can prepare a great defensive effort, but don't go and bomb other people before it is established beyond a doubt what will happen.

I, for one, like The Just War Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Just_War_Theory)

War is only acceptable if you are attacked first or war is declared on you.

Only if these criteria are met:

1) You need to save more lifes by going to war then you would if you didn't. In other words, to prevent genocides and the like.

2) You do not have a national interest in the country you attack. You should not go and invade another country because it happens to be in your national (or business) interest.

3) You need to adhere to the rules of war.

4) It should always be multilateral - that helps legitimise it in the eyes of the world, and helps cancel out any interests people in your specific country might have in going to war.

Note how I'm excluding preventive wars for defensive purposes. Even if you know that your neighbour might attack you, you shouldn't attack first. There is always a chance of war to be averted.
You can prepare a great defensive effort, but don't go and bomb other people before it is established beyond a doubt what will happen.

1. Ok I can see that no porblem.

2. Bull, thats why you go to war in the first place for your national intrest, whether that be defensive,political,economic,ect.

3. There are no real "rules of war". War is brutal, and the more brutal and bloody it is then the sooner it will be over.

4. No because you are basically telling the world, that my nations intrests don't mean anything we are only going to listen to what you tell us to do w/our military.

The entire purpose of a government of a nation are to protect and serve the intrests of its people, by any tools it has and whatever becomes necessary that includes war. Pre-emptive strikes for peace are alright too because war is not always advertable and you should be able to hit them first and perhaps avert a larger bloodier war. This is part of the reason there has been no World War 3, the superpower of the world has been involved, when a or (the) superpowers sit back and do nothing and allow other smaller nations become powers eventually there will be a huge world war between the have's and have-nots. World War 1 Austria-Hungary, Germany had no colonies, Britian and France sat back then World War 1 happened. World War 2, Britian and France sat back and let Germany re-draw the map, bam World War 2. There has been no world war 3 in part because the US has been involved.

I'm officially amused.

Some Christians have also made the example of Deuteronomy 20:8 to be a fundamental precondition for a Just War. This verse allows anyone in the military to go home before any battle without punishment if they do not desire to fight the particular battle. This belief makes the use of a military draft to be automatic proof that the war for which it is used would be unjust. It is additionally contrary to the modern military system of enlistments defined in years or tours of duty because these do not allow soldiers to individually decide the rightness of each battle.

As the title said, under what circumstances is war acceptable/permissible/&c.?

You can play the idealist, the realist, the nationalist, whatever.


In what could be construed as the realist role, when one looks back at the past 500 years, the earth has only been completely "at peace" 8% of the time... Sometimes war serves a purpose, such as keeping terrorism on foreign soil, or stopping genocide.

I'm officially amused.
Oh, it's so ironic that Christianity has a theory about peace in it :rolleyes:

Obviously when His Majesty feels the need for a good round of gentlemanly sport.

War is brutal, and the more brutal and bloody it is then the sooner it will be over.
See, that's your problem.
You're defeatist, as is everyone else who just excuses himself with "War is Hell, get over it!".

War is a human thing, and humans can change it whenever they want. There is no reason for civilians to die in war really, not with the sort of weapons we already have, or shortly will have.

I just read yesterday that new European Cruise Missiles do a visual target identification when they are close, and if the target is in an area where collateral damage might be a problem, the missile will turn around and crash somewhere if it isn't 100% sure that it will hit the right place.

That sort of thing is possible, and should be pursued.

As for "National Interests"...well, suffice to say that I don't really believe in Hegel.

When you have the balls to say it's for personal gain, and not all this freedom and democracy bullshit. :rolleyes:

And what were the excuses your former country used to use? ;)

I just read yesterday that new European Cruise Missiles do a visual target identification when they are close, and if the target is in an area where collateral damage might be a problem, the missile will turn around and crash somewhere if it isn't 100% sure that it will hit the right place.
That sounds expensive.

That sounds expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow
1.35 million US dollars...

War should be allowed when a nation's interests are directly threatened. That, obviously, includes being directly attacked, but also legitimizes Japan and Germany taking on the US in WWII. If you want to play neutral in a conflict, then you have to be willing to play fairly and equally with both sides, rather then trying to subtly tilt the scales in one direction or another.
Further, War should be ended as quickly as possible, provided that the defender is allowed to maintain their full dignity (not lose territory, etc.), and through whatever means (assissinations, slaughter, nuclear weapons, chemical, biological) neccessary.

War is acceptable if it will, or could possibly help ensure that US super-power status stays intact. I trust the commander-in-chief to make that call.

1. Ok I can see that no porblem.

2. Bull, thats why you go to war in the first place for your national intrest, whether that be defensive,political,economic,ect.

3. There are no real "rules of war". War is brutal, and the more brutal and bloody it is then the sooner it will be over.

4. No because you are basically telling the world, that my nations intrests don't mean anything we are only going to listen to what you tell us to do w/our military.

The entire purpose of a government of a nation are to protect and serve the intrests of its people, by any tools it has and whatever becomes necessary that includes war. Pre-emptive strikes for peace are alright too because war is not always advertable and you should be able to hit them first and perhaps avert a larger bloodier war. This is part of the reason there has been no World War 3, the superpower of the world has been involved, when a or (the) superpowers sit back and do nothing and allow other smaller nations become powers eventually there will be a huge world war between the have's and have-nots. World War 1 Austria-Hungary, Germany had no colonies, Britian and France sat back then World War 1 happened. World War 2, Britian and France sat back and let Germany re-draw the map, bam World War 2. There has been no world war 3 in part because the US has been involved.

Well put, you Sir are a true patriot

tacitus wrote: "a bad peace is worse than war."

imo it is a bad peace, if the enemy kills thousands of your people in a single day.

Only if these criteria are met:

1) You need to save more lifes by going to war then you would if you didn't. In other words, to prevent genocides and the like.

2) You do not have a national interest in the country you attack. You should not go and invade another country because it happens to be in your national (or business) interest.

3) You need to adhere to the rules of war.

4) It should always be multilateral - that helps legitimise it in the eyes of the world, and helps cancel out any interests people in your specific country might have in going to war.

Note how I'm excluding preventive wars for defensive purposes. Even if you know that your neighbour might attack you, you shouldn't attack first. There is always a chance of war to be averted.
You can prepare a great defensive effort, but don't go and bomb other people before it is established beyond a doubt what will happen.
Agreed, except on 2. Countries go to war to protect their interests or to gain something new. It costs way too much to do otherwise. So there is always the self-interest element. Now, if that gain is conquering another nation, well in this day and age that is no longer excusable, at least not via the means of war.

Well put, you Sir are a true patriot

Or a Mongolian!

Well put, you Sir are a true patriot

Spasiba

See, that's your problem.
You're defeatist, as is everyone else who just excuses himself with "War is Hell, get over it!".

War is a human thing, and humans can change it whenever they want. There is no reason for civilians to die in war really, not with the sort of weapons we already have, or shortly will have.

I just read yesterday that new European Cruise Missiles do a visual target identification when they are close, and if the target is in an area where collateral damage might be a problem, the missile will turn around and crash somewhere if it isn't 100% sure that it will hit the right place.

That sort of thing is possible, and should be pursued.

As for "National Interests"...well, suffice to say that I don't really believe in Hegel.

No my problem is I'm a realist. Example, there are 53,000 peole that believe something so strongly they will die for it and they will always believe it. Now you can kill 20,000 of them and put them down for a bit but they will come back and recruit more, or you can kill all 53,000 of them and end it all right there.

Spasiba
So what will you say if the USA is responsible for WW 3? What is the Russian word for humiliated?

I just read yesterday that new European Cruise Missiles do a visual target identification when they are close, and if the target is in an area where collateral damage might be a problem, the missile will turn around and crash somewhere if it isn't 100% sure that it will hit the right place.


Actually, it will only abort the strike if it cannot find the target and there is a high chance of collateral damage.

If missile is on target it will still strike regardless of the damage. You can still use it to destroy elementary schools and hospitals if you feel like it.

And in reality, it's only matching infra-red profiles. It's not really making collateral damage choices.

So what will you say if the USA is responsible for WW 3? What is the Russian word for humiliated?

The US wouldn't be though it is the hegemon, why would a hegemon cause a world war and disrupt stability and its control?

The US wouldn't be though it is the hegemon, why would a hegemon cause a world war and disrupt stability and its control?
You make the naive and simple assumption that the USA will be the haegemon ad infinitum. If other nations, say China, the USSR or any other nation suddenly become too much a threat for it to allow, what then? The British Empire was the empire "upon which the Sun never set." Once. Now, its a very different world. The USA may well have the same fate.

tacitus wrote: "a bad peace is worse than war."
He also highly doubted that German Tribesmen were actually humans and thought the earth was flat.

Times change.

No my problem is I'm a realist. Example, there are 53,000 peole that believe something so strongly they will die for it and they will always believe it. Now you can kill 20,000 of them and put them down for a bit but they will come back and recruit more, or you can kill all 53,000 of them and end it all right there.
Oh, who gives a shit about whoever the enemy happens to be? I'm talking about the civilians who get caught in the crossfire.

And in reality, it's only matching infra-red profiles. It's not really making collateral damage choices.
Obviously (although it would be an interesting feature for a next generation AI-powered missile..."I don't wanna explode right now!!!") - the decision is made by the people who program the target into the thing.
I just brought it up because it is an example of people actually considering collateral damage, and think of ways to minimise it, rather than simply going ahead with bombing the shit out of women and children because war happens to be horrible.

War is acceptable only in defence, in my opinion. But how to deal with oppressive regimes? My suggestion is perhaps slightly obvious; dramatically improve (or create, in some cases) systems whereby application for nationality can be made abroad, but demand that each person can only be of a single nationality. For example of effect,when a US Citizen in Libya is being refused permission to leave, it can be considered a form of unlawful detention. This tones down the conflict, deals with the problem and gets the whole thing over with in just a few bits of paperwork. Neat.

Yeah, okay, it erodes the sense of national borders. That's a bonus too. ^^;

When the war will do the most good for the most nations, ideally.