NationStates Jolt Archive

Almost every country on earth has fought one or more wars in their history. Wars have been fought for many reasons ranging from economic, to political, to self-defense. Some people on NS believe that there is no justification for war, even if your country is invaded. Others think that war is justified under certain circumstances but disagree on what circumstances justify war.

My question is, do you believe that war is ever justified and if so under what circumstances is war justified?

This question is not about whether or not a specific war is or was justified, but you can use specific wars to support your reasons as to why war is or is not justified.

Let the debate begin.

Sure, war is justified in some cases. Just not as many as a lot of people seem to believe.

My opinion anyways. Wasn't there already a thread like this?

Oh, and where's the poll?

*sigh* not again.

I believe there are justifications for war, such as WWII, and at least the American Civil War and Revolutionary War, besides those underlying reasons (to stop a world-takeover endevour and holocaust, keep the nation together, armed rebellion in this specific case, respectively), justification can get incredibly complex.

I'll take a somewhat utilitarian stance and say that if the good effects outweigh the bad it is justified.

I'm with you on that one.

But good and evil are subjective, so *shrugs*

War is only justified when more suffering would be caused by not going to war. (And that includes the future implications of any such war.)

If you are attacked then of course you can go to war. Otherwise it is hard to justify it.

War is only justified when more suffering would be caused by not going to war.

Agreed.

Sure, war is justified in some cases. Just not as many as a lot of people seem to believe.

My opinion anyways. Wasn't there already a thread like this?

Oh, and where's the poll?

Sorry no pole. There are to many variables and I'm more interested in opinions than numbers.

sure, war is justified at times...to prevent ethnic cleansing, etc. however...this is not justified...
:) :) :cool: :eek: :confused: :mad: :D :mad: :cool::mp5:

I'll take a somewhat utilitarian stance and say that if the good effects outweigh the bad it is justified.

No, that is the easy way out because you have avoided giving your opinion. ;( Secondly, the effects are not know until the conclusion of the war and in some cases not know for many years after the conclusion of the war.

There's a fairly well laid out concept of just war, and it works pretty well.

War is only justified when more suffering would be caused by not going to war. (And that includes the future implications of any such war.)

So how do you determine that before the war? There is a lot of suffering going on right now in Dafur, should someone go to war to prevent that suffering? What if it were a short war and only 10,000 more people were killed as a result? Would that be fewer people suffering than allowing the present situation to continue?

No, that is the easy way out because you have avoided giving your opinion. ;(
But that is my opinion. I'm more-or-less utilitarian.

Secondly, the effects are not know until the conclusion of the war and in some cases not know for many years after the conclusion of the war.

The effects aren't know, but we can do our best to predict them. If our prediction is logically sound, and we take the course that we expect to cause the best overall effect, our actions are justified.

I'll take a somewhat utilitarian stance and say that if the good effects outweigh the bad it is justified.
Ha ha!! The best answer ever!! Well... in my opinion at the very least. I agree with this statement because governmental policy should be dictated by practicality. Having lots of wars tends to be impractical but trying to maintain an unworkable peace is also impractical.

There's a fairly well laid out concept of just war, and it works pretty well.

Would you share that concept with us? I am not familiar with it.

War is never an irrational act. Those who begin wars do so for rational reasons, based upon the information they have available filtered through their system of beliefs.

Therefore, to the person starting it a war is justified. Those on the recieving end tend to disagree. It tends to be that the 'victor' is the one found to be correct. Strange, hmm?

Actually, I'm being facetious (I hate bullshit relativism). War is justified in self-defence, defence of an ally or the defence of those unable to defend themselves. Aggressive war is justified if you genuinely believe that you are under threat from a force that you could not defeat without a pre-emptive strike. Unfortunately, in democratic states the government that suffers a pre-emptive strike loses considerable ground among the voters. This makes them naturally more paranoid. Hence Blair going into Iraq.

"Intelligence says there's a 2% chance that an attack capable of crippling your election campaign may take place. The investors say strike first!"

Offensive war is only acceptable if the target is commiting murder of their people in large numbers. Defensive war, as long as the other option is having innocents slaughtered or subjected to totalitarianism, is acceptable.

war is never justified. What ever happened to 'love your enemies' or 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?

Besides the economic benefits can never measure up to the horrors one would have to go through in a war, and the horrors the families would have to face.

The thing I really don't like is that presidents will give an excuse to go to war through the means of us being the 'good guys' and whoever we are fighting being the 'bad guys', which is totally false. Really, there is hardly any pure evil out there. too often it is just misunderstandings or different cultures. If we were all accpeting of other cultures, we wouldn't need any more wars, except in extreme cases.

I once read a description of a "just war" by St. Augustine or someone. He summed it up so well.

Batfilbia, if your country is invaded, is a war of defense justified?

But that is my opinion. I'm more-or-less utilitarian.



The effects aren't know, but we can do our best to predict them. If our prediction is logically sound, and we take the course that we expect to cause the best overall effect, our actions are justified.

So, with the advantage of hindsight, was the American Revolutionary war justified? Remember, we have no way of knowing how things would be today if the war had not been fought or if England had won.

So, with the advantage of hindsight, was the American Revolutionary war justified? Remember, we have no way of knowing how things would be today if the war had not been fought or if England had won.

Not being American, I don't know that much about the war. Can you tell me what the motivation was?

war is never justified. What ever happened to 'love your enemies' or 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?

Besides the economic benefits can never measure up to the horrors one would have to go through in a war, and the horrors the families would have to face.

The thing I really don't like is that presidents will give an excuse to go to war through the means of us being the 'good guys' and whoever we are fighting being the 'bad guys', which is totally false. Really, there is hardly any pure evil out there. too often it is just misunderstandings or different cultures. If we were all accpeting of other cultures, we wouldn't need any more wars, except in extreme cases.

So the Allies should never have fought Hitler in WW II? Even though he invaded most of Europe he did not invade England, Canada, or the US. So, England, Canada, and the US shoud not have gone to war with Nazi Germany?

note the 'except in extreme cases'

and I would also think Hitler is an example of pure evil.

Not being American, I don't know that much about the war. Can you tell me what the motivation was?

The Colonials in America felt the government in England was unfairly taxing them, that they were not being adequately represented in Parliament, and they had no redress against the unfair treatment. A simplistic answer but I think it adequately sums it up.

War is justified in self-defence, defence of an ally or the defence of those unable to defend themselves. Aggressive war is justified if you genuinely believe that you are under threat from a force that you could not defeat without a pre-emptive strike. Unfortunately, in democratic states the government that suffers a pre-emptive strike loses considerable ground among the voters. This makes them naturally more paranoid. Hence Blair going into Iraq.

Agreed

The Colonials in America felt the government in England was unfairly taxing them, that they were not being adequately represented in Parliament, and they had no redress against the unfair treatment. A simplistic answer but I think it adequately sums it up.

I find myself unqualified to make a judgement.

It's never 100% Justified whatever the case is there is always at least oneside fighting an unjust war. Obviously in most cases fighting off invasion is justified and the invading force is not fighting a just war, definately this is the case with military invasions.

So, with the advantage of hindsight, was the American Revolutionary war justified? Remember, we have no way of knowing how things would be today if the war had not been fought or if England had won.

If we had lost, according to Adam Smith (English 18th century economist), we'd have eventually overthrown the Brits anyway. It was inevitable. With all the territory to the west of the Colonies we would have expanded on our own even with out help or permission from London. Our economy would have grown to the point that eventually we would've been able to drive out the Brits. Not to mention that with the increase in territory, we would've needed to expand the size of our militia/military to protect it, and we'd have had the numbers to successfully combat the Redcoats.

The Colonials in America felt the government in England was unfairly taxing them, that they were not being adequately represented in Parliament, and they had no redress against the unfair treatment. A simplistic answer but I think it adequately sums it up.


If that is a justification for war, I'm going to go right now and shoot Tony Blair.

EDIT: Actually, he's just one head of the hydra. I'm going to war on the whole House of Commons, starting with my local MP and working my way up.

I have consulted the Holy Text of the Cozisaidso (with the word of George in red).

The Second Book of Commandments, Chapter four reads thus

1. And George said unto the people, Thou shalt not make war, unlest it is justified. 2 And the people said unto George, 'O wise George, when is war justified. 3. And George did say When the other guy attacks you first. Or when I tell you it's okay.

Incidentally, is there anything wrong with quoting the Cozisaidso in various threads?

War can be justified if it saves more lifes, and improves them, than it destroys. And because that is so difficult to judge, these days we have things like the UN, NATO and so on that require many people to make that decision, in the hope to get a picture closer to reality.

Actually, I'm being facetious (I hate bullshit relativism). War is justified in self-defence, defence of an ally or the defence of those unable to defend themselves. Aggressive war is justified if you genuinely believe that you are under threat from a force that you could not defeat without a pre-emptive strike.

QFT

War can be justified if it saves more lifes, and improves them, than it destroys. And because that is so difficult to judge, these days we have things like the UN, NATO and so on that require many people to make that decision, in the hope to get a picture closer to reality.

So, are you saying only the UN or NATO should make the decision to go to war?

So, are you saying only the UN or NATO should make the decision to go to war?
More or less, yes.

Of course those two aren't the only blocs, but essentially they need to be established alliances in which all members have a genuine ability to judge the situation and voice their opinion.

A nation should be allowed to go to war to preserve its independence (Winter War, most of the wars Israel has fought, &c.) or to retake ground lost by such wars (Continuation War, &c.).

War against Communism is justified.

War against Communism is justified.
Someone's doing a happydance...

http://www.tedgoas.com/linked/dancing_hitler.gif

Had, say, Washington's army been defeated early on, and Congress wiped out, America would have been something of a rebellious province for many years. British troops would have been attacked by local partisans (such as the Swamp Fox), and surviving American soldiers. The war would have gone on for years - decades, even. Ultimately, the British would give up and abandon the colonies.

When the war is for something like independence, it is justified if the people have tried to get into the politics of the mothercountry and they have been refused. When the war is against another country, it is only justified when the country you are fighting against has either commited violence against you, or clearly and irrefutably intends to commit violence against you.