Just War Theory

[metis]

I'm more "dovish", which I guess explains why some call me a "bird-brain".

I do believe people and countries do have the right of self-defense, but i also believe they should do their best to try and resolve things through peace and tolerance.

And if you disagree with me, I'm gonna kick the crap out of ya!

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard this week.

It's actually the dumbest thing to ignore.

 

[Stevicus]

I've noticed a lot of posts mentioning the right of self-defense, which I would agree is valid, but here's a question that vexed me during the Cold War:

Suppose you're the U.S. president, and you've just been told that the Soviets launched a massive nuclear attack against the United States. ICBMs, SLBMs, fleets of bombers heading our way. It is certain that severe damage and extreme loss of life is imminent, no matter what decision you make. America is as much as already destroyed, so there's no real defense that can be made.

Your only real choice is to launch everything in your arsenal before the Soviet missiles hit, so that we can inflict on them as much damage as they on us. Mutually-assured destruction.

Or we could do nothing and be just as dead either way. But at least we wouldn't be killing millions of innocent people as our final farewell to the world.

The question is, if we already know we're going to die and beyond the point of no return, do we have the right to take as many as we can with us? Would that be just?

 

[BSM1]

I've noticed a lot of posts mentioning the right of self-defense, which I would agree is valid, but here's a question that vexed me during the Cold War:

Suppose you're the U.S. president, and you've just been told that the Soviets launched a massive nuclear attack against the United States. ICBMs, SLBMs, fleets of bombers heading our way. It is certain that severe damage and extreme loss of life is imminent, no matter what decision you make. America is as much as already destroyed, so there's no real defense that can be made.

Your only real choice is to launch everything in your arsenal before the Soviet missiles hit, so that we can inflict on them as much damage as they on us. Mutually-assured destruction.

Or we could do nothing and be just as dead either way. But at least we wouldn't be killing millions of innocent people as our final farewell to the world.

The question is, if we already know we're going to die and beyond the point of no return, do we have the right to take as many as we can with us? Would that be just?

Actually this is a fair point. But what if some of us survive? If a retaliatory strike might give us a chance of rebuilding, or at least not living under such a brutal totalitarian government, would we not have not just the right, but the duty to eliminate as much threat as possible?

 

[Stevicus]

Actually this is a fair point. But what if some of us survive? If a retaliatory strike might give us a chance of rebuilding, or at least not living under such a brutal totalitarian government, would we not have not just the right, but the duty to eliminate as much threat as possible?

That's an interesting point. On the other hand, the Russians could feel such intense remorse and guilt over what they had done that they would undergo a complete transformation in government and do nothing but good works and try to make amends to the survivors in America.

 

[Revoltingest]

On the other hand, the Russians could feel such intense remorse and guilt over what they had done that they would undergo a complete transformation in government and do nothing but good works and try to make amends to the survivors in America.

I think that's an unlikely scenario.
Management would likely claim defense.
The populace would buy that, & be relieved
to have eliminated a threat.

 

[sayak83]

Just War Theory

To put it simple, Just War theory attempts to identify the circumstances under which a war would be just. Therefore, it consists of two parts. While Just War theory confesses that killing is, in its general sense, morally improper, it also tries to characterise conditions in which the killing of others becomes a moral obligation. Having recognised that war is inevitable among states and will lead to deaths, Just War theory also attempts to envisage how the use of arms might be controlled, made more humane, and eventually directed towards establishing lasting peace and justice. In brief, just war is countering evil with the lesser evil.

Many scholars of International Relations Theory believe that there is no Just War ‘theory’ as such and there are actually as many Just War theories as the number of the people who judge the wars. Since it is so relative a concept, according to how people justify wars, one can categorise the spectrum of just war into four categories. Those who believe no war can be justified by any means and in any situation are ‘absolute pacifists’. Those who suppose some wars justly fought can be found in the history are ‘dovish’ and those who consider few wars in the history as unjust are ‘hawkish’. In the last ‘realpolitik’ category raison d'état is what drives the realists. Consequently, any strategy in their national interest, be it war or peace, is justified.
Just War from the Bahá'í Perspective

I think I lean towards absolute pacifist, there is no good reason for war. The excuses we do use for going to war are IMO most likely not justified. However there maybe some humanitarian reason to wage war with another country if it could be absolutely proven that atrocities against innocent folks were being commited. I suspect, however, this is perhaps never the real reason we end up in a war.

“War is really nothing more but the result of existing forces.” So not only is war not always a bad thing necessarily, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá explains:
A conquest can be a praiseworthy thing, and there are times when war becomes the powerful basis of peace, and ruin the very means of reconstruction. If, for example, a high-minded sovereign marshals his troops to block the onset of the insurgent and the aggressor, or again, if he takes the field and distinguishes himself in a struggle to unify a divided state and people, if, in brief, he is ‘waging war for a righteous purpose’, then this seeming wrath is mercy itself, and this apparent tyranny the very substance of justice and this warfare the cornerstone of peace. Today, the task befitting great rulers is to establish universal peace, for in this lies the freedom of all peoples.

Just War from the Bahá'í Perspective

Maybe war can be justified, has there been a war that was justified?

Second World War on the allied side was certainly just. American Civil War may qualify.

 

[Stevicus]

I think that's an unlikely scenario.
Management would likely claim defense.
The populace would buy that, & be relieved
to have eliminated a threat.

Some might see it that way at first, although I don't think they'd be totally heartless or one-dimensional in that regard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some might see it that way at first, although I don't think they'd be totally heartless or one-dimensional in that regard.

But if the leaders who launched the attack control the information,
their reaction could be manipulated to see it as just.

 

[Stevicus]

Second World War on the allied side was certainly just. American Civil War may qualify.

I agree, although on the subject of the Civil War, it brings to mind a question of what circumstances might be necessary to justify an armed rebellion and civil war. A rebellion motivated by a desire to continue the abomination of slavery would certainly be unjust in my view. But there might be other situations where a rebellion could be morally justified.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I think some war is justified. If somebody is attacking me or my country, I would want to defend myself, and would so do.

It is said that a good offense is the best defense, so I would certainly go on the offense and put them out of business in their country. In other words, they may have attacked me and entered my country taking land, but I would fight to get that land back and then push the war into their lands (if possible of course). Obviously, if I'm Liechtenstein, and Switzerland or Austria were to annex my country into theirs I wouldn't have much recourse...

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

I agree, although on the subject of the Civil War, it brings to mind a question of what circumstances might be necessary to justify an armed rebellion and civil war. A rebellion motivated by a desire to continue the abomination of slavery would certainly be unjust in my view. But there might be other situations where a rebellion could be morally justified.

Zactly.

Let's talk about Civil War Statues now!

 

[sayak83]

I agree, although on the subject of the Civil War, it brings to mind a question of what circumstances might be necessary to justify an armed rebellion and civil war. A rebellion motivated by a desire to continue the abomination of slavery would certainly be unjust in my view. But there might be other situations where a rebellion could be morally justified.

yes certainly. Here is a clear cut example,
Haitian Revolution - Wikipedia

 

[Thief]

I have a short story for you all....

God made Man a little less than the angelic
and the Lord said.......Man is fragile
seek after him that he not dash his foot nor his head

One third of heaven said .....NAY!
that Man is less than we are ....he should be made to serve us!

there is nothing wrong with that logic
we humans do so unto everything less than we are

we bridle the horse and break his spirit
that he would take us wherever we should go

the dog would hunt at will with his kind
but we collar and chain the animal
we take his freedom and the hunt away from him
we forbid that he bite the hand that feeds him
and we expect his loyalty

we cage little birds for their love songs
but that creature will never find the mate he sings for
there will be no nest....no offspring
and he will die in solitude

we kill insects just because we don't like them

A war broke out.......brother angel against brother angel

One third of heaven lost their positions for an argument over an item
that looks like us
and to whom do we bear resemblance?
They want us dead

Two thirds of heaven lost their brothers for an argument over an item
that looks like us
and do we look like them?
They likely don't care

 

[Stevicus]

I have a short story for you all....

God made Man a little less than the angelic
and the Lord said.......Man is fragile
seek after him that he not dash his foot nor his head

One third of heaven said .....NAY!
that Man is less than we are ....he should be made to serve us!

there is nothing wrong with that logic
we humans do so unto everything less than we are

we bridle the horse and break his spirit
that he would take us wherever we should go

the dog would hunt at will with his kind
but we collar and chain the animal
we take his freedom and the hunt away from him
we forbid that he bite the hand that feeds him
and we expect his loyalty

we cage little birds for their love songs
but that creature will never find the mate he sings for
there will be no nest....no offspring
and he will die in solitude

we kill insects just because we don't like them

A war broke out.......brother angel against brother angel

One third of heaven lost their positions for an argument over an item
that looks like us
and to whom do we bear resemblance?
They want us dead

Two thirds of heaven lost their brothers for an argument over an item
that looks like us
and do we look like them?
They likely don't care

I've never heard this story before.

Angels don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, so what do they have to fight about?

 

[Thief]

I've never heard this story before.

Angels don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, so what do they have to fight about?

as the story goes.......us