War is Cruel.
War is Hell.
War is a human invention.
When have you seen millions of animals systematically slaughter each other?
Since war is the cornerstone of problem-solution in modern world politics, it must be discussed first. This entry specifically deal with the justification of entry to war.
War is an extension of and solution to political conflicts. Political conflicts is an extension of economical conflicts and moralistic conflicts. Thus the chief reason for war is because of moralistic issues or economical gains. Such excuses including religion, raw material, territory, food supply, reputations have caused countless wars through out our history.
There is only one purpose in war: to eliminate the enemy. This only could done by seizing and destroying life and property. If both of the contestants are to actively seeking to win the war, the destruction of life and property in war is unavoidable.
If the reason for war is economical and moralistic, yet the outcome is damage and killing, how can we ever say a war is economical, or moral?
Yet to some, war might have economical and moral illusions.
To bankers, ammunition factories and other industries, war is the most profitable business. Because out of necessity, a government will desperately seeks victory regardless of the cost. Wars always create millions of jobs and prop up failing industries. But the society is not made up of bankers; we must look at what happens to the masses. Do their economical situations improve with war? No. We must realize that economical gains only apply to the victors. The conquered loses every thing. We must also notice that war is not the cause of capitalistic gain, but rather it is the huge increase of government spending that caused a rise in the aggregated demand, reducing unemployment and increasing industrial output. Such policies could be applied in peace time, with the fiscal money going into infrastructure building or medicare. A government could, and did apply rations in peace times. War merely increased economic activities by shifting from a Laissez-Faire policies into a command economy. Thus perhaps the ultimate form of economical gain of such would come from communist command economy instead of war.
To the religious and moralists war looks like a moral crusade against the immoral. But is then moral to kill? Is it moral to judge other's moral values? Frankly no, by any moral standard, it is folly to do so.
Thus, war is never economical or moral for the entire society.
But without war, how can one prevent war? Without force, how can one withhold the brutality of invaders? It is impractical to say "world peace" because humanity is selfish. Human will exploit each other for their own gains if they are given the chances to. Thus, war is the real and inevitable solution against crimes and oppression. War is a protection against other's attempted violence.
Then wars can be justified, even if they are not in economical or moral advantages to the society. The only kind of such wars is a war against aggression.
We must recognize that there are things that are more important than our life and property. Those are the inalienable fundamental rights belonging to every individual, such as freedom and liberty. For individuals facing threats of outside force trying to take away their fundamental rights, it is justified for them to rise up and defend themselves against the aggressor. Thus, a defensive war against aggression is the only war to be justified.
Apart from the basic demand of defensive war, a war must also meet three more requirements to be considered justified. First of all, the war must have a righteous cause. Such cause must be moral by world standard. Secondly, the country declaring war must have rightful intentions, because hypocrisy is not justified. Thirdly, a war must be declared with authority; for example I myself can not declare war. Three more are to be fulfilled to justify a war considering the outcome. First of all, the probability of success of war must be reasonable, to avoid futile bloodshed. Secondly, war must be the last resort; possible solutions to conflicts short of war should be considered first. Lastly, the lose war must be proportional to the justified gains; such gains could be the right to live, freedom, etc.
Ultimately, a war can only be justified if it accords with such justifications on the premises of "no more war than necessity".
If such principals are followed in the UEtopia, we have already successfully eliminated wars. Since no one will be the aggressor, there will be no invasion, thus no war will be needed.
There are other problems, such as just actions in wars, and just endings to wars.
We must also realize such idealism does not apply to reality. In reality, the side with the biggest gun wins. After all, what are you going to do if someone uses brutal forces, burn away the ideals, to get what they want? Begging? Or saying god forgids? These realist issues are much more complex than simple justifications because as a realist follows no morals except for power and gains.
These issues will be explored in the next post.
