Principles of a Just War

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 12:28am

I watched an American Experience episode re: WWII tonight on PBS. It reminded me of a college class in which we discussed the principles of a Just War.


• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Updated On: 11/8/05 at 12:28 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 1:06am

Well at least five, if not six of the definitions of a just war do not apply to Iraq.

A raise of hands for those who are surprised.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 1:35am

So am i the only one who thinks just war is a huge oxymoron?

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 8:26am

No, unless you believe that genocide is an acceptable consequence of war? I assume you do not.

Countries for centuries have gone to war. History will judge those which did not follow basic principles of human decency.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 9:28am

Was there EVER a time when all non-violent options were exhausted?

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 10:00am

The Nazi occupation of World War II?

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 10:12am

Certainly the Allied response to the Nazi's aggression had a just cause. The American Experience piece last night addressed the final months of the war in the Pacific. Obviously, Japan's battle plan violated most principles of the Just War Theory.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 10:27am

brd, was that the show where they showed all the bombing of Tokyo...and some of the survivors talking......that poor girl whose mother gave up her head and facial protection to her daughter, threw her in the water, and the poor kid basically knew her mothers hair burned off and she died a horrible death.......

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:02am

Yes, and it showed the civilians' suicides by jumping off cliffs.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 12:41pm

Did the Allies really try everything pascifism has to offer? I suspect not. I find pascifism is always a smarter, faster, easier, and more effective way to encourage true social change than phallic war.

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 1:36pm

I believe that those dying in the Nazi Concentration Camps would disagree, touchme.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 2:22pm

appealing to the needless death of people doesn't help justify war. Their lives could have been save through pascifism.

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 2:47pm

From Allied forces? No way, no how.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 2:55pm

remember pascifism does not mean doing nothing.

[Taryn]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 4:00pm

Wait, last time I checked, the appeasement policy used by the Allies did not help their cause. Instead of standing up to Hitler, it just gave him more leverage once war actually did start. Hitler was intent on expansion; the Allies could not have just given up every European country for the sake of averting conflict. It's difficult to use pacifism and diplomacy with someone who puts so little value on human life.

In regards to #3--must the wrong being redressed be suffered specifically by the country? Because I know it's a common thought that American should have entered WWII earlier, even before we suffered directly in Pearl Harbor.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 4:05pm

Also note that educating the "enemy" is a tool we never used to any degree pre-WWII. We spent our time invested in negotiation with a madman. Hitler is only a crazy man unless he has a country backing him up. When negotiation fails with the leaders, the pascifists will encourage civil disobedience. We did not do so in WWII. Don't be so quick to pat yourself on the back for "saving the lives on the poor Jews". War was not the solution there...it never is.

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 4:07pm

the bhagavad gita refers to "dharma yuda" the dharmic war -- a battle of equals. and these battles were fought between armies, away from civilian populations.

what we have experienced recently is adharamic war.

Updated On: 11/8/05 at 04:07 PM

[Bluemoon]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 4:10pm

Well then, we will have to disagree on this one, touchme. I believe the only effective solution to stopping the cancer of Nazism and Facsim in Europe was military intervention.

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 4:39pm

the Allied Response to the Nazi occupation and genocide was a just response, but the American response to the Japanese Bombing of Pearl Harbor out weighs any good done by our envolvment in the allied response. America became no better than any nazi, or any nazi sympathizer.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:13pm

America became no better than any nazi, or any nazi sympathizer.

What is the factual basis for that statement?

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:20pm

The intended conotations are not something I am comfortable with and I am not condoning the statement;
But the evidence for Zoneace's post about are the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (along with other horible human rights abuses), which may have been military necessities, but remain morally repugnant.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:24pm

• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

That is my response!

Zone should answer the question!
Updated On: 11/8/05 at 11:24 PM

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:33pm

The attacks were deliberatly poised to kill civilians and could have been avoided.
Nuclear Weapons are not acceptable because they have no discriminating capability.
The deaths of that many civilian in military procedings is reprehensible. The destructive effects still reverberate.

I am not speaking for Zone, or as I was saying do I condone Zone's statement, but there is little to defend about that action.


ETA: I also believe that there is so much anger invested in this and it is so easy to offend all parties we should all proceed very lightly in the process of arguing something so emotional.

The damage done by and to the Japanese in the war is an open would, as are the terrible attrocities commited by the Nazis which were horrible enough that they needed to end by "any means necessesary."

Updated On: 11/8/05 at 11:33 PM

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:43pm

We nuked cities full of civilians. What explanation do you need?


oh, and then there's vietnam. America has a sad history of commiting horrible atrocities in the name of war.

that suffice the explanation you are looking for?


Hitler was a bad guy, a really bad guy who is responsible for the deaths of 6 million + innocent people, but the man responsible for the death of 1 innocent person is just as bad a man. So, as a country, we were responsible for the horrible (and radiation poisioning is a horrible death) deaths of more than 100,000 innocent people.

I just hate it when people get all high and mighty about how we helped bring down hitler and that makes this country so great. Well, we also murdered thousands of innocent people in japan.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 11/8/05 at 11:47pm

I think I'll add the comments I added above once more.

Please tread lightly, many people of good faith come down on both sides of this arguement. The wounds are still open for many it is much better to attempt calm and limit hyperbole and blanket statements.