Just War

[4588686]

War didn't end any of those things.  None of them have ended.  Some wars have ended some instances of some of those things for some periods of time.  

[Nihil Obstat]

War didn't end any of those things.  None of them have ended.  Some wars have ended some instances of some of those things for some periods of time.  

Sometimes you are all right, for a socialistic atheist. :|

[Nihil Obstat]

What if it was certain that if A fell, B would attack C right after, and that only a combined effort by C and A had any chance?

Sorry, I somehow missed this before.

 

I think if B were a legitimate aggressor, and if the specific 'methods of war' employed were proportionate and moral, then it would be justified for C to join in declaring war on B.

 

I am really vacillating (in case you could not tell :rolleyes: ). I was looking at this thread again earlier today, and started typing up a post that ended up being very much in favour of it being moral for C to declare war against B in general, assuming by just war theory B is a legitimate aggressor, and A and C are legitimately innocent parties.

[Byzantine]

So to take a real life example, what if the US had joined WWII on the side of the Allies before being attacked?

Edited May 8, 2013 by Byzantine

[Nihil Obstat]

So to take a real life example, what if the US had joined WWII on the side of the Allies before being attacked?

I would rather avoid commenting on real life examples. :sweat:

WWII is complicated by the fact that it seriously failed the just war doctrine based on immoral means used to fight.

[jeffboom]

 

And the Great Depression 

[Winchester]

So to take a real life example, what if the US had joined WWII on the side of the Allies before being attacked?

 

They had. Embargoes are acts of war.

[add]

Dachau

Dachau blues those poor jews
Dachau blues those poor jews
Down in Dachau blues, down in Dachau blues
Still cryin' 'bout the burnin' back in world war two's
One mad man six million lose
Down in Dachau blues down in Dachau blues
Dachau blues, Dachau blues those poor jews
The world can't forget that misery
'n the young ones now beggin' the old ones please
t' stop bein' madmen
'fore they have t' tell their children
'bout the burnin' back in World War Three's
War One was balls 'n powder 'n blood 'n snow

[Aloysius]

as long as the war is defensive, it is just to come to another country's aid--assuming that country is acting defensively and didn't start the aggression themselves.  morally speaking.

 

constitutionally speaking, the US isn't supposed to go to war unless our own national security is actually threatened.

 

I tend to lean more towards the constitutional side on the basis that the reasons given for going to war are always based on lies and propaganda, and war is always serving someone's financial interests.  the less able they are to make a case that our own personal national security is being threatened, the more likely it is that there are other motives driving our desire to go to war--other motives that are not noble and do not justify the war.  think about Kuwait--ostensibly, it was coming to the aid of someone who had been attacked.  but as the wiki-leaks cables clearly show, we actually approved of Saddam's Kuwait invasion privately and then used it as justification for the war.

 

a just war must be a defensive war, even if A is defending B against C, so long as C is truly the aggressor, but you cannot lightly undertake support for any war defending B against C, because no country can defend all the B's against all the C's and usually when they choose to do so, it's because of an underlying reason that is not noble or just at all.  besides, as the popes have aptly pointed out, it's hard to imagine any war being justified with the modern technology of war, and war is always a defeat for humanity.

[jeffboom]

as long as the war is defensive, it is just to come to another country's aid--assuming that country is acting defensively and didn't start the aggression themselves.  morally speaking.

 

constitutionally speaking, the US isn't supposed to go to war unless our own national security is actually threatened.

 

I tend to lean more towards the constitutional side on the basis that the reasons given for going to war are always based on lies and propaganda, and war is always serving someone's financial interests.  the less able they are to make a case that our own personal national security is being threatened, the more likely it is that there are other motives driving our desire to go to war--other motives that are not noble and do not justify the war.  think about Kuwait--ostensibly, it was coming to the aid of someone who had been attacked.  but as the wiki-leaks cables clearly show, we actually approved of Saddam's Kuwait invasion privately and then used it as justification for the war.

 

a just war must be a defensive war, even if A is defending B against C, so long as C is truly the aggressor, but you cannot lightly undertake support for any war defending B against C, because no country can defend all the B's against all the C's and usually when they choose to do so, it's because of an underlying reason that is not noble or just at all.  besides, as the popes have aptly pointed out, it's hard to imagine any war being justified with the modern technology of war, and war is always a defeat for humanity.

 

I believe, technically, Congress has to declare war for the US to be at war. Presidents Bush and Obama have various methods of starting wars without the approval of Congress. 

[Byzantine]

What is the moral status of an orc or dragon (considered as a traditionally evil beast)?