Just War, Can there be one? Options

[CovertYawn]

I'm only going to put a little bit in here but I wanted to get peoples views. Its just a short essay I'm writing for Theology, but its really got me thinking.

Is it possible to have a just war?

Not only that but what about 'just' weapons? is a sword more 'just' than a nuclear bomb?

I'll put more on from my research when I can get my head in gear, it feels a bit wonky at the moment.

[Mata]

I believe that it is easier to argue for a 'just defence' than a 'just war'. The concept of something being 'just' is directly related to whether the actions are fair. If there is no diplomatic solution possible then you are defending yourself against an aggressor, hence leading to a just defence.

An act of war does not need a just provocation, only the ability to be performed, and so does not carry the corresponding link to justice that a defence does. A single nation can go to war by itself, but it requires two parties for there to be a defence, making defence always justifiable on moral or ethical grounds.

But there is also the catch; the principal of what is just is defined on moral and ethical reasoning, and by the definition of an act of war. These vary greatly between societies. Al-Qaeda is a perfect example. They feel that the US and western values have been attacking their culture and so they retaliated. They argue that they are mounting a defence of their society, whereas many in the US would not even see that they were attacking in the first place. Of course, this is the same justification given by the US to invade Iraq.

It is possible for any action to be argued as 'just' because the definition of the word will vary greatly people societies, nations, cultures, and even between individuals in these groups. Was the invasion of Iraq a just war? It seems that even the people of the US, the aggressor, are divided on this. This also highlights the division between 'justifiable' and 'just'. Anything can be justified, but justice attempts to find a higher moral ground from which to make judgements; it implies that it is possible to evaluate arguments without bias.

War is usually about a fundamental difference of opinion, and so the concept of one being just raises the fundamental difficulty of deciding whose argument is the most defensible. Usually wars are described as just by the aggressors, and then they go down in history as being so if this power wins. If Hitler had succeeded in winning the Second World War it is likely that now we would have been told how his actions were for the good of mankind and how he was justified in invasion and genocide.

Sadly, justice belongs to those in power. Is it just that the head of a company earns millions while the employees are on the minimum wage? No. Would it be just if the employees took a greater share of the money that their labour had generated? That would be ethically and morally justifiable, so 'yes'. Here's the catch though, would it be considered just if the employees took a greater share of the money that their labour had generated? No, because justice is defined by those in power.

History is written by the victors, as the saying goes, so views of justice are tainted by this. There will always be things that will be argued to be just, but as a principal it relies on an ultimate view of morality which cannot exist in humans.

[CommieBastard]

The Second World War was fought for just reasons; fascism in Europe could not then and can not now be tolerated, and neither can such warmongering and aggressiveness. But the reasons for a war are only one aspect of it. World War Two was not fought justly. The actions of the British military in particular were disgraceful, and a just society would have seen Bomber Harris tried for war crimes.

[pgrmdave]

I have found that war is typically justified when dealing with an unreasonable opponent. If a person is unreasonable, then diplomatic measures will not work.

[CommieBastard]

I have found that war is typically justified when dealing with an unreasonable opponent.  If a person is unreasonable, then diplomatic measures will not work.

Clarification: an unreasonable opponent engaging in practices that for reasons of morality or safety cannot be permitted to continue. France's stance on British beef is unreasonable, to my mind, but thus far we've managed to restrain ourselves from firebombing Paris.

[sjbbandgeek]

There is no just war, there are only just reasons for entering an unjust war.
If you try all other possibilities, and you have no other options, then war can be justified.
If you are under attack, then war is justifiable.
If there is a nation that cannot defend itself, and you are willing to defend that nation, then war can be justified.
On a side note, nuclear war is never justifiable.
This is what the Vatican claims and I agree with it.

[Daedalus]

You've contradicted yourself there. Surely, a justifiable war is a just war. That is what the term means, as far as I understand it.

Personally, I think conflict can only be justified in self defence or in defence of an innocent nation or people against an aggressor. The first strike shouldn't be made unless there is irrefutable evidence that military action now can prevent greater damage and loss of life by military action taken by either side in the future.

[CommieBastard]

On a side note, nuclear war is never justifiable.

I agree; I cannot see a morally acceptable use for nuclear weapons. They are designed specifically to cause the mass deaths of civilians.

[Mata]

To play devil's advocate for a moment:

The use of nuclear weapons on Japan was certainly horrific, but it may have prevented equal or greater suffering for millions more if the war had not been concluded so swiftly.

Then again, the world today is a very different place. Today we have Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), so the use of nuclear weapons would not prevent further casualities, but there is a case for arguing that in WWII they did.

I'm not condoning their use, but I wanted to put this argument into the thread.

[pgrmdave]

The use of nuclear weapons is unclear - they have only been used once, and they prevented casualties on both sides. They are very destructive, but are they really any fundamentally worse than conventional weapons? They are both designed to murder, one simply performs it's job more effeciently. At what point is a weapon acceptable or un-?

[Mata]

The main issue with nuclear weapons is the amount of civilian casualties they produce. Unlike a gun which can be aimed specifically at one person, a nuclear weapon's area of damage makes it a very unprecise tool.

[pgrmdave]

Is it still wrong if it saves lives? I can only cite the first example, where we knew that the american's would lose more than 1,000,000 people, and the Japanese would lose many more, and that their economy would be destroyed, harming them for decades to come. As it was, the bombs killed roughly 350,000 immediately, and fewer than that in the long term, far fewer than would have been killed if we had invaded.

How many soldiers does it take to equal one civilian?

[Mata]

The problem now is that nuclear weapons would not be used in a 'tactical' sense, where their use prevented further death. Due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons it is likely that any country being fired on by another will destroy the entirity of that nation.

[Moosh]

As it was, the bombs killed roughly 350,000 immediately, and fewer than that in the long term, far fewer than would have been killed if we had invaded.

Just a side note, the bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki were experimental and badly manufactured. They only performed to 1/8th of their capacity. If all the nuclear fuel in the bombs had reacted as it was supposed to the result would have been much, much worse. So they were meant to kill more than would probably have been killed if the US and Russia had invaded

[CommieBastard]

My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I seem to remember considerable evidence that Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway, and that the use of nuclear weapons wasn't necessary for that purpose. Even if that's not the case, I really can't see how the destruction of Nagasaki could be justified.

[CommieBastard]

Also: I think it's mainly that a nuclear weapon is only justifiable if you accept the doctrine of total war - the idea that, in war, anything is a legitimate target and any method of hurting the "enemy"* is acceptable. Only if this is your mindset does it make sense to create a weapon designed to annihilate as much of everything as possible.

*I put "enemy" in quotes because, in my opinion, ordinary civilians not taking part in the war effort are nobody's enemy, and to deliberately kill them is murder.

[Mata]

My history certainly isn't as good as it could be, so I wouldn't know about Japan's state at the time of the bombings. Dropping one bomb could be seen as a display of overwhelming force that would make any country at that time stop, dropping two does seem to make a mockery of the word 'unnecessary' for its inability to convey the futility of the action.

Sun Tzu taught that it is always better to leave a country intact when you are at war with it, because when the war is over it will be easier to rebuild and to rule if the people have not been hurt by the events.

EDIT: I guess this does lead to a different question though: is the term 'nuclear war' a contradiction in terms? A war is something that can be won by a side, but in a nuclear war there can be no winners, therefore isn't it just national suicide instead?

[trunks_girl26]

To the best of my knowledge, Japan was actually doing rather well before the first bomb was dropped. It was after, and when they knew we had a second one that they were on the edge of collapse that they were pushed to surrender. That's a big part as to why I feel that the second bomb should not have been dropped and was causing needless casualties.

But once again, to cover myself, that's what I learned from an American history class, and we all know that history (especially American) is written by the victors.

Also: I think it's mainly that a nuclear weapon is only justifiable if you accept the doctrine of total war - the idea that, in war, anything is a legitimate target and any method of hurting the "enemy"* is acceptable. Only if this is your mindset does it make sense to create a weapon designed to annihilate as much of everything as possible.

*I put "enemy" in quotes because, in my opinion, ordinary civilians not taking part in the war effort are nobody's enemy, and to deliberately kill them is murder.

On a side note, Commie, what's your opinion of the draft then?

[sjbbandgeek]

I believe that the emperor of Japan at the time wanted to surrender to prevent the deaths of his people, but his military advisors strongly disagreed. So they locked him up in his own palace.
I'm pretty sure this happened after the bombings.

[trunks_girl26]

Possibly after the first one, but by the second one they were so devistated that even the millitary advisers concured defeat.

[pgrmdave]

The top military advisors never wanted to admit defeat - the emporer had to do it behind their back. The problem was that the Japanese did not believe that they could lose to the Americans. At least, the leaders didn't think they could. The Americans were winning the war, but with VERY heavy casualties. However, we knew that we would win - we had too many more people for Japan to win. I believe, as did Truman, that the Japanese would have fought to the death of their nation, and their culture, and would have taken more than 1,000,000 of our people with them.

Remember - it took TWO nuclear weapons to convince them to surrender. Any nation in their right mind would have surrendered after the first. I do not fully subscribe to the idea of Total War - I think that killing soldiers is murder as well, however - I think that if the war is justified, then it needs to end quickly, with as few deaths as possible - civilian and military. If a civilian has to die to save the lives of two soldiers, then life has been saved.

[Daedalus]

From what I've read, the Japanese were preparing to surrender when the second bomb was dropped. The Americans needn't have nuked Nagasaki, as the Japanese were already realising that they couldn't stand up to such a weapon.

This may be too idealistic, but couldn't the Americans show off their nuke without decimating an entire city? Surely the destruction of a military base or naval fleet would have been sufficient to prove the capabilities of the bomb.

[CovertYawn]

The same could be said for the British bombing of Dresden in Febuary 1945. As well as the use of fuel air bombs in Afganistan. Fuel air bombs basically having the same blast effect as nuclear bombs with out the radioactivity.

Hopefully there will come a time when instead of simply coming up with rules to govern war, the actual ideology of war will be phased out. its a truth that most of us on these boards will not actually experience war on a first hand basis.

The whole idea behind Nuclear and other such 'dumb' bombs is that the amount of damage done by them is outwieghed by the amount of good that they do, this is one of the most basic 'rules of war' first set out by Thomas Aquinas. Though in those days the people who were 'allowed' to declare war were the monarchs of any given country.

[Asenyth]

The Japanese were about to admit defeat before either of the bombs were dropped, but before they were, they still were able to fight. Truman had to make a choice from four decisions. He could a) send in ground troops which would prolong the war and raise the death toll on both sides also give the Japanese a chance of winning, 'carpet bomb' major areas of Japan which would cause many Japanese and some American causulties and would also take some time, c) threaten to use nuclear arms against Japan if they did not surrender, or d) just bomb the s**t out of them. He just bombed the s**t out of them. The Japanese had no warning of the bombs and the second one hit just 3 hours after the first. They didn't even realise what had happened after the first one when the second was dropped. Pretty damn evil if you ask me, and certainly not just.

[CommieBastard]

The Japanese had no warning of the bombs and the second one hit just 3 hours after the first. They didn't even realise what had happened after the first one when the second was dropped. Pretty damn evil if you ask me, and certainly not just.

Not true. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th. Nagasaki was bombed three days later, on August 9th.