DOES AIDING A COUNTRY BY SUPPLYING IT WITH WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST THE COUNTRY THE WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ARE USED AGAINST?
2006-07-22 08:40:18 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That's a good question and complicated.
I think ppl have to think rationally about this. For example, in 1979 Iran took 100+ American hostages and we did not go to war. They were eventually successfully returned.
For me, war should be declared when there has been a direct attack on your country... meaning really they have already declared war. You are just responding.
As far as your question about supplying... if a country supplies weapons to the country you are at war with then they are also your enemy and a target. If they don't want in it then they need to stay out of it.
2006-07-22 08:46:30 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There is no real definition to an "act of war." The term generally refers to any act by an enemy nation that is used to justify a declaration of war. Therefore, supplying weapons to a country that is at war with a third country could be an act of war if the third country declares war on the weapon supplying country and justifies it by saying that are trying to cut off a supply of the enemies weapons. In modern warfare, wars are generally not formally declared which makes it much harder to identify what constitutes an act of war.
2006-07-22 16:11:53 · answer #2 · answered by hedgeman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, supplying a country with arms which it uses to attack another country is not considered an act of war. Supplying a country at war with arms, though (especially when not supplying arms to its opponent) will naturally degrade realtions with the other nation (and may be prohibited by international agreements).
So, for example, if Argentina and Chile are at war, and the United States sells (or, for that matter, gives) weapons to Chile, the United States is still technically neutral, but Argentina and her allies will probably not be very cordial with the U.S.
2006-07-22 15:49:24 · answer #3 · answered by Patrick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
War is an act of aggression. When a country threathens another by an act of aggression then they have committed an act of war. Guns and munitions are merely tools of war.
2006-07-22 15:49:54 · answer #4 · answered by longroad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, yes. But if that country is big, it is usually too strenuous to attack both countries at once. One is bad enough. If you mean the French, I agree with you and Lenin. They ARE "political prostitutes."
2006-07-22 15:44:30 · answer #5 · answered by David U 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think by starting a war without a valid reason is more like it
2006-07-22 15:43:36 · answer #6 · answered by Stan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude, turn off your caps lock your yelling at us!
2006-07-22 16:05:59 · answer #7 · answered by chynna30_2000 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
endless occupation
2006-07-22 15:46:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, that is free trade.
2006-07-22 15:43:34 · answer #9 · answered by ijcoffin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋