Ethically speaking, is there a justifiable reason for going to war?

Question

Is there ever a justifiable reason for going to war against another country? If so, who decides what is just?

Answer 1

Yes. I do believe a pre-emptive stike can be justified. I do not know whether or not ours in Iraq was; I am speaking theoretically here.

But I would not blame Israel if they struck at Iran, for example. Iran is clearly seeking nuclear weapons and makes no secret of the fact they wish to wipe Israel off the map.

The 1967 war was also justified. Although Israel struck first, her enemies were poised and ready to strike. With such relentlessly hateful enemies surrounding and vastly outnumbering her, she really has no choice.

Okay, both my examples involve Israel. That does not mean I support everything they do; it just means that their situation (surrounded and outnumbered by enemies overtly committed to their destruction) is such that they provide an easy example.

A second example is when they start the war, like Japan in WWII. That might not be what you mean, though, since that is clearly defensive.

Who decides what is just? You have three choices: 1. The winner; 2. God; 3. Historians, but they often lose important details (e.g., often when discussing our bombing of Japan, the cost analysis is left out, while the casualties are emphasized--that is not fair!)

Answer 2

You ever read the Old Testament of the bible? Or the history of The Crusades or the Revolusonary War,the War of 1812, the Civil War the Spanish American war, WW`1 WW2 ,Korea and Veitnam? There are always wars going on. For what,to take something someone else has to to keep someone from taking what does not belong to them. Religion has played the part of most wars. It is in "Man's "nature to fight for right or profit

Answer 3

Under International Law, a country can declare war against another country for security purposes such as irresponsible testing of nuclear weapons and clear danger to the existence of another country.

Answer 4

i do no longer condone conflict, yet a merciless certainty of existence is that the international isn't ideal. The human race, as its generally taking place purpose, will constantly try to progression to a minimum of something extra effective. now and back the advancements interior the international are for a good purpose of gaining knowledge of and help, now and back they seem to be a much extra effectual way by making use of which we are able to exterminate ourselves. this may appear chilly and calloused, yet statistically conversing, if there grew to become into no conflict, sickness, or in any different case we'd quickly substitute into so overpopulated (because of the fact of efforts for extra effective, extra non violent residing you will discover this taking place now) that foodstuff might substitute into impossibly scarce. As i discussed, we as human beings are constantly striving for something extra effective, and it would finally come to argument over who has and who has no longer. this might reason conflict, a seed for violence and conflict. So, in a perfect difficulty the place anybody grew to become into delighted, a utopian international in case you will, the belief is achieveable. yet no longer right here, and not now.

Answer 5

Self-defense. Defense of allies after they are attacked.

Who decides? Anyone who wants to. It's a subjective moral (not ethical) decision. So, anyone can have an opinion about it.

But in the end, the winning (or surviving) side writes the history books.

Answer 6

Lets see, there is a group of people who's stated agenda is the destruction of another group of people and those people don't feel like being destroyed. What do you think?

Answer 7

Self Defense only.
I can see no other Ethical reason

Answer 8

Yes, the President and his advisors including the Joint Chiefs of Staff....(hopefully)

Answer 9

Ethnically, NEVER!

Answer 10

Other than self defense not really.