Is war ever justified?

An interesting question I think

With so many lives lost throughout history and in the present day in wars, is it ever justifiable to go to war?

I've listed a few options in the poll... I would be interested to see your answers and hear your opinions.

You can vote up to 3 different options on this poll.

 

It's interesting if you have a hard time deciding whether you want to turn the other cheek of not. Is what you have valuable enough to defend? I say yes.

 

I voted for "Yes, only as self protection and to stop invasion" and "I have a different opinion".

My different opinion is for a second case :
If it's to stop a war crime and in a set of conditions that won't cause more harm than benefit to civil populations.

For instance, if to stop a slaughter that make hundred of thousands of death you cause millions of it, it's a poor choice.

 

@VotreAltesse good call there, though would 'War crimes' not be relevant at the moment ? They are happening all around the world.. Western Armies could intervene ? EDIT: or Eastern powers like Russian and China if it's for the great good?

 

War is never justified, one side at least will never have a justified reason, sometimes both, but no two countries ever just fell into war by accident.

 

Defensive war is not just acceptable, but obligatory, imo. Those that initiate violence must be met with violence, whether its a lone criminal who is jailed for simple assault or an entire nation captured for having tried to invade its neighbor. Alliances are also justified, for if we the peaceful folk of the world will not band together to protect eachother, we will be defeated by the violent aggressors that will.

 

So protecting something or fighting against\for something can never be justifiable?

Not an attack at all, I would just like a reasonable debate

 

No I am saying that at least one side will always be un justified, so any war will be unjustified from at least one side. Was Poland justified to defend itself, I would say yes, Was Germany Justified, I would say no. So whilst Poland was justified, the war itself was not.

You have asked two different questions,

Is war ever justified......NO

Yes.

 

@Ronald Hillman your using an example that coincides with the beginning of a world war.. For sure it's relevant, however.. What is a right and what is wrong? Dependent on your politics you could have been enthralled by Hitler at that time.. Many Germans were..

 

Defensive war is generally the only safe bet. Most other wars are justified by false narratives that we only discover after the point of no return.

 

It's complicate. No leaders has every pretended he started a war just of spite toward another people (or at least rarely). They would always justificate that for a greater good, even nazis leaders somehow convinced their soldiers they were defending Germany/Europe.

On a global manner, I take the stand of never trusting the good intentions of a politician and considering they do what they do for less morale reasons. That's true for economics, but it's especially true for war.
I don't consider think that war crimes would be a good call for war, however you can try to arrest people who commit war crimes if they set the foot on your territory.

If a politician ever called for a war to stop a genocide, I would first consider that he lie and that he want to start a war for ressource reasons. Then if I have enough proves of his good intention, I would change my stance.

 

I favor isolationism but realize that’s not very practical today. Definitely favor defending ourselves and if we need allies to that end then we should reciprocate and help them when needed.

 

"Ever"? As in "Can there ever be there a situation where"?

Absolutely, yes.

 

If the US government decided to not go to war and accept the deaths of 100k Americans because to prevent those 100K from dying, it had to kill 1,000k people on the other side, the people of the US should revolt and replace every person in said government - violently, if necessary.

 

Yes if there is recognized casus beli. And we better be prepared for when we must go to war again.

 

What if it is to prevent a socio and economic enemy of yours from forcing their sphere of influence such that they can dominate the remainder of the world forcing you to bend to their knees? We saw it with Russia, Japan, have seen it with China and host of other countries and regimes throughout world history. And is it only about a matter of how many die, if we can save our population by living under a Nazi or a Soviet or a Mao government and society by stopping at 100,000 in stead of a 1,000,000 deaths would it be worth it?

 

That go in self protection, and from my point of view it's justified then to go to war.

My last point is only valid when it go for "stopping war crimes, crimes against mankinds" : let's imagine there is a dictator that do thousand of death, then you invade his country, cause chaos and a civil war because the dictator was the only thing remaining the country slight united, then intervening against such dictator was a very bad idea.

For Russia, the soviets ended to self defeat themselves.
The problem is that this casus belli is based on too many "what if". Because that kind of war would cause so much ressentment in the country you punished for their socio-economic development that in the end it would just cause back a second Versailles Treaty that eventually led to Nazi germany.
I would see it as a solution worse than the evil.

 

The problem here though is who determines "war crimes" ? As weve seen, one mans war criminal is another mans hero (bush and blair)

 

Yes Russia failed but not because of trying and in part because they knew we would be willing to go to war. But even then they were expanding their sphere of influence and had it been left unchecked would have accomplished their original goal of world dominance including over the US and the rest of the free world. China is trying it now. Do you think we could pull back all our military forces and assign the US Navy to only within our international waters or even to a 250 mile patrol zone off our shores and China would play nice and stop their aggressive military actions and plans to expand their sphere of influence?

 

No, China would continue to want to expand their sphere of influence. I doubt that China could reach world dominance from a military point of view. Even from an economic point of view, it would remain complicate.
I don't think we should exclude that China would start a war against Taiwan.

 

China has a similar problem as Russia, it's a landlocked power overly susceptible to naval blockade.

China hasn't developed their consumer markets, their economy relies on being able to export their products and if they lost this ability it would cripple them.

China is not energy independent and it doesn't produce enough food to be calorie independent. If it cannot import food and energy via it's only coast, it's crippled.

The first Island chain dots the entire coast of China. Naval Powers filling the gaps between those islands have the ability to slam a cork right into the bottle neck that is China.

​

If China thinks it can knock over a Free Neighbor in a war of conquest, they might want to do a little more thinking. The world has repeatedly learned the same lesson with an aggressive power seeking to move international boundary lines, and that lesson is that it only gets progressively harder to stop them, and the least expensive time to stop them is on their first attempted expansion.

Taiwan is a critical anchor in the strategy to ensure that China does not become an aggressive expansionist power. Nothing gets easier, and lots of things get much harder if we sacrifice the Free People of Taiwan. There is no good reason to do so, and lots of solid reasons not to do so.

China can have a great future just being a good neighbor, a good producer and developing their massive domestic markets. And they need to learn to be a more responsible global citizen. The pandemi they loosed on the world, and their good customers was very bad form.

Cotton: Give China ‘crystal clear’ warning not to invade Taiwan

Make it very plain and simple for the Lying Outlaw Slavers Of Beijing.
​

https://www.airforcetimes.com/congr...a-crystal-clear-warning-not-to-invade-taiwan/

~ Sen. Tom Cotton, a senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

said Cotton
The US is closing in on 510,000 dead from the Wuhan Virus.
With 9,293,360 currently infected and a closed case death rate of 2.5%, even if no one else were to become infected, another 235,000 Americans would die just resolving the currently ill.

Now is not the time for China to be searching for someone to give them an ass-kicking.

China mistreats the world and all their neighbors and they don't seem to understand the power of an alliance system. We in the West do. It's how we stopped Germany twice, the USSR and the Empire of Japan.

Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, Singapore are all countries that the US has strong relationships with. Hell, even the French just sent a Nuclear Sub through the South China Sea to make sure China continues to understand that this is International Water.

That's a lot of naval and military forces that can form up in a hurry. There is no gain to sacrificing Taiwan. The line will need be drawn at some point, might as well draw it in the Strait and make sure the brave Freedom Loving People of Taiwan have everything they need to really put the hurt on any wannabe invading bastards.

 

Jill Biden voted for yes to all the above on Joe's behalf.

 

Hitler would have killed every Jew. Every Gypsie. If he could of I’m sure he would have tried to kill every Black.

Should have go to war to stop such wholesale killing of entire peoples? Kind of a sample question if you ask me.

 

The question is should we engage in such action or only engage in war if they attack our shores.

 

That will be up to Congress. For today, the highest range for the worst projection set six days ago was 495,007. As of right now we have already exceeded the worst of the worst projection by 3%, at 510,000 dead. 665,000 dead Americans by June 1 is absolutely in the cards. I see nothing wrong with giving the fierce fighters of Taiwan everything they could use to defend their Island from the Lying Outlaw Slavers of Beijing.

There is nothing simple about taking Taiwan. If it were simple, China would have done it seventy years ago. Taiwan has no harbors that make a large invasion easy. Their defense doctrine rests on 3 pillars: "force protection, decisive battle in the littoral zone and destruction of the enemy at the landing beach." Their harbors are extensively mined, the rocky cliffs laced with tunnels. Their goal is survive the opening bombardment, with "mobility, camouflage, concealment, deception, dispersion, rapid repair and blast mitigation."

There are only two months of each year when the stormy strait would allow for the floating hordes to attack, I believe it is Oct and April. So, each year, when those months come around, they know it will either occur then, or they are good for another six months. The lying outlaws slavers of Beijing would have to breach, gain control, and establish the infrastructure they need for resupply during that month.

The littoral zone is Taiwan's Kill Box. It is there that they plan to destroy the invaders. "This is where warships and fighter jets can attack the enemy with support from Coastal Defense Cruise Missles, UAVs and anti-aircraft defense coverage. Taiwan’s military can conduct joint fire strikes against the PLA from air, sea and shore assets, with the full coverage of multi-layer air defense systems." The Chinese Military says that their readiness is badly compromised by millions of young men who masterbate excessively and who are so committed to video games that they have not developed physical strength and stamina. It is in the littoral that the brave fighting Taiwanese will destroy and drown them as they fight the stormy seas while "transporting thousands of troops and heavy machinery. The PLA will be most vulnerable when nearing landing beaches. A layered defense of sea mines and pre-deployed obstacles along with swarming fast-attack craft and missile assault boats will hinder the enemy’s advance. As the enemy approaches landing beaches, land-based precision-guided munitions and ground forces will provide additional firepower. Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) and mobile anti-armor weapons, such as high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS)", will "strengthen guerrilla warfighting capabilities. Stealth fast-attack crafts and miniature missile assault boats dispersed among fishing boats across the island’s over 200 fishing ports. Sea mines and fast minelaying ships" will "complicate enemy landing operations."

https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/taiwans-overall-defense-concept-explained/

Taiwan will respond effectively when its defenses are under attack. Repelling the invaders and drowning them in the strait will be a tremendous loss of face for the Lying Outlaw Slavers of Beijing, the regime will likely fall, perhaps replaced by a government that doesn't illegally harvest organs from "disfavored" groups.

Certainly we are well served by making sure Free Taiwan can defend her shores from such lawless animals.