Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Are there any circumstances that justify war?

18 Comments

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

It depends upon what you mean by 'war'. Traditionally, two countries go to war over an incident or issue. It's nationalist consensual violence, orchestrated by governments with citizens as gaming pieces. A game played by politicians, the citizens of both sides being the victims of their governments. WWI was the textbook example. I don't think this is ever justified. It is a war crime perpetrated by the governments that take part upon the citizens of all participating nations, who suffer.

WWII was different, far more complicated - some nations were invaders, some declared war in response.

Now Russia has invaded Ukraine. It wasn't a mutual declaration of war - a consensual act - it was more of a rape. So Ukraine is not at war - they are defending their country. That has implications.

'War' should be (but is rarely) fought according to the Geneva Convention, but defending your nation from an invasion does not need to be. If you were protecting yourself from being raped, you would not need to play by any rules. Everything is valid. And once your city or nation is occupied, it actually gets easier to kill the invaders - soldiers and officials - as they are around you. You can start working your way through the occupying force in a guerrilla war: no mercy and no prisoners. No occupier on your soil should survive or go home. When they are asleep, when they are drunk, when they are looking the other way, harvest their kit and dispose of their bodies. Defending your nation is not a war, but an act of justice.

An alternative is an intervention in response to abuse by a government of its citizens. The Holocaust is the obvious one. It doesn't always happen because governments don't really care (the allies kept the Holocaust secret for as long as they could). They have other priorities and will deploy accordingly. So Ukraine gets sympathy, sanctions and a few weapons, the Uyghurs get sanctions, the Rohingya get very little, the Chinese people - who suffered appallingly under Mao during the Cultural Revolution - were ignored. China became a useful bogeyman, just as Russia will now be again. Reds under the bed etc.

Interventions are often justified or moral grounds, but rarely happen. Most governments don't lift a finger to save their own citizens, never mind those of another nation, unless there is something in it for themselves. From the invasion of Ukraine, the West gets a new Iron Curtain to end globalisation and restore their nation state power. Western politicians will be as happy as Putin with the way it turns out - with commerce, industry and ordinary people - especially Ukrainians - picking up the bill.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

A tough question but an interesting one to discuss. I would say that if a state no longer has any other means to ensure its survival and that all other peaceful means of resolving this have been exhausted, then war would be justifiable. Take for example the situation in Ukraine, Zelenskyy or anyone in his position would be a fool or an absolute coward to not wage war when the Russians are barging in on them and killing civilians indiscriminately. But in our complexly-intertwined world, waging war has been (thankfully) made complicated and that other means to deter another state exist, the question would be is if that action would dissuade the aggressor or provoke them more.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It is best to avoid getting into these situations to start, but humans make mistakes.

Yes. War can be justified.

Two examples:

a) If an organization kills over 3000 people in a different country, then has a govt hide the leaders behind the attacks/killings, so that govt should expect war. Afghanistan is an example.

b) If an organization invades other country without cause with their military, breaking things and killing people. That's cause for war. Iraq invaded UAE and Russia invaded Ukraine are examples.

Entering another country, uninvited, because they are having a civil war would not be a good reason for war.

How the war should be fought, is a very different question.

If the victim country "turns the other cheek" after thousands are killed, then they are asking for other attacks from both the same and other organizations. This would be unacceptable. How many of your neighbors being killed is an acceptable number before a war is declared?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I think the question is kind of broad, and it depends a lot on what someone means by both war and justification. There are certainly wars that can be perceived as a necessary evil, without being a just cause in and of themselves. These tend to be conflicts that maybe COULD have been avoided if the right steps were taken, but have since bubbled into something unavoidable. It is hard to say these types of wars are "just" because they never needed to happen to begin with, but circumstances put us into a situation where the alternative is even worse.

Then you have the imperialistic wars of subjugation, either to subjugate a people or an ideology. Most of these have been so one-sided that they could hardly be called wars to begin with; think of something like the invasion of Iraq. These are pretty much always unjust.

Generally speaking, the only war I actively support and consider fully just would be a revolutionary one of the working class, which is an inherently internal war. The only adage of "No war except class warfare". Not an international conflict for sure.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Afghanistan.Reason for US agression were guys hidden in caves who brought down WTC/official version/.

Iraq.Reason for US agression were WMD in hands of Saddam Hussein/official version/.

Libya.Reason of US agression was regime of Ghaddafi/official version/.

Syria.Reason of US agression was war against terrorism/official version/.

As all we know all 4 agresions were based on lies.

My question is:

Were there any circumstances that justified these wars?

By my opinion war is last stance when discussion around table going nowhere.

Very last option to solve ongoing and unsolved problems.

Ukraine situation is great example of that when 8 years of talks,promises and media propaganda went nowhere.

Yes war is bad,very bad and I am against any war-and it deos not matter if it happened in Afganistan,Iraq,Libya,Syria or recently in Ukraine...things have to be solved other way.Lets hope that both sides of recent conflict in Ukraine knows that as majority of population on both sides suffers hard.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Too many circumstances to count. Pray for peace but prepare for war and don't be a naive fool. Even if you didn't ask for it, it will come knocking anyway. See: Ukraine 2022.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Justify to who exactly? Depending on who you are trying to convince, there can be any number of reasons to justify it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes, invasion of your country by a psycho madman.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Yes, invasion of your country by a psycho madman.

Or, anyone.

Starting a war is never morally justifiable. Responding to an invasion of your land is never not morally justifiable.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

The expansion of NATO and positioning of offensive weapons on your border as a direct threat to your counties safety?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

A tough question but an interesting one to discuss. I would say that if a state no longer has any other means to ensure its survival and that all other peaceful means of resolving this have been exhausted, then war would be justifiable. Take for example the situation in Ukraine, Zelenskyy or anyone in his position would be a fool or an absolute coward to not wage war when the Russians are barging in on them and killing civilians indiscriminately. But in our complexly-intertwined world, waging war has been (thankfully) made complicated and that other means to deter another state exist, the question would be is if that action would dissuade the aggressor or provoke them more.

Well, said and I couldn't agree more.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Iraq.Reason for US agression (sic) were WMD in hands of Saddam Hussein/official version/.

Libya.Reason of US agression (sic) was regime of Ghaddafi/official version/.

Syria.Reason of US agression (sic) was war against terrorism/official version/.

The 2nd Iraq war was completely unjustified and never should have been allowed.

The 1st Iraq war was after Iraq invaded a neighboring country and that neighbor ASKED for US help. Completely justified.

Libya? That wasn't a war. It was a UN-military action after uprisings (remember the Arab Spring?) by Libyans demanded Qaddafi step down. 2 other Arab countries had a peaceful power transfer. Libyans wanted the same. It took about 9 months for Qaddafi to leave power. A month later, the Libyan populist fighters found Qaddafi in his home town and killed him.

Syria was/is a civil war, but with genocide by the existing govt. I don't know if any outsiders should have been involved. How many civilians are allowed to be killed by a govt before the larger world does something? I don't know the answer. Do nothing and history will judge. Do something and pacifist will judge. Is going to war to stop someone from killing 10s of thousands of his own people, in the same country, justified? https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/syria How many people need to be forced to leave their homes due to violent attacks before action is required?

If you country never gets involved, then imagine how different this world would be if evil was in control, unchecked. That's a scary world.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

From a supporter of the 1980s Friedensbewegung: Yes, there are legimitate reasons to wage war - if your country is attacked, for instance. There are less reasons to declare war, but at the moment I'm under the influence of friends fleeing from Ukraine.

Anton drove his wife and their two kids to the Polish border just after the war started, then turned back to fight for his country. He was basically just delivering goods from Lviv to Kyijv when he had to avoid some road damage and came across some village. The village was a mess, hardly one structure remaining and a massive crater right in the middle. Dead cows and pigs strewn everywhere. When he got out of the lorry, a chicken limped towards him, both wings dragging, obviously broken.

He collapsed, and all he ever said since then was "Kurka, kurka...".

He was hurried back quickly towards the Polish border together with some other shell-shocked or handicapped mates and is somewhere along the miles-long line of refugees right now.

If there is a reason to wage war, then it is to prevent anything like this.

I hope Anton will get help in Poland.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are there any circumstances that justify war?

Sure. If you are being attacked

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think Putin and Russia have valid concerns on two/three points:

1) The rights of the breakaway regions of Ukraine to self-determine to live under Russia, and extremists groups in those breakaway region that profess circumnavigating democracy or even a genocide of Russians need to be kept at bay for the safety of the locals.

2) The rights of the Russians and CIS (and Asia) to protect their national security by objecting to NATO expansion (and lets face the facts that the US has been on the wrong side of history and morality many times).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure. If you are being attacked

Or if friendly countries are being attacked without provocation.

I think Putin and Russia have valid concerns on two/three points:

None of which justify invasion and war.

Putin has always wanted to get the band back together, since he was working in East Germany when the Berlin Wall was taken down and the USSR wouldn't take his phone calls from Dresden. He has deluded himself into thinking that Ukraine is part of Russia. It isn't, just like Taiwan isn't part of China.

Putin is a professional liar. He's been lying his entire adult life. To himself, to his bosses, to the Russian public and to the world. Russians know what type of a man he is. They like feeling strong. Eventually, the world is going to stop him. Putin thinks Europe and the US are like frogs/crabs that can be put into warm water, slowly heated until boiling. That won't happen. The world politicians will eventually figure out they've allowed Russian aggression outside the Russian borders to go on too far. Remember, this person killed hundreds of children during a hostage event inside his own country rather than negotiate. Brute force is the only way to stop him, I'm sad to say. There won't be any political solutions.

Just watched the crazy meeting where Putin called in 20-30 of his top advisors and had each of them say that invading Ukraine was the only solution. 50% of those people were scared for their own lives. Unable to say what they really wanted, under fear of death. 3 days later, Russia invaded.

Putin has ensured that democratic voting will never work in Russia. Every election since he was hand-picked by the old-school President (who he lied to for years), has been fixed with ballot stuffing, ballots with erasable ink, and election workers filling out thousands of ballots to ensure Putin won. There are videos. These were live-streamed over the internet at the time.

Putin is a danger to the world. He has to be stopped. Typical diplomats just aren't up to this task. There is no negotiation possible. He has to be stopped at any cost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NO

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites