Are there any circumstances that justify war?

I sincerely hope nobody has forgotten who the Nazis were?

World War 2 was inevitable and the Allied response was absolutely right. If Churchill hadn't stood up to the Nazis, civilization would have sunk into a prolonged abyss. Same in Asia. Japan's imperial adventure resulted in the deaths of 10 million innocent people in a few short years, a number that would have ballooned had they been allowed to continue.

What happened on 8 December 1941 did not have to happen if Hirohito had listened to his mother, the Empress Dowager, instead of the military fanatics.

Not the history but conflict between India and China over the land dispute (also Nepal) will led to World War III

If attacked or invaded. But even then diplomatic solutions are preferable.

War is not a response to consider as the weapons in existence would lead to the end of our civilization.

War is not a response to consider as the weapons in existence would lead to the end of our civilization.

I used to believe that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki no leader would ever use a similar weapon, only have them in storage to use to threaten their state's 'enemies'.

But given the reality that nuclear nations have spent trillions (US$) to expand their nuclear arsenals and make their weapons ever more lethal I have come to think those nations given the right circumstances could be wack enough to risk global destruction to maintain their power.

That's made even worse when the globe's most powerful empires are run by psychopathic megalomaniacs. like Trump, Putin and Xi. And states like India, Pakistan and Israel could also put the world at risk if their religious fanatics go further wack. Who knows what the UK under Johnson and his far right backers might do. And then there's North Korea and the Gulf states; who knows where they are with regard to nuclear weapon development.

I suggest people read Gen. Butler's "War Is A Racket".

Once talks fail, the shooting begins. If the shooting fails to stop, the talking begins. No person in their right mind (well, save for a few sociopaths and money-hungry businesses) would go to war for the sake of going to war.

Humanitarian intervention

jeancolmarJune 22  07:29 am JST

What happened on 8 December 1941 did not have to happen if Hirohito had listened to his mother, the Empress Dowager, instead of the military fanatics.

Jean, that would be one POV, but only if someone counts the American involvement in WWII as the 'start' of the conflict. Japan's 'adventurism' in mainland Asia had been going on for decades at least, and while often 'negotiatied' with words, were often enforced with the point of a sword.

This site is highly allergic to truth and results like this might be expected from Fox News viewers but not from educated people...

Nations go to war to gain resources they are unable to or unwilling to negotiate for. This means that all nations have to be willing to go to war in order to deter other nations from using war a method of gaining resources. Is this necessary, yes as sometimes you need the threat of war ensure commerce is done fairly if at all.

That's made even worse when the globe's most powerful empires are run by psychopathic megalomaniacs. like Trump,

What a bunch of garbage! Trump is the last person that wants to start either a war or even intervene in one, you of all people should be elated about that, that's one reason why he got rid of Bolton. Now had Bolton been President you bet your bottom that we would be probably fighting multiple wars and let's not forget that the Pentagon isn't exactly happy that Trump wants a troop withdrawal, but the military Washington swamp wants him to remain committed to these wars and liberals should be happy that Trump wants out.

Putin and Xi. And states like India, Pakistan and Israel could also put the world at risk if their religious fanatics go further wack.

Again with the exception of China, I doubt the other Nations want anything to do with war despite their often toxic rhetoric.

Who knows what the UK under Johnson and his far right backers might do.

Nothing, relax.

And then there's North Korea and the Gulf states; who knows where they are with regard to nuclear weapon development.

That depends on Kim, if he wants to hold on to that impoverished country he'd better not make a stupid move and try to attack the US or our National interests, if he does, he would end up like Saddam or Gaddafi

There are no circumstances that justify starting a war.

There is only justification for defending your country when it is attacked.

There are no circumstances that justify starting a war.

I disagree, I think there are many circumstances that justify it. Not all, but a lot.

There is only justification for defending your country when it is attacked.

That as well.

I disagree, I think there are many circumstances that justify it. Not all, but a lot.

Nope. None. War is always a failure by ineffective communicators. There has never been a war that wasn't.

Japan's 'adventurism' in mainland Asia had been going on for decades at least

True, but many other countries had been doing much the same, and for more than a few decades.

Yes.

If an evil and racist country tries to take over the world and enslave it. Case in point, Hitler and the Nazis during WWII.

Yes.

If an evil and racist country tries to take over the world and enslave it. Case in point, Hitler and the Nazis during WWII.

Exactly! It doesn't mean you like war, but there will always be war and sometimes it is necessary to wage one and some that I supported in the past historically and felt was necessary and will support it if it's crucial.

Unfortunately, there will probably be another war. I suspect that it'll be in East Asia and caused by either China or North Korea. Likely by China since NK can just sit there indefinitely while China is itching to take over Taiwan and basically bully everyone else...

There are no circumstances that justify starting a war.

Of course there are justifications for starting a war. If I want to take your land and resources, it seems that a war could be a perfectly justifiable way of achieving this, and it has been for nearly all of human history.

What you're really saying is that there are no justifications for war which conform to your own subjective preferences (or morality). Unless you explain what your underlying standards and preferences are and why we should also adopt them, your argument isn't going to be very convincing. Alternatively you can try to explain why killing and stealing is objectively wrong, something philosophers have been struggling with since the dawn of rational thought.

Only holy wars are justified.

Against murderous fanatism, war is the only option.

Future wars will come from China and the US, almost certainly. Almost as certainly, the US war will be started by the left side of the political spectrum. Then there is Turkey and countless other local conflicts.

War most certainly is not "always a failure by ineffective communicators." Some sides (Hitler, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Joseph Kony, etc., etc.) have no interest in communicating. Only in conquering.

Wars are justified when for defence, whether one's own group or that of an innocent other. Mark every single word there, especially "group" and "innocent".

The trouble is that there are evil people who will play games to make a war they start to appear as defence and lots of stupid people who will believe them.

And it all starts with semantics. For example, the U.S. has a "Department of Defence" even though its clearly a War Department to anyone with eyes that actually see and a brain that actually works.

There are always EXCUSES to justify war, while the real reasons remain unknown to most...

Yeah, whenever a nation has resources you want and has a weak defense.

Of course there are justifications for starting a war. If I want to take your land and resources, it seems that a war could be a perfectly justifiable way of achieving this, and it has been for nearly all of human history.

I take your point. But is there not a difference between "war" and "taking by force"? Wars generally involve the fighting being done by people who don't really stand to benefit. Subjects, vassals, conscripts, etc. Defending your home is one thing; defending a richer guy's home seems quite different.

What you're really saying is that there are no justifications for war which conform to your own subjective preferences (or morality).

Yep, exactly. As I said, there are no justifications for starting a war.

What happened on 8 December 1941 did not have to happen if Hirohito had listened to his mother, the Empress Dowager, instead of the military fanatics.

”...listened to his mother ...”

Interesting. Do you have a source?

At this 11th hour of history when the world is threatened by global warming, the extinction of bio-diversity and pollution of the planet humanity must take steps to abolish war once and for all. The only way to end wars is for the "world community" to act in unison and ensure that ALL parties and individuals in government responsible for aggression against other nations forfeit their lives and possessions. Most such national "leaders" are cowards and would never dare to defy the world's "Damocles Sword" that would cut down warmongers without mercy.