There is a lot of tension in the air right now when it comes to the possibility of a world wide war breaking out in the coming years. Many wars have been fought, an unethical amount of destruction has taken place across the world as a result, and some people still think military force should be option one in hostile situations. However others believe diplomacy alone is enough to handle all matters of conflict. The use of military force should be justified based on the circumstances of the situation due the to high price of operating military equipment, the efficient, but deadly, takedown precision, and because of the possibility of civilian casualties. The government often employs private military contractors (PMCs) to supposedly cut down …show more content…
There are many reasons to believe that without the use of our militaries peace can be achieved through words. Without the use of weapons or harmful chemicals, there would be a large amount of unharmed people in the world, but instead many innocent people have fallen to acts of military violence. Getting clearance to perform military actions against other nations is a lengthy process that has to go through Congress to be considered. The President does have the power to bypass that, but it is rare that they would do such a thing. Dropping a bomb and calling it a day is a very effective way of making your point clear to whomever is receiving it. The swift end to a solution that to many has no backlash. However to the person or group of people making the decision there are many consequences to face as an aftermath. Without proper attempts to achieve peace before acting violently, dropping a bomb could be catastrophic to the nation and other surrounding nations. An ally of the country that is under attack may retaliate for it’s damaged friend causing the attacker to now go on the defensive and hope that it’s people are not injured in the process. Everyone needs to stop and think before they act or they may find themselves acting rashly because of their emotions, diplomacy first, bombs
This is not to assert that the use of the aforementioned are unquestionably productive since they tend to produce undesirable collateral damage (and create political repercussions) but that they are cost-effective when compared to having men on the ground.... ... middle of paper ... ... The problem is that the allegation is a generalization and the varying policies must be studied separately on their own merits as to whether they are related or not.
Reinstating the Draft To each and every person, war means something different. For some, it is against the things they believe in, but for others it is everything that they believe in. In America, the men and women have the privilege to determine whether or not they are a part of serving this country by going into: the marines, navy, national guard, air force, etc. Previous to this choice being available, they had what was called the military draft. The military draft is where men from the ages 18 to 25 years old legally have to register with Selective Services where you could potentially be chosen to go to war.
Pre-emptive force is commonly recognised as a preventative use of force. Michael Walzer identifies that pre-emptive force is when both states defend themselves against violence that is imminent but not actual; the state can fire shots if it knows it is about to be attacked (2006: 74). “ …there must be shown a necessity of self defence… instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” (Berkley, 1968). This would allow a state to respond to an attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it felt its impact. Pre-emption is then like a reflex “a throwing up of ones arms at the very last minute” (Walzer, 2006: 75). Putting aside the definitions of pre-emptive war, the question of whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradictory matter for many states. The issues of abiding by international law, understanding the meaning of ‘imminent threat’ and morality all come into question. The biggest of problems is that states misjudge threat. The confusion and blurred definition of the term imminent threat leads to states acting out of uncertainty and aggression rather than justified move, which can constitute as pre-emptive war. Referring to realist and liberal theorists in conjunction with previous examples where states have pursued ‘pre-emptive’ force to legitimize their actions, a conclusion as to whether pre-emptive war can be justified can be reached. Pre-emptive war can be justified supporting a states internal responsibility to protect. Yet, due to states having previously exploited this use of force, justification can appear to be exceedingly controversial and unpopular. As Michael Waltz mentioned, pre-emptive war is either about ‘strategic or morals… one or the othe...
...ented by decision-makers in crises. First, every group meeting should have a designated devil's advocate, who will point out potential risks. Second, special care should be taken so that no one agency or coalition of experts can monopolize the flow of incoming information. Janet Reno, by allowing the FBI to monopolize the information coming to her, made it almost inevitable that she would eventually do what the FBI wanted. Finally, the virtues which make the military such an effective international killing force--such as uniformity, obedience, and group cohesion--make it especially susceptible to groupthink. For this reason, the military should have no participation in law enforcement; quasi-military units such as the FBI's HRT and the BATF SRT should be thoroughly demilitarized, and should play, at most, a very subordinate role in law-enforcement decision-making.
The human race is no stranger to the use of military force. For numerous centuries, our ancestors engaged in warfare, resulting in the destruction of infrastructure, spilled blood, and shedding of tears. Yet, despite the great inconveniences of the use of military force, I personal believe that history has shown that military force was necessary and justified in regards to promote the welfare of others. Historical wars that will solidify my claims are the Revolutionary War, World War 2, and the war on terrorism.
there may be some reason for fighting in a war when all diplomacy has been tried and still failed to achieve anything: “When all efforts to restore peace prove useless and no words avail, lawful is the flash of steel, it is right to draw the sword.” Also, Document #4 (which contains
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
The Americans heard that the British would try to gain the hills around Boston. After receiving the information, the Americans quickly and secretly move their troops over to Bunker and Breeds Hills. They built fortresses and got ready for the British to arrive. The Americans had a higher ground, giving them a big advantage, all the Americans had to do was just aim downwards and fire. The British were charging up the hills and attempted to take over the high ground. The Americans ran out of ammunitions and had to throw rocks, this resulted to the British taking over the higher ground but at the cost of hundreds of their soldiers life.
“Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast over nature”. From the beginning of time man and nature has been in conflict with one another because, as a whole, there is no cooperating. Each one tirelessly wants its way. The Man is fighting for dominance and nature w never yielding its authority. In American Literature, many authors illustrate this theme in their writing. Specifically the writers Jack London in The Law Of Life, Stephen Crane The Open Boat and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Fin. Each explores the relationship between humans and nature but with slightly different methods. Mark Twain uses nature in a realistic way, Jack London in a naturalistic way and Stephen Crane constitutes a combination of both.
The United States is an extremely affluent country, however, the U.S. government does not allocate its funds correctly. The government spends entirely too much of the budget on military spending. A segment of the military budget should go towards education. Education is completely undervalued in America and is often pushed to the side in political debates. Conversely, several of the top-ranked countries in education are also flourishing economically. Even though the U.S. is struggling to compete in education, the government has all but given up at this point. There are no signs of increased education spending or a decrease in military spending. How is this country supposed to continue to grow and move forward if the citizens
Have you ever felt stuck? Wherever you are, it’s the absolute last place you want to be. In the book Into the Wild, Chris McCandless feels stuck just like the average everyday person may feel. Chris finds his escape plan to the situation and feels he will free himself by going off to the wild. I agree with the author that Chris McCandless wasn’t a crazy person, a sociopath, or an outcast because he got along with many people very well, but he did seem somewhat incompetent, even though he survived for quite some time.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
The U.S. military is a strong force and body that protects and serves the American people. Many people support the military and some even disagree with it. What people forget is that without a military the U.S. would be totally over run by foreign countries claiming ground. The military also helps with the nation’s economy boosting the balance of money in the works. Families have trouble with members who serve since there is always chance that they never return but it is because of their service that we are still a free country. Even though the military causes pain to families when a loved one is lost, the U.S. needs a military because with a military the economy increases and that without a military we would be invaded by a dictator or foreign
Ultimately, the bomb offers many benefits with not a lot of downside. The bomb would end the war and save many of our troop’s lives sparing them from the brutal and merciless Japanese soldiers. Dropping the bomb would also bring us The Japanese have been warned of the impending “prompt and utter destruction” and have chosen to ignore it. Dropping the bomb is the
"The soldier is the Army. No army is better than its soldiers. The Soldier is also a citizen. In fact, the highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one’s country” (-General George S. Patton Jr). Here within our borders we are the lucky ones, we have been blessed with the pleasure of so many brave men and women; to volunteer in the world's greatest military; and put their lives on the line for something that they believe is a moral obligation. But, think of some other countries, that have conscription (the practice of ordering people by law to serve in the armed forces) laws. We as a nation have some laws on conscription, and if you are male and above the age of 18 you have already signed the slip of paper stating that in the time of war; if our great nation re-instated the draft then there is a great chance you will be serving on the frontline of the next Great War. This brings me to my first topic of this page, is it ethical to have a draft? My second topic that I will discuss will be on if it is morally acceptable to "draft dodge". What I mean on the second topic is if you have a right; that morally allows you to not go fight in the war.