When exactly is military force warranted? The answer lies, of course, in the eyes of the viewer. But when you consider the nature of today’s world, you will eventually realize that, yes, military force is often justified. The important question, however, is when is it justified. Before answering this question and arguing about whether military force is justified exactly, it is important to consider what includes "military force". It is when a country’s military, has no other choice but to use any type of deadly force. So, when is military force justified? For one, when there is an imminent threat to its borders. If a country is about to be invaded, it has the right to use military force. When the citizens of a country are about to be killed, the country as a whole should be able to resort to military force. It's about defending your way of life, not going to bed and dying without a fight. Fighting for borders, freedom, security, and happiness is certainly one of the reasons for using violence and armaments as a means of peace, even if it sounds like a contradiction. During the Second World War, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor for “American interference …show more content…
For example, in 2008, Russia attacked the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. The reason being that the conflict centered on “South Ossetia and Abkhazia, two ‘breakaway provinces’ in Georgia”(2008 Georgia Russia Conflict Fast Facts), who were supported by Russia. Military power was not justified by Russia, but Georgian military forces certainly had the right to defend its country and keep it from separating. This is a classic case of how military force should enter into force when it is justified. A large, powerful country is intimidating a small country that could not defend itself. Therefore, the Georgian president had the right to turn to military
Use of force or less than lethal force includes physical or mechanical force and is authorized when the officer reasonably believes that it is necessary to protect the officer or another from unlawful force, overcome conflict against th...
Terrorist attacks are a major crisis for a state, the attacks can’t only damage the state physically but they can also have an impact on the state’s economy. Nevertheless, state leaders must act accordingly and do their best to defend and protect their state. After experiencing the attack on the American embassies the President of the United States proposed a plan to have military intervention in both Iraq and Syria. The plan requires both Congressional and public approval along with the requirements brought by Just War Theory. As Crawford noted on “Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War,” no matter how bad war might be, it is necessary for there to be rules that can help prevent more harm. Thankfully, the proposed plan to go to war against ISIS can be justified on these moral grounds.
The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.
Last Resort: A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. From a diplomatic standpoint there are many other options in which conflict can be resolved. Often treaties are used to avoid war, however, the intention of resolutions should be to preserve moral justice rather than to avoid costly combat. The use of force should only be a last resort as a response to aggressive action.
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...
By definition, a successful military invasion gives the occupier superiority on the ground and in the air, in the ability to use physical force and violence. Despite that, when a military invader loses control of what the people read and believe, of when and if they work, of how they spend their money — when the occupiers are constantly on the defensive, as they try to maintain their position — their ability to command events is detached from their ability to use violence.
The means to the application of military force must be in line with achieving national objectives.
The just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
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.
For everyone has a baseline, trespassing the final line can easily infuriate the country who has endured for long. Albeit aggressive wars are unbearable as “wholesale robberies and murders”, Christian stance toward defensive war is obvious. “Peace Society” is a daydream since we live in a real world, but “war should only be defensive”. “As soon as the invader is disarmed, his life should be spared,” for the invading sovereign is diabolic rather than the “private soldiers”. Confucian Analects explicate the condition prior to wars is education. What’s more, Hebrew Bible “teaches” the “valour of the defensive soldiers is one of the noble fruits of religious faith” since that’s the principle of “God”. Moreover, the guidelines in Islams also give us instruction of war that is conditional. “Fights is the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for “killing a person” in the first place resemble the situation “killing the whole people” and “God does not love transgressors”. Defensive war was the only last resort, but countries cannot be belligerently and vehemently wave national flags from their vehicles. The Hinduism admits the valor to attack, stating that “May your weapons be firm to attack, strong also to withstand.” However, this belligerence is inordinate because attack may inflict hatred and vengeance. Similarly, the principle of ISIS, which can be found via the
When two nations go to war, they are often taking the easy way out of an argument or disagreement. Instead of advocating a fair solution, countries fight for what they believe is theirs. Countries are even willing to kill off their own species, who oppose their beliefs and opinions.
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...
Military power is not the only form of power. Economic and social power matter a lot. Exercising economic power is more valuable than exercising military power.
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by man. There are many reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party, war is the last remaining option. Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in fourteenth-century Spain, that “War is a universal and inevitable aspect of life, ordained by God to the same extent as the sky and the earth, the heat and the cold. The question of whether to fright is not a significant moral question because fighting is constant; the minor decision not to fight this war will be made only in the context of knowing that another war will present itself soon enough because it is simply always there.” (Peter S. Themes. The Just War)
War is a mean to achieve a political goal.it is merely the continuation of policy in a violent form. “War is not merely an act of policy, but a true political instrument....” Moreover, the intensity of war will vary with the nature of political motives. This relationship makes war a rational act rather than a primitive and instinctive action, where war uses coercion to achieve political goals instead of use it only for destruction, and it cannot be separated from each other even after the war has started, when each side is allowed to execute its requisite responsibilities while remaining flexible enough to adapt to emerging