Horrid Irrationality Of War

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

War-- a horrific way of justifying our actions and the innocent lives that have been lost, but on the other hand has resolved some of the greatest conflicts in history. Not every issue ever raised in this world is resolved through negotiation and discussion, rather sometimes war becomes a necessity for countries to settle disputes. War is a part of how a society strengthens itself politically, socially, and economically however, ultimately it becomes a country’s abusive use of power.

War is a monster that ends dissension and in its wake it leaves a trail of needless consequences when put to use.

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

War has been designed to show a ghastly frame that sets out for propaganda, defeats, and victories. Involving multiple aspects, war exhibits a product of both human choice and human actions. “And a person's definition of war often expresses the person's broader political philosophy, such as limiting war to a conflict between nations or state. Alternative definitions of war can include conflict not just between nations but between schools of thought or ideologies.” (Moseley, Alexander.

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.

While some believe that unrestricted warfare is the most efficient and successful way to fight a war, it in fact creates more harm than good. As an example, events that took place during World War II (WWII) may be taken into consideration. WWII was fought with certain restrictions and principles in place. Did this stop all war crimes? No, it did not. However, what it did do was make those few war crimes that were committed, followed up by punishments, which people could eventually learn from. If such a system with rules and punishments were not established, the crime rate would be higher, and there would be no follow-up punishments to teach people that what they did was wrong. From such reasons and many more, it has been made clear that not all actions are permissible and justified during times of war, because there will be countless ‘crimes against humanity’ committed by dishonorable means- and done so without any consequences succeeding.

War is a necessary part of human nature. War has always been a part of countries and nations history. Militarism in countries , people who are nationalist extremist showing their aggression towards other countries. War is a necessary part of humanity because people naturally view others as ‘Us and them’, people being patriotic,nationalist or extremist causing tension between nations of the world.

Although wars cause much devastation in countries even in the world, the Just War Theory may be applied to determine whether or not a war was justly distributed through particular principles and conditions. Led by the United States in Iraq, the Gulf War caused much controversy and tension between nations. Not only did it left a scar on foreign policy but the citizens of Iraq were greatly affected. Through Thomas Aquinas Just War Theory principles and Catholic teachings, the Iraq war can be proven to be an unjust conflict due to a large number of casualties, expensive costs, and unsuccessful turnabout.

Just War Theory divides the morality of war into two parts. A war can be tried twice, first pertaining to why the nation decides to go to war, and secondly with how the nation actions are during the fighting (Walzer 21). The first part of war called jus ad bellem, translated to the justice of war, provides strict guiding principles with whether the war is just or unjust in the intentions of going to war. The second part of war jus in bello correlates to appropriate conduct while in war (Cook 27). Being just in jus ad bellum does not necessarily mean that jus in bello is just.

The assumption that there are a morally significant achievements that can be made in war seems paramount to just war theory. Taking a life without certainty of of the necessity of doing so undermines the value of that life. Because international relations provides such an ambiguous and subjective subject matter to apply just killing theory to, pacifism seems to be the approach most likely to encourage peace.

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

War is ugly, no other way to state it, but it is also a necessity. War is an armed conflict between different nations or states (Merriam-Webster). Many say there is always a way around war. Is there really a way? When we look back at World War II, was there any way to avoid it? Do you think that we could have negotiated with Adolf Hitler? The answer is a resounding no. Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jewish race and any other race that weren 't what he believed to be perfect (annefrank.org). A more modern example of this would be what is happening in the Middle East with Islamist Extremists. Could we have negotiated a deal with them to avoid war? No, there is no negotiating when they believe we are evil and must be

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.