Military Force During The Soviet Union

Niccolo Machiavelli termed the phrase “Does the End Justify the Means” in a 16th century political writings titled The Prince. According to The American Heritage Idioms Dictionary, the term is defined as, “A good outcome excuses any wrongs committed to attain it” (Ammer, 2017). The reasons for war vary from protecting and preserving our freedom, to economic reasons. Should the adage be followed unconditionally in terms of all wars? In the case of the U.S. military, the answer is yes. If our military didn’t feel this way, the U.S. would not be the powerhouse it is today in protecting our freedoms, assisting in economic stability and keeping our nation safe.

“Weapons are tools of fear. A decent man will avoid them.” Lao-tzu is against military action. The only way he is in favor of military action is in the “direst necessity.” And only in the most

A war that is justified is still a war, and no one wants to be in that kind of hell. The idea that the only way to win is to be the best at killing people so you can stop killing people and go home, is a way to survive. However, the rules keep changing and you are still there,

George W. Bush in response to the terrorist spoke declaring, “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people- the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” If a nation attacks a nation not in war that country, who was attacked, can rightly justify military

Just cause is the justification of waging war. The simplest way to achieve this is for the nations to defend itself from being physically and aggressively attacked by another nation. The United States and its allies were able to accomplish this. By 1939 Europe was in turmoil and Great Britain and France were watching on in horror as Hitler’s Nazi Germany had steam rolled through Czechoslovakia and Poland; and later in 1940 sweeping through France. The United States faced physical aggression by Japan, and only then was there a call to war. Prior to the events in early December, the U.S. wanted to remain distanced from the war in terms of man power; but not material. The Allies of a matter of self-defense and coming to the defense of others, as well

The use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has been long debated hotly. The main argument against the use of such weapons is the enormous loss of life, particularly civilian, that occurs when they are deployed. I believe that the use of WMDs is justified in some instances, particularly in the past.

Whether Japan attacked the US for imperialistic purposes, for racial tensions or for resources to benefit the war, they were not defending themselves from attack and were not attempting to right previous wrongs, making their aggression unjust. They also failed to see that nothing of the greater good would come from these attacks and did not even declare war, solidifying the classification of being unjust actions. The United States were forced to defend themselves from the attack, and declared war as Japan had lost the right to not be attack in return, giving the United States full justification. Now that it has been established that the United States were participating in the war justly, the way Japan and the United States conducted themselves need justification, and how their conduct impacted future events. (MacMillan;

the US was justified in dropping the atomic in Japan.¨The only use for an atomic bomb is to keep somebody else from using one¨.

The United States attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The question of whether this action is a case of justified anticipatory self-defense or not is answered by clearly understanding the definition of “anticipatory self-defense”. Anticipatory self-defense basically says that if you have a good reason to believe that someone is going to harm you in a particular way, you can act first. The proper definition would have two conditions; “There is clear and convincing evidence that the proposed target has the ability to strike a devastating blow” and “There is clear and convincing evidence that the proposed target has the inclination to strike a devastating blow”. That being said, the decision to go to war with Iraq was a decision based upon dishonesty and a one-sided perspective. Therefore, U.S does not qualify to call it a case of justified anticipatory self-defense so; it was not a last resort as it had other less violent options.

When, if ever, is a war just? People throughout history have tried to define a just war, from Martin Luther, when he said War is not right, even between equal and equal, unless it is fought with such a good conscience that one can say, ‘My neighbor compels and forces me to fight, though I would rather avoid it.’ In that case, it can be called not only war but due protection and self-defense (Scheer). War is just when pertaining rules and regulations are followed. Firstly, an example of a just war is World War 2. When America joined the war they joined in a just way by declaring war from a lawful authority such as the American government.

President Bush invaded Iraq (going against the wishes of many other countries) based off of the thought that they had nuclear weapons and were planning to give them to terrorists, but he was mistaken. Even though the war may have been fought eventually either way, the fact that they were wrong about the main reason for the strike is worrisome. Preemptive strikes should only be carried out when countries have undeniable, hard proof that an enemy is going to stage a powerful attack immediately. In this part in the fragile study of war ethics, no matter what the fight is about, the end must always justify the means. Because the preemptive strike was not just, I do not fully believe that the Iraq War was just, especially with the escalations in violence as it went on. As for the Afghanistan War, it is harder for me to decide whether or not it is just. We initially officially attacked because of the September 11, 2001 attack, but our actions during the war (such as the large number of civilian deaths, the abuse against Afghans, and the slow reconstruction efforts) were decidedly not just. It is more difficult to decide which of these conflicts are the most honorable. I do believe that both of these wars had a more just cause than the Vietnam War, because we actually had significant reasons to start thee conflicts, not just some need to contain and control another country. I do not, however, believe we had just authority. In fact, I believe that the “levels” of just authority are about the same when it comes to these three conflicts. The just intention is a bit harder to figure out as well, because even though the combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been formally ended, there are still thousands of troops in both countries. Although the United States has technically completed our original mission, we are

Let’s get one thing straight, military force is an attack by armed forces (army, navy, air force, marines) of a country against another. The military is trying to either stop a nuclear war from happening or save many lives or even both. The country that the military is attacking could be trying to create nuclear weapons

Just war theory includes the justification of the how and why that wars are fought. The justification of war can be either viewed from a theoretical or historical perspective. The theoretical aspect regards justifying war in an ethical manner and the specific forms that combat may or may not involve. The historical aspect, or the just war tradition," deals with the rules or agreements that have been applied to wars throughout time. Ethics examine institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire about whether aspects of the conventions should be altered.

War brings out the brutality in men and leads to the death of soldiers and innocent bystanders. War is expensive and has historically led to the failure of stable economies. However, I do believe that the United States is justified in going to war in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s terrorist acts against us have completely stripped Americans of a sense of security that, in my opinion, they, as human beings, are entitled to. Tens of thousands lost relatives and loved ones in the bombings of September 11th. Many commuters now feel unsafe using planes as a mode of transportation. Business executives in large cities now think twice before going to entering their offices in the top of skyscrapers. So although I do not agree with a country murdering its enemies, I think that America has no other choice at this point.

Aquinas argues that one of the objectives in order to make a war justified is when a legitimate authority declares it. Typical it is usually a country's top leadership that would count as legitimate authority, however in the United States it is not the President who can legally declare