Walzer's Arguments Against Just War

Supreme emergency deals with the immediacy of the danger and its nature. Both of these needs to be applied or neither won’t be able to be on its own. I suppose, most and many of the times there has be war, it wasn’t always about a struggle over values, but where the victory of the winner, would be a human disaster for the loser. So Walzer, believed that in conditions of supreme emergency the violation of the normal freedom being expressed; by all the principle of discrimination is allowed in warfare between states although it’s with a heavy burden of guilt.

Walzer established the belief of Just War as a tradition theory; where, even the good guys are not allowed to do just anything that is necessary to win. Even they must fight honorably,
It’s a feature of the lived reality, a source of the identity and self-understanding. Replacing a political community requires either the abolition of the people or the coercive transformation of their way of life. Walzer considers that for something to be of a supreme emergency as a situation that threatens what he calls a political community. The loss of the community’s distinct religious and cultural practices and the necessary violation of basic human rights essential to achieve this loss, which is the awful part of a supreme
I doubt that any of our readers really rejoices in the death of people. Walzer makes another important point: we can seldom if ever know with absolute certainty that the threat is both immediate and overwhelming, thereby justifying without any doubt the use of extreme measures in response. This to me means both that we should wrestle with such choices and also that we should acknowledge the courage it takes to make them thoughtfully. Walzer’s two points to calling a supreme emergency is only genocide or slavery and that’s when ethics can go out the window. So his justification is are clear and when he was thinking of this concept he was looking at the events going on at the time of his