War of the Worlds

Humankind conditions its response by creating rules by which it must play the game. It does not matter what the game is. In the case of "just war" doctrine, the game is war. The primary concern of this thesis is to determine the applicability of these "rules" to the types of warfare that may be conducted in the 21st century. To achieve this goal, one must first understand the war convention, so referred to by Walzer in his book, entitled "Just and Unjust Wars, a Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations" (3rd edition). The paper then explores the possible nature of war in the 21st century, with emphasis on applying, where possible, the "just war" doctrine. Finally, it touches briefly upon the problems involved in the revision of war doctrine as discovered at the 1992 Peace Symposium.
"Is there just cause to start a war? This question is larger than it appears. From a pacifist point of view, there are no justifiable reasons to start a war. However, there are those who point to a perceived threat as a viable basis for war. This point of view dictates a pre-emptive strike even if there is no immediate action taken by the group making the threats. The rules of the game become clouded in this instance. "The line between legitimate and illegitimate first strikes is not going to be drawn at the point of imminent attack but at the point of sufficient threat (Walzer 76-78)." The time span between the perception of harm and the harm itself is subject to scrutiny. Saddam Hussein may call for a jihad against the United States, but when does that threat constitute a reasonable cause for war? What are the consequences of ignoring the threat? How much time should pass before we take action? Is it possible to wait too long?" [continues]

Read full essay