Preview

When Is Military Force Justified

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1326 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
When Is Military Force Justified
When it comes to extreme situations in many different countries such as Iraq, Syria, or even our own country. To examples we have seen that military force is vital factor in the world today. Military force has been used many times, such as bombing Hiroshima during world war II that had killed over 129,000 people. Was that use of military force justifiable or was there was another way they could had resulted to? What is military force? Military force is forces who have been authorized to use deadly force in the best interest and support of the citizens. The job of the military is to be the defense of the citizens and undertaking of other countries in war. Most people think that military force may be used if a vital national interest of the United …show more content…
In my second article that is titled “When is war justified”, it argues in what situations should, or military force be justified whether it is due to a certain enrich mineral or resource that can create a warhead that a certain country has or a country developing or launching a nuclear warhead inside of a nuclear missile. Or even sending troops into another country that a government has lost its power or authority to s terrorist group. “No decision is more fateful of a government to employ military force (Haass, 2009). even when the cases are clear as day it still is a difficult decision to make since politics will always been involved and not everyone will agree to the decision. In the 13h century St. Thomas Aquinas had three conditions or rules to make even war justifiable. The first condition is it has to be ordered by the government, the cause has to be justifiable or reasonable and the combatants must a right intention, so they intend the battle between good and evil (Haass, 2009). War should also be the last resort as there are more peaceful and easier solutions to solve a conflict without any type violence or any death to solve it. When it becomes justifiable it undoubtedly has to be necessary in which where the most vital interest of a country that are threatened and are no alternate options than using military force. Military force will do more good for the country and more people …show more content…
The force of ratio is often requested at 20 soldiers for every 1,000 citizens, which works out to be 650,000 troops for Iraq and even 600,000 for Afghanistan (Ringham, 2013). The force will either be too small to pacify or gain any territory or either too big or clumsy to win over the people in that territory. One of the biggest threats to the military force is not some terrorist organization but the budget cuts. In the next decade, the budget will come from the pentagon budget to be around one trillion dollars. The budget could include cuts in troops to a lesser amount probably around 100,000 which is usually at almost approximately 500,000. The cuts will also go after the flight bombers and other essential transportation (Ringham,

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    The resolution considers what justifies preventive military action. And so, we must consider what, indeed, justifies such military action. A set of moral standards on war exists in Just-war Theory, a theory that has evolved out of centuries of philosophy and experts of war, and so justification of military action should be justified within the framework of this theory. Philosopher Michael Walzer summarizes in his seminal book Just and Unjust Wars the five basic principles of modern Just-war Theory:…

    • 2398 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Just War Theory

    • 1946 Words
    • 8 Pages

    What justifies war? Who justifies it? Why as human beings do we feel the need to fight, harm, and kill others to achieve certain goals? These questions have been pertinent to our society since the beginning of time and continue to challenge us to better understand the human psyche, and code of ethics that give Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines credence to kill in the name of the United States of America. These ethics of war lay the foundation for that code of understanding and righteousness for when it is justifiable to pull the trigger and take the life of another, or commit an act of war.…

    • 1946 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The first three conditions necessary for a just war were listed by Aquinas which included right authority, just cause and just intention. These and…

    • 1943 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Storm of Steel Paper

    • 1301 Words
    • 6 Pages

    In order to answer this question it is first important to determine the fraises “pro-war” and “anti-war”. The term “pro-war” describes an attitude in which war is desired, necessary or justifiable. The term “anti-war” describes the opposite; war is viewed as immoral and is generally opposed and condemned. This paper will argue that there are grounds in the book to support both proposition.…

    • 1301 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Essay 1

    • 1293 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Some people think war is justified because; it is in order to counter terrorism. I think they're wrong because rather than war being the only solution my opinion is that war is the worse way to handle a conflict. I agree, that sometimes we are forced to do things we might not want to do, for example after the terrorist attack of September 11, it became inevitable for United States not to retaliate. It is logical and justifiable that the people, who are involved in those attacks directly or indirectly, must be captured and punished for killing more than 3000 people. However, I don't think that it makes war acceptable. In war, we intend to kill enemy troops, to get to dangerous leaders and avenge our own loss. Yet, we cannot have a violent, successful war without killing innocent people. If we are going to war to avenge the killing of our own citizens, think of what we are doing to them. We are going off and killing their innocent people, causing them the same pain we felt. Crito did not understand the madness of Socrates, Crito will do whatever it takes to help his friend to flee, instead of being exiled by the government. AI do not think that what you are doing is right, to give up your life when you can save it, and to hasten your fate as your enemies would hasten it, and indeed have hastened it in their wish to destroy you.@(Crito )…

    • 1293 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Just War

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Force should be used when there are legitimate reasons for using it, and when it is the last resort for the government, who is responsible for civic peace. Elshtain uses Augustine to discuss justice and war. A paradox between war and peace is introduced, Elshtain uses an Augustine quote to discuss the similarity of two words that are complete polar opposites, “Peace and war had a contest in cruelty, and peace won the prize.” In history, there are many instances where evil and horrible things are done in the name of ‘peace’. Elshtain continues with the early Christian beliefs that under Jesus’ teaches forbid force in anyway, even under authority. Later, it transforms to the necessity of force to protect others. This leads to the four qualifications that Elshtain wrote to justify a war, the first is that the war must be publicly declared by a legitimate jurisdiction. The second criteria is that an unjust violence must have occurred against the government’s own people or a defenseless group. Third, the war has to be start with the proper motives. Finally, all other alternatives must be exhausted before leading to war. In the end, Elshtain includes a final criteria that must be met for a war to be ‘just’, the possibility of actually winning the conflict. If there is no chance of succeeding, the conflict should not be…

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Just War Theory

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Jus a bellum, the right to go to war, explicitly describes how a nation-state should conduct itself before preparing for war. There are seven sub-categories within Jus a bellum: Just Cause, Comparative Justice, Competent Authority, Right Intention, Profitability of Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality. Just Cause is explained as needing to have a reason to go to war. Not just for recapturing material possessions, but if lives are in danger. Comparative Justice is described, as the suffering and injustice on one side within a war must outweigh the suffering and injustice on the opposite side. Competent Authority must be in order within a war. Nation-states that start war must only start it if the authorities within the nation-state are focused on justice. Right Intention is defined as; force may be only used for a just cause correcting a suffered wrong. Gaining or maintaining economies by a nation-state is not considered just. Profitability of Success indicates that arms are not to be used where unbalanced measures are pertinent to be successful. The Last Resort category is presented as; force in war may only be used if peaceful alternatives have been completely depleted. The final category, Proportionality, is the foreseen benefits of starting war must be proportionate to its expected wrongs.…

    • 815 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The jus ad bellum consisting of six principles: (i) the just cause, (ii) rightful authority to wage war, (iii) right intention, (iv) exhausting all other reasonable resolutions before waging war as last resort, (v) reasonable hope of state to win else they should not opt to wage war and (vi) proportional means of military force to objectives sought; of which first three are predominant both in the development of the theory and in its historical application as stated by Johnson.3 First, just cause evaluates the use of force as means of self-defence or defence of third party against wrongful attack and punishment of the acts against humanity. Second, rightful authority legitimises only states as rightful to wage wars not criminals, corporations or individuals who are deemed/seen illegitimate states Shapcott. And…

    • 3976 Words
    • 16 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    The purpose of the War Convention is to establish the duties of the persons engaged in the act of aggression. Michael Walzer defined the War Convention as the articulated norms, customs, professional codes, precepts, religious, philosophical principles and reciprocal arrangements that shape our judgement of military conduct. Thus, the War Convention may be interpreted as the multitude of non-binding moral criteria by which the justice of actions within the prosecution of conflict may be judged. The concern is with jus in bello, justice in war, and not jus ad bellum, which regards the just initiation of war. The distinction between the justice of war and the just prosecution of war is significant for the purpose of this essay, for it is the…

    • 1912 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Just War Theory

    • 2504 Words
    • 11 Pages

    Just cause means that going to war is the only way to prevent immanent danger, to protect innocent life, and to preserve human rights. A valid authority is a leader declared by public order, not a private group. In order to have comparative justice, the rights and values that were violated must be worth killing for, god and right must be on their side.[2] Force can only be used in a truly just cause not for material gain. For war to be the last resort, all peaceful alternatives that have been proposed and exhausted before force can be used. Probability of success means that force may not be used in a situation that cannot be won or requires irrational measures to win or achieve success.[3] To have proportionality, the benefits of war must out weigh or equal to the costs of the war.[4]…

    • 2504 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Just War theory demands that for war to be justified a state must fulfil each of the following 6 requirements: (1) Just cause, (2) Legitimate Authority, (3) Right intention, (4) Likelihood of Success, (5) Proportionality and (6) Last resort. Just war theory was developed by theologians Augustine and Aquinas. This will be further discussed in the essay. In addition to this these 6 requirements can be categorised in 3 parts – Jus ad bellum, Jus in bello and Jus post bellum…

    • 280 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Just War Essay

    • 1166 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Although Augustine did not break down the specific criteria for just war, Thomas Aquinas did. Born nine hundred years after Augustine, Thomas Aquinas was an extremely influential philosopher and theologian. Using Augustine’s pass statements, he stated three of the six criteria. They stated: a war must be waged for a good purpose, not self-gain, just war must be properly controlled by the state, and peace must be a central motive in war.…

    • 1166 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Just War Theory In Vietnam

    • 1545 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The part of the just war theory is called jus ad bellum. There must be a just cause, right authority, proportionality, the goal of peace, with war as a last resort. A country cannot attack another country for more wealth or for more respect. They must attack on behalf of an innocent third country or group. Right authority means that war must be declared by the proper authorities and not by private companies. Proportionality means that the potential war must be assessed regarding the cost of the war and the benefits from the war. The country must also decide whether or not the potential gains outweigh the loss of human lives and the cost of the war. Next, “will the destructiveness of the proposed conflict outweigh any enhancement of other human values?” That means will the war any enhance aspects of the human life more than the violence that will occur during the war. The purpose of the war must be for peace, not solely to win glory. Finally, the war must be a last resort, meaning that all other methods for peace must be attempted before resorting to…

    • 1545 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    When it comes to the use of force on one country, the United States has never really adopted a clear policy or guidelines. This has caused some tensions on when the use of force is actually warranted because it is up to the commander in chief to determine this. There are certain situations when the use of force will be warranted overseas. Additionally, there are pros and cons when it comes to not having an actual policy when it comes to using the full force of military occupation. Over the years we have seen Presidents use military force for a vast majority of reasons and each gave examples for their actions.…

    • 680 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    THE MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN VIETNAM WAR The moral judgement on the vietnam war is relatively simple: all war is forbidden, the conflict in vietnam is war, therefore the vietnam war is forbidden. From the viewpoint of the “just war” theory, the morality or justice of the vietnam war can be determined only by applying the principles of jus ad bellum and details of vietnam war. There are 6 of the principles of the jus ad bellum: 1. Just Cause: ‘War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger” i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence, and to secure basic human rights.’…

    • 1524 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays