Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elaer" data-source="post: 1293206" data-attributes="member: 2680">Just figured I would add something that might help give this argument a framework... get ready for a long rambling post.What has been debated so far is a state called total war: two or more societies engaged in a conflict where all resources available are dedicated to the destruction of the opposition.   Some (myself included) would argue that this state has never existed: a society has never been so completely consumed by war that all other activities in that society have ceased (no education, no art, no recreation that was not directly related to morale).   A counter argument is that it has existed historically when ancient nations used to burn opposing city states to the ground, but in order for that to be a "total war" all vestiges of society would have to be erased: no slaves taken, no lives spared, no books left unburnt or buildings left standing.   The Trojan War might be an example of this, as nothing was left of it except for ruins and a poem, but even then there were survivors.   A better example would be in fiction, such as Tolkien's War of the Ring, as both sides were intent on completely destroying the other for survival.Modern military thought, however, views war as a spectrum, with martial conflicts such as total war being one extreme, and military operations other than war (MOOTW) on the other end.   For example (and this is an American perspective), the military conflict in Iraq is not as intense as World War II, which was not as intense as the Civil War (the intensity determined by the national interests at stake).   At varying points in the spectrum, different martial actions are justified.  For example, nuclear war may have been justified during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and were likely justified during WWII (not to open that can of worms), but would not be in Iraq.  This most directly relates to the proportional aspect of Just War Theory, but all aspects (such as Just Cause) figure into this.   However, I would argue that it is sophistry (to use that elusive word) to argue that the principles of justification change along the spectrum.   The "defender starts the war by resisting" must be examined at all points:  if the defender is right to resist it's own destruction, then it must follow that there are similar conditions where it might be right to resist the seizing of national assets, the posture of others to threaten its national assets, the destruction (or seizure or posture to threaten) of its allies, or the aiding of enemy states while doing the same.  Each one of would require its own justification, but each can also be argued along the lines of resistance (own which this thread seems stuck).To put it another way: the aggressor/defender arguement breaks down at a fundemental level, because who starts it doesn't mean someone is right or wrong.  People get rubbed the wrong way by saying an invaded nation causes war by resisting, but really what is upsetting to the palette is the thought that self-defense does not justify war (which is what such a statement infers, not logically but rhetorically).  But because we have created a division that refers to causality, and not justification, we get sidetracked from the main argument.  The question is not who causes war, but whether or not a specific side is justified in going to war.An aggressor can be justified, and a defender may not be.   For example, if we agree that the United States was justified in the American Revolution (I know we may not agree, but assume that the U.S. was justified), then we have an example of a justified aggressor, since we started the war.   If we agree that the American South had no right to secede from the Union for the reasons they did (again, even if you disagree, understand that I'm using it as an example), then we have an example of an unjustified defender.   Further, just as justification is not related to causality, it is not related to who you are fighting.  If a national interest is worth killing Iraqis, then it is also worth killing Frenchmen or Somalis or Canadians, should they be our opponent.   Finally, and this is not a justification issue, but more a practical theory of war, remember "that war is an extension of politics with other means."   Failures of diplomacy do not justify war, nor is diplomacy a necessity for justification. There are many facets of national power, and martial is just one of them.  By the way... although military and economic power usually supports diplomatic, it is not a necessity.   (An interesting note: diplomacy does not need to be supported all in certain situations.  France after the Napoleonic Wars is a good example: the lasting effects of Waterloo was relatively minor (as opposed to Germany after WWI) because of the skill of their diplomats.)</blockquote>

Verification