War or No?

What is a justification for war? That is the question in my AP World class today as we are going into the chapters of World War I. My teacher handed out a worksheet of 7 justifications for war and told us to say whether they are justifications or not. Then we had a little talk/debate about the various aspect of each reason. Here's the list, my corresponding vote, and my reasoning (All my reasoning are based upon that the country in question is industrialized with decent military powers unless otherwise stated):

1. Our nation is attacked by a foreign military: Agree

If any nation in the world was attacked, it would be an act of self-defense to declare war right back. The problem with this is that what if the opposing country was much stronger?

The perfect analogy would be that if you are a 6 year old, and you were bullied by a line-backer, what would you do? Now pretend that all he did was punch you to ask you for half your lunch money. Would you agree and concede to live another day? Based on current world conditions, if you were a UN friendly country (ie not N. Korea, Iran or Venezuela), if you were attacked, it would be wise to attack right back with the whole UN behind you.

2. A nation with whom we have a mutual defense alliance is attacked: Agree

Now this is shaky (every one of these are). The whole purpose of an alliance is to protect the other in case one gets attacked. This is the reason NATO and the Warsaw Pact was written, to protect each other from attack.

Of course, again using the bully analogy, what if the competing nation/alliance is much stronger? If this is the scenario, then it gets pretty yucky. I personally would try to fight an "undeclared" war by suppling as much supplies as I can to my partners. Then the moral dilemma of breaking a agreement comes to mind, but morals take second place to national security.

3. Our President is assassinated by a terrorist from an unfriendly country: Agree (only slightly)

(Note: this opinion only works for the US) The President is a symbol of the United States. Therefore killing the President would be indirectly declaring war on the people and nation of the United States. As I stated in #1, this will be justified as it is an act of self-defense. Of course we cannot run in and conquer the whole country (Iraq) so we must use the technology we have currently to strategically remove (or damage severely) the terrorist cells by using precise missile strikes, assassinations, or air strikes.

Of course, we could always take this chance to strike at the unfriendly country. That will be quite dangerous and risky but if there's the international support then I would just invade the whole nation. Take out the threat before it gets big.

4. Our President tells us that a country is planning an imminent attack on us: Disagree

(Note: this opinion only works for the US) Three words, look at Bush. The idea of one man telling use that we should go to war is ludicrous. The only way I am going to be convinced is that the CIA and FBI release their findings to the public and let the UN have a investigation of this possibility. Any other way and I won't be convinced at all.

Yes, the president will be well informed. Yes, the president will have some logical argument that the attack is going to come, but I don't want to be tricked again.

5. A country has just had a fundamentalist revolution and is sending fighters into neighboring oil-exporting nations in the region: Agree

Any nation attacking another nation has a policy of expansionism. Oil is crucial right now to any industrial economy. The combination of these two should be enough reason to declare war on the fundamentalist government.

6. An unfriendly nation has just successfully tested a nuclear weapon in violation of a signed UN agreement: Disagree

Nuclear weapons are a symbol for power for any country so every country would want one. It is a country's sovereign right to determine whether they build nuclear weapons or not, not UN. Though this might disturb the fragile fabric of nuclear weapons, it might be much smarter to stay out of this one. Besides, trying to take a people's pride away by robbing them of a technological marvel is somewhat cruel.

7. A US naval vessel is sunk in a foreign harbor by agent from that country: Agree

There are several examples of this one. USS Maine, USS Cole, and Pearl Harbor to some extent. Usually when someone parks a giant gunship in your harbor, the two parties probably agreed upon a contract of peace of not blowing the warship up. Unless the Navy is dumb enough to dock in unfriendly seas, blowing up a warship is an act of war.

edit - just wanted people to know, today is the anniversary for the invasion of Iraq.

-runiteking1

Got comments? Post them below!