Ok when to go to war?

[Kevin]

After reading many of these threads a question popped into my head. When is it alright to go to war? Forget Iraq and the US. Forget the WWs or any other war. Just take a country, your country, and give the critiera for it for it to justifiably go to war.

Would it be okay to go to war if an ally is attacked?
Would it be okay to go to war to defend a helpless nation not allied but friendly?
Would it be okay to go to war to aquire a vital resource needed for your country to prospor? (Assuming trade is not an option)
Would a war be okay if it is to stop a clear enemy from expansion into neutral regions?
... to pre-empt an attack by a posturing enemy?
... if your country is invaded?
... if your country is attacked? (bombed, raided, just shelled, ICBM)
... if your leader is assassinated by an enemy nation?
... if your leader has an atempted assassination by an enemy nation?
... the other nation doesn't believe in you philosophy?
... to gain a strategic region? (ie seaport, defendable mountains)

... because the other nation canceled Star Trek?

... other?

[Kevin]

Oh Yeah one more.

If your country's enemy has violated a cease fire agreement from a previous war?

[Cybrludite]

War pretty much is only justified if you win, and win big. To the victors, the history books and all of that. Damn few people care about the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden. Most people don't give a toss over what happened to the Highland Clans after Culloden. (I do, but then, I'm a Drummond...) You don't hear much complaint about what the Romans did to either the Etruscans or the Carthagenians. No one is asking the Hittites to pay reperations to the Middle Kingdom. All the way back since the Tribe of Thag kicked the Tribe of Ogg out of the prime hunting grounds and up onto the glacier...

Of course none of that has anything to do with when you should go to war. There's no real hard and fast rules on that. Many of the pieces of information needed to make a perfectly logical decision on the specific situation will not be available until long after the time to choose is past. (If they ever do become available, that is...) When you're dealing with a crisis, a slow but perfect decision can have a much worse outcome than an imperfect decision made in time. You've got your estimate of the corillation of forces, your estimate of the enemy's estimate of the same, weather & climatic predictions, a general idea of how many beans & bullets you can get to the front and how much of that stuff the enemy will interdict, who's likely to jump in on their side and who'll stick by you, tide tables and an almanac showing the phases of the moon...

Annoyingly, the minor stuff can mostly be verified, but the critical stuff can't. The mountain pass that would let the foe's strong but unreliable ally take you in the flank is generally snowed in from mid-October to mid-May. Will it be snowed in for certain by October 20th? If not, do you need to leave a blocking force to hold it, and how big of a one would you need? Every soldier you leave there is one less at the front. Too small a force, and the ally will be temped into acting. Too large and they'll be scared into it. This is a coordinated offensive on all fronts, and they have narrow windows in which to act as well, so time is short... and this is just operational concerns. Scale out to the level of strategy and grand strategy and the headaches multiply logarithimicaly.

[KillerWhale]

Personnally, I think a country can think any of these are good reasons if there is an advantage to gain swiftly.

My own opinion:
Would it be okay to go to war if an ally is attacked?
Yes

Would it be okay to go to war to defend a helpless nation not allied but friendly?
Yes

Would it be okay to go to war to aquire a vital resource needed for your country to prospor? (Assuming trade is not an option)
No

Would a war be okay if it is to stop a clear enemy from expansion into neutral regions?
Yes

... to pre-empt an attack by a posturing enemy?
Depends on the situation.

... if your country is invaded?
Definitely!

... if your country is attacked? (bombed, raided, just shelled, ICBM)
Depends on the attack, but I'd say yes.

... if your leader is assassinated by an enemy nation?
Ha! This one is tricky. Make me think of WW1. Dunno.

... if your leader has an atempted assassination by an enemy nation?
Same here...

... the other nation doesn't believe in you philosophy?
Absolutely not!

... to gain a strategic region? (ie seaport, defendable mountains)
No!

... because the other nation canceled Star Trek?
Definitely!!!!!!!!! That's the first and foremost reason for a noble war

[C5]

Originally posted by KillerWhale
... because the other nation canceled Star Trek?
Definitely!!!!!!!!! That's the first and foremost reason for a noble war

Eeep!!! Careful with that one, KillerWhale! With such a reason, France may soon find itself at war with the USA

[Perrryyy]

Originally posted by Kevin
... because the other nation canceled Star Trek?

Depends on the series... see the trek chat threads

[KillerWhale]

Heh, C5, actually I pondered before posting, but I recall Jimmy's still broadcasting DS9 and TNG, we have the Fact Files, and TNG on DVD so I hoped we would be considered allies from the ST Broadcasting Alliance

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Kevin
After reading many of these threads a question popped into my head. When is it alright to go to war? Forget Iraq and the US. Forget the WWs or any other war. Just take a country, your country, and give the critiera for it for it to justifiably go to war.

Generally I think there are some principles which should be uphold in world politics and international relations. thee principles of peace and human rights were quite satisfiyingly written down in the UN charta and there is excplicitely stated when to go to war and when not.
In defence, whether its you yourself to defend or another nation.


Would it be okay to go to war if an ally is attacked?
[/QUOTE]

Depends on the former politics of this ally. If unprovoked attack, help is surely needed.


Would it be okay to go to war to defend a helpless nation not allied but friendly?
[/QUOTE]

see above my UN comment.


Would it be okay to go to war to aquire a vital resource needed for your country to prospor? (Assuming trade is not an option)
[/QUOTE]

Definitley not. Imagine everybody runs amok, because he needs something very special and can't get his hands on it in a peaceful way.


Would a war be okay if it is to stop a clear enemy from expansion into neutral regions?
[/QUOTE]

No certainly not. if this enemy wants to expand let him - you probably do so either.


... to pre-empt an attack by a posturing enemy?
[/QUOTE]

Nope certainly not. With that you can justify almost anything.


... if your country is invaded?[/QUOTE]

then you are already in war.


... if your country is attacked? (bombed, raided, just shelled, ICBM)[/QUOTE]

already in war


... if your leader is assassinated by an enemy nation?[/QUOTE]


per definition its an attack of a country thus you are already in war.


... if your leader has an atempted assassination by an enemy nation?[/QUOTE]

see above


... the other nation doesn't believe in you philosophy?[/QUOTE]

Nope certainly not. How do you create a sclae for 'right' philosophies. Every civilisation believes its ideas to be right. The point where you see if they are or not is if they are used arbitrarily or onesided. If you stick to it the whole time, than its probably right.


... to gain a strategic region? (ie seaport, defendable mountains)[/QUOTE]

No, because what for do you need such a place but for war. You cannot start a war in order to have a better position in war - no justification.



... because the other nation canceled Star Trek? [/QUOTE]

I think that's needs not to be answered - red alert !!!

[calguard66]

"War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means"... war has the same goal as diplomacy: convince another sovreign nation/ entity to do what you want.

It is merely one end of a continuum that begins with asking "pretty please", making threats, economic and political sanctions, to force.

How far you move down the continuum depends on how important the issue at hand, and what you as a nation are willing to sacrifice/ risk to achieve it. The goal of a small military isn't to win a war, but to make the cost of invasion more than anyone would be willing to pay for the spoils/ advantage gained.

So the answer of when you should go to war is simple: when the potential benefit outweighs the certain losses.

The question of when war is justified is more difficult. Generally speaking, nobody is innocent... it is very rare that one nation attacks another with absolutely no waring or provocation... arguably, the US provoked Japan into WWII.

I would also suggest that the morality of justification is irrelevant. Nations do not operate in a moral society... they operate in anarchy. Their "rights" extend only as far as their reach. "It is useless for sheep to legislate vegitarianism, when the wolf remains of a different opinion".

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by calguard66
"War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means"... war has the same goal as diplomacy: convince another sovreign nation/ entity to do what you want.

[rant]

This has got to be some of the most cynical bullshit I've ever seen.

War is not the continuation of diplomacy it's the anti-thesis to diplomacy.

Diplomacy is about coming to an agreement, a compromise to ensure that people can live peacefully.

War is about ensuring that every fucker who disagrees with you is either dead or so scared of you, he'll do whatever you say.

Calguard, I know you're a soldier and I respect your choice to devote/risk your life to ensure that the people of your country can live the way they want to.

But don't try to suger-coat what your profession is there for.
It's insulting. And if you really believe that war and dimplomacy are essentially the same, then I can only pity you.

[/rant]

I apologize, but there are some statements that I cannot let slide. I don't care if this is free speech or not.

Joe, violently opposed to violence

[calguard66]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect.

Diplomacy and war have the same goal, and are two sides of the same coin. One is useless without the other.

Diplomacy is NOT always nice, cheerful negotiation.
Is suspending foriegn aid to a nation diplomacy or war? Is embargoing products from a nation diplomacy or war?

I don't think I've ever tried to "sugar coat" my profession... I certainly see no need to do so.

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy


[rant]

This has got to be some of the most cynical bullshit I've ever seen.

War is not the continuation of diplomacy it's the anti-thesis to diplomacy.

Diplomacy is about coming to an agreement, a compromise to ensure that people can live peacefully.

War is about ensuring that every fucker who disagrees with you is either dead or so scared of you, he'll do whatever you say.

Calguard, I know you're a soldier and I respect your choice to devote/risk your life to ensure that the people of your country can live the way they want to.

But don't try to suger-coat what your profession is there for.
It's insulting. And if you really believe that war and dimplomacy are essentially the same, then I can only pity you.

[/rant]

I apologize, but there are some statements that I cannot let slide. I don't care if this is free speech or not.

Joe, violently opposed to violence

[Kaiddin]

Is it really so hard to visualize a circle with peace on one side and war the another. Then space out saying "pretty please", making threats, economic and political sanctions, to force between them. Maybe label the bottom half as escalation and the top half as denouement (not really the word I'm looking for but hopefully someone can find it).

How else do you describe it?

[Curious]

If ally is attacked? Yes
Defend helpless nation? Yes
Acquire vital resource? Well whether we like it or not, economics and natural resources always have and will continue to play a major role in the decision to go to war.
...neutral regions? depends
...attacked? Yes
...invaded? Yes
...leader assasinated? I would consider that an attack so yes.
...attempted assasination? see above
...different philosophy? NO!!!!
...gain a strategic region? nope
...cancellation of Star Trek? Depends on which one

Unfortunately Joe, Calguard is absolutely correct. War is often one of the biggest bargaining chips used in diplomacy.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Kaiddin
Is it really so hard to visualize a circle with peace on one side and war the another.

(snip)

How else do you describe it?

Sure I can visualize it.
I can also visualize Queen Elizabeth as Van Halen's front singer, but that doesn't make it so.

I don't consider threats and economical pressure to get what you want diplomacy; just like I don't consider threatening or pressuring my girlfriend to stay or have sex with me a relationship.

Joe

[qerlin]

Would it be okay to go to war if an ally is attacked?
Yes

Would it be okay to go to war to defend a helpless nation not allied but friendly?
Yes

Would it be okay to go to war to aquire a vital resource needed for your country to prospor? (Assuming trade is not an option)
Yes

Would a war be okay if it is to stop a clear enemy from expansion into neutral regions?
Yes
... to pre-empt an attack by a posturing enemy?
Yes

... if your country is invaded?
Yes

... if your country is attacked? (bombed, raided, just shelled, ICBM)
Yes

... if your leader is assassinated by an enemy nation?
If national involvement is proven to satisfaction of the public.

... if your leader has an atempted assassination by an enemy nation?
Depends on other situational factors.

... the other nation doesn't believe in you philosophy?
If they are agressively seeking to destroy our philosophy/way of life, yes. If they're just hanging around picking lint out of their navel, no.

... to gain a strategic region? (ie seaport, defendable mountains)
Situational -- is it necessary to defense?