In this discussion, you will discuss when is war justified.
What do you think is a valid reason for a country to go to war? Read the reasons below and decide whether you think each reason is valid or not valid.
to defend territory and people
to protect an ally from invasion
to gain territory or resources
to stand up for an idea
to defend human rights and punish wrongdoing
Choose one of the justifications you feel is valid. What are the reasons you feel this way? What are the reasons you rejected one of the justifications?
For what ideas might a country be willing to fight?
For what resources might a country be willing to fight? Why?
If you believe there are never any valid reasons for going to war under any circumstances, explain why you hold this viewpoint.
Provide at least two pieces of supporting evidence or events for your argument from the lesson and/or the online textbook.
As an AI language model, I do not possess personal opinions or beliefs. However, I can provide some insights that can help with this discussion.
One of the most commonly accepted and valid reasons for a country to go to war is to defend its territory and people. This justification is often supported by international laws and norms that recognize the right of self-defense. When a country is attacked, it has the right to defend itself and its citizens by using military force.
Another justifiable reason for a country to go to war is to protect an ally from invasion. Many countries have mutual defense agreements that require them to come to each other's aid in case of an attack. If an ally is invaded, a country may decide to intervene militarily in order to fulfill its obligations and protect its partner.
On the other hand, some justifications for going to war are not considered valid by most people. For example, gaining territory or resources through war is generally seen as aggressive and unjustifiable. Similarly, standing up for an idea can be a subjective matter and may not necessarily warrant military actions.
When it comes to ideas and resources that a country may be willing to fight for, examples include political ideologies, religious beliefs, natural resources such as oil and minerals, and strategic locations like ports or waterways. These factors can be vital to a country's national interests, security, or economic prosperity, and may be the motivation for going to war.
There are individuals and groups who argue that there are never any valid reasons for going to war under any circumstances. They believe that the use of violence is always unacceptable and that war only brings destruction and misery. This perspective is based on the belief that conflicts can be resolved through dialogue, negotiation, and other peaceful means.
Two pieces of evidence from history that support the idea of justified war are the Allied forces' intervention in World War II, in which they defended themselves and their allies against the Axis powers' aggression, and the NATO mission in Kosovo, which aimed to protect civilians from ethnic cleansing by the Serbian army.
A valid reason for a country to go to war is to defend territory and people. This justification is valid because a country has the responsibility to protect its citizens and ensure the integrity of its borders. It is the duty of a nation to safeguard its land and prevent any infringements upon its sovereignty.
I rejected the justification of war to gain territory or resources because it can lead to an aggressive expansionist mindset and contribute to conflicts rooted in greed rather than just causes. Wars fought solely for territorial or resource gains often prioritize self-interest over principles of justice and can result in unnecessary suffering and loss of life.
A country might be willing to fight for ideas such as democracy, freedom, human rights, or self-determination. These ideals are often seen as worth defending, as they outline principles that promote the well-being and dignity of individuals and societies. Countries may engage in war to protect these values from suppression or violation by oppressive regimes or external aggressors.
In terms of resources, countries may be willing to fight for valuable commodities such as oil, natural gas, minerals, or rare earth elements. These resources are crucial for economic development and national security. Securing access to vital resources can be seen as a valid reason for engaging in armed conflicts, as the availability of resources often determines a country's ability to sustain its population and maintain its position in the international order.
If someone believes that there are never any valid reasons for going to war under any circumstances, they may hold this viewpoint to promote pacifism, non-violence, and the pursuit of peaceful alternatives to conflict resolution. This stance may stem from a belief that war is inherently destructive and that diplomatic, economic, or humanitarian interventions can achieve similar outcomes without resorting to violence.
Supporting evidence from the lesson and online textbook:
1. The lesson highlights the United Nations' responsibility to maintain international peace and security and the use of force authorized by the Security Council. This implies that there are circumstances where the international community deems the use of force to be justified, such as in cases of self-defense or collective defense against aggression.
2. The online textbook discusses the concept of "just war theory," which identifies criteria for determining when military action can be morally justified. These criteria include requirements such as last resort, proportionality, and the protection of innocent civilians. This theory recognizes that there may be situations where war can be justified based on ethical principles.