War. How much is enough?

[VideCorSpoon]

In political philosophy, there are two important theories which dictate some level of ethics "for war" and "in war." These two integral theories are referred to as Jus in bello and Jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum (justice for war)
Jus ad bellum determines the just reasons before a war begins. Think of it basically as a list of criteria a certain country would have to meet in order to declare war on another country. Within this concept, there are issues of sovereignty, rights, obligations, etc.

Jus in bello (justice in war)
Jus in bello determines the just methods during war. Think of it as a list of things opponents can or cannot do during the conflict, like the Geneva Convention treaty. Within this concept, there are issues such as asymmetric warfare (guerilla warfare), heavy, biological, nuclear, etc. weapons usage, etc.

How much is enough…what are the limits in war? Are there any limits in war or is war an unlimited action?

I would say that the primary focus would be Jus ad bellum. Severe limitations and stipulations before war, which would make it almost impossible to declare war. But Jus in bello would in all honesty be unlimited in its scope if it managed to get to that point.

[Aedes]

The real issue in my mind is practical, not philosophical. War will happen. Any amount is too much. If there are conditions that justify war, like oppression, then the war may be a necessary evil but in this case it's the predisposing conditions that are most regrettable.

So how do we prevent it? And if it happens how do we ensure that the conflict is resolved as quickly, as definitively, as stably as possible and with a minimum of suffering?

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Aedes

So how do we prevent it? And if it happens how do we ensure that the conflict is resolved as quickly, as definitively, as stably as possible and with a minimum of suffering?

One way to prevent war--or at least reduce its likelihood--is to remove corporate influence from the U.S. government. War is big business and profit motivation moves weapons to other countries. It is a vicious cycle that has been repeating since the beginning of modern warfare.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

In political philosophy, there are two important theories which dictate some level of ethics "for war" and "in war." These two integral theories are referred to as Jus in bello and Jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum (justice for war)
Jus ad bellum determines the just reasons before a war begins. Think of it basically as a list of criteria a certain country would have to meet in order to declare war on another country. Within this concept, there are issues of sovereignty, rights, obligations, etc.

Jus in bello (justice in war)
Jus in bello determines the just methods during war. Think of it as a list of things opponents can or cannot do during the conflict, like the Geneva Convention treaty. Within this concept, there are issues such as asymmetric warfare (guerilla warfare), heavy, biological, nuclear, etc. weapons usage, etc.

How much is enough…what are the limits in war? Are there any limits in war or is war an unlimited action?

I would say that the primary focus would be Jus ad bellum. Severe limitations and stipulations before war, which would make it almost impossible to declare war. But Jus in bello would in all honesty be unlimited in its scope if it managed to get to that point.

No one declares war anymore. The United States has not declared war since 1941.

If you mean, go to war, then that supposes that there are no occasions when it is right to go to war, and I don't think that is true. Most people agree that going to war against Germany in 1941 was the right thing to do, for instance. And people differ on the Korean War, Vietnam, and Afganistan and also Iraq.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

One way to prevent war--or at least reduce its likelihood--is to remove corporate influence from the U.S. government. War is big business and profit motivation moves weapons to other countries. It is a vicious cycle that has been repeating since the beginning of modern warfare.

Hmmm... so aside from Iraq, which of the following "modern" wars / interventions would you characterize as primarily prompted by this corporate influence:

Spanish-American War
WWI
WWII
Korea
VietNam
Nicaragua
Granada
First Gulf War
Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
Afghanistan

I'd say that corporate influence was not a significant factor in ANY of those wars. You can levy a case for the First Gulf War, though the corporate benefit and the instigating factors seem much less important than in the present Iraq operations. In Iraq currently it's a different matter, though that conclusion comes from 1) the pervasive presence of corrupt / overpaid no-bid contractors and 2) the nebulous reasons why we're there to begin with.

[Theaetetus]

The corporate world produces the weapons and supplies used in a war. They are not just materialized from thin air. War is a business, thus the corporate world is behind the whole scheme. The government is cloak the machine hides behind, and the excuse is national security. After WWII modern warfare set in and became a business. Think of all the companies that made millions on the weapons used in war fare. DuPoint produced Agent Orange. Blackwater and other security firms provide mercenary services. To think that the governments choice of going to war is not influence by the money flowing through the war business is a failure to see the bigger picture involved in the flow of money.

[VideCorSpoon]

Aedes,

The practicalities of war will always be underlined by some philosophical implication. I would think that the practicality of war stems from some form of abstract reasoning…cogent or not. But I think you cut to the foremost problem of war, the essential nature of war ( i.e. war will happen). Not essential in the way we need a particular thing, but more to the fact that it is an essential element of existence… almost like a fundamental involuntary nature, but not quite.

This is one of those issues where sitting on the fence is impossible. War seems to be by nature a severe action. It implies some degree of violence. At this point, I think it would be safe (and sane) to say that war (in lethal confrontation terms) is bad… no matter how we look at it or twist the context of “bad.”. But war tips the scales no matter how close we are able to balance the justifications for or against. The penumbra for the most part does not exist. So, you lead an interesting question. How to prevent it? How do you prevent an inevitability? And when that inevitability happens, how do we make the least amount of mess possible. I think that if we came up with any narrowed answer, all we would leave with is a list of oxymoronic statements.

Theaetatus,

I think that corporations bear a type of “scapegoat” status where blame can be attributed to them with relative ease. It’s easy to blame a faceless corporation. But I don’t know if they are the motivating factors in the sense you posit. Corporations are by nature not the CEO’s, but the shareholders of that corporation. CEO’s are the fiduciaries of the stockholders. The people have indirect control over everything (to some degree). If corporations are to blame, the people are to blame. Even if it is the personal actions of the CEO, officers, whoever, the people bear some responsibility.

Kennethamy,

Wars are declared, just not in the way they used be in the past. But your thought is interesting. When does the declaration of war begin? First strike? Retaliation?

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

How much is enough…what are the limits in war? Are there any limits in war or is war an unlimited action?

The dead are the only ones who have seen the end of the war.
~Plato, the Republic.

[Didymos Thomas]

Ike warned us - and ever since the second World War, the corporate factor has grown. But the corporate factor is only one side - even in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporatism is far from the only cause. Both conflicts are deeply rooted in Bush foreign policy.

But we have to recognize something - almost all wars are fought over wealth. Corporations or not, wealth is the driving factor behind armed conflict.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

The corporate world produces the weapons and supplies used in a war. They are not just materialized from thin air...

You didn't answer the question. IG Farben produced Zyklon B because the SS needed it for its death camps. That doesn't mean that IG Farben was responsible for the Holocaust, even though they deserve a share of blame for their complicity. Just because some private party stands to benefit from war doesn't mean that these private parties have created them. War profiteering goes back much farther than modern warfare. The city of Venice owes its fame and fortune to mercantilism during the Crusades.