IMO the concept of “Just War” is an artificial construct and not overly helpful. There is “War” and there is “Peace”. There really is nothing in-between.
What about the so-called “limited war?” Like was fought in Vietnam, or like what is being fought in Afghanistan?
That’s only “War” fought ineffectively, with one side observing rules that the other side does not observe.
As we saw in World War II, the concept of “War” is “Total War”. It is ugly and dirty and it is fought to the finish: when you have your enemy by the throat, squeeze until his eyeballs pop out. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were atom-bombed on this basis. Dresden and Tokyo were firebombed on this basis, too. Dirty business that killed lots of civilians. Yet there is no serious suggestion that this should not have been done. Winning World War II necessitated this, and the alternative to winning would have been much worse.
“War” is won by the side who is willing to do whatever it takes to win. It is lost by everybody else.
None of this is to say that the idea of “Just War” is a bad one: it would be highly desirable if it were possible. But I don’t believe it is.
This is why War is such a terrible step, one that oughtn’t be taken lightly. It is an invitation to Hell for all participants, no matter how “just” the cause.
Dresden and Tokyo were firebombed on this basis, too. Dirty business that killed lots of civilians. Yet there is no serious suggestion that this should not have been done.Not on this thread, not yet. They occupy the same immoral status though.
There is “War” and there is “Peace”. There really is nothing in-between.So why have a UCMJ? Why obey the Geneva Accords? Why not use nukes at will?