We Should Stop Wars Essays

We Should Stop Wars Essays We Should Stop Wars Essay We Should Stop Wars Essay We Should Stop Wars Jonathan Granoff – â€Å"Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals and Law† Ron Paul – â€Å"Conscription: The Terrible Price of War† Jonathan Granoff – â€Å"Peaace and Security† War and Terrorism is perhaps one of the hottest topics in the U. S. The debate on whether a mosque should be built two blocks away from ground zero has refreshed people’s memory of the terrorist attack nine years ago. Many people in the U. S. believe that we are in a just war with the terrorists who threat the peace of the world. However, how many classifications can wars be categorized? What kind of war should be permissible? In my opinion, the existence of war is evil and should be limited to the minimum possible level. First, I want to argue about the justice of a â€Å"just war†. A just war means it fits both jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (the just conduct of war) (Boss, 575). Let me start analyzing from the jus ad bellum. As we know, war involves the use of armed violence between nations or between competing political factions to achieve a political purpose (Boss, 571). A war usually starts when two parties believe different thing. Namely, under many circumstances, both sides in a war believe themselves are just and the other side is evil. Even some countries try to start a war that is â€Å"unjust†, they will create a â€Å"just cause†. The Iraq War is an example. I remember in the movie â€Å"Jarhead† about 1990 Gulf War, there is a scene that the military leaders were showing the troops how just this war is by protecting Kuwait from Iraq’s invade, then a soldier whispered to another saying that this war is just for the oil. After failing to prove that Saddam Hussein possessed weapon, the Iraq War is widely considered as an unjust war based on economic purpose. However, how many times can we prove the just cause of a war? How can we prevent any organization from starting another â€Å"Iraq War† if we allow them to use just war as an excuse? The second ingredient of a just war, jus in bello, is also questionable. One frequently used example of just war is when U. S entering World War II. However, the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan definitely violated the principle of jus in bello that â€Å"noncombatants should not be intentionally targeted (Boss, 576). † Nuclear weapon is viewed as â€Å"the ultimate evil† because it could permanently destroy the ecosystem in a large area. â€Å"Not only are they destructive in magnitude but in horror as well (Granoff, 601). Thus, many people are working at stop using any nuclear weapon. Those efforts currently met two problems. The first problem is the potential threat from the countries that already developed nuclear weapons. As long as a group of people have nuclear weapons, the attempt of some others to develop nuclear weapons will still go o n. The second problem is what kind of weapon is considered â€Å"not a proportional response to the injury being redressed†? Should we allow the predator drone to vaporize people or the biological weapon that could spread diseases? Where is the limitation of the â€Å"humanity† for a war? Is killing one person to protect ten other persons a just behavior? What about killing one person to protect a thousand persons? Loss of lives in wars could hardly be just for any reason. In addition, whether a war in the history is a just war is decided by the winner most of the time. The U. S. Independence War is widely viewed as a Just War. The author Boss said that the behavior of France helping the U. S. is just. I cannot agree with him. At that time, the independence of the 13 colonies was viewed as a violation of fidelity. The assistant from France is just based on its economic consideration. What if a Native American reservation claims for independence now? The winner of a War is usually the â€Å"just† side. And when a group lacks the power to engage in conventional warfare, this group might use politically motivated violence to target noncombatants and create intimidation, which is terrorism (Boss, 572). At this point of view, if an organization to not want to be terrorism, this organization needs to have the military power to directly confront enemy. We always condemn terrorist because of the method they use. What about ourselves? According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook 2010, the U. S. military spend of the U. S. consists 46. 5% of the whole world’s military spend. Does the U. S. need to maintain the largest military spend in order to secure the â€Å"strongest country† in the world? This is questionable. War has never stopped after World War II. There are still about 1. 6 million people killed every year now (Boss, 572). If we allow one type of war to exist, we will give war makers excuse to create other types of wars. As long as human nature does not change, people will seek for more resources and conflict will exist. We must make every effort to stop war.