What justifies the use of force?

I make this thread to continue the discussion in "United States role in International Community" but also to route this same issue from other places it may crop up.

Since I am asking this question, let me explain the scope (and thus the challenge) of potential answers. I advance that unless you have answered this question in a general enough form to apply to individual actions independent of the context of preexisting authoritative, military, or cultural structures; you haven't answer it at all.

Human history has a long litany of what happens when the laws and opinions of nations collide. An objective treatment of the subject does not allow the would be philosopher to take his culture or the laws and customs of his nation as primaries. Furthermore if he were to do so, any answers he arrives at would apply only to his nation (and even then only those within it that are conformist).

Such an answer would do nothing to tell him how nations can live in peace with other nations and their own minorities. It could be reduced to the pointless tautology "people who agree get along."

So let's make this interesting and practical. How can China, the U.S. , your local police force, and you know when to use force?

My position was clear. When the value of your own, or others lives, outweigh that of the enemies.
Immediate danger and provocation are a requirement as well.

What I was trying to say, is that there can be two types of war.
"soldier vs soldier" or "soldier vs citizen"/
The person I was debating against contended that military intervention should NEVER happen.
WW2 and Charles Taylor were perhaps my best explanations. I think we need to ask who is worth more. A killer or an innocent?

Blackflag: I think we need to ask who is worth more. A killer or an innocent?
How can such a calculation be made?

ADreamOfLiberty: I don't think it is simpler than a calculation. Soldiers sign up expecting to die.
They SHOULD sign up because they believe the civilian is more valuable, therefore, the civilian is more valuable.

Blackflag: A soldier? Sounds more like a samurai. Many soldiers in history have signed up expecting to win freedom and virtue for themselves and their countrymen.

Blackflag: I disagree. Soldiers don't usually sign up expecting to die. As a matter of fact the vast majority resent the fact that they get called up to war at all. Hence why over half of all soldiers deliberately miss when firing, to avoid killing those on the other side.

People I know in the army include people who:
- Are doing it because the army has offered to pay for their qualifications if they enlist
- Are doing it because they feel they need some discipline/order in their lives (this person has Aspergers)
- Are training in the navy to be a mechanic

Each of these people have one thing in common: the army is a gateway to things to come later. Probably the most incredible story of what the army does to people can be found in Archibald Baxter's "We Will Not Cease", which you can read for free here: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-BaxWeWi.html - it's an autobiography about a conscientious objector who refused conscription, and what they did to him. Pretty terrible, but it's the reality of what war does. Particularly since it's basically been confirmed by everybody involved to be true.

admin: People I know in the army include people who:
I know the true warrior types in the military (definitely a minority, probably less so in the U.S. military though).

Even they do not expect to die, nor think they are less valuable than citizens They have families and they expect to return to them. They trust their leaders and equipment to get them back alive and if they ever felt like they were being put at needless risk they would get upset.

To keep this thread on the right track, Csareo!!!! suggests that we ask who is more valuable the killer or an innocent.

But the thread is about when it's justified to use force, when do you become a killer without lowering yourself to the level of a murderer (if it's even possible) ?

So it seems like the technically correct question would be:

Who is more valuable, the aggressor or the defender?

I think we all know what the normal answer to that question is, "defender." but its certainly not a unanimous answer as every known culture/legal system allows or perpetrates exceptions to that standard.

For the sake of argument though, let's say you have a very valuable aggressor. A genuis whom half the population regards as a prophet. Then you have a poverty stricken migrant worker. The former decides to kill the later for no apparent reason.

Does the genius prophet lose all his value by this act, should his value in relation to his victim be irrelevant, or should he be allowed to do such things?

I'll get back to dream of liberty later, but here is something I did think about a long time ago.
The army must be filled with selfless and capable people, who do indeed wish tohelp many people over themselves.
Having to many people in the army simply because they are capable, is net harmful.

Yes, armies should have faith in their commanders, but they most also know they're in preparation for the ultimate sacrifice.
The protection of the civilian population. If we have an army that is not instilled with those values, then we have already failed.
Back to my original point, war should only be undertaken when it is in protection of a civilian vs soldier war.

When 50,000 selfless men can die in protection of 10,000 civilians, war is just.

Blackflag: When 50,000 selfless men can die in protection of 10,000 civilians, war is just.
So... explain this to me very carefully. How does the fact that soldiers die and civilians don't justify the war itself?

Honestly Csareo you're scaring me. I have racial political views and would see much violence done if they could be accomplished, but never would I suggest that it is the death itself that justifies the violence. It seems to me a self-evident implication of the nature that to live is better than to die.

admin: The war is in protection of civilians. I told you that I don't believe in intervention that isn't to save civilian lives.
The main reason I'm not crying for intervention in Ukraine is that the civilians are safe whether they are Russian or Ukrainian.

Justified war isn't over a concept (nations, religion, government)

ADreamOfLiberty: You misunderstood me. Admin's stance was that intervention is never okay at all costs.
I referred to Nazi Germany, how they waged war on civilians if they had not waged war on nations.
If a solider can die in protection of 10 civilians, then the war is justified.
There must be immediate danger to the civilian populace before said war.,

Here's an example. Rwanda's government was commiting genocide against Tutsi upper classman. 800,000 people ere exterminated.
No one intervened or helped. If 1,000,000 soldiers were to be sent to of stopped those 800,000 from dying, then I would support that intervention.

racial political views OMG

OMG worse typo ever fix it somebody! radical radical!

Blackflag: But how do civilians justify war? I don't get the causal link.

ADreamOfLiberty: OMG worse typo ever fix it somebody! radical radical!

I lolled.

admin: If a war can be waged to protect civilian lives, then it should.
A solider enlists to protect and defend the civilian. Therefore, his only duty and responsibility should be protecting the civilian population.

I don't know how you interpreted "civilians justify war" from my stance. More like "Provocation and intention to kill citizens justifies the use of armed force against another army or group"

Blackflag: So first of all, I don't accept your premise that soldiers enlist for exclusively this reason, nor that they forgo other duties and responsibilities by so doing.

But my real problem with your reasoning is that it's basically "I think he wants to kill some people, therefore lets kill him first" (and never mind the fact that most casualties in war are almost always civilians). Of course, the other guy would be equally justified in saying the same thing about you ("I think he wants to kill me, therefore lets kill him"). Apply this to, say, the cold war. Imagine if the US president had said "I reckon the Russians are provoking us, and want to kill US civilians. Let's bomb them!", then that also instantly vindicates the use of force by Russia to bomb the USA. The outcome of that is countless civilian deaths and soldier deaths on both sides. That can't be justified by the intention of sparing your civilians, because through war you don't achieve that.

Your view seems to be based around the idea that military ends conflict. No it doesn't. Military creates conflict, and it never creates peace.

Blackflag: Alright, say then that I want to kill all military personal employed by the U.S. government, any of its states, territories, or sub-organizations?

They aren't civilians, so a war against me could not be justified by your standard.

admin: So first of all, I don't accept your premise that soldiers enlist for exclusively this reason, nor that they forgo other duties and responsibilities by so doing.
Refer back to this post
The army must be filled with selfless and capable people, who do indeed wish tohelp many people over themselves.
Having to many people in the army simply because they are capable, is net harmful.

But my real problem with your reasoning is that it's basically "I think he wants to kill some people, therefore lets kill him first"
If you have to "think" about whether an army is killing people, then the war is probably not justified.

nd never mind the fact that most casualties in war are almost always civilians)
The majority of wars were fought for greed and power, not the civilian. Given todays technology, and extreme size of NATO's millitary, war can be started and ended in a day, with minimal casualties. Perhaps that's technology we need to look into further. The Green Party is researching non-lethal weaponry. That may be the future.

Of course, the other guy would be equally justified in saying the same thing about you ("I think he wants to kill me, therefore lets kill him"). Apply this to, say, the cold war. Imagine if the US president had said "I reckon the Russians are provoking us, and want to kill US civilians. Let's bomb them!", then that also instantly vindicates the use of force by Russia to bomb the USA.
1. There is no thinking, which is why peace was sustained. Neither side was killing each other's citizens, therefore, peace was justfully undertaken.
2. Retaliation to a nuke would be unjust as it would kill civilians.
3. MAD theory was dismissed under similar logic. The whole premise is faulty because I never claimed the basis of evidence on "intention". Nukes were a terrible example btw.

Your view seems to be based around the idea that military ends conflict. No it doesn't. Military creates conflict, and it never creates peace.
This seems to be the case most of the time, but............................... hardly all of the time.
War is also progressional. WW2 and Iraq needed to happen.