The article by Robert E. Williams and Dan Caldwell, “Seeking security in an unsecure world” discusses war between the reasoning behind it, the ways it is done and the morality in all those means. The article presents the idea that the just war tradition claims that killing people will lead to saving and preserving lives. As in war is a means to achieve better peace. That article made me think:
If I want to think about it according to my own logic, the mere beginning with the idea that war is necessary is reason enough to go to war. If we assume that all other alternatives will not achieve our goals properly; then war and the use of force would seem like the most critical and effective way of action eventually. However, doubting the need for war in the first place is what puts the issue of morality in chains and in question. For if we believe that killing is immoral and unjust on a small-scale then how can we support the act of war which consists of mass killing. In that case I believe there is hypocrisy in saying it becomes relative. When killing one person is out of the question then killing hundreds is not justifiable. With that being said I do not dismiss the human nature which implies self-defense and survival. Therefore initiating the action is not the same as receiving it.
The article gives insight around this topic and through quoting Michael Walzer it established a certain distinction. However I would like to note that Walzer seems like he has put the ground point as that war is inevitable and necessary when other alternatives fail, because he is giving justification and reason to its presence. Walzer says that war is divided into two parts the reason behind its doing and the way it is done. I agree with that if we begin from the idea that war is inevitable, for carrying on the act of war with the least amount of casualties for example makes it more just. Or going to war because a state’s sovereignty was attacked could be reasonable.
On a personal note, I believe that going to war means that a country is either absolutely sure about rising victorious out of it, or because they have nothing more to lose. If we process this idea, we might find that if two equal powers hit each other it is impossible for one to win over the other. There must be a certain discrepancy in those 2 warring sides in order for one to come out triumphant over the other. So no matter the reason for war or the way it might be done, countries reach points were they might do anything to come out winning or else they will have to bear the costs of the so called-one sided-“peace”. Countries therefore end up fighting until no sign of hope is apparent. Different wars have resulted in crimes against humanity or war criminals, or the use of illegal weapons and so on. The problem is after the end the damage is done, some win and some lose but the people who have lost their lives are no longer there to hear how governments are justifying or condemning their deaths.