(Just?) War

As promised, today I discuss the subject of war. I will discuss this complex subject in the most logical and abstract way possible, making as few judgments about past or present wars as possible.

Usually I try to simplify things and clear them up so people can discuss the issue intelligently and re-examine their own beliefs. I still want you to re-examine your beliefs, but for once I hope this actually makes the issue less clear than it was before. So many people have black-and-white views on the subject. But the issue of war just isn’t that simple. There are far too many factors that can make a war more or less justified than it was before, and it comes down to things that good arguing (and lawyering) are all about: characterization of factual situations and line-drawing.

The most interesting concept when speaking about war is the concept of a just war. A just war is one that is justified, i.e. there are good reasons for the war. It will be useful to think about the reasons for going to war on a spectrum from 0 to 100:

Least Just 0_______50_______100 Most Just

There are few people, I think, that would argue that a war is never justified. For example, a defensive war is almost always just in most people’s eyes. When X Nation attacks Y Nation, there are only a few peacemongers out there who would say that Y Nation should not fight back. So we’ll put defensive war at the far right end of the spectrum (100). At the far left, we’ll put a war for the sole purpose of killing and destruction (0). I think most can agree on these placements.

Beyond this point is where it gets a little tricky. War for the purpose of training soldiers or testing weapons may be around 1-10, and war for resources/territory may be somewhere between 11-20. On the higher end of the spectrum we have war to defend a non-aggressing nation against an aggressor, somewhere between 90-99. Beyond that is where things get more difficult, but for the sake of argument let’s say that the middle ground is a war of retaliation/revenge for a previous war, somewhere in the 45-55 range.

What else is near the top end of the spectrum? Well, let’s think of other things that are similar to military aggression between nations. One that comes to mind is government oppression. If Z Nation treats its people very poorly (tortures them without reason, starves them, etc.) then that is at least similar to X Nation’s unjustified attack on Y Nation. So let’s put that in the 80-89 range.

At this point we can already identify three areas where reasonable minds can differ.

1. No doubt some think that war for resources is more just than war for retaliation. And some people think that it’s all black-and-white, but surely that can’t be true. You may want to mess with the scale I’ve set up in all kinds of ways. There is no easy way to decide what makes a war more/less just.
2. Where do you draw the line? In other words, at what point on the scale do you go from saying “This war is unjust” to saying “This war is just”? Is it at 100? Surely that’s unreasonable. Or maybe 90? 75? 50? 25? There must be a point at which a war becomes “just,” but where is that point?
3. And finally, in the real world, how do we decide where a particular situation lies on the spectrum? To take the Iraq war as an example, is it simply a war for oil (somewhere in the 11-20 range)? Is it a war of retaliation for 9/11 (45-55)? Is it a war against terrorism (60-69)? Is it a war to free the people of Iraq from oppression (80-89)? If the last one, is their oppression maybe not that bad, dropping it to the 70-79 range? Not only that, but surely most wars have more than one motive. Does it take on the ranking of the best motivation? Does it take on the ranking of the primary motivation? Or does it fall somewhere in between? The American Civil War was about slavery (80-89), wasn’t it?

Thus far, however, we have only discussed the motivations for war. But there is another factor: tactics. No matter how just your motivations are for going to war, if you target civilians your war becomes less just. Attacking only military targets is more just. Also, any tactics that reduce the total number of casualties (on both sides) are more just. But even these are just general statements. Imagine this hypothetical: three tactics are available. Each of them will result in the following casualties:
A. 1000 friendly, 1000 enemy, 0 civilian
B. 400 friendly, 400 enemy, 100 civilian
C. 100 friendly, 1000 enemy, 100 civilian
Tactic A results in 2000 total deaths, but none are civilian casualties. Tactic B results in 900 deaths, fewer than half of Tactic A, but 100 are civilian deaths. Which is more just? In other words, how many civilian lives is each soldier’s life worth? The exchange here is 12 soldiers for every 1 civilian. Is that worth the difference? And finally, Tactic C results in 1200 total deaths (300 more than Tactic B), but far more are enemy deaths. Surely no one would fault a nation for using a tactic that results in more enemy dead than friendly dead, but when the exchange is not 1-for-1, at what point does it become unjust? This is a 1-for-2 exchange. Is it just? What about 1-for-5? To illustrate, three more examples are in order:
D. 0 friendly, 50,000 enemy, 0 civilian
E. 0 friendly, 10,000 enemy, 50,000 civilian
F. 10 friendly, 100 enemy, 50,000 civilian
Tactic D would be an ideal war for the winner, wouldn’t it? Isn’t it great when none of “our boys” have to die? To compare it to Tactic A, it’s a 1-for-49 exchange, with no civilians dead. Is it worth it? What about when you throw in costs? Tactic D is obviously a very high-tech (and therefore expensive) war. If you agree that this is a fair tactic, given a perfect 100 motivation, would you still agree if it cost $1 trillion more than Tactic A?
Tactic E looks a lot like a nuclear strike. Sure, it doesn’t sound good, with the high total number of deaths and especially the high number of civilian deaths. In an absolute sense it doesn’t sound just. But that may change when you consider the alternatives. In WWII, for example, they estimated millions dead on both sides in a ground war if the U.S. were to invade Japan. Does it therefore become just?
And Tactic F looks a lot like a massive terrorist strike. Does any motivation ever justify this result? What alternatives would make it look better?

And what if the result isn’t what you expect? All these tactics look better if you assume that the war will be resolved at the end. But what if it triggers retaliation instead? Essentially, is that the only thing separating Nagasaki from the World Trade Center?

Now, to synthesize the motivation with the tactics. It’s a cost-benefit analysis. The tactics are the cost and the motivation is the benefit. As the costs of war increase, a better motivation is needed to go to war. Assume that in the year 2010 the number of deaths from a war will be 25,000. Let’s say that we can agree that a motivation of at point 80 on the scale will make that war just. In 2020 the number of deaths will reduce to 20,000, making a motivation of 75 just. Is there any point at which a motivation of 5 will be just? To make it more concrete: in the year 2100 we have the opportunity to gain all the world’s gold by killing only 10 enemy soldiers. Does a war become “just” when you can say that it’s “just” war, that is, that war is no longer all that bad? Or does the scale simply stop at some point, after which the costs are irrelevant? Is that even logical? Does that make the whole analysis fall apart?

Finally, what bearing does global overpopulation have on the issue?

And now my command: discuss.