~Bertrand Russell
Never should there be an instance where war is the only option. Never should we resort to expressing malevolence through organized murder. But as we all know, we cannot always rectify situations peacefully.
There is only a time for war when:
a. There is something worth fighting for, and
b. When the opposing force is unwilling to negotiate.
When placed into a situation in which immediate action must be taken (i.e. genocide, terrorist attacks) what can be made of peaceful diplomacy? Not much. It simply wouldn’t be effective. To halt such a ruthless, cataclysmic upheaval of order and security, a threatening response is the only option.
Two members of the same species slaughtering one another for power, wealth, religion, or material gain is not, and never will be, morally correct. However, it could very well be the right thing to do when the consequences would have otherwise been catastrophic. “War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.”(Jimmy Carter- 2002)
Nations have the responsibility to go to war only when they bind themselves to entangling alliances, or when they must defend those struggling nations that are fighting for the very same thing another nation endorses. Obviously, the latter can have both positive and negative consequences. A nation staging a revolutionary move for independence, for example, deserves help (by any means necessary) from other democratic nations. On the other hand, despotic regimes with intentions to preserve communism may fight in opposition to save their government. This is still their obligation.
A nation might also undertake the occupation of war when they are in times of inconceivable suffering. Sometimes the only way to survive is through violence.
There are always alternatives to mindless bloodshed. However, as previously stated, a passive response may not always thwart violence of immense proportions. The most effective tactic would be to use large, powerful nations as leverage to intimidate smaller unruly governments. Established power seems to be the one of the few ways to snuff out international tensions.
Never should there be an instance where war is the only option. Never should we resort to expressing malevolence through organized murder. But as we all know, we cannot always rectify situations peacefully.
There is only a time for war when:
a. There is something worth fighting for, and
b. When the opposing force is unwilling to negotiate.
When placed into a situation in which immediate action must be taken (i.e. genocide, terrorist attacks) what can be made of peaceful diplomacy? Not much. It simply wouldn’t be effective. To halt such a ruthless, cataclysmic upheaval of order and security, a threatening response is the only option.
Two members of the same species slaughtering one another for power, wealth, religion, or material gain is not, and never will be, morally correct. However, it could very well be the right thing to do when the consequences would have otherwise been catastrophic. “War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.”(Jimmy Carter- 2002)
Nations have the responsibility to go to war only when they bind themselves to entangling alliances, or when they must defend those struggling nations that are fighting for the very same thing another nation endorses. Obviously, the latter can have both positive and negative consequences. A nation staging a revolutionary move for independence, for example, deserves help (by any means necessary) from other democratic nations. On the other hand, despotic regimes with intentions to preserve communism may fight in opposition to save their government. This is still their obligation.
A nation might also undertake the occupation of war when they are in times of inconceivable suffering. Sometimes the only way to survive is through violence.
There are always alternatives to mindless bloodshed. However, as previously stated, a passive response may not always thwart violence of immense proportions. The most effective tactic would be to use large, powerful nations as leverage to intimidate smaller unruly governments. Established power seems to be the one of the few ways to snuff out international tensions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.