There is no longer a such thing as a "just" war.

"Is it morally acceptable to murder one hundred innocent people in the process of catching a serial killer who has murdered ten people? " - Michel Templet[1] Response to "How should a Just War be fought? ": 1. Very rarely in wars are innocent people and non-combatants not harmed. Civilians are often the unfortunate casualties of war. Some examples: Vietnam War: 4 million civilian casualties[2] Mexican Revolution: 125,000 civilian casualties[3] Korean War: 1 million civilian casualties[4] 2. There is no concrete definition on what "appropriate force" is. For instance, the Germans may have considered their constant bombings of England to be "appropriate force”. Aside from this, the use of “appropriate force” does not make a war anymore “just” or noble than the use of excessive force. 3. Again, to obey internationally agreed conventions regulating war cannot make a war more or less “just”. It is proper “etiquette”, if you will, but it cannot make the war “just” or unjust. Response to “just” wars: 1. Revolutions: A problem with revolutions is that they often happen immediately, with little diplomatic relations beforehand. My opponent states that “all other ways of resolving the problem should be tried first”. This is not the case with revolutions. Violence is the first objective. My opponent uses the example of the American Revolution. A timeline of major events leading up to the revolt: December, 1773: Boston Tea Party occurs in response to the taxation of tea[5] May, 1774: Bostonians call for a boycott of British imports[5] September-October, 1774: Continental Congress meets, declaring opposition to the Coercive Acts and promoting the formation of a local militia[5] May, 1775: Second Continental Congress meets and declares the colonies in a state of defense[5] While Americans did attempt a boycott, and the Boston Tea Party was a nonviolent act of rebellion, we see that there were no diplomatic relations or discussions beforehand, thus ruling out that *all* other ways of resolving the problem were tried first. (One a more personal note, I find it extremely hard to see any violent act of revolution after learning of Gandhi’s Salt March and other nonviolent resistances. ) 2. The American Civil War was truly not as “just” as it is portrayed to be. This war was initially not about slavery—in fact, Lincoln’s issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation was more about war strategy than the freeing of slaves. While slavery was, indeed, a point of conflict between the Union and the Confederacy, the war was truly fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states, and slavery was a specific issue of a perceived violation of a state's rights, over which the country went to war. [6] Two percent of the American population suffered death or maiming[6]—all to end a dispute about states’ rights. 3. I admittedly know very little about the Napoleonic Wars, except that Napoleon desired conquest of neighboring countries (expansionism). But if, as my opponent said, the end outcomes were a rise in nationalism and the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, I cannot buy into the thought that the 4 million deaths[7] as a result of this war were justified. Response to: "A just war is in the long run far better for a man's soul than the most prosperous peace" - Theodore Roosevelt No war can be better—be it for the soul or anything else—than peace. War, with all its bloodshed and atrocities, can never be better than peace. War is neither noble nor necessary. It is a crime that humanity commits against itself. [8] There is nothing to gain by murdering the innocent and destroying the earth itself. There is no principle divine or noble enough to justify an act of war. “He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. ” – Albert Einstein[9] "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. " - Mahatma Gandhi[10] "There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs. " -Dwight D. Eisenhower[10] Sources [1] . http://www.goodreads.com... [2] . http://www.statisticbrain.com... [3] . http://necrometrics.com... [4] . http://www.calvin.edu... [5] . http://www.historyplace.com... [6] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [7] . http://www.bookofhorriblethings.com... [8] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [9] . http://www.quotationspage.com... [10] . http://www.humblelibertarian.com...