War is bad

Hello again, Frankfurter. Round 3. FIGHT. To begin I will state my position. Con's burden is not to prove that war is good. Con's burden is to show that war is not always bad. As such I will argue that war is sometimes a necessity. Thus I offer the following contentions to negate the resolution. Contention one. War is sometimes necessary to defend the citizens of a nation from an impending threat. If a nation, neighboring or distant. Commences a behavior that threatens the citizens of a state then that government is justified in using any means necessary to defend their population. In regard to social contract theory, the operation of consent was to some extent automatically guaranteed by the fact that in order to carry the conventional weapons onto the field, individuals collectively had to agree to fight the war. Hobbes acknowledges the operation of consent in the substantiating actions of conventional soldiers when in Behemoth he writes, "If men know not their duty, what is there that can force them to obey the laws. An army, you will say. But what will force the army?" I start by invoking the words of Kant and Hobbes because everyday life continually puts before us the claim that in the emergency of war when our own survival is at stake, some of the operations of consent have to fall away because of the speed required to respond. I want to emphasize the fact that in contract theory in general, as well as in one very specific social contract, the American Constitution, provisions were made so that consent and the express act of contract become more explicit, not less explicit, at moments of the war. If a government believes itself above war and as such places the lives or sovereignty of its citizens at risk, then it has violated the social contract in refusing to fulfill the obligations that a government has to its people. For example in today's political climate, no one would blame South Korea or Japan for taking preemptive actions against North Korea in order to prevent being caught by surprise by an invasion or nuclear strike from the North. North Korea is a threat to the stability of the world and a threat to the well being of the people of several sovereign states. Contention two. War is often justified in the face of evil. As far back as recorded history goes there have been evil people. Sometimes, those evil people get into positions of power. When evil people get into positions of power they have a tendency to use that power to do evil things. Throughout history when the forces of freedom are weak, tyrants emerge. When tyrants emerge it's often the case that the nations of the world are called to arms to stop them. When the Allied Powers went to war to stop the advance of the Nazis, when the United States went to war to stop North Korea from annexing the entire peninsula, and many other examples were times when war was necessary to stop terrible things and prevent atrocities. seeing as evil doesn't care if war is right or wrong, all nations need to ready and willing to defend themselves and others against it. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone except for the evil dictators were anti-war pacifists. When one nation intended to conquer another that nation would have no defense against the forces arrayed against it anyone could simply march in and take over whatever they wanted. If they could garner enough support from other nations around them, the conqueror could avoid economic sanctions and other measures imposed by the other nations of the world. In conclusion though we may find war to be distateful, there's no denying it's necessesity to defend the innocent and to prevent the spread of evil.