What justifications, if any, exist in today's world for being the aggressor force in a military action? Excluding middle eastern ragheads like daesh/isis/isil or whatever the fuck. I want to know what it takes to make starting a war between two first world countries morally acceptable.
T. suddenly struck by curiosity
Shit like pearl harbor will do it.
That's totally subjective.
>>30381976
But then you're not the first attacker, you're responding to an assault.
>>30381988
Japan was the first attacker.
>>30381969
>morality
>>30381969
If you really want to answer that question, read a book about the law and philosophy of armed conflict and international law. Yoram Dinstein's "War, Aggression, and Self-Defence" is a respected work in that field. I found it for a dollar at goodwill.
>>30381969
"The aggressor" is all a matter of perspective. Trying to wrestle with the why is merely a pointless exercise.
People will always find a justification.
>>30381988
>implying pearl harbor wasnt an inside job
>>30382019
Thanks! I wonder if there's a pdf somewhere...
>morality
>justifications
Both very loose, airy, subjective words liberals love to use.
>>30382007
Japan was forced into military action due to direct economic pressure from the United States. They had no other choice.
See how this works?
>>30382029
nice b8 m8
that really explains why a Japanese carrier group was that close to Hawaii and the following string of offenses Japan launched
>>30382042
Starting to. But why is physical violence a morally sound response to anything but physical violence? Can it be? I'm more interested in the second question there.
>>30382059
Economic violence *is* physical violence.
If your country is being bled dry, it's your own people who are physically suffering.
>>30382042
Economic pressure which was put on because of Japan's war of aggression against China
>>30382087
A war which would have never occurred had the British not trashed their alliance with Japan.
>>30382085
So economic sanctions that result in deaths are a justifiable reason for attacking the offending nation? It seems sound to me, but if it's not I'd like to know why.
Bump for interest
>>30382145
If economic sanctions are simply a group of nations no longer choosing to trade with you, that is not violence. If the sanctions extend to blowing up or confiscating your trade ships when trading with independent nations, that is violence.
Consider; if you go to a store and the owner says he doesn't want to sell you his products because he thinks you're an asshole, is he doing violence to you?
>>30382228
Alright, so if those groups choose not to trade, knowing there's a famine, is military action against them justified?
>>30382228
But what if you are suddenly prevented from buying food anywhere accessible, and can't move out?
After a few weeks, taking it by force becomes justified.
>>30382266
No. Is it ethical to kill someone just because you're hungry and they don't want to give you their bread?
In your scenario, the odds are that it's YOUR actons that are directly causing the sanctions. Which nations have sanctions in the world we live in? North Korea. Iran. Shitholes with records of human rights abuses aplenty. They do not hold the moral high ground in any way.
>>30381969
The winner writes history
The only justification is "I want what they got." That's how wars of aggression are always fought.
That said there's no NEED to do it in the modern first world since we all benefit economically by not going to war with one another.
>>30382305
Alright, so the situation must be totally absurd. How about the ever-popular "resource war"? Assuming both you and a nearby country run on a necessary resource that you are out of, is it ethical to launch an attack to claim that resource?
>>30382346
>necessary resource
Which resources are so necessary that you must kill someone for it, and can only be found in someone else's back yard? Air? Water? Soil on which to plant crops? Those are the necessities of life, and those are found virtually everywhere.
The fundamental issue is whether you think it's acceptable to murder someone in order to save your own life.
>>30382403
>>30382363
It's a theoretical resource. Say water has become scarce or most sources have become too difficult to practically purify. I am getting the feeling, increasingly, that morality is of extremely limited use in survival situations, which is a very nihilistic thought as those are often closest to nature.
>>30381969
>>30382305
>>30382363
War exists as a direct check to Sovereignty. A state can't be a dick to everyone forever without challenge.
If a nation or corporation just brought the first superintelligent AI online I could see other nations going all out to destroy it. Give that thing enough time go get going and it's game over for everyone else.
>>30382445
>I am getting the feeling, increasingly, that morality is of extremely limited use in survival situations
It depends. If you have the might to win against anyone threatening your survival, using that might could be an option. However, if you're being a dick to other nations purely for your own gain, it could become difficult to gain their trust if the might is not enough. They might band together and fight you for their *own* survival, creating a lose-lose situation. In order to prevent that, cooperation and not being a dick could be a winning strategy.
