Is war a crime?

While I was wandering the forums, and not just on ATS, I have encountered this topic an uncountable times. But what bothered me was that it was almost always stated, declared as an undeniable fact whitout any need for proof or logical backup. Now it might sound controversial, but I think that on pure logical base, war is good. I'm well aware that those who were personaly involved in it or suffered from it would insantly disagree with me and they would be right. On a personal level. What I try to discuss is war and it's role looking at the bigger picture. I mean yes it cause the deaths of millions. Yes it brings a lot of suffering and pain. But on the other it's a historical fact during every major war the number of inovations skyrocketed which the later generations profited from. Millions died to gain the knowledge which saves billions now. So the outcome for humankind is a plus.


Now I'd like to keep the discussion on a theoratical level so please refrain from outbursts or insults. Let's find an answear together by providing pros and contras.

P.s.: and sorry for the bad spelling. I was never good at it. Not even in my own language

reply to post by Echtelior

Explanation: S&F!

War is a tool used to get what one wants! Whether one can validate the reasons for going to and using war as a means to an end [i.e. and avoid a war crimes charge and possible penalty] is the real issue because even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the use of war as a last resort...

Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org]

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, AS A LAST RESORT, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Note: All bolds, underlines etc are my edits for emphasis ok.

Personal Disclosure: I have my map of my freedoms and I know where the lines of last resort are that surround them and I know that I'm currently under attack! ... it is not just happenstance and its beyond coincidence and maybe ...just maybe my apparent lack of any action is a lie to fool my enemies... then again maybe its not?

If I kill someone it's a crime. Just because a government tells me to do it for them doesn't make it right. Then after a war the only ones who are punished are the losers. How is that justice? As for good things coming out of war, sure they happen, but we're able to have technological breakthroughs with out war. It's all about focus. Look at America's quest to go to the moon in the 60s.

reply to post by righteyered


And what it made possible was the V1 and V2 rockets of the 2nd WW. The whole Apollo program was based on the german weapons of mass-destruction.

Also if war is a crime than is a freedome war also a crime? The Us was born this way.

reply to post by Echtelior


i personally believe war is wrong, no matter what light you try to put it in. i would rather be stuck in the dark ages and have people love and get along with one another.

reply to post by ZiggyStardust


So you say that you would never take up arms against anyone? No matter the conditions? If yes, I admire your determination though I can't agree with it. But the question still exists: is, in general, war a crime?

reply to post by Echtelior

The US won it's independence from Britain not from defeating the British army but because it was costing the British too much to keep fighting the Americans. Don't forget the independence movement started and was having success with nonviolence (the Boston Tea Party for example). India won their independence with nonviolence, it's proven to work, so war is not the only solution.

Originally posted by Echtelior
reply to post by ZiggyStardust

 

So you say that you would never take up arms against anyone? No matter the conditions? If yes, I admire your determination though I can't agree with it. But the question still exists: is, in general, war a crime?

the only time i would ever consider killing another person is in defence of myself or my loved ones which is not the same as war for many different reasons.
i would say that war is a crime against humanity. killing other human beings for filthy money and/or religion is a crime against humanity. evil, rich men sending off citizens of their country to fight in wars THEY started while they sit back comfortably in their seats is a crime against humanity.
war doesn’t make any sense to me and i don’t understand how anyone can perceive it as positive in any way. but that’s just the way my brain works, i guess.

reply to post by ZiggyStardust


So you'd fight to live. But what about your property? And please don't think on a personal rather on a national level. If a foreign country would invade your's to get a hold on your (and the nations) property, would you let them do as they please?

No, it's not a crime.

It's legal.

reply to post by righteyered


Still the US waged war against them. But not just the US. My country (Hungary) did that too several times and a lot other nations. Yes, there are examples for gaining freedome without violence. But soo much more when there was war. Also, for one a freedom war, for the other a rebellion. From their own perspectiv, they will both find their cause just. Who is right?

reply to post by 547000


I agree,

War is legal for USA and Israel only.

reply to post by 547000

Explanation: Not always! Here is why...

Legality of the Iraq War [wiki]

The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.".

Personal Disclosure: Like I said in my post above... "Whether one can validate the reasons for going to and using war as a means to an end [i.e. and avoid a war crimes charge and possible penalty] is the real issue"!

War Is Stupid

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

~Sun Tzu; The Art of War~

Perhaps Sun Tzu was the first to aestheticize war, or perhaps the aestheiticization of war had been an ancient tradition since time immemorial when Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War more than 2,500 years ago. That war and violence has been, and continues to be aestheticized is not in question. The question, as this thread asks, is war a crime?

There are times, when one nation is attacked by another, and the necessity to defend ones own sovereignty is unquestionable, where war is unavoidable. Sometimes the need for revolution demands war, yet more recent history has shown us, by way of the now famous Eastern European "Velvet Revolutions", that revolution can be had without the great expense and tragedy of war.

If revolutions can be waged without the use of war, and if the only time war becomes necessary is when a rogue state lawlessly attacks another state and the need for self defense becomes the only justification for war, then it is arguable that war is indeed a crime.

War Is Tragic

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

~Sun Tzu; The Art of War~

While the title of Sun Tzu's book on military strategy suggests a glorification of war, it is arguable that Master Tzu wrote the book not to glorify war, but rather to minimize the tragedy of war.

It has been suggested that war has marked the upward surge of humanity by forwarding technology. While there is some truth in this, war is not the mother of invention, necessity is. The discovery of time was an advance in technology and it is highly doubtful this technology was advanced due to war. This technology did, however, give rise to another new technology, and that was horticulture and ultimately agriculture. Yet it is just as arguable that agriculture was not a technology advanced by warfare. Eli Whitney did not invent the cotton gin in order to advance military strategy. The Wright Brothers did not fly at Kitty Hawk to advance military strategy. Henry Ford, and those who preceded him, did not create their automobiles to advance military strategy. Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone to advance military strategy. Thomas Alva Edison did not invent the light bulb to advance military strategy.

For all the advances that have arisen due to war, it is the very technologies used by military's that accentuate the profound tragedy of war. Consider the atom...

The word atom is Greek for indivisible, or uncut. I suppose that since this word was used to describe the irreducible element or particle it was inevitable that some scientist, somewhere, would rise to the challenge and attempt to divide that named indivisible. The result was nuclear fission, and the first to employ this result was the military for the purposes of war. For the purposes of Big Bangs.

The consequence of this result is immense in its complexity and profundity. Even before the development of the atom bomb and the subsequent development of arsenals of nuclear weapons that mutually assure our destruction, the steady march towards freedom had found great resistance from many a petty tyrant.

After the development of the atom bomb, that steady march towards freedom became a desperate and whimpering crawl, as suddenly humanity found themselves taking one step up, and five steps back. It was The United States military that first used the awesome destructive power of the atom bomb. The very same military that had collectively, every single individual within that military, taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America. Within that Constitution are the Bill of Rights, and within the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

~Second Amendment; The Bill of Rights~

What precisely does this mean?

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

~Justice Joseph Story; Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833~

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

~Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789~

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

~James Madison; Federalist No. 46~

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

~Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No. 28~

Hamilton continues this defense of the right to keep and bear arms with:

[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right, and a right that exists so that every individual may defend themselves and their unalienable rights. When it becomes necessary to form militias to defend against the usurpation's of petty tyrants, then it stands to reason that the right to keep and bear arms must be commensurate with the military might these militias intend to defend against if they hope to succeed. If a tyrants military has a navy, it is wise the militias of the people have their own navy's as well. If the military of a tyrant has an air force, it is wise that the militias of the people have their own air force as well...and if the tyrant's army has nuclear weapons, it is wise that the people are equally armed with such weapons as to mutually assure destruction...

War Is Madness!

What's that you say? Every individual has the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons? This is complete madness!

If this is your reaction, let it be known, it is a reaction I am in agreement with. What utter madness to have an entire populace heavily armed with nuclear weapons. Such a thing can never be allowed. Yet, many who would agree with this tragically would disagree that it is equally as mad to allow military's to have nuclear weapons. I humbly submit that it is not just madness, it is ludicrously insane to allow military's keep just one atom bomb, let alone an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means...

~Carl von Clausewitz; On War~

Where von Clausewitz subtly states that war is merely a continuation of politics through other means, that subtlety can be lost on many. The "other means" von Clausewitz speaks of is failed politics not successful politics.

Politicks is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs, and, as those are forever changing, what is wisdom to-day would be folly and perhaps, ruin to-morrow. Politicks is not a science so properly as a business. It cannot have fixed principles, from which a wise man would never swerve, unless the inconstancy of men's view of interest and the capriciousness of the tempers could be fixed.

~Fisher Ames~

If at one time war was "good sense, applied to public affairs", the forever changing times changed quite dramatically after the first atom bomb was dropped, and today we are faced with Mutually Assured Destruction, and it is no accident that this phrase spells out the acronym MAD.

If we, as humanity, can not succeed in politics and apply enough good sense to realize that mutually assured destruction is a dead end road, then our mutual destruction is indeed assured, and whatever perceived good war has due to technological advances becomes moot. Once the technological advancement of nuclear fission was used to advance military strategy, it was a forgone conclusion that the rush to develop all sorts of weapons of mass destruction would follow. How this is good is beyond all good sense, and even common sense, and it is evident that the lunatics have control of the asylum.

War was always a crime, as any crime produces victims. After the development of nuclear fission for military purposes, war is not just a crime, it is a heinous crime against, not just humanity, but the entire planet as well.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well that was a lot to read but it was worth the time. It was a great add to this discussion. You said a very interesting thing about necessity. I totally agree with that but I still wouldn't make a big difference between the two. Since what event of greater necessity is there besides war? That's why I think that war is the fuel of development. Also though it's true that none of those were invented for military needs, but I wonder, if we'd take a look upon what inventions led to those discoveries what would we find. Just consider the apollo program, or all satelites mother the sputnik. And I'm sure that we could find a lot more if we'd look.

War is basicly is an ultimate way of forcing our will upon our opponent. Just on a larger scale. Actually I could compare it to hunting. There is a need which we can fulfill by killing. And by succes we have forced our will upon our opponent, in this case the prey. The differences between the hunting and war are more or less the weaponary and the numbers (and the attrocities, but that's a different story). Ok. I do know that I made it sound more simple than it is, but I hope you'll get what I wanted to say.

Originally posted by Echtelior
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Since what event of greater necessity is there besides war?

try peace.

That's why I think that war is the fuel of development..... Just consider the apollo program, or all satelites mother the sputnik. And I'm sure that we could find a lot more if we'd look.

Many people are clueless as to who ultimately pays for war. It's the tax payer.
As tax payers, we are being robbed of trillions in order to fund the technology advancements which you claim to be a necessity. It's called the trickle down effect of war.

War is basicly is an ultimate way of forcing our will upon our opponent. Just on a larger scale. Actually I could compare it to hunting. There is a need which we can fulfill by killing.

I hope you can distinguish the difference between killing a human (especially the innocent) to killing an animal. For a majority, war does not put food on the table, unless you work for the military industrial complex.

Wars are the product of the Ego. The beliefs that one group of people are superior to another, the belief that one way of thinking is better than another. So war, no matter how much technology comes from it is always wrong. No matter how you try to weigh it up in your mind. I think as a species we've lost our way completely. The very technology that we now rely on so greatly and thats got us as far as it has. Will eventually be our down fall. So all were doing is precipitating our own demise.

If i had a choice to end all war and for humanity to live in harmony, by losing all the technology we've gained as a result. I would say yes without thinking about it. Nature provides us with everything we'll ever need, now as we see our selves as somehow seperate from it, and do nothing more than exploit it with no respect for our effects on the world around us. Were creating an imbalance that will have to, eventualy be redressed. Nature will do this and we'll have no control over it. We like to think we can overcome anything that nature can throw at us, but we've been proven wrong time and time again and thats with relatively mild natural occurances.

I have no problem with rich people going to war and using poor people to fight thier battles for them. If you want be a soldier and go out killing people in the name of whatever cause you deem, important enough. Then fine, just dont try to drag me along for the ride.

After WWII neither China or Guam got War Reparations from Japan because of the United States not allowing them to get it.

We are about to fight China to rip Taiwan from them. Both Guam and China will again bear the suffering of another World War. It is just because we as the victors say it is so.

The US Marine Corps is getting ready to run a big PR campaign on Guam to get them to not think about how they got screwed the last time.....and how they are going to bear the full blunt of America's next World War.

Ripping Taiwan from China. The good news is this time there won't be a soul left alive on Guam to cry they didn't get War Reparations. They'll all be DEAD.

Is war a crime?

Is murder a crime?

War is not a crime in and of itself.

If your country attacks and invades my country then, technically I am at war, yet I did not precipitate the conflict and I would be merely defending myself. Would I have committed a crime? No.

The crime is to wage an aggressive war, that is what the top Nazi's were charged with and executed for at the Nuremburg Trials - "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression..." - amongst other things of course.

So yer, war is a crime, but only if you start it.