War, War Never Changes

By: Ginopatrick Arasga

Class: 2b
6/2/15

War, war never changes is how the narrative begins in Fallout, a favorite
game of mine. Every new starts began in this convoluted storyline that had its
twists and turns, yet hearing it overtime always made me wonder of war. I sit there
racking my brain on the thought. Indeed, war has never changed. Be it for money,
land, freedom, truth, survival, or even superiority, it never changes. Sure the
methods changed, so did the weapons, but its concept, principal, remains the same
all in all. In war every story needs to be told by everyone, its horror story for all. One
side maybe right in their eyes, but that could be said for the other side as well, its a
matter of perspective. War is just a gray area, waiting to be filled with color of the
strongest ideology to rule it. Yet, despite it all, one question remains. Can War be
morally justified? The answer is yes. War can be morally justified by its shared
responsibility, the ethics of said responsibility, and the theory itself. These three
reasons are what define just war.
Firstly, War is a shared responsibility. Its also more on the topic of morality of
killing in war. No one is protected. In war there will be casualties, civilian or not. For
example a soldier of any age can suffer from stress and nightmares when said
soldier killed a young civilian whilst in a firefight. Its something shared on both
sides. Trauma is shared. One may even experience those same nightmares again
and again. Yet, one must understand what war is. War is unforgiving and leaves you
barebones to what you have to face. You either have the strength to move on or you
dont. Those in service should view themselves as a policeman that stand between
a victim and aggressor and must be the good guys when fighting a just war.
Soldiers fight whatever cause they believe in. Also in short people who threaten to
harm the innocent thereby forfeit their own right not to be killed, a threat maybe
permissibly to protect those they threaten. If you threaten another under the
guidance of war, then your life is and will be forfeit. It maybe cruel to say but thats
the truth.
Now lets understand the ethics of the responsibility to protect. Just war is
explained through the ethics of conviction and responsibility. The first one focuses
only on the rightful objective s of a given doctrine. The latter takes account of all
probabilities of life, for example the strengths or weakness of people in order to
carry out acts committed in the pursuance of a political goal. The doctrine R2P says
that there is a responsibility on outside actors to protect civilians at risk in
humanitarian crisis. Other acts include the deployment of military personnel and the

actual use of force to stop situations of genocide, crime against humanity, war
crimes and ethnic cleansing. The Just war theory said that a conflict- for instance, a
humanitarian intervention based on the principle of the R2P-maybe be justified if it
complies some requirements. One, there must be a just cause. Two, there must be a
legitimate authority has to permit the use of force through formal declaration.
Third, war is used as the last resort. Fourth, belligerents must have a rightful
intention. Lastly fifth, there is a reasonable prospect of success and an acceptable
ratio of cost vs benefits of the use of force. This all explains the ethics of
responsibility. The last requirements represent an addition of good judgement to the
humanitarian conflict scenario.
Now finally, the Just War Theory as a whole. The theory applies neither:
extreme pacifism or anarchism. Between it all, theyre many reasons for judging
when using force is justifiable. When Obama gave his acceptance speech for the
Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, he referred to the Just War Criteria. He said that it must
be only used when it meets prerequisites. It should only be used as a last resort or
in self-defense, must be proportional, and whenever possible civilians must be
spared from violence. The basis of theory is the presumption of peace-meaning
that again force should only be used in certain preconditions. Some causes to use of
force are one to defend ones county that has already begun and to defend against
an imminent attack. These two are the most widely accepted. The least favorable
are to avenge an attack and to acquire territory or resources from another country.
It also depends on the side of the left winger or right wingers and positon of war you
are in.
Just War is still a controversial topic regardless of my stance. War is never a
good idea. Soldiers who face war will never be the same again. Killing numbs them,
but thats the point of last resort. Its a necessary evil. Theyre guidelines to war. Its
just one giant game of chess. Its a just a gray area even if those guidelines, ethics,
or theory mean anything. So what Im saying it matters on perspective. Keep an
open mind to these kinds of subjects. War is mostly a means of defense.