Is war 'total'?

I ask this question because I've been recently locked in a debate between a few people that some how believe that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was not justifiable in the Second World War. Many of their reasons revolve around that the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent civilians. Yet, the more I mull over this the famous quote by Bertrand Russell keeps running through my head. "War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." And why that specific quote? Because the more it runs through my head the more it echoes the similar sentiments of another famous quote, in this case by Ayn Rand. "Reason and force are opposites; morality ends where the gun begins." It's very strange how two distinct people with two distinct views came to very similar conclusions about the nature of war. Russell, who was very much against war, pointed out the very essence of war and Rand who pointed out that the essence of all force is the same: survival.

It's strange how people try to think of war is some sort of complicated version of Counter-Strike (a first person shooter game), rather than a total attempt to totally survive (defender in a war) or totally destroy (aggressor in a war). Only because when people are in a war they don't delude themselves into thinking of compassion or mercy for their enemies. It's only before or after the fact do they think of conditions for war, but never during the act itself. I, like Rand, do not believe that rational beings start wars, but I do believe we damn well finish them. As for the Second World War, Japan did indeed attack the US, thus opening the flood gates for total war. The US government made it clear that it was seeking total surrender of the Japanese Imperial Government, its total disarmament, and total dissolution of power from the nation of Japan. Whether or not people want to accept this fact is moot to me, but it still bothers me how people can set up conditions for what is simply the act of survival.

-- Bridget

Post 1

Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 8:13am

I could even think of conditions under which a nation should start a war. That's all I'll say, because I don't feel like a war of words right now.

Post 2

Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 6:27pm

Good post Bridget, and nice to see your pleasantly benevolent face.

Rodney, I assume that you mean that there are circumstances under which one nation already is waging war through intention, preparation, or subversion, and the victim-to-be should properly recognize this fact, acknowledge reality, and act on it.
'
In either this case or Bridgets, the agressor has already begun an evil for which he is morally culpable, and the only way for the victim nation to remain blameless is to defend itself by all means necessary. Any innocednt civilians are the victims of the agressor. To pretend otherwise is to subborn moral blackmail.

Ted

Post 3

Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 7:09pm

Naturally. But that is to stretch the meaning of "waging war" to establish a principle that does not need to be established. A mere intention or a mere possibility is not making war. Yet no matter.

Of course, I regard 9/11 as an act of war carried out by Iran etc. partly by proxy. No gray area there. But I would also support a war of liberation against Cuba. Even if there is no threat to remove, there is a benefit to be gotten.

I want to make my opinion clear on one thing: a truly free country based on the proper philosophy would not discard its view of man even in these circumstances, and would make every reasonable effort to minimize innocent harm.

Post 4

Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 8:43pm

I believe it is Clausewitz who said that once an enemy intends war, it is begun. Or perhaps Sun Tzu. I am no expert on these things. But is one required to wait for the screaming maniac rushing at you with a knife to strike the first blow, (in case he was only going after the fly on your shoulder?) before dropping him with a revolver?

Ted

Oh, and Cuba began the war when it nationalized our property. No dictatorship is freely established. All good cases for "pre-emptive war" end up being justiffied by what our wiser ancestors used to call acts of war. It is only we concrete bound fools who haved forgotten what an act of war is.

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 1/14, 8:46pm)

Post 5

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 6:19am

Right, but I'd rather not stretch the concepts like that. And I would support invasion of Cuba even if it started peacefully.

Post 6

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 7:01am

Rodney,

You said that you did not want to get drawn into a war of words. With your example of Cuba, you have clarified what you meant. Again, I would not see this as the initiation of war by us, but as the decision by us to act to end the hostilities which Castro himself began five decades ago, and which we have chosen to ignore. His acts of war toward us have been many, nationalization, smuggling, counterfeiting, imprisonment, the Mariel boatlift, and so on, and our choice to prosecute this war now would not be the initiation of a new war, but the conclusion of an old one.

I am not sure what concept you feel is being stretched here. Perhaps you are defining war as open hostilities. That has never been the definition of war, and has only become commonplace since we changed the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defense for politically correct reasons. Using the concept in its actual meaning, rather than continuing with euphemism, would be respecting the concept. It is defining war only as open hostilities which is the true distortion of the term.

No need to respond further, if you are busy, unless you violently disagree with what I have said.

Ted

Post 7

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 8:30am

Let's say I disagree and leave it at that. I don't think the end result of our views would be much different.

Post 8

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 9:31am

While a war with Cuba is justified, I dont think its necessary. I think we can actually achieve more by re-opening trade, especially once Castro is gone. They will then change on their own - probably within 10 to 20 years.

Post 9

Monday, January 15, 2007 - 4:38pm

While I will grant that whether or not a country must open up hostilities with another country such as Cuba that has committed acts of war is open to debate, I doubt that trading with thieves will make the thieves become more honest. Orthodox O'ist position on this would be that it only benefits evil to cooperate with evil, even if we delude ourselves into thinking we are only trading with certain innocent victims living under that evil. At some point, a dictatorship is just a dictatorship.

Post 10

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 3:28am

Ted, could you tell us (ok, me) more about these hostilities you mentioned? Also, if we agree that an invasion would be morally justified, do you think it would be prudent? Is Cuba a threat? Just curious...

Post 11

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 7:57am

Well, when it comes to International Trade, it is generally better to trade than not to. First of all, we cannot police every country to determine if we are trading with criminals or not, and even if a regime is criminal not all of its citizens are. Secondly, trade opens up communication and shows the citizens of the country what is outside of their tightly controlled state authority. This erodes that authority - it cannot, ultimately, survive the light. These dictatorships thrive only in darkness and ignorance. Trade brings light, which brings eventual change, without the necessity of war. I would not recommend that we trade on a governmental level, just that we lift prohibitions on private citizens doing business or going to Cuba. Trade facilitates change, is the bottom line.

Post 12

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 5:06pm

By the way, a current headline I see on Google news reads "Castro in grave condition." Soon I hope to see that last word lopped off.

Post 13

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 9:32pm

I'm talking about hostilities that have occured since the sixties until now. I am not aware of any staute of limitations. I am not making a case now thought we must invade them tomorrow. The mere continued possessiomn of seized property is a hostility, unless you think that once your neighbor's theft fromn you has dropped out of the 48 hour news cycle it has ceased to be a crime. To have to explain this to an Objectivist is bizarre.

One picks one's fights.

Post 14

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 9:35pm

Kurt,

The problem is that the govt there skims off the top. There is no true private trade. (If there were, I miht not oppose it, but it would still actually indirfectly help a dictator maintain power.)

Phone calls to private individuals are allowed now, at the rate of about $2 a minute. Wonder where the $1.95 above cost is going?

Ted

Post 15

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 3:35am

To have to explain this to an Objectivist is bizarre.

I assume this was directed at me. Our Cuban studies in school consisted of a ten minute discussion on the bay of pigs that focused on how great Kennedy was, so I was looking for some specific examples of "nationalization, smuggling, counterfeiting, imprisonment, the Mariel boatlift, and so on..." Your posts have never been known for their brevity, so I thought you might take a minute to discuss these in detail. I tried to phrase my question as politely as possible, but.... Given these crimes, I would not oppose a "war" against Castro and his accomplices, but I would not support a war against Cuba.

Post 16

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 8:58am

I'll not get into any 'just war'-theory (or it's proper vs improper applications/justifications for taking over Cuba/Canada/Arctic), but, Rand clearly wasn't against 'invading' another country...under certain circumstances.

I never caught that quote by Russell. It reminds me of an old Gahan Wilson cartoon in an old Playboy (when I was a 'kid'...ahem.) It shows a soldier armed to the gills wearing a gas-mask, standing alone in a desolate wasteland with a few bodies laying around a cratered land with withered leafless trees in the background and gas floating through the air; the caption was his talking to himself: "We WON...I think."

LLAP
J:D

Post 17

Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 3:59pm

Jonathan,

I don't think we disagree, and you do seem to understand the examples I think justify a war against the existent Cuban government. Of course, as would any objectivist, I hold that a war is directed against an evil government, (or ideology) not against a people as a mere collection of individuals. I have no racist dislike of Cubanos, just a normal hatred of Castroismo. And I love la Celia! ¡Azúcar! It was having to make this clear which seemed bizarre. And I obviously did not need to make it clear, given your statement. I am no authority on the matter of specifics regarding Cuba. If you were asking me just to give more examples I'd humbly have to refer you elsewhere.

Ted

Post 18

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 4:22am

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.

Post 19

Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 8:08am