Offensive Warfare - A Just War?

[harshcshah]

In your views, would it be justified by Catholic doctrine to wage war against a state that is perpetrating grave violations of the moral law against its people (e.g. Nazi Germany or North Korea) if the likelihood of success was high and the potential for international calamity (e.g. nuclear holocaust) was low. It is my understanding that St. Thomas Aquinas, correct me if I am wrong, thought an offensive war in such particular circumstances. However, the Catechism states this:
"Avoiding war
[2307] The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.
[2308] All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
[2309] The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
  These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
  The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
  [2310] Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense .
  Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.
  …
  [2312] The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict . “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”
  [2313] Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
  Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide." (https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm)

Please give me your thoughts on this issue.

 

[Aulef]

You pretty much pointed out important arguments regarding just war and most of them are self evident, that is, they don’t need much explanation.

Is there anything in particular you would like to discuss about?

 

[harshcshah]

Whether or not offensive action is justifiable

 

[Beryllos]

… to wage war against a state that is perpetrating grave violations of the moral law against its people…

Defense is commonly understood to mean the defense of one’s own country or one’s own people, but in the scenario you propose, defense could be generalized to include the defense of another people.

Is there anything in particular you would like to discuss about?

Perhaps the moral question is whether it can be just for one country to inflict harm on another country in order to save it from self-harm.

Alternatively, or in addition, we could consider the question of outside intervention in ethnic or civil war. Can it be just for one country to kill some people of another country in order to save other people of that country (Edited to add: or to shorten the war, thereby saving lives of both aggressors and victims)?

 

[Beryllos]

I suspect that outside intervention in ethnic or civil war could, in principle, be carried out justly, but in the history of the world, such interventions have often been unjust and caused greater harm.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I lived in Cyprus between 1963 -66, the United Nation forces acted as a dividing line between the Greeks and Turks. Their blue flags and hats were mostly respected by both sides.

I think this is the greatest good way that we can intervene in civil war.

 

[Emtguy89]

If it is necessary and reasonable, we have a moral responsibility to intervene. If no good can come of it, then it’s better not to, if it creates more problems than it solves. Though I think most times in the modern era, war seems to be a first resort rather than last, pushed by people who profit and benefit from it in various ways. They are the only real winners, because they didn’t get hurt or killed. A lot of it is based on lies, racism, or racism comes out of it as a retroactive justification. I’ve had the privilege of meeting a handful of older veterans who have actually been in combat against my own country, and other foreign soldiers currently serving, and I find they are actually really good people just doing a job to protect their families and homes in the best way they know how, according to their own understanding. Despite what both Fox and CNN say, they are not our enemy or a threat to us in any way. Generally, invading another country is just going to kill a lot of ordinary soldiers and civilians. So while the answer to your question could be yes, in practice it is almost always no due to false premise (Tonkin Gulf incident was a lie, and JFK deliberately ordered the CIA to let the RVN president get assassinated when he and his family could have easily been saved).