When to use the Just War Theory

[Arturo_Ortiz]

As I have know to understand it, the war just theory states that a country does not have the right to attack an other country, but rather that war is to be a last resort. This means that if a country is attacked and is under threat of an invasion the country has the right to defend its citizens from violence. This to me means that you should wait until the country is attacked until you can pursue with a war.

I was wondering whether the just war theory can be applied if a country has inside knowledge about potential threats. For example if a country knows that a certain city or cities are going to be attacked, and that the attacking nation might declare war, shouldn’t the country have the right to defend this citizens and make take an early decision to go to war? What would the Just War Theory say about scenarios like this, when it is inedible that the hostile nation is going to attack? Shouldn’t the defending nation be able to declare war even though there has not been an attack yet?

 

[marty1818]

I’d suggest reading this:
ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/pre-emptive-war-and-the-protestant-semi-permeable-membrane/

 

[manualman]

Mark Shea has some rather good points, but he over-simplifies in proclaiming a blanket ban of pre-emptive defense. By his criteria, one could argue that had Hitler not declared war on the USA we were wrong to declare it on him (after all, only Japan attacked us). And of course, Britain WAS wrong to declare war on Hitler (Hitler would have greatly preferred to build up his forces longer first).

Perhaps his arguments were made in the context of people trying to justify the Iraq war, which is shaky at best. But I’m extremely uncomfortable with the assertion that one must simply allow someone to take his best first shot at you before beginning to defend yourself. Unjust and mortally perilous agression is sometimes recognizable before anyone actually bleeds.

 

[FaithBuild18]

Mark Shea has some rather good points, but he over-simplifies in proclaiming a blanket ban of pre-emptive defense. By his criteria, one could argue that had Hitler not declared war on the USA we were wrong to declare it on him (after all, only Japan attacked us). And of course, Britain WAS wrong to declare war on Hitler (Hitler would have greatly preferred to build up his forces longer first).

Perhaps his arguments were made in the context of people trying to justify the Iraq war, which is shaky at best. But I’m extremely uncomfortable with the assertion that one must simply allow someone to take his best first shot at you before beginning to defend yourself. Unjust and mortally perilous agression is sometimes recognizable before anyone actually bleeds.

Yeah you know, I actually think about this a lot. And I can’t help but feel like you’re right. I’m just really afraid that I’m some how sinning by taking this position. Is it heresy for me to support pre-emptive strikes if there is an imminent threat? I don’t want to know if you agree with my position or disagree with it, I just want to know if I am sinning by having it.

Is just war theory a matter of Church doctrine? Does the Church have any doctrine requiring me to be opposed to war? Or is it just prudence and opinion?

 

[CesarAugustus]

Read Cardinal Ottaviani writings about the theme.

Blessings!