6 Answers

  1. How is it “generally”? There are no wars “in general”, they cannot be – they are always concrete. But the fundamental possibility of dividing wars into just and unjust, aggressive and defensive, enslaving, so to speak, and liberating, of course, exists. And this is not so difficult to see (although not always).

    Now about the opponents. Well, in our time, hardly anyone admits that he is a supporter of wars. Even those guys who march so bravely on Red Square on Victory Day and earn a good living by military service. However, I think that there are people who cannot take the life of someone, even an enemy, an aggressor (well, the same Buddhists, only real ones). And not out of cowardice, but out of a personal inner conviction that this should not be done. He'd rather have me than I'd rather have him. I do not belong to such people, I do not share their beliefs, but I cannot condemn these people.

  2. I think wars are justified:

    your country is under attack,

    your country is being threatened with destruction,

    your people are being genocided.

    Read world history, it consists of constant wars, even now there is a war going on somewhere and people are being killed.

    And one thing can be said to the opponents of war: if you are attacked, accept and submit, and if you are killed, then you should not arise, you are against war.

    I am all for keeping a strong grip on weapons, defending myself, my family, my parents, and the country, and if there is a war, then fight.

  3. You can find an excuse for anything. “Everyone has an excuse like a hole in the ass/(there will always be one).”

    If we ignore wars and their sides, then we can find objective reasons for their occurrence impartially, but this does not justify them in any way.

    Wars are not fought on a whim. Just as politics is a concentrated manifestation of economics, so war is a concentrated manifestation of politics. The causes of wars are certainly contradictions in the basis, i.e. in economic interactions in the society of 1 country or several.

    1 the truth cannot be twisted and manipulated: ordinary people die in wars.

    Of course, smart people will cite the fact that war is the engine of progress. But what's behind it? It is worth considering that wars kill people, destroy villages and towns, destroy the means of production and productive forces, and sometimes destroy states. So how can war be considered an engine of progress when there is a harsh and barbaric destructurization of society? And the bottom line is that war is the same competition only on a colossal scale with the use of means of destruction. The essence of progress is competition (in the case of antagonistic structures of society) or competitiveness (in overcoming antagonism and further development of humanity). War, as well as the methods of its conduct, will develop following the development of humanity and science and technology.

    And time after time, humanity will use more and more destructive weapons, but this vicious circle can only stop in 2 cases: either humanity will self-strengthen, or it will learn to coexist with itself.

    if you share a more reactionary view of the world and life around you, then you will certainly justify or even approve of wars. Only the further course of events I have already described above. Then, in order not to remain on the pages of the history of the universe, humanity needs to overcome barbaric views of the world, develop, develop production forces with relationships, then develop a superstructure, create a new morality based on a new being, and move on to the next SEF. It is social existence that determines social consciousness: changes in the basis led to changes in the superstructure and morals of societies. It is impossible to instill the institution of parliamentarism in cannibals in Africa or Indonesia, because the institution does not correspond to the basis and its level of development.

  4. What do you mean justified in general? Wars simply exist and will continue. And given that there are nuclear weapons, it is possible that something will happen that will end all wars. And the proponents of wars simply never encountered these wars. They don't know what it's like to live in fear of death for days on end. War is not about exploits, war is about sitting in a trench in mud, guts, lice and death. War is when drugged hamsters go to kill the same hamsters for the sake of the interests of the elites. And yes, that doesn't mean I won't protect my home. You just need to remember who will bury their sons and who will make a profit. War is as much an unavoidable evil as crime or drug addiction. In modern times, all wars are business projects where ordinary people are expendable. I'm ready to die defending what I hold dear and it's clearly not some billionaire's golden toilet bowl.

  5. We need to look at how to justify it. From the point of view of a person as an individual, from the point of view of a certain society and the moral foundations of some communities, war is evil, and there is no justification for it. Because it is associated with deaths, certain types of deprivation, and so on….

    From the point of view of civilization, war, oddly enough, is a blessing. Technological progress is progressing, only thanks exclusively to wars. Humanity, unfortunately, does not know how (in technical terms) to develop peacefully. Some technical innovations appear as a means of upgrading existing means of defense/attack, and only then something takes root in the peaceful field.

    For example, the ultra-thin aluminum body of modern smartphones is the result of experiments with fighter armor. The secret technology for producing an ultra-thin sheet of metal was invented by the military, but due to its high cost, it was not used in the military industry, but was declassified and sold to manufacturers of household appliances and electronics.

    This, however, does not justify wars, but forces us to accept them as a given.

    From the point of view of what it is still possible to justify the war (although this does not make it easier, calmer, or more joyful for an ordinary person) so this is from the point of view of the Laws of Nature. The easiest way to regulate the human population is through wars, because viruses and bacteria and external natural conditions (natural regulators) are becoming more and more difficult to cope with this task.

  6. What does justified war mean? Wars are characterized by other terms. War is a natural process of solving acute and state-important problems. No war begins because of a whim or someone's desire to fight. Everyone knows perfectly well that they kill in war.

    Opponents of war are different. More often – these are banal cowardly vegetables. But there are also fabulous pacifists. All opponents are detached from reality and live in a fairy-tale world where the tiger loves the goat…

    I'm not going to answer that… They do not hear their opponents, and a priori consider them bloodthirsty cannibals.

Leave a Reply