War Theory and Peacemaking Essay Example

should only be used against an enemy when there is a legitimate reason. This may involve preventing mass killings of innocent people and violations of fundamental human rights. For example, if a nation resorts to force in order to defend its citizens from external attacks, it would be considered a just cause. However, using violence against one's own citizens cannot be justified as a valid reason.

For example, the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin carried out mass killings against his own people. Nevertheless, Tanzania intervened decisively by invading and halting the massacres. This intervention was deemed justified as it put an end to the merciless slaughter of innocent individuals by the dictator, thus constituting an act of legitimate authority. When a war is declared, one can anticipate casualties and substantial depletion of a nation's resources.

Thus, the power to wage war lies not with any single person but is restricted to those who possess proper authority. The ultimate decision to declare war must follow constitutional processes, such as the President of the United States being unable to declare war.

According to Stassen and Gushee (2003, p. 159), the Congress holds the rightful authority to declare war against enemies of the United States. Additionally, seeking approval from international bodies is necessary due to the significant consequences of warfare. This constitutes the second form of authority needed for initiating conflicts with other nations. Consulting with relevant authorities acts as a system of checks and balances, ultimately reducing the probability of wars.

Before the attack on Afghanistan, President Bush did seek the approval of the UN, adhering to the principle of last resort. It is imperative that war is not the initial step

in combating evil, as other peaceful methods of conflict resolution must be exhausted first. The act of killing can only be considered just in a war if all nonviolent alternatives have been explored and deemed ineffective.

Both the Korean War and the Vietnam War presented contrasting circumstances. While the Korean War witnessed North Korea's invasion of South Korea, highlighting unsuccessful attempts at peaceful resolutions, the Vietnam War saw both the United States and the Saigon government refraining from diplomatic negotiations or seeking aid from the United Nations.

According to Stanssen and Gunshee, Holmes argued that only seeking peace for the parties involved is a just intention for war. In other words, any motives of revenge or conquest for economic gains cannot justify warfare. The ultimate goal of any war should always be to establish peace and improve the world.

The deaths and injuries of innocent individuals always occur in ideological oriented war, which is unjust. It is unfair for war to harm the ordinary men and women of an enemy country. Considering the probability of success is crucial; engaging in a losing battle is not worthwhile. Regardless of the intention behind the war, if achieving the desired outcome has a low likelihood, it is not worth fighting.

The U.S. waged a war against Vietnam, causing countless deaths, numerous injuries, widespread destruction, and wasted resources without achieving their ultimate goal. This war was both unjust and could have been avoided. Despite the Pentagon papers revealing low chances of success, the U.S. continued with the conflict only to face eventual defeat.

Although the Korean War had a reasonable chance of victory in World War II, it was deemed a righteous conflict given

the relative cost and the potential for greater good surpassing the harm post-war.

Stanssen and Gunshee stress the significance of evaluating the outcomes of participating in a war, highlighting the need to compare its advantages with the resulting harm. The Catholic Bishops expressed strong opposition against the Vietnam War, asserting that they held the belief that the devastation caused by this conflict surpassed any potential benefits it may have had. Thus, their stance on this matter is unequivocal.

The principle of government transparency entails providing clear communication regarding intentions to engage in war and outlining conditions for avoiding it. This is crucial to allow opponents an opportunity to prevent conflict and enables the public to understand and voice their opinions on the justness of the war.

A transparent government must not engage in war without informing its citizens. An illustration of this is when George Washington publicly announced the declaration of war against Afghanistan in 2001. It is crucial to fight wars through fair methods. The previous seven steps may deem a war as just and deserving to be fought. However, even with a just cause, it is imperative that the war is conducted using fair means as well.

Several countries have nuclear weapons, which can result in extensive damage and disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, the concept of cost proportionality is frequently ignored because the negative impact surpasses any benefits. Moreover, the principle of just means forbids deliberate attacks on civilians.

The use of nuclear weapons in warfare has detrimental effects on innocent civilians, prisoners of war, and non-combatants as a result of bombings and radiation. These long-lasting harms affect the entire population. It is crucial for nations to ensure that

warfare only involves military personnel and does not harm these groups. The criteria of the Just War Theory pose challenges for countries engaging in warfare since they do not promote the merits of war. In fact, if strictly adhered to, nations would rarely declare war. However, countries have frequently disregarded these principles.

The neglect of principles is mainly motivated by nations' personal interests. For example, the United States has participated in both fair and unfair wars, occasionally implementing principles but also assuming them without consideration. This can be observed in the Vietnam War, where the U.S. utilized and sometimes took for granted these principles.

Despite the government's refusal to negotiate, they proceeded to declare war without making a public announcement. Additionally, they ignored the Pentagon's calculations that indicated limited chances of winning. Consequently, the public expressed dissatisfaction with the devastating consequences, which far exceeded the intended benefits (Stassen & Gushee, 2003, p.).

161). War, as mentioned earlier, is an immoral act; hence, the standards for a just war should be regarded as the most efficient way to reduce violence. Nevertheless, countries like the U.S.A.

In some situations, the just war theory is employed to justify acts of killing, which is considered unethical. The abuse of the just war theory by nations driven by their own self-interests is common. These nations often manipulate the eight principles to serve their own agendas, sometimes disregarding the principles altogether. Stanssen and Gunshee are proponents of peace and nonviolence.

According to their belief, the Christian approach to avoiding violence is through the rationalization of just war. They assert that Jesus, as Lord, holds authority not only over personal relationships but also over public institutions. This

includes the battlefield, where Jesus remains the master of peace. Therefore, all Christians are called to emulate Jesus, carrying the obligation to do so.

The government should adopt the Lordship of Jesus Christ, particularly when it comes to declaring war on other nations. Just war theory should be employed to prevent violence rather than to justify killings.

Just peacemaking

Just peacemaking combines elements of both just war theory and nonviolence/pacifism. According to Stanssen and Gunshee, it is insufficient to only discuss the justice of war.

The concept of just peacemaking theory aligns with the Christian belief in bringing about peace through nonviolent methods. Pacifists advocate for this approach, which aims to prevent war and requires the support of nations and their citizens. Just peacemaking theory is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus on making peace.

Unlike the principles of just war theory and pacifism, the concept of just peacemaking provides guidance on both the necessary steps to prevent war and the practices that promote peace. However, if just peacemaking efforts fail, individuals must take a firm stance either as pacifists or adherents to just war theory. If people stray from these three approaches, their ideological interests may ultimately lead to war.

Conclusion

Just war theory, nonviolence, and peacemaking are crucial not only to Christians but also to society as a whole. These three aspects are instrumental in minimizing violence and warfare while incorporating Christ's teachings.

The text emphasizes the significance of peace in society, particularly for Christians who consider it a crucial aspect of daily life. They believe that God, who is the ultimate source of peace, expects people to live peacefully with one another as

they are His creations. Furthermore, peace is a defining attribute of God's kingdom.

Therefore, as Christians, it is imperative that we work towards creating peace in our daily lives as we anticipate God's elevation to his serene kingdom.

References

1. Mattison, W. (2008). Introducing moral theology: True happiness and the virtues. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
2. Stassen, G. H., ; Gushee, D. P. (2003). Kingdom ethics: Following Jesus in contemporary context.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.