Assignment 9 - Eli Flomenhoft

War is a vicious, vigorous, violent thing. It consumes lives like locusts consume grain. It tears through civilizations like a disease. And more often than not its benefits never outweigh its cost. Yet there is a time for war. When all other routes of negotiation have reached an end and all that's left is war, a country should not sit down, bow out, and let itself be conquered. It should stand up and fight to protect its people. Some people protest that when a country outgrows its land war is needed to gain more, but diplomacy can be used instead. Others protest that war is needed to attain wealth, but there are other paths to wealth than war. War is only required to protect a country when all other paths to diplomacy have failed.
Although war may be required to protect a country, it is never morally right, instead, it is the lesser of two evils. If the country being attacked does not go to war the potential for death among its citizens rises dramatically. This is the larger of the two evils. Going to war to protect a country prevents the death of more its citizens. Furthermore, should a country go to war to protect itself, it should only be in protection. A country should never use its power to cause harm to another country's citizens, even if the other country is the aggressor.
Of course there are alternatives to war such as diplomacy and trade sanctions. These options can be more or less effective depending on the situation. Diplomacy is helpful in situations like the Cold War. During the Cold War there were misunderstandings on both sides. And both were ready to pull the trigger on the nuclear option. But diplomacy helped defuse the situation and prevented nuclear fallout. On the other hand trade sanctions are helpful in almost all cases, especially in a society that values wealth above all else. Every country needs access to resources, and in such a globalized world with high quality of living, if a country is cut off from these resources then it is likely they will look to a route other than war. But despite the myriad of options available, there are some countries with a conviction and determination that nothing but violence can stop. Then war is necessary.
The philosophy of the social contract states that citizens sacrifice some freedom for a country that protects them. Yet if a country doesn't go to war when its citizens are being attacked, it is flouting its duty to protect. A country is responsible for the protection of its citizens, and if war is the only way to uphold that responsibility, then it is time for war.