I think this is a very important part of what constitutes a just war. War is just only if the benefits are proportional to the harms done. Much of the war we know today fought by conventional armies use long distance weaponry like artillery, arial bombing e.g. "shock & awe" to mitigate the loss of soldiers and which ends up in unnecessary civilian deaths. This is a prevalent problem of "sufficient force". Israel's extensive use of force against Hamas is such an example.

But there are cases of proportional just wars e.g. UN intervention in Kuwait

Is it possible that the innocent civilians in Iraq who were bombed from planes far above them and died very violent deaths, and lost limbs, during the First Gulf War on Iraq, would reasonably judge that the harm done was excessive - no matter how glorious the result of keeping some oppressive sheiks in power in Kuwait.

A war is just for us to wage if we - in our own nation - are invaded and occupied ,,,according to Colonel Frank Forest, Ret., a man who taught at a War College, and who laid out the necessary conditions in his book, ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY. (Daytona Beach, FLA, 2001), available from the author.

He lists as the prerequisite reasons: Just Cause; Last Resort; Right Intention; Proportionality; and Legitimate Authority and Reasonable Probability of Success.

Furthermore, how can anyone in his right mind argue that the Gulf War was truly a "last resort"?

... A case could be made that even though the cause and conduct to intervene in Kuwait was just, the conduct of war which followed in Iraq resulted in a disproportionate number of civilian deaths, and therefore was unjust. ...

But putting aside the fact that the invasion into Iraq was a measure taken to deter future aggression ...

you stress that the harms involved outweighed any kind of benefits achieved. What about Hussein launching bio chemical SCUD missiles at innocent Kurds? Is disarmament of (then) Hussein's biochemical weapons (which also result in civilian deaths) not a considerable benefit?

I agree, that the U.S army did not pursue all the means it could have to fight a war sufficiently discriminated between the deaths of innocent civilians and soldiers (see doctrine of double effect). But the fact that upon reaching Baghdad, the US army retreated, demonstrates that in some ways Bush Sr. was attempting to act in accordance with just principles for conduct in war. Staying any longer would not have been justified, and inevitably would have resulted in disproportionate harms to benefits. But I'm still not saying it was justified, I'd have to do some research on statistics of the war in Iraq, and whether it was proportional to the benefits achieved (but it probably isn't)

Aggression which violates the territorial integrity and political soverignty of a nation is only one just cause, but also perhaps the most justifiable cause....

Again, take the case of Genocide. No state is being invaded, and yet the deaths of innocent civilians is without a doubt horrendous. As I have stated before, does it not seem reasonable, given the genocide being committed, that there is just cause to intervene and forcefully stop the perpetrators? ...

...there are cases where diplomacy is exhausted, and pre emptive wars are necessarily justified e.g. six day war. But these cases are few and far between, and I personally think just cause for pre emptive strikes should be severely restricted.

I appreciate the discussion.

I don't think the Nazi party had real racial ideals

hence the alliance with Japan

With an excuse such as the one you give: "a measure taken to deter future aggression" we could be in a perrenial state of warfare. That is not the quality of life I want to live, but maybe some here would settle for that.

Myself, I would prefer to build schools - at no cost to them - among those who need re-education for adaptation to 21st century values and culture. I would even offer them for free textbooks we have written - to go with the schoolhouse.

Are you sure those Kurds were so "innocent"? History says they were in a state of insurrection against the government. Would we behave any differently here than Hussein did against any local "bombers and terrorists" who were in a state of uprising against the government of the USA?

I don't believe we would. ---not that two wrongs make a right...

As far as disarming him of "mass-destructive weapons": that turned out to be a big farce. UN inspectors on the ground looked thoroughly and still could not find any. Yes, chemical weapons can be flushed away, but at great risk to the surrounding populations.

Is it possible some of us here fell for the usual war-inciting propaganda?

Again, thank you. We agree. Everyone needs to do such research.

It will be an eye-opener. On the first day, when our troops go in and destroy a library, and/or facilitate a museum later being looted, it is already unjustifiable to any scholar, or lover of the humanities, or conservator of culture.

"Aggression" is a vague and undefined term here in this thread. Does it never occur to readers that when we behave violently, i.e., use armed "force", that to a martian, WE may be perceived, correctly, as "the aggressor."?
When we occupy a place, by use of violent force, we perhaps WE are "the terrorists", the invaders, the bad guys. It all depends who you are asking.

Yes, I want to stop the perpetrators !!

If I do it by using armed drones, or bomber-aircraft, as we are wont to do in recent times, rather than engage in hand-to-hand karate, judo, aikido, etc. do not we become "aggressors" and "terrorists"? Yes, let's shoot elephant-tranquilizer darts at the genocidal soldiers, then ship them to retraining camps for intensive rehab; but if we copy their conduct, how are we any better than they????

I know of several military veterans, who were wounded in battle, and who now believe that war is so stupid: it's just sheer madness. [In fact there is an outfit named "Veterans Against War."] Some of them have "hero" status. All those I've heard from had won Purple Heart medals. One highly-medalled hero, who I kow personally here, fought in The Battle of the Bulge. He came to that realization right on the battlefield, after much killing he had engaged in, when he looked into the eyes of a quite young German recruit he just confronted who looked so dazed, as if to say "What am I doing here???!?". They both put their guns down and stayed in their respective foxholes instead of killing each other. They both seemed to feel the same way. He confided in me 62 years later. He realized then that war is not merely non-rational: it is irrational, it's the very opposite of rationality.

It seems to me that up to now we have had first to make a mistake - like going to war - and then learn from it. Wouldn't it be neat to 'know better' before we suffer?

What if there was a body of cumulative-knowledge with the name "Ethics" that would do for conduct what Musicology does for music appreciation?

What the music notation system does for musical composition this Ethics discipline would do for breaking bad habits and for forming ethical conduct.

Maybe then people would avoid war altogether?

War though, as a concept, can not be blamed on mankind.

War though, as a concept, can not be blamed on mankind.

I blame elephants, hippopotamuses, and the platypus. Without these creatures of evolution, mankind would have no reason to go to war because there would not be the concept.

• Is there such a thing as a just war, both in theory and in actuality?
  

What conditions would be sufficient to make war morally justified?

Is absolute pacifism a logically coherent notion?

• Is absolute pacifism a logically coherent notion?
  

But I am unsure whether I would want to adopt a consequentialist or non-conquestialist approach.

Absolute pacifism holds that killing is never justified, under any circumstances. But surely we can think of many situations where killing someone would be justifiable.

I do believe that going to war can be morally justified, and I wouldn't want to go to war unless we were morally justified in doing so; however, if we go to war (and if we are morally justified in doing so), then I would care less (but still care--to a degree) about how we conduct ourselves during wartime. For example, I am generally against using force unless necessary, but if we must use force, then because it's war, I may be in favor of excessive force even if excessive force is morally unjustified.

Why would you use excessive force, since isn't that force that is more than is needed to accomplish an objective?

The concept of war is no more needed for there to be war, than the concept of germs is needed for there to be germs, or the concept of stars is needed for there to be stars. There were stars way before there was the concept of stars. And there were germs way before there was the concept of germs.

But, war is not a physical entity, is it? It is a concept.

War is not a physical entity, but it's not a concept either. There is a difference between a war and a war concept. A war concept (or concept of war) is a mental entity, but war is neither physical nor mental.

But, just to probe here, why do you not think war is a concept? War seems to me to be a concept, as far as I know the word "concept". There can also be a physical manifestation of what we call war.

Why do you think there is not, on both accounts?